will Sony reach its old goal of 18,000x PS1, in PS3?

[Deadmeat]

...

Ok, I screwed up because I originally typed 4th gen as having 64 MB from the Xbox example, then reversed to 32 MB to represent the typical 4th gen console configuration(PSX2) because this was supposed to be an illustration of general case. I forgot to update other numbers thereafter.

OK, SCEI specific example

2nd Generation(SNES) : 184 KB(I am throwing in SNES number for comparison)
3rd Generation(PS) : 3.5 MB : 19X jump
4th Generation(PS2) : 40 MB : 11.4X jump
5th Generation(PS3) : 274 MB : 6.85X jump

As you can see, the performance leap from previous generation is getting smaller... The graphical leap from SNES to PSX was groundshaking, while the graphical leap from PSX2 to PSX3 won't be as clear....

 

[Megadrive1988]

I admit, it will be difficult to surpass the tremendous leap we saw from Genesis/SNES to PS1/N64.

 

[Vince]

Re: ...

Deadmeat, why do you once again assume a linear relationship exists between RAM and preformance? It's just as flawed as your linear Moore's Law -> Flops relation (which was amazingly horrid). I mean, seriously, while I understand nonlinear dynamics are much more complicated, the world isn't based on your ultra-simplified linear view of it.

Do you ever suppose that there might be a point of diminishing returns, especially with the move to full programmability and massive floating-point resources present in all next-generation platforms? That just maybe your simplistic proportions don't mean shit?

 

[Fafalada]

Naah, those new numbers are not nice and round anymore, it's too complicated for me to read.

Btw, hypothetically, if PS3 comes out with 512+32MB what would you do? Oh wait, I know, we can do that right now!

2nd Genesis: 144kB
3rd N64: 8MB (with expansion pack) 55.5x
4th XBox: 128MB (modded expansion pack) 16x
5th PSX3 : 544MB 4.25x

Whoa, I can see now, the spec increase is so rapidly failing, and at increasing speed too...

 

[jvd]

Please the xbox has more ram than that . How much virtual ram would its hardrive equal. I mean come on guys . At least compare things properly .

Also wouldn't the genesis +sega cd + 32x have alot more memory than that ?

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Deadmeat, why do you once again assume a linear relationship exists between RAM and preformance?

Because there really is a linear relationship between RAM size and performance.

Do you ever suppose that there might be a point of diminishing returns, especially with the move to full programmability and massive floating-point resources present in all next-generation platforms?

Nope. You can never have too much RAM. The simplest and most effective upgrade you can do to your PC is installing more RAM.

 

[DemoCoder]

So according to DeadMeat, a Pentium 4 3.2Ghz hooked up to 4mb of memory should perform as a 386? I guess the 20gb/s high speed cache and the fact many algorithms need only a data stream, not much "working ram", is irrelevent.

 

[Paul]

Nope. You can never have too much RAM. The simplest and most effective upgrade you can do to your PC is installing more RAM.

Tell me Deadmeat, what performs better... a PC with 1024mb PC-133 SDRAM, or a PC with 512mb DDR. Please - get real - and drop this BS.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Tell me Deadmeat, what performs better... a PC with 1024mb PC-133 SDRAM, or a PC with 512mb DDR.

Of course a PC with 1024 MB SDRAM will run faster than another PC with 512 MB DDR SDRAM. Don't tell me you didn't know that.(But then again, you probably didn't know that)

 

[Paul]

Of course a PC with 1024 MB SDRAM will run faster than another PC with 512 MB DDR SDRAM. Don't tell me you didn't know that.(But then again, you probably didn't know that)

So hilarious it MUST be sarcasm....

So basically your telling me my P4 1.7 system would run faster with a GB of SD than 512mb of some PC-3200?

Or how about the fact that my 128MB Radeon 8500 LE gets outpreformed by 64mb Geforce 4's? How is this even possible DM? I thought performance was a memory related thing? Just look at the god damn GPU scene and you can see for yourself that more memory doesn't always = more performance, many get suckered into thinking this though and get the inferior card.

Don't make me laugh, your only making yourself look like a joke at this point; quit while your not too behind.

 

[Deadmeat]

So basically your telling me my P4 1.7 system would run faster with a GB of SD than 512mb of some PC-3200?

Exactly. More RAM you have, less paging the system needs to perform and the faster the system runs. Bandwidth doesn't matter, only access latency and amount of available RAM capacity do.

I am stunned that you do not know this very basic performance equation....

Don't make me laugh, your only making yourself look like a joke at this point; quit while your not too behind.

I think you need to go back and reread systems performance basics....

 

[Paul]

Exactly. More RAM you have, less paging the system needs to perform and the faster the system runs. Bandwidth doesn't matter, only access latency and amount of available RAM capacity do.

I am stunned that you do not know this very basic performance equation....

And I can pull dozens of real world benchmarks that prove you are absolutely full of shit.

Bandwidth doesn't matter, only access latency and amount of available RAM capacity do.

Fuck! Let's all shove GB's of PC-133 in our systems... but wait

Really, the pseudo propaganda you are trying to shove down my throat is too much, what your saying here has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say on these boards, or ANY board for that matter.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

And I can pull dozens of real world benchmarks that prove you are absolutely full of shit.

I look forward to it. Show it to us all.

 

[Paul]

I look forward to it. Show it to us all.

After you answer why PC users don't just shove ungodly amounts of SD ram in their system instead of using faster memory solutions. Why is this DM? Why would these companies spend millions to develope new memory technologies? Why doesn't Microsoft or Sony just put in 4GB of SD ram into their new systems?

Your good at dodging questions that derail your argument, too bad I'm not going to let you get away with it this time.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

After you answer why PC users don't just shove ungodly amounts of SD ram in their system instead of using faster memory solutions.

It's harder to find SDRAM DIMMs nowadays, not to mention there isn't any price difference....

Why would these companies spend millions to develope new memory technologies?

They don't. Poor memory market prices have slowed down the pace of memory density and interconnect technology advancement considerably. The only place where you do see the progresses made is where the customers are willing to pay top $$$ for performance, more specifically graphics ram.

Why doesn't Microsoft or Sony just put in 4GB of SD ram into their new systems?

Because there isn't any price difference to justify such move???

Your good at dodging questions that derail your argument, too bad I'm not going to let you get away with it this time.

I am looking forward to your benchmark that shows 512 MB DDR system blowing away 1024 MB SDR system on benchmarks. I challenged you to come up with one because I know it doesn't exist.

You claimed something with your limited and poor knowledge, now back it up.

 

[mondoterrifico]

I am stunned that you do not know this very basic performance equation....
.

I think the first 3 words were all you needed to say. You seem to lack even the most basic understanding of Von Neumann architecture.

 

[Deadmeat]

...

You seem to lack even the most basic understanding of Von Neumann architecture.

??? Which processor has Von Neumann architecture nowadays??? Almost all new CPUs implement Harvard split cache architecture...

 

[Deadmeat]

...

Paul, where are you??? Killing a few brain cells trying to find an imaginary benchmark that doesn't exist???

I got you good this time. This will keep you quite for a while...

 

[Paul]

It's harder to find SDRAM DIMMs nowadays, not to mention there isn't any price difference....

Funny I can walk into bestbuy and pick out SDRAM from a range of different brands..

Because there isn't any price difference to justify such move???

Screw price, more memory = better performance, remember? Bandwidth is irrelevant.

Sony can shove more amounts of SDRAM into PS3 than they could if they put XDR in, if they had the same price limits on PS3 memory(IE: They will spend 100 on memory for each PS3). So this is the best thing to do no? OR does that new Shiny XDR memory the same price as SDRAM..

I am looking forward to your benchmark that shows 512 MB DDR system blowing away 1024 MB SDR system on benchmarks.

Remember DM: More memory(regardless of bandwidth) = more performance, so basically here you go. I can prove you wrong without even searching for an obscure benchmark on a P4 1.7 using PC-133 than another same system using 3200.


http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=11&pageID=27

The Radeon has 2X the memory, but why can it not touch a Geforce 4 ti4200 using half?(64mb)

 

[Paul]

Exactly. More RAM you have, less paging the system needs to perform and the faster the system runs. Bandwidth doesn't matter, only access latency and amount of available RAM capacity do.

What is interesting to note in this test is that 3DMark2001 didn't benefit at all from the extra memory available on the 128MB cards. The faster memory found on the 64MB GeForce 4 Ti 4200s helps them take the lead in 3DMark2001 SE by about 9% The Radeon 8500 has 128mb.

So you were saying how more memory = more performance no matter what and bandwidth is irrelevant?[/quote]