Your thoughts on how much Ram will be needed next gen..
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
If procedural and wavelet compression is used for textures and non-explicit modelling techniques are introduced, I think 128Mb would be sufficient for main memory. 32Mb would be more than enough for large buffers (HDTV) and some Mbs for virtualised textures.
I think the days of having up to four complete copies of the entire texture library on the same machine are over (CD/DVD, HD, main-mem and VRAM) (indeed they never were on consoles). It simply doesn’t make sense cost/benefit wise.
I think the days of having up to four complete copies of the entire texture library on the same machine are over (CD/DVD, HD, main-mem and VRAM) (indeed they never were on consoles). It simply doesn’t make sense cost/benefit wise.
zidane1strife
Banned
I think 3GB+ inexpensive would be nice, with 128-256+ of expensive fast ram, coupled with a massive & fast Hdd... would be nice, and quite possible...
People, it's a 2005 machine we're talking about here. 256MB main RAM will be seen as as cramped as 128MB main memory is today.
Computers that come with half a gig installed is commonplace today, my box from 2001 had half a gig in it as standard even then! I wouldn't be surprised if two gigs is the norm for midrange boxes in 05, suggesting 128MB or even less is rediculous. They won't even MAKE memory chips that small by that point in time.
*G*
Computers that come with half a gig installed is commonplace today, my box from 2001 had half a gig in it as standard even then! I wouldn't be surprised if two gigs is the norm for midrange boxes in 05, suggesting 128MB or even less is rediculous. They won't even MAKE memory chips that small by that point in time.
*G*
Half a gig of main RAM is most likely enough for next gen, after all it's eight times more than the XB, and 16x more than PS2, not counting all the extra little pools of memory it's got spread out here and there... If we get a full gig, I'll be pleasantly surprised!
*G*
*G*
I think a hierarchy of some sort should be used.
Let's say, a 10GB hard drive, a 512MB pool of mediocre 'slow' RAM, say DDR SDRAM, then 128MB 'fast' RAM for immediate use - maybe 1T-SRAM or its successor - and then a 16-32MB scratchpad / cache on the video chip.
I doubt we'll see anything beyond 512MB main RAM... though 128MB seems too small. 256-384 seems to make sense IMO; considering what's been done on GameCube with a relatively pathetic 24MB main RAM + 16MB slow RAM, and PS2 with a decent 32MB.
Keep in mind, people, that unlike the PC world, where more RAM is necessary because of not-so-optimal coding practices (in favour of compatibility), the console world is ruled by highly optimised code, that allows you to cut down the memory requirements tremendously.
Even 512MB main RAM seems like overkill to me... again, I'd say the most sensible amount would be 256 or 384MB.
Let's say, a 10GB hard drive, a 512MB pool of mediocre 'slow' RAM, say DDR SDRAM, then 128MB 'fast' RAM for immediate use - maybe 1T-SRAM or its successor - and then a 16-32MB scratchpad / cache on the video chip.
I doubt we'll see anything beyond 512MB main RAM... though 128MB seems too small. 256-384 seems to make sense IMO; considering what's been done on GameCube with a relatively pathetic 24MB main RAM + 16MB slow RAM, and PS2 with a decent 32MB.
Keep in mind, people, that unlike the PC world, where more RAM is necessary because of not-so-optimal coding practices (in favour of compatibility), the console world is ruled by highly optimised code, that allows you to cut down the memory requirements tremendously.
Even 512MB main RAM seems like overkill to me... again, I'd say the most sensible amount would be 256 or 384MB.
randycat99
Veteran
I agree, thinking about RAM requirements strictly in "PC-terms" is fraught with opportunities to overestimate.
The amount of extra work devs have to go through to fit a big game in the GCs 24MB of fast memory cannot be underestimated. I think software developers put a LOT of pressure on the various hardware vendors to not constrain the aforementioned devs quite so much the next time 'round.
They have enough to think about already, developing a triple-A title for PS3 and its brethren is going to become more complicated than ever before. The days when Andrew Braybook made Paradroid basically all by himself (oh well, maybe some guy did the graphics and another the sound and music but you know what I mean!), are over since long. There are classic games made all by one dude - many of Jeff Minter's creations come to mind. How long ago was it since that happened, really? Even mods for popular games are made by teams of people and take MONTHS to perfect, if not years.
Devs don't need more stuff piled on their shoulders. If they're going to use the muscle of future graphics processors, they're going to need ROOM to breathe in. I sure hope they get that.
*G*
They have enough to think about already, developing a triple-A title for PS3 and its brethren is going to become more complicated than ever before. The days when Andrew Braybook made Paradroid basically all by himself (oh well, maybe some guy did the graphics and another the sound and music but you know what I mean!), are over since long. There are classic games made all by one dude - many of Jeff Minter's creations come to mind. How long ago was it since that happened, really? Even mods for popular games are made by teams of people and take MONTHS to perfect, if not years.
Devs don't need more stuff piled on their shoulders. If they're going to use the muscle of future graphics processors, they're going to need ROOM to breathe in. I sure hope they get that.
*G*
randycat99
Veteran
A bit of room is good, but massive RAM overkill (IMO) only encourages sloppy programming (if it works and fits, who gives a $hit?). Personally, I think 128 MB ought to be quite sufficient and 256 is simply gravy (regardless of what PC's are at in 2005). Within reason, I think it is a good goal to keep things lean, mean, and powerful, rather than contemplate someone making a "512 MB graphics engine". Can you imagine how much work would go into making a single program that large, let alone debug it and having it run like stink? I'd rather the massive development times for something like that get devoted to artwork, game design, and successful integration of those elements into a "lean, mean graphics engine". 'Course, what do I know about programming?
Now if you could make a case that storing x amount of geometry and polygon information in the anticipated poly numbers for 2005 and textures would require these massive RAM figures, I would be more amenable to the idea. (...and don't just say Doom III needs a 128 MB videocard just for the textures, because I'm not buying it 128 MB of textures is the invariable secret to why it looks the way it does, especially if you are to move away from a PC architecture )
Now if you could make a case that storing x amount of geometry and polygon information in the anticipated poly numbers for 2005 and textures would require these massive RAM figures, I would be more amenable to the idea.
(...and don't just say Doom III needs a 128 MB videocard just for the textures, because I'm not buying it 128 MB of textures is the invariable secret to why it looks the way it does, especially if you are to move away from a PC architecture )Panajev2001a
Veteran
it is a machine coming in 2000-2001 32 MB-64 MB of main RAM will be too tight by then...
I think for non-graphics tasks a CPU would need about 64 to 128 MB
Gaphics tasks would need LAGRE frame buffers for all the buffers and significant texture space. I figure 256MB in that department. Add a few MBs for sound and so on, I figure anything over 512MB is likely overkill
OT: Squeak is your name taken from the programming language?
Gaphics tasks would need LAGRE frame buffers for all the buffers and significant texture space. I figure 256MB in that department. Add a few MBs for sound and so on, I figure anything over 512MB is likely overkill
OT: Squeak is your name taken from the programming language?
JF_Aidan_Pryde
Regular
I thought the whole point of having faster computers and more memory is so programmers can be lazier?
marconelly!
Veteran
How fast the optical media will be next gen? What good is if you have 1-2GB of memory if it takes a 2-3 minutes to fill that memory with data from the disc?
Panajev2001a
Veteran
psst... Blu-Ray... psst >23 Mbits/s ( forgot the exact number, but it should be higher )...
