AfterDawn Forums
These messages are comments to this news item:

Report: PS4 more powerful than next Xbox but with less RAM

news article released on:

According to a new report citing unnamed developers, the PS4 will be significantly more powerful for raw computing than the upcoming Xbox 8/Next/720/Durango. The devs say they were briefed at CES on the final hardware specs of the consoles, which are widely expected to launch this holiday season. On the other end, the Xbox will have 8GB of RAM, compared to 4GB of system RAM for the PS4. ...

Read full article

This discussion thread has 38 messages.

#1
4GBs is still like 16x more RAM than what the PS3 has right now... If true I don't think it'll be that big of a deal.

I get by perfectly fine withe 4GBs in my laptop lol
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Jan 2013 @ 22:12

*\\\****//\\\***//\\\*****
**\\\**//**\\\*//**\\\*******
***\\\//****\\\ ****\\\****
▼▼ This topic has 37 answers - they are below this advertisement ▼▼
AfterDawn Advertisement
#2
And comes pre-hacked right out of the box. As soon as you set it up your information is given right to scammers.

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices
#3
4GB of RAM is more than enough for PlayStation games.

I wonder why the new Xbox needs 8GB!

Currently, the Xbox 360 Elite has 512 MB (same as PS3).
#4
More RAM means more performance, without greatly increasing costs. Console devs have been very shortsighted about RAM capacity for a long time now.
#5
Originally posted by Bozobub:
More RAM means more performance, without greatly increasing costs. Console devs have been very shortsighted about RAM capacity for a long time now.

More RAM does not mean more performance. It means less optimized code. A console shouldn't need that huge amount of memory. 4 GB is much more than enough, believe me.

"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.
#6
should be fine i think
#7
Originally posted by dali:
Originally posted by Bozobub:
More RAM means more performance, without greatly increasing costs. Console devs have been very shortsighted about RAM capacity for a long time now.

More RAM does not mean more performance. It means less optimized code. A console shouldn't need that huge amount of memory. 4 GB is much more than enough, believe me.

I cannot agree. For years, for example, developers had to compromise on quality, because the PS1 and original XBox were so RAM-limited; it caused a LOT of problems. You can find similar dev complaints for every console since then.

Less RAM simply means more loading delays and lower performance in general. Remember Oblivion and Fallout 3 on the consoles? Less RAM meant shorter draw distances, more loading delays, and general errors and crashes. Any large "open world" game is going to need a lot of RAM.

If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, *zero* RAM results in the most optimized code, an obvious fallacy.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Jan 2013 @ 13:58
#8
Developers have complained about RAM being a problem for a while now. 8GB seems like a lot now, but remember they want these systems to take them through the next 5-10 years. They have to build for the future and give it room to grow too. 512MB was good RAM in 2005, but its 2013, they gotta future proof it. It's strange to realize smartphones now have double or more RAM then these big consoles.

Plus, you can't compare laptop RAM to console RAM, its just completely different and console RAM is much higher and faster performance. It's apples and oranges. both fruit, both delicious, both drastically different.

8GB seems to be becoming the standard quickly in PCs, but most people can always upgrade the RAM on a PC as needed in the years to come. Consoles can't, its one and done.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Jan 2013 @ 18:22
#9
Originally posted by mattdockter:
Developers have complained about RAM being a problem for a while now. 8GB seems like a lot now, but remember they want these systems to take them through the next 5-10 years. They have to build for the future and give it room to grow too. 512MB was good RAM in 2005, but its 2013, they gotta future proof it. It's strange to realize smartphones now have double or more RAM then these big consoles.

Plus, you can't compare laptop RAM to console RAM, its just completely different and console RAM is much higher and faster performance. It's apples and oranges. both fruit, both delicious, both drastically different.

8GB seems to be becoming the standard quickly in PCs, but most people can always upgrade the RAM on a PC as needed in the years to come. Consoles can't, its one and done.
Yeah but if they did that then they couldn't rope you in with the next system. They put just enough in to skate by for a few years. Uncharted 3 maxed out the PS3 and that came out in 2011..... the PS3 did hit the 6 year mark though, but I believe they said they wanted a 10 year lifespan with it
#10
All I can say is that if the PS4's CPU is no longer IBM, they completely abandoned their original PS4 plans for something else. Though it COULD still be possible to have a Cell BE as a 'co-processor' that both a different primary CPU could use AND could provide backwards compatibility.

And bozo, it's not just the cost of RAM considered. More RAM = more heat = making more robust heat dissipation in the design. And fewer memory addresses to handle can equal higher performance by the rest of the system. And dali's correct that just throwing a lot of RAM at the problem can easily lead to 'lazy' coding by developers. Just look at TONS of PC software! That some developers can get A LOT more out of what they have to work with when others whine about it is proof many developers just don't know how to optimize well. Yes, some of the ones who do better still say they could use more RAM here and there, but they just mention needing another 256-512MB, not GIGs.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Jan 2013 @ 7:06
#11
Ram has become one of the cheapest components so I'm sure more is not needed.

Hack a bit, invest a bit, work a bit, jerk a bit
#12
Originally posted by Bozobub:
(...) Less RAM simply means more loading delays and lower performance in general. Remember Oblivion and Fallout 3 on the consoles? Less RAM meant shorter draw distances, more loading delays, and general errors and crashes. Any large "open world" game is going to need a lot of RAM.

If I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, *zero* RAM results in the most optimized code, an obvious fallacy.

As a coder, I know that RAM limitations do actually help to produce better code. Of course, zero RAM means no code at all. That's obvious. I can't see your point with that sentence, because I'm quite sure that you understood mine.

That lagging you talk about doesn't have to be noticed at all if the game is coded properly. Previous editions of the PlayStation went out with very few RAM from the start. In fact, much less than the amount of memory installed in contemporary computers, but 4 GB of RAM is the standard for a low-mid range PC nowadays, and it's a LOT for a console. Could it be more? Of course. Would it make the machine more expensive? YES. High-performance RAM is more expensive, and, even if it was cheap, we're talking about small devices with low prices if you compare them to mid-range computers. So, any small hardware enhancements would imply noticeable price rises.

And, please, don't compare a computer with a console in terms of the amount of memory you'll need. The operating system of the console leaves most of the RAM for the game itself. A computer, however, is running lots of apps and drivers, many of them poorly optimized and designed to be run in machines with very different hardware setups. Then, obviously, it needs much more memory.

"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.
#13
Of course no memory = no code, silly. That's exactly the point of my example! I was showing exactly how your argument is false, by extrapolating it to its extremes. It's possible to take any console's memory capacity, divide it by half — or some other arbitrary amount — and insist doing so will result in better-optimized code. Well, certainly devs may be forced to do so to accommodate such limits, but I can't agree that it's a good thing to do, and the end-user will not be benefited by the result.

Again, I merely need to point out the limitations of large open-world games such as Oblivion and Fallout 3 on consoles. Memory limitations are/were a very big deal for that type of game, and will continue to be. Those games are RAM-limited more than GPU-limited; both run significantly better on PCs with more RAM but roughly the same CPU/GPU capability as the consoles.

Current games already stress console limits, yet PCs, even running an OS, drivers, and so on, still generally outperform consoles in several ways. Most often, that's due to self-defeating limitations imposed by the consoles' architecture, often for no particularly good reason. Example? The PS1 had very little RAM and only a 2x CD-ROM, even though its specs were quite obsolete before it even hit the market (especially the CD). Think about what the system could have done with the same CPU/GPU, but more RAM and a faster CD! Hell, a 4x or 6x CD drive cost just about the same as a 2x did at the time (because they were also already obsolete).

You're not going to be able to tell me that a more-powerful CPU and GPU scales costs better than RAM, because they don't. Not even close. Nor is Moore's Law friendly to under-spec designs.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Jan 2013 @ 19:49
#14
Originally posted by Bozobub:
(...) Well, certainly devs may be forced to do so to accommodate such limits, (...)

That was my point.

Originally posted by Bozobub:
but I can't agree that it's a good thing to do, and the end-user will not be benefited by the result.

That's your opinion, and it's arguable. I can partially agree.

I'm not a gamer, but a coder. And, when you say that a gaming PC runs games faster and smoother than a console... Of course it does! But, how much does such a computer cost and how much a console?

Originally posted by Bozobub:
You're not going to be able to tell me that a more-powerful CPU and GPU scales costs better than RAM, because they don't. Not even close. Nor is Moore's Law friendly to under-spec designs.

We're talking about 4 GB of RAM here. That's a LOT of memory at this time, and it probably will be for a few years. PS3 had only 256 MB, if I'm not wrong, and it's logical devs had protested on that. But PS4 will have 16 times that amount, about 6 or 7 years after that release. Not for complaining about, I think.

"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.
#15
i think this sums it up best which to me supports bozobobs theory of ram relativity :P ,way i see it more ram & faster is what we want & will need,actually better make that what you need since its unlikely i'll be buying another console ever again

"The PS4′s RAM bandwidth is rumoured to be 192 GB/s, whilst the 720′s 64 GB/s. Remember, a lot of this is just speculation, but it does point to a split down the middle that could ultimately prove tricky for developers. 8 GB will be much better for open worlds, but the faster RAM better for effects in more constrained environments."

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/01/15/...am-of-xbox-720/


http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/927749-xbox-360/65084630

AD Guides: http://www.afterdawn.com guides/
Console Mod Tuts: http://www.realmodscene.com/

#16
Yeah, scorpNZ, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. Thanks for the links, btw, they made for some interesting reading.

Once more, dali, you're missing my point. If your argument is valid, then ANY reduction of RAM is ALWAYS good, because it makes devs write tighter code. Yet that's an obvious fallacy because it is quite easy to show cases, via reductio ad absurdum, where that's plainly not true. After all, there's only so tightly code can be written, before you have to start leaving out important bits.

For example, if a given console has 2 GB of RAM, then according to you 1 GB should be better, right? Halving that again to 512 MB is even better, following your argument, and so on, as you asymptotically approach zero RAM.

Quote:
We're talking about 4 GB of RAM here. That's a LOT of memory at this time, and it probably will be for a few years. PS3 had only 256 MB, if I'm not wrong, and it's logical devs had protested on that. But PS4 will have 16 times that amount, about 6 or 7 years after that release. Not for complaining about, I think.

Are you unaware that limited RAM has been an issue for every console generation, so far? I have to take the devs' word on this, over yours, I'm afraid.

Additionally, 4 GB is in no way "a lot of RAM" these days, and that doesn't speak at all to future-proofing the system. There's already a few rather low-cost systems out there or in the pipe (the Ouya, for example), so I believe it's a mistake to try to lowball console specs, unless you're trying to compete at the sub-$100 level.
#17
I wont rush out to buy one when it is released. PS3 - Noisy fan, insert a brand new game only to get "you dont have enough disc space". I remember all the hype of the PS3 and it was a let down including the hefty price.

Trin - Making Digital Waves
#18
I believe what it all boils down to is that the Sony Fanboys are jealous that the Xbox will have more ram. Ram is fairly cheap. Why not give the devs what they are asking for? I'm pretty sure the higher end developers will still produce a good product. Bioware, 2K, Etc. Their games are pretty reliable.

And I'm sure a noisy fan will not be in these units. Technology is far more advanced than when the Original 360 was released.

Juke_Box
#19
Seems bizarre you are all discussing the ram size, speed etc… of a console; I can assume that you were all once pc gamers, where you were are to fix said problems with a quick upgrade, without the risk of being prosecuted / imprisoned...

I was under the impression that the developers code for the lowest spec’d platform - if the games being developed are not exclusive to the platform. Since most of the games are released multi-platform these days, does the spec of either console really mean anything to us in real world performance (with the exception of Nintendo of course)? I don't think so.

If you are looking for a system that has an edge / performance boost over the other, shouldn't you be looking at the pc? If you then say "But the pc is too expensive", my answer to that is "With a console, you have no choice, you will get what you are given".
The sad thing about the pc is the poor console ports coming over that don't get optimised for the pc. This tells me one thing; people are not really as interested in performance as you would hope they were. If they were, we would all be demanding the highest spec possible and not settling for anything less i.e. not spending our hard earned cash on these poor money making excuses for gaming machines.

One thing that you can be sure of, with the popularity of DLC these days, any games we buy will be a watered down version of what they could have been. We will then be ripped off for those extras via DLC that would have made the original release great and possibly better value for money.

Sorry - that turned into a bit of a rant!
#20
Originally posted by TheCheeseGoat:
Seems bizarre you are all discussing the ram size, speed etc… of a console; I can assume that you were all once pc gamers, where you were are to fix said problems with a quick upgrade, without the risk of being prosecuted / imprisoned...

I was under the impression that the developers code for the lowest spec’d platform - if the games being developed are not exclusive to the platform. Since most of the games are released multi-platform these days, does the spec of either console really mean anything to us in real world performance (with the exception of Nintendo of course)? I don't think so.

If you are looking for a system that has an edge / performance boost over the other, shouldn't you be looking at the pc? If you then say "But the pc is too expensive", my answer to that is "With a console, you have no choice, you will get what you are given".
The sad thing about the pc is the poor console ports coming over that don't get optimised for the pc. This tells me one thing; people are not really as interested in performance as you would hope they were. If they were, we would all be demanding the highest spec possible and not settling for anything less i.e. not spending our hard earned cash on these poor money making excuses for gaming machines.

One thing that you can be sure of, with the popularity of DLC these days, any games we buy will be a watered down version of what they could have been. We will then be ripped off for those extras via DLC that would have made the original release great and possibly better value for money.

Sorry - that turned into a bit of a rant!

Yep... you are so right. I have seen some incredible games on the PC which consoles dont seem to be able to replicate or match.

Trin - Making Digital Waves
#21
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Once more, dali, you're missing my point. If your argument is valid, then ANY reduction of RAM is ALWAYS good, because it makes devs write tighter code. Yet that's an obvious fallacy because it is quite easy to show cases, via reductio ad absurdum, where that's plainly not true. After all, there's only so tightly code can be written, before you have to start leaving out important bits.

That's like saying that it's reccommended to drink much water, but if you drink infinite water you die. I'm not saying that PS4 should have 256 MB like the PS3, which was not enough from the beginning and, despite that, it lasted for seven years in the market until the next gen.

Originally posted by Bozobub:
For example, if a given console has 2 GB of RAM, then according to you 1 GB should be better, right?

OF COURSE NOT. I have NOT said that. I said 4 GB is more than ENOUGH for now. There's a minimum of RAM you must provide if you're a console builder, and what I said is that 4 GB seems fair to me, because that's 16x the RAM of the PS3. Devs protested for the PS3 having only 256 MB, and they were right. If they do also protest now, I can't understand why, because it's not the same case.

Originally posted by Bozobub:
Are you unaware that limited RAM has been an issue for every console generation, so far? I have to take the devs' word on this, over yours, I'm afraid.

Additionally, 4 GB is in no way "a lot of RAM" these days, and that doesn't speak at all to future-proofing the system. There's already a few rather low-cost systems out there or in the pipe (the Ouya, for example), so I believe it's a mistake to try to lowball console specs, unless you're trying to compete at the sub-$100 level.

It is a lot of RAM for a console. Current consoles have 256-512 MB of RAM. I have 4 GB of RAM in my computer, and doesn't seem to be lacking any more. If it was a console... Well, I must insist: PS3 had only 256 MB and it survived until now. Back in 2007, I had 2 GB in my computer. That's 8x the memory supplied with the PS3. That was clearly a mistake, and I understand why devs were against it. But now I think there's no reason to protest.

I don't know if you're a coder yourself, but I am. And I can't see why should anyone need more than 4 GB of RAM in a console FOR THE TIME BEING if he/she knows a bit about good coding practices. I don't wanna sound like Bill Gates and his infamous quote of the 640 KB that "should be enough for everyone". Time changes, and eventually we will need more than that, but not right now or in the near future.

Under $100? Do you know how much does the Wii cost, and how much RAM has it installed?

How much does a gaming PC beast cost nowadays? How much a high-end console?

"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.
#22
You can buy a relatively powerful gaming PC rig for under $500, these days. If the Ouya can sell for $99 and have 1 GB RAM, they can put more RAM in a $300 console.

We're not going to see eye-to-eye, dali, but as a final remark, I'll point out to you that every generation of consoles has had people making the same argument you're making now. It rings hollow.
#23
I never was one of those defending the undefendable lack of RAM of previous generations of consoles. I am now, because I think that, at last, they are starting to put some serious amount of memory on them.

Anyway, it's just my opinion, and I can see why you have yours. I simply can't agree with you. At least, not fully. ;)

"You know, it seems that quotes on the internet are becoming less and less reliable." -Abraham Lincoln.
#24
More ram is good, i'm sick of the recycled texture's in console games. wonder what excuse will be next, GPU limitations.
#25
Originally posted by dali:
Originally posted by Bozobub:
More RAM means more performance, without greatly increasing costs. Console devs have been very shortsighted about RAM capacity for a long time now.

More RAM does not mean more performance. It means less optimized code. A console shouldn't need that huge amount of memory. 4 GB is much more than enough, believe me.
This makes about as much sense as the old saying that noone will ever need more than 640k of ram. The more memory you have the more environment you can display. Sloppy code can obviously eat more memory, however now a days most of the memory goes to displaying more characters, textures, details, and allowing for preload to reduce lag or delay at zone points.

Currently the consoles are forced to either limit what they show or just have a series of pre-rendered movie backgrounds and environments streaming off the disc. The can cause lag in parts as well as less flexibility in what you can do in the game.
This discussion thread has been automatically closed, as it hasn't received any new posts during the last 180 days. This means that you can't post replies or new questions to this discussion thread.

If you have something to add to this topic, use this page to post your question or comments to a new discussion thread.