Do you think PS3 should have more RAM?

i'm asking this because sometimes i think that a powerful system like PS3 should have more RAM.

Sometimes when i play Oblivion i feel that 256Mb of RAM isn't enough, specially on Oblivion planes and on the last main quest near the Temple of the One.

It would be nice if Sony allows people to change PS3 RAM modules.

they are putting extra ram on the PS3 soon but thats on later models. I seen it on a site not soo long ago but the PS3 cnosole would cost over a $1000. If i can find it i will post it. They are doubling the ram.sim_dude_uk

This would be a kick to the face of everyone that has already purchased their console. Perhaps if they added an "Update Plan" then it may be alright.

it doesn't need more ram, since its OS is not as heavy as windows
but you may need more ram if you're a heavy linux userGeneralX84

256Mb is good for XMB but for games it isn't

I don't know if it is a Oblivion optimization problem but sometimes it doesn't run smoothly. This happens often on planes of Oblivion.

This would be a kick to the face of everyone that has already purchased their console. Perhaps if they added an "Update Plan" then it may be alright.

locklain

Don't think so. I would like to buy another RAM module to substitute the current one

It would improve games frame rate and Linux performance

I could have sworn I saw that it had 512 somewhere?? tommodacoolio

Only XBOX 360 has 512 Mb (shared between GPU and CPU i think)

I could have sworn I saw that it had 512 somewhere?? tommodacoolio

It does, but its devided.

ANyway.

I htink it would be a great idea to add more when they release something lik ea PS3 slim.

More RAM the better, its a fact! Developers will always struggle with this little RAM! Crysis will not be made on Xbox360 or PS3 because of the lack of RAM. But developers will just work around this issue anyway! thats the good thing about consoles, everyone has the same thing, and it has to work for everyone; if that makes sence.

The Ram by the way is the fastest on the market at the moment i think, it runs at 3.2Ghz. I can process very fast, but i have no clue!

[QUOTE="tommodacoolio"]I could have sworn I saw that it had 512 somewhere?? nuno_faria

Only XBOX 360 has 512 Mb (shared between GPU and CPU i think)

The PS3 has 512mb of memory but it is not shared... 256 of XDR and 256 of GDDR3 VRAM

I feel like they console needs 768MB.I think the extra 256 could go to video memory and would give the graphics dept. a significant boost. Even then atleast 320MB of dedicated VRAM and 320 of System memory...

In general most things need more and this is just one of those things.

[QUOTE="GeneralX84"]it doesn't need more ram, since its OS is not as heavy as windows
but you may need more ram if you're a heavy linux usernuno_faria

256Mb is good for XMB but for games it isn't

I don't know if it is a Oblivion optimization problem but sometimes it doesn't run smoothly. This happens often on planes of Oblivion.

nono, what i meant was since games run on OS, and the OS doesn't take too much ram, so there will be more ram left for the game to use
and i survived playing games on XP with a 384mb laptop, so i believe 256 is enough given that it's not shared

[QUOTE="nuno_faria"]

[QUOTE="GeneralX84"]it doesn't need more ram, since its OS is not as heavy as windows
but you may need more ram if you're a heavy linux userGeneralX84

256Mb is good for XMB but for games it isn't

I don't know if it is a Oblivion optimization problem but sometimes it doesn't run smoothly. This happens often on planes of Oblivion.

nono, what i meant was since games run on OS, and the OS doesn't take too much ram, so there will be more ram left for the game to use
and i survived playing games on XP with a 384mb laptop, so i believe 256 is enough given that it's not shared

If 256Mb is enough, then why Oblivion sometimes runs slowly?

And i think that 256Mb will affect future games performance (i hope not)

[QUOTE="GeneralX84"]it doesn't need more ram, since its OS is not as heavy as windows
but you may need more ram if you're a heavy linux usernuno_faria

256Mb is good for XMB but for games it isn't

I don't know if it is a Oblivion optimization problem but sometimes it doesn't run smoothly. This happens often on planes of Oblivion.

Your forgetting the PS3 is using XDR ram specifically designed for gaming. Not many PC's have it and not even the 360 does. Besides even if there was a memory bottleneck, the Cell has a huge bandwidth for data streaming combined with the 60 gig Hard Disk for caching there shouldn't be a problem.

But why use 256Mb instead of 512Mb or 1Gb?

[QUOTE="GeneralX84"][QUOTE="nuno_faria"]

[QUOTE="GeneralX84"]it doesn't need more ram, since its OS is not as heavy as windows
but you may need more ram if you're a heavy linux usernuno_faria

256Mb is good for XMB but for games it isn't

I don't know if it is a Oblivion optimization problem but sometimes it doesn't run smoothly. This happens often on planes of Oblivion.

nono, what i meant was since games run on OS, and the OS doesn't take too much ram, so there will be more ram left for the game to use
and i survived playing games on XP with a 384mb laptop, so i believe 256 is enough given that it's not shared

If 256Mb is enough, then why Oblivion sometimes runs slowly?

And i think that 256Mb will affect future games performance (i hope not)

running slowly, do you mean lag? if that's the case, lags happenunder many conditions, and RAM is just one of them

But why use 256Mb instead of 512Mb or 1Gb?

nuno_faria

Cost, people are still complaining about the price now.

[QUOTE="nuno_faria"][QUOTE="GeneralX84"][QUOTE="nuno_faria"]

[QUOTE="GeneralX84"]it doesn't need more ram, since its OS is not as heavy as windows
but you may need more ram if you're a heavy linux userGeneralX84

256Mb is good for XMB but for games it isn't

I don't know if it is a Oblivion optimization problem but sometimes it doesn't run smoothly. This happens often on planes of Oblivion.

nono, what i meant was since games run on OS, and the OS doesn't take too much ram, so there will be more ram left for the game to use
and i survived playing games on XP with a 384mb laptop, so i believe 256 is enough given that it's not shared

If 256Mb is enough, then why Oblivion sometimes runs slowly?

And i think that 256Mb will affect future games performance (i hope not)

running slowly, do you mean lag? if that's the case, lags happenunder many conditions, and RAM is just one of them

i think the correct term is slowdown , lag applies only when you are playing online and the game runs slowly due the connection

But why use 256Mb instead of 512Mb or 1Gb?

nuno_faria

Easy 256mb is cheaper. People are always complaining about the price. But its just like the guy above me said, Data stream. The guys who made crysis said that it is possible on the consoles, it just that they would have to completely reprogram the game. The PC version uses 2gig Ram max, porting that to a console is impossible!

[QUOTE="nuno_faria"]

But why use 256Mb instead of 512Mb or 1Gb?

wade3024

Easy 256mb is cheaper. People are always complaining about the price. But its just like the guy above me said, Data stream. The guys who made crysis said that it is possible on the consoles, it just that they would have to completely reprogram the game. The PC version uses 2gig Ram max, porting that to a console is impossible!

I would like to have Crysis on PS3, but if they have to program it again it's going to take forever,

As for the cost why have a hyper-ultra-mega fast RAM if it only has 256Mb (this RAM probably costs as much as a ultra-mega fast RAM with 1Gb)

[QUOTE="wade3024"][QUOTE="nuno_faria"]

But why use 256Mb instead of 512Mb or 1Gb?

nuno_faria

Easy 256mb is cheaper. People are always complaining about the price. But its just like the guy above me said, Data stream. The guys who made crysis said that it is possible on the consoles, it just that they would have to completely reprogram the game. The PC version uses 2gig Ram max, porting that to a console is impossible!

I would like to have Crysis on PS3, but if they have to program it again it's going to take forever,

As for the cost why have a hyper-ultra-mega fast RAM if it only has 256Mb (this RAM probably costs as much as a ultra-mega fast RAM with 1Gb)

hyper-ultra-mega fast RAMis useful for the CPU
'cause registers in CPU are much faster than RAM, so the RAM's speed has to keep up with the CPU's registers' inorder to optimize the CPU performance

[QUOTE="wade3024"][QUOTE="nuno_faria"]

But why use 256Mb instead of 512Mb or 1Gb?

nuno_faria

Sorry Its already been confirmed Crysis is not coming to PS3. Which sucks cause it means ill never play it unless i get a job that pays craps loads or win Tatts lotto

Easy 256mb is cheaper. People are always complaining about the price. But its just like the guy above me said, Data stream. The guys who made crysis said that it is possible on the consoles, it just that they would have to completely reprogram the game. The PC version uses 2gig Ram max, porting that to a console is impossible!

I would like to have Crysis on PS3, but if they have to program it again it's going to take forever,

As for the cost why have a hyper-ultra-mega fast RAM if it only has 256Mb (this RAM probably costs as much as a ultra-mega fast RAM with 1Gb)

why Sony doesn't assign a Cell core to act like RAM to help improving games performance?

there can be many types of processing, for ps3, i think it's CPU intensive since it's GPU and RAM isn't top notch.

Heard b4 hardware skinning for pc games? they use more of CPU than GPU. i too think they should have more ram, thinking the ps3 would last like 5 years, more ram the better.

the cell only has one core! SPU's are not that powerful, i think theyre good for streaming data!wade3024

you sure you know how the cell works?

SPEs are the cores, all processing happens in the SPEs

I heard that half of the PS3's ram runns at 3.2 GHz! Thats like insane for ram! Who needs 1GB when its running that fast!?

I think there is

256 MB XDR @ 3.2 GHz

and

256 MB GDDR3 @ 700 MHz

If the ram is running that fast, you relly don't need very much of it. 1 GB running at 3.2GHz will run circles around 2 GB running at 700 MHz.

PS3 has the same amount of ram as the 360 both 512, however the 360's ram is unified whereas the PS3 is split up 256/256, the problem comes because the PS3 OS takes up more ram than the 360's leaving less for games, however in firmware updates they have slowly been reducing the XMB ram usage when the PS3 was first released the amount of ram taken up by the XMB was over 90mb, that has been reduced significantly and in the latest SDK kits released to developers(1.8) the amount of ram used by the XMb has been reduced to 48mb which should significantly help the ps3 especially in multi-plats.

Personally I think the video RAM bottlnecks some of the much more powerful aspects of the PS3 like it's processor. Bottom line is that without the extra video RAM you will never see a game on PS3 that looks like Gears of War( which maxed 360's almost 512 mb of video RAM).

If it is true that Sony is moving to fix this then that's good for them. They really need to. I feel they shorted the system on memmory because their inclusion of BLU Ray drove production costs too high and they had to cut corners. It is a joke that the system has only 256 mb.

Personally I think the video RAM bottlnecks some of the much more powerful aspects of the PS3 like it's processor. Bottom line is that without the extra video RAM you will never see a game on PS3 that looks like Gears of War( which maxed 360's almost 512 mb of video RAM).

If it is true that Sony is moving to fix this then that's good for them. They really need to. I feel they shorted the system on memmory because their inclusion of BLU Ray drove production costs too high and they had to cut corners. It is a joke that the system has only 256 mb.

L1qu1dSword

Personally I think the video RAM bottlnecks some of the much more powerful aspects of the PS3 like it's processor. Bottom line is that without the extra video RAM you will never see a game on PS3 that looks like Gears of War( which maxed 360's almost 512 mb of video RAM).

If it is true that Sony is moving to fix this then that's good for them. They really need to. I feel they shorted the system on memmory because their inclusion of BLU Ray drove production costs too high and they had to cut corners. It is a joke that the system has only 256 mb.

L1qu1dSword

*sigh* Like i said...The GPU can use some of the XDR RAM from the Cell if it needs to. Really people, it seems you like to ignore things you dont want to hear. Please learn to read.

And are you serious about that Gears of War comment!? Do you remember seeing the FFXIII footage? Maybe Unreal Tournament 3? Uncharted? Rathet and Clank? Killzone 2? All of those games look just as good or better than Gears. What are you on!?

[QUOTE="L1qu1dSword"]

Personally I think the video RAM bottlnecks some of the much more powerful aspects of the PS3 like it's processor. Bottom line is that without the extra video RAM you will never see a game on PS3 that looks like Gears of War( which maxed 360's almost 512 mb of video RAM).

If it is true that Sony is moving to fix this then that's good for them. They really need to. I feel they shorted the system on memmory because their inclusion of BLU Ray drove production costs too high and they had to cut corners. It is a joke that the system has only 256 mb.

JudgementEden

*sigh* Like i said...The GPU can use some of the XDR RAM from the Cell if it needs to. Really people, it seems you like to ignore things you dont want to hear. Please learn to read.

And are you serious about that Gears of War comment!? Do you remember seeing the FFXIII footage? Maybe Unreal Tournament 3? Uncharted? Rathet and Clank? Killzone 2? All of those games look just as good or better than Gears. What are you on!?

finally someone that really knows the PS3 thanx dude, and JudgementEden you have no idea of what you are talking about. You really need to see the new games coming for the PS3

[QUOTE="sim_dude_uk"]they are putting extra ram on the PS3 soon but thats on later models. I seen it on a site not soo long ago but the PS3 cnosole would cost over a $1000. If i can find it i will post it. They are doubling the ram.locklain

This would be a kick to the face of everyone that has already purchased their console. Perhaps if they added an "Update Plan" then it may be alright.

[QUOTE="locklain"]

[QUOTE="sim_dude_uk"]they are putting extra ram on the PS3 soon but thats on later models. I seen it on a site not soo long ago but the PS3 cnosole would cost over a $1000. If i can find it i will post it. They are doubling the ram.KraigA

This would be a kick to the face of everyone that has already purchased their console. Perhaps if they added an "Update Plan" then it may be alright.

this kind of memory is way too slow

That is a trick question. "Should" ps3 have more RAM? Of course, it should but the real question is does it really need more RAM? And are consumers willing to pay for it? Of course, the more ram the merrier.

Here is the same trick question you put out.
Should 360 have more RAM?
Should Wii have more RAM?
Should PC have more RAM?
Should cars have better mileage?
Should cars have more horsepower?
Should I have more money?
Should I have more time for games?

When does it end?

This is interesting, being a PC gamer myself I see the lack of RAM being a issue but where as most posts talk about additional VRAM, I see the need for more system RAM. Also having 256MB of 3.2Ghz RAM does not automatically make that RAM fast enough to remove all problems relating to volume. With only 256MB of system memory, regardless of speed, you still have to frequently buffer off of the Blu-ray drive and/or hard disk. What would have been nice is an addition 512MB of low speed DDR2 RAM (which is still much quicker than the Blu-ray and hard disk) for buffering to both the the XDR and the DDR3. I'm not sure how you would best optimize the architecture for that, but it seems like a good (and reletively inexpensive) fix; although there is not much of a problem to begin with.GIJames248

I Agree with this. If sony had used a bit of Slow ram in addition to the Fast ram then it would have STILL been Affordable yet still a better solution than what we currently have under the hood>>>>