By the time 8GB DDR5 RAM actually means something the PS4 will be a gen behind

Ummm... Crysis 3 on Ultra uses about 2GBs of System RAM and 2.2 - 2.9 GBs of Video RAM for me. That adds up to around 4.2 - 4.9 GBs in general.

I can see the PS4 having 5GBs of it's RAM for gaming. So that fits under it's budget. In addition, since the PS4 uses an APU and a unified memory system, there will be no need to duplicate information, which leads to lower RAM usage. The weaker points to the console are the CPU and then the GPU. We should worry more that the CPU will be enough and the GPU enough to run as a normal video GPU and a GpGPU at the same time than scream 8GB GDDR5!!!!!

All that RAM is useless if the chips processing the data aren't powerful enough to handle the load.

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

I'm not caught up on the symantics, im caught up in the syntax. GDDR5 is not DDR5 and is not called DDR5 and cannot be called DDR5. It already has the name GDDR5 and that relates to something very specific. This isn't liberal arts, trying to find meaning and give clever names to things. Fact is its GDDR5 no matter how its used, and calling it DDR5 is misleading and wrong. It is a WRONG statement. Nothing about that is up for discussion. Its just how it is wether you like it or not

way2funny

Haha, that's precisely the kind of blinkered animosity I was describing.  Syntax is the form of a sentence??  Semantics is the meaning, Syntax is form and the principles of structure.  You are dealing with Semantics, not syntax, when you criticise the use of DDR5 in place of GDDR5.  It's the meaning you have a problem with is it not?

I'm not sitting an exam with yes or no answers, I'm expressing ideas and thoughts in the shape of a discussion.  If I expressed those ideas in a better way to more people using an innaccurate definition of a word, which would have hindered me and wasted my time if I'd used it correctly, then that would be a smart move.   

If the great minds that have caused jumps in our evolution throughout the ages had thought like you, we would all be banging sticks together in caves grunting at one another still.

Also it is Semantics, not Symantics.  Symantics alludes to symmetry of definition perhaps, a new word, ah the wonders of language ey.

Fact is its GDDR5 no matter how its used, and calling it DDR5 is misleading and wrong. It is a WRONG statement. Nothing about that is up for discussion. Its just how it is wether you like it or not

I love how when you have no viable response to anything I've said you just repeat yourself like a parrot.  

When a statement is more easily interpreted using a more commonly understood use of a word, whether that usage is technically accurate or not, it makes it the right choice.  It's only "WRONG" for people like you, who pointlessly waste their time on meaningless semantics that have no bearing on anything.  

hahahaha love how PC heads always try to compare PC specs to Game System Specs and don't take in account that Windows OS and programs take up a lot of resources and just wait and see what PS4 can do. I am just happy its going to be much more powerful than what we have right now.

Ummm... Crysis 3 on Ultra uses about 2GBs of System RAM and 2.2 - 2.9 GBs of Video RAM for me. That adds up to around 4.2 - 4.9 GBs in general.

I can see the PS4 having 5GBs of it's RAM for gaming. So that fits under it's budget. In addition, since the PS4 uses an APU and a unified memory system, there will be no need to duplicate information, which leads to lower RAM usage. The weaker points to the console are the CPU and then the GPU. We should worry more that the CPU will be enough and the GPU enough to run as a normal video GPU and a GpGPU at the same time than scream 8GB GDDR5!!!!!

All that RAM is useless if the chips processing the data aren't powerful enough to handle the load.

ShadowDeathX

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] I didn't say you were disputing it and I understood what you wrote. By calling it DDR5 ram all you're doing is creating more confusion. Silenthps

What confusion am I creating?  What problem is it going to cause?  Please explain to me the major issue using "DDR5" to describe GDDR5 being used system wide is going to cause when that is how most people interpret it anyway?  GDDR5 being used system wide is an advancement on the current PC setup, so would DDR5 be if it existed.  The net effect of either is the same for the purposes of any discussion or interpretation.  Especially on this board.  

What problem has it caused?  How does it matter whether people know the difference between the two?  They understand GDDR5 is superior to DDR3 just as DDR5 would be.  So it causes no problem.  DDR5 won't be out for years and by that time this PS4 8GB thing will be ancient history.  

Your analogy is very silly, I used DDR5 rather than "hamster" because DDR5 had been reported and it also suggests that this new more advanced memory than DDR3 is being used system wide.  In an ideal world I would be to say GDDR5 and not get 20 responses from people saying I didn't understand it is being used system wide, this isn't an ideal world though.  Far simpler to negate that by referring to it as DDR5 as has been reported everywhere and most people immediately understand.  

Words can only cause confusion when their use of meaning is misleading, there is nothing in my point, my post or anything I've said that is in any way subverted by referring to it as DDR5.  Picking on semantics that have no consequence is just petty and a complete waste of everyones time.  

If I had addressed a conference of developers as a Sony employee and labelled it inaccurately, then we have relevance, because the finer details matter.  In a discussion on SW, the only thing that has relevance is, is it better than ddr3.  Which it is, no matter what label is used.  

I love how when you have no viable response to anything I've said you just repeat yourself like a parrot.  

 

When a statement is more easily interpreted using a more commonly understood use of a word, whether that usage is technically accurate or not, it makes it the right choice.  It's only "WRONG" for people like you, who pointlessly waste their time on meaningless semantics that have no bearing on anything.  

iamrob7

Ummm... Crysis 3 on Ultra uses about 2GBs of System RAM and 2.2 - 2.9 GBs of Video RAM for me. That adds up to around 4.2 - 4.9 GBs in general.

I can see the PS4 having 5GBs of it's RAM for gaming. So that fits under it's budget. In addition, since the PS4 uses an APU and a unified memory system, there will be no need to duplicate information, which leads to lower RAM usage. The weaker points to the console are the CPU and then the GPU. We should worry more that the CPU will be enough and the GPU enough to run as a normal video GPU and a GpGPU at the same time than scream 8GB GDDR5!!!!!

All that RAM is useless if the chips processing the data aren't powerful enough to handle the load.

ShadowDeathX

On Very high with every setting in 1080p.  I am using 1.2GB system RAM and 1.5GB VRAM.  :S

What resolution are you running in?

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]I love how when you have no viable response to anything I've said you just repeat yourself like a parrot.  

 

When a statement is more easily interpreted using a more commonly understood use of a word, whether that usage is technically accurate or not, it makes it the right choice.  It's only "WRONG" for people like you, who pointlessly waste their time on meaningless semantics that have no bearing on anything.  

Silenthps

It seems to me you have no real response, rather a lot of pseudo analysis.  3 people mentioned it, the first was clearly just upset because he had nothing else to say.  The second person posted something completely different initially and when I responded and pointed out their post was irrelevant, only then did they suddenly jump on the semantic train.  Presumably as they had no other response to my retort on their initial comment.

Aside from that, there is you.  Someone who either doesn't understand what post modernism is or is just using it flippantly to describe something they don't really seem to understand.  I'm not skeptical of interpretation, I'm practical.  There is a huge difference.  I'm not debating an the rights and wrongs of absolutism.  I'm talking about the practical usage of language, there is no deep philosophical point beyond simple practicality.  

Your assertion that it did not bring clarity is not born out by the facts.  Not a single person misunderstood what I was saying.  A few took issue with the semantics, but they didn't misunderstand.  Whereas inevitably if I hadn't referred to the memory as GDDR5 I would have had numerous consolites badgering me about how my post only dealt with GPU RAM and I didn't realise that the playstation GDDR5 would be used system wide.  That's because it got reported like that.  The way I posted meant that the maximum number of people understood, as the only people it marignalised were those who understood the meanings already and would be able to decipher my post.  Don't blame me for being practical, blame reality.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

 

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

 

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

 

iamrob7

You don't understand that the resolution of textures you are using is not going to be above the resolution the game is actually in i.e 1080p.  So in a 1080p game the best texture resolution you will get is 1080p.  1080p textures with all the current graphical bells and whistles available in game on top of them use at most 3GB RAM in total.  

 

No game will be released for a long time that uses anything like the full 8GB available on the PS4.  If ever.  By the time the 8GB becomes relevant, the PC equivalent will be a generation ahead or more.  

 

As for the 650ti, of course GPU memory is important, RAM is important.  The point is 8GB worth over 3GB worth for the foreseeable future is going to be meaningless for the PS4.  3GB over 1GB is a completely different thing, it's a big advantage in plenty of games.  

iamrob7

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

 

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

 

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

 

tormentos

You said "nothing runs like Halo 4 or uncharted on a 7800GTX", that's impossible to know because those games are unavailable on the PC.  Crysis 2 seems like a more demanding game than either of those to me and seeing as a x1950 pro runs Crysis 2 at higher settings than either console with comparable framerates.  Who knows whether a 7800GTX could handle Halo 4 or uncharted at decent framerates.  

The PS3 has a custom GPU, it is not an actual 7800GTX, you realise that right?

The 7850 is a decent card.  Nothing wrong with it at all, it does not however max out every single game at an acceptable framerate. Let's take Crysis 3 for example, it would eat a 7850 alive maxed out.  30 frames per second is the bare minimum.  It also averages 20 FPS for BF3 at 1440p;

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark,3148-6.html

So I seriously doubt it could get 30FPS on ultra in BF3 at 1600p, do you have a source for this claim?

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

 

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

 

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

 

tormentos

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

 

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

 

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

 

tormentos

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]You don't understand that the resolution of textures you are using is not going to be above the resolution the game is actually in i.e 1080p.  So in a 1080p game the best texture resolution you will get is 1080p.  1080p textures with all the current graphical bells and whistles available in game on top of them use at most 3GB RAM in total.  

 

No game will be released for a long time that uses anything like the full 8GB available on the PS4.  If ever.  By the time the 8GB becomes relevant, the PC equivalent will be a generation ahead or more.  

 

As for the 650ti, of course GPU memory is important, RAM is important.  The point is 8GB worth over 3GB worth for the foreseeable future is going to be meaningless for the PS4.  3GB over 1GB is a completely different thing, it's a big advantage in plenty of games.  

tormentos

I've already said on numerous occasions that RAM usage is down to any number of things.  Specifically resolution and graphical features.  

My whole argument is based on the belief that Sony will not be able to utilise the full 8GB in a game for quite a while to come, by the time they are able to the PC equivalent will have left it far behind.  There is nothing to suggest that 8GB is going to be utilised by any console game in the near future.  Nothing at all.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="iamrob7"]Wrong consistently.  I don't "want to know what the PS4 will do with the extra ram", I know exactly how RAM is used.  Here is my point 1080p@30 games at their most extreme at 1080p use 3GB RAM total, that's for super bastard settings in the most advanced games at higher framerates thant 30FPS.  Higher quality textures = Higher resolution.  PS4 games are going to be 1080p on release are they not?  So this 8GB DDR5 is not going to be used in a game for years to come, not until they come out with graphical possibilities far beyond what we have now.  Planetside 2 has battles featuring 2000 players, 3GB usage. Crysis 3 uses every graphical trick available right now, 3GB top end usage.  Mid range PC GPU's these days have 2-3GB GDDR5 on top of their system memory.  That's 6 months before the PS4 even releases.  

The PS4 has a mid range PC gaming GPU.  It can't do anything beyond Crysis 3 at 1080p, there is nothing it can handle that can use anything like 8GB DDR5 right now.  Not even close.  

So like I said, as is patentily obvious, by the time 8GB DDR5 is relevant and even 60% utilised, the PC equivalent will be years ahead.  It's a meaningless statistic that "cows" are clinging to desperately, because their GPU is average and their CPU is highly questionable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

You can believe your argument fine. We cant change that, but you dont know for sure its only a assumption you have based on your PC experience. You dont know if Sony or another dev will be able to use all the ram up in some form or other from the get go. Who knows lets wait and see the results.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="iamrob7"]You don't understand that the resolution of textures you are using is not going to be above the resolution the game is actually in i.e 1080p. So in a 1080p game the best texture resolution you will get is 1080p. 1080p textures with all the current graphical bells and whistles available in game on top of them use at most 3GB RAM in total.

No game will be released for a long time that uses anything like the full 8GB available on the PS4. If ever. By the time the 8GB becomes relevant, the PC equivalent will be a generation ahead or more.

As for the 650ti, of course GPU memory is important, RAM is important. The point is 8GB worth over 3GB worth for the foreseeable future is going to be meaningless for the PS4. 3GB over 1GB is a completely different thing, it's a big advantage in plenty of games.

iamrob7

I've already said on numerous occasions that RAM usage is down to any number of things. Specifically resolution and graphical features.

My whole argument is based on the belief that Sony will not be able to utilise the full 8GB in a game for quite a while to come, by the time they are able to the PC equivalent will have left it far behind. There is nothing to suggest that 8GB is going to be utilised by any console game in the near future. Nothing at all.

You can believe your argument fine. We cant change that, but you dont know for sure its only a assumption you have based on your PC experience. You dont know if Sony or another dev will be able to use all the ram up in some form or other from the get go. Who knows lets wait and see the results.

  I'm looking at a GTX 680 with 4GB DDR5.  Now that is a pretty decent PC, but that 4GB DDR5 will only be relevant if I have a multi monitor setup and some obscene resolution right now.

 

 

iamrob7

This is what you dont get. Games use small amount of RAM and particularly VRAM because most games are optimized on consoles that are greatly RAM starved. Once PS4 comes out, this will change and you will soon find out that you need hell of a lot very fast RAM to run multiplats on your PC, because games will be developed with 8 gigs of GDDR5 in mind.

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="mitu123"] That's hilarious if they think that.

SaltyMeatballs

Hermits be insecure.

You said "nothing runs like Halo 4 or uncharted on a 7800GTX", that's impossible to know because those games are unavailable on the PC.  Crysis 2 seems like a more demanding game than either of those to me and seeing as a x1950 pro runs Crysis 2 at higher settings than either console with comparable framerates.  Who knows whether a 7800GTX could handle Halo 4 or uncharted at decent framerates.  

 

The PS3 has a custom GPU, it is not an actual 7800GTX, you realise that right?

 

The 7850 is a decent card.  Nothing wrong with it at all, it does not however max out every single game at an acceptable framerate. Let's take Crysis 3 for example, it would eat a 7850 alive maxed out.  30 frames per second is the bare minimum.  It also averages 20 FPS for BF3 at 1440p;

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark3148-6.html

 

So I seriously doubt it could get 30FPS on ultra in BF3 at 1600p, do you have a source for this claim?

iamrob7

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

remember on PC games are not make to take advantage of a single GPU. tormentos

What does this even mean?

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="iamrob7"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

 

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

 

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

 

mitu123

What does this even mean?Kinthalis

You are the first person who said this, everyone knows the OS will take up RAM, we just don't know how much yet.Nintendo_Ownes7

That if we cared about PCs, case in which we'd have one and this whole thing would be pointless , we don't want one ,  be happy living in your lonely world where almost nobody cares about your hobby though , hermit.

True.

[QUOTE="Nintendo_Ownes7"]You are the first person who said this, everyone knows the OS will take up RAM, we just don't know how much yet.tormentos

That was true with DX9, but NOT with DX10/11.

Ehh, Im not entirely sure, since those 8 GB will be standard across what will ikely be a huge install base, Devs would not need to hold back, and try to use those ram on different things.

What I do not know yet, but stating that they will never be used, and that they are pointless, is something I would not state. No matter how little I like the SDF I am more then happy to see a console which will not be ram starved as soon as it is out of the games.

To put it simply, I do not know how that ram will be used, only devs do. The huge consumerbase will likely enable such usage, how I do not know either, maybe using a portion of the ram as a RAMDISk of a sort, or the like.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] The x1950 is basically a 360 with more ram,but 1 year later and even so the frame rate is all over the place and look at the comments on the video,the PS3 has a 7800GTX with 256MB of vram,not 512MB.. The PS3 has a mid 2005 GPU with half the bandwidth of its PC counter part and half the ram.. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=548 Before you even quote me hit that link,the 7850 hit 30 or more frames per second in max settings in 1080p quite easy,in fact it runs Battle Field 3 on 2560x1600 ultra at 32FPS which on consoles is more than playable. Now the PS4 GPU is actually stronger,custom and more efficient that the 7850..tormentos

I think it would have been better if they went with a stronger APU, and cut the memory to 4g. I think its better if it had 7970 as a GPU and a stronger CPU and 4gb or ram. I dont know if 8gb is necesary but I am not a engineer or game developer.

pc already has graphics cards more powerful than ps4s gpu.

So hows ps4 gonna be more powerful? lol.

pc already has graphics cards more powerful than ps4s gpu.

So hows ps4 gonna be more powerful? lol.

nextgenjoke

Like EA says: "...its in the game" :cool:

I think it would have been better if they went with a stronger APU, and cut the memory to 4g. I think its better if it had 7970 as a GPU and a stronger CPU and 4gb or ram. I dont know if 8gb is necesary but I am not a engineer or game developer.

deniiiii21

I disagree. More RAM can do wonders for gameplay (particularly level design). Graphical boost between 7850 to 7970 would not be very significant anyway.

[QUOTE="deniiiii21"]

I think it would have been better if they went with a stronger APU, and cut the memory to 4g. I think its better if it had 7970 as a GPU and a stronger CPU and 4gb or ram. I dont know if 8gb is necesary but I am not a engineer or game developer.

BlbecekBobecek

I disagree. More RAM can do wonders for gameplay (particularly level design). Graphical boost between 7850 to 7970 would not be very significant anyway.

[QUOTE="no-scope-AK47"]

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

 

Yes it is great to have more RAM undoubtedly.  That's not what my post is about though, I'm not saying 8GB of DDR5 is a bad thing.  I'm saying that by the time it provides any advantage in the actual games, it will be far behind the PC equivalent.  Rendering it meaningless in terms of SW.

iamrob7

Please re-read the first two pages where I explain 3-4 times that this has nothing to do with whether 8GB can be utilised for other tasks.  I'm not suggesting 8GB is a bad idea, I'm saying it won't be utilised in games.  It provides no advantage in games over the standard current PC setup and won't do for years.  By the time it does, it will be a generation behind what the PC has.

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

[QUOTE="deniiiii21"]

I think it would have been better if they went with a stronger APU, and cut the memory to 4g. I think its better if it had 7970 as a GPU and a stronger CPU and 4gb or ram. I dont know if 8gb is necesary but I am not a engineer or game developer.

ferret-gamer

I disagree. More RAM can do wonders for gameplay (particularly level design). Graphical boost between 7850 to 7970 would not be very significant anyway.

Nope, diminishing returns. Double the power equals to slightly higher definition or a bit more foliage here and there or a bit better AA (not all together though) while keeping about the same framerate.

[QUOTE="Tessellation"] why you keep pushing lies and made up bullsh!t as fact? at B3D they already called that rumor of the '' 2.0 ghz'' bullsh!t made up of thin air...unless you can provide facts which i am sure you don't have :cool:tormentos

Didn't you know? The single player is more gpu extensive while the multiplayer is more cpu extensive and is more demanding than the single player plus it takes up more VRAM. You simply can't judge the whole game on single player benchmarks, definitely for a more multiplayer focused game that relies on a beefy CPU in the 1st place.mitu123

pc already has graphics cards more powerful than ps4s gpu.

So hows ps4 gonna be more powerful? lol.

nextgenjoke

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="Tessellation"] why you keep pushing lies and made up bullsh!t as fact? at B3D they already called that rumor of the '' 2.0 ghz'' bullsh!t made up of thin air...unless you can provide facts which i am sure you don't have :cool:Cranler

I agree. I took this screenshot of my desktop while Crysis 3 was running in a window. Notice in Task Manager how everything outside of the game executable has been put on hold although I'm sure the memory footprint of the OS and apps are in RAM. If I'm wrong, then someone correct me.

ITT: more butthurt hermits that fail to see that consoles don't need uber-powerful hardware to produce good results.

I'm not pro-cow but this PS4 hate is ridiculous...

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

 

I disagree. More RAM can do wonders for gameplay (particularly level design). Graphical boost between 7850 to 7970 would not be very significant anyway.

BlbecekBobecek

Nope, diminishing returns. Double the power equals to slightly higher definition or a bit more foliage here and there or a bit better AA (not all together though) while keeping about the same framerate.

i second this... 7950 vs 7850 = about 20% boost in actual performance not 100% increase like a lot of the noobs are screaming

also anyone who things u can have too much ram is an idiot

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Tessellation"] cows believe 8 gigs are just for dedicated for graphics.Tessellation

there are a bunch of threads started by lems saying 8gb or ram will never be fully utitlized by the ps4s gpu

lems are equally as dumb

[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="iamrob7"]

 

What confusion am I creating?  What problem is it going to cause?  Please explain to me the major issue using "DDR5" to describe GDDR5 being used system wide is going to cause when that is how most people interpret it anyway?  GDDR5 being used system wide is an advancement on the current PC setup, so would DDR5 be if it existed.  The net effect of either is the same for the purposes of any discussion or interpretation.  Especially on this board.  

iamrob7

What problem has it caused?  How does it matter whether people know the difference between the two?  They understand GDDR5 is superior to DDR3 just as DDR5 would be.  So it causes no problem.  DDR5 won't be out for years and by that time this PS4 8GB thing will be ancient history.  

Your analogy is very silly, I used DDR5 rather than "hamster" because DDR5 had been reported and it also suggests that this new more advanced memory than DDR3 is being used system wide.  In an ideal world I would be to say GDDR5 and not get 20 responses from people saying I didn't understand it is being used system wide, this isn't an ideal world though.  Far simpler to negate that by referring to it as DDR5 as has been reported everywhere and most people immediately understand.  

Words can only cause confusion when their use of meaning is misleading, there is nothing in my point, my post or anything I've said that is in any way subverted by referring to it as DDR5.  Picking on semantics that have no consequence is just petty and a complete waste of everyones time.  

If I had addressed a conference of developers as a Sony employee and labelled it inaccurately, then we have relevance, because the finer details matter.  In a discussion on SW, the only thing that has relevance is, is it better than ddr3.  Which it is, no matter what label is used.  

Problem is GDDR5 is NOT generally superior to DDR3. If it was we would be using GDDR5 as system ram.