How much ram should does each of the big 3 need next gen?

For me, anything less than 2 GB is insulting. If they can't manage at least that, just quit. This is even more true for the next Xbox and PS as both of those are running pretty heavy OSes with lots of side features, and that will probably be even heavier next gen. DerekLoffin

As for the "Ps4 and 720" having a 7700 series gpu, i'd be extremely disappointed, myself. I'm hoping for a Cypress level Gpu in the next "HD twins", I think that is more than reasonable considering they won't be out 'till 2013.

theuncharted34

4gb. Anything less would be uncivilized.:)

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

As for the "Ps4 and 720" having a 7700 series gpu, i'd be extremely disappointed, myself. I'm hoping for a Cypress level Gpu in the next "HD twins", I think that is more than reasonable considering they won't be out 'till 2013.

PC_Otter

I suppose I shouldn't get my hopes up. :(

Although, Cypress is hardly the bleeding edge, it's 2 generations behind the current high end and by the time the next PS and Xbox release it'll be 3 gens behind. But alas, I still know that may be hoping for too much. It's kind of sad really, we can't even expect what was high end in what will be 4 years ago next generation.

But yeah, at least a 7770 would still be a very large leap over current consoles.I wonder how much stronger than the Wii U they'd be, if at all, if that were the case.

RAM is dirt cheap so anything below 4GB is laughable

4GB RAM @1600Mhz on Newegg

BPoole96

Console RAM (or Industrial RAM) isn't the same as PC RAM.

If that were easy, then both PS3 & 360 would've had more than just 512 MB's of RAM right now.

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

As for the "Ps4 and 720" having a 7700 series gpu, i'd be extremely disappointed, myself. I'm hoping for a Cypress level Gpu in the next "HD twins", I think that is more than reasonable considering they won't be out 'till 2013.

theuncharted34

I suppose I shouldn't get my hopes up. :(

Although, Cypress is hardly the bleeding edge, it's 2 generations behind the current high end and by the time the next PS and Xbox release it'll be 3 gens behind. But alas, I still know that may be hoping for too much. It's kind of sad really, we can't even expect what was high end in what will be 4 years ago next generation.

But yeah, at least a 7770 would still be a very large leap over current consoles.I wonder how much stronger than the Wii U they'd be, if at all, if that were the case.

console ram is not PC ram -____- ppl need to realize this. anyway 2GB seems ideal. Most games I play haven't gone past that.

8192mb, it'd be in line with previous generations. I don't know why people think that 2gb would be a sweet spot, or affordable.. that's so damn little considering the time between the gens especially.

console ram is not PC ram -____- ppl need to realize this. anyway 2GB seems ideal. Most games I play haven't gone past that.

painguy1

'MOST GAMES I PLAY HAVEN'T GONE PAST THAT.

Yea, Most games I played in 2000 didn't go past 32MB of ram, I don't know why we moved upto 512mb. :roll:

8192mb, it'd be in line with previous generations. I don't know why people think that 2gb would be a sweet spot, or affordable.. that's so damn little considering the time between the gens especially.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

console ram is not PC ram -____- ppl need to realize this. anyway 2GB seems ideal. Most games I play haven't gone past that.

Inconsistancy

'MOST GAMES I PLAY HAVEN'T GONE PAST THAT.

Yea, Most games I played in 2000 didn't go past 32MB of ram, I don't know why we moved upto 512mb. :roll:

uhhh...u crazy brah. 8gb is lol, 2gb is fine.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Cypress (or rather a Pictairn I would more likely think) would be cool, but this next gen probably won't be the all out upgrade fest of yesteryear. Cape Verde at 1 GHz is a beast though for it's size and power footprint. Compared to Xenos, it's 4x the pixel output, 5x the texture and GFLOPS output, and of course a proper tessellation engine and could be used for GPU compute for things other than games. It's also GDDR5 native (though I still want the bus expanded to 192 bit) Couple to a quad-core IBM with 256-bit VSX units, and 3 GB of GDDR5 and you have what would be quite an efficient and capable system. Who knows, we may get Pictairn, but right now my bets for next gen won't be anything ground breaking. It's too expensive to go so crazy, would be expensive for devs to make the most of. They'd end up making 720p resolution games I bet anyways. Software is what really matters. If you can guarantee a decently powerful, but easy to develop for system, the devs will flock to it, and MS also has the "all encompassing" entertainment experience down rather well with services like ESPN and Netflix, along with XBLive. Being Power based like the 360, the architecture and programming side of things will be familiar to devs, yet vastly more useful, and not prone to stalls like with the in-order Xenon CPU. Sony however, releasing later could counter MS's efforts with a more powerful system, but that's assuming Sony got it's financial act together, and released a better system with the software to back it up. However a possible AMD APU + GPU based console would make an interesting foil to a AMD GPU + PPC console.PC_Otter

I suppose I shouldn't get my hopes up. :(

Although, Cypress is hardly the bleeding edge, it's 2 generations behind the current high end and by the time the next PS and Xbox release it'll be 3 gens behind. But alas, I still know that may be hoping for too much. It's kind of sad really, we can't even expect what was high end in what will be 4 years ago next generation.

But yeah, at least a 7770 would still be a very large leap over current consoles.I wonder how much stronger than the Wii U they'd be, if at all, if that were the case.

It depends on how you classify the cards I guess. I just go by series, not power.Cypress is still packed with power today, yeah.

EDIT : In fact, Southern Islands still isn't double Cypress's performance.

if we don't get 16 gigs in the next gen consoles we're getting screwed.

console ram is not PC ram -____- ppl need to realize this. anyway 2GB seems ideal. Most games I play haven't gone past that.

painguy1

RAM on either system is still for the purpose of placing the needed data from the storage so the CPU and GPU can process it. So what's the technical difference between PC and console RAM?

if we don't get 16 gigs in the next gen consoles we're getting screwed.

buccomatic

Not sure if serious? Most PCs don't have that much. Sure there are some people who are willing to splurge on it, but realistically 4-8 GB is more common. So by what precedense would you expect to find 16 GB in the next line of consoles?

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

console ram is not PC ram -____- ppl need to realize this. anyway 2GB seems ideal. Most games I play haven't gone past that.

AdobeArtist

RAM on either system is still for the purpose of placing the needed data from the storage so the CPU and GPU can process it. So what's the technical difference between PC and console RAM?

Every current gen console currently out now uses something other than ur typical PC DDR2 or 3 memory. PS3 uses XDR, 360 and Wii uses GDDR3. Consoles are less likley to use DDR3 because of latency. Next gen is more likley to see the use of GDDR5, but even that is kinda pricy since it doesn't have a very good cost per die ratio. U'd need like 8 GDDR5 chips to get 2gb, and they are some pretty big chips. Console manufacturers have to budget themselves carefully to try to break as close to even as possible. With consoles latency is much more important than u think. It's not as simple as sticking in some 1600mhz DDR3 in there and calling it a day. Consoles work differntly.

Anything below 32GB is obviously peasant-tier. princeofshapeir

Yeah, let's pretend more than 10 PC gamers have so much RAM or that any game makes good use of it...

2g of fast GDDR5 "6ghz" main ram is amble for nextgen, plus another 1 or 2g of GDDR3 from the discrete gpu we would be good to go. gpuking

id say 2GB maybe 3 would be really good. Consoles dont need nearly as much as PC's do so 2GB would actually be more than enough i think. They dont even have on GB to work with now and they seem to do pretty well. You really cant compare it to PC ram though because like i said consoles need much less and then they are gonna be shooting for the lowest cost possible.

Gen007

[QUOTE="Gen007"]

id say 2GB maybe 3 would be really good. Consoles dont need nearly as much as PC's do so 2GB would actually be more than enough i think. They dont even have on GB to work with now and they seem to do pretty well. You really cant compare it to PC ram though because like i said consoles need much less and then they are gonna be shooting for the lowest cost possible.

imprezawrx500

LOL dude. The RAM on phones are junk compared to what we have on PC's and current gen consoles. Their bandwidth is so lol its not even funny. Heck, even the 3DS has faster RAM than some of those phones even tho its amount is significantly less.

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="Gen007"]

id say 2GB maybe 3 would be really good. Consoles dont need nearly as much as PC's do so 2GB would actually be more than enough i think. They dont even have on GB to work with now and they seem to do pretty well. You really cant compare it to PC ram though because like i said consoles need much less and then they are gonna be shooting for the lowest cost possible.

painguy1

LOL dude. The RAM on phones are junk compared to what we have on PC's and current gen consoles. Their bandwidth is so lol its not even funny. Heck, even the 3DS has faster RAM than some of those phones even tho its amount is significantly less.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"] you saying consoles should only have about the same amount of ram phones will have once they come out? ram is dirt cheap so why gimp it with not much ram like the do every gen? imprezawrx500

LOL dude. The RAM on phones are junk compared to what we have on PC's and current gen consoles. Their bandwidth is so lol its not even funny. Heck, even the 3DS has faster RAM than some of those phones even tho its amount is significantly less.

not when u can't access all the RAM fast enough. It depend on what u want to do. With general purpose computing u would be right, but games(dedicated games at that) can be a whole different beast depending on what ur trying to do. Take the edram in the 360 for example. It's an extremely sad amount(10mb) in comparison to the main pool, but its speed/latency cannot be replaced, and alot of things we see on the 360 today probably wouldn't be possibe without it.

Looking at RAM used by some high-end visual games, which is somewhere around 3 GB with higher settings...anything over 4 GB's is good, and anything less is just not future-proof.

Hmm, I was just thinking...

PS1 2mb*
PS2 32mb*
PS3 512mb*

If the pattern continues, the PS4 would have 8192mb of ram.*

*this isn't a new thought, below is!

Back in 2005 I had a total of 4352 mb of ram (video and system), 360 had 512, about 8x less, so it felt like it was 'skimping'. But, all of the sudden(it seems), ram feels 'cheap', but really it's just that we're not buying the same amount relative to $ anymore. You can, for about the same amount of $ as 4gb in 2005, get 64gb of ram and continue the cycle of having 8x+ more than the consoles.

There are a lot of people saying 2-4gb is 'likely' or, what they'd like to see. Have we been 'duped', by the progress of technology, into thinking 8192mb of ram, for a console, is 'too much'? Or even feels 'right', not skimping anymore?

Well there is a limit but console makers always gimp on ram that is cheap and then blow it all on an expensive cpu cough cell cough. Ram is drit cheap (even fast ram) but consoles have never had enough of it. A console game pretty much wont run for more than a few secs without the disk while a pc game pretty much loads everything into the ram which makes for much smoother running game. imprezawrx500

what im expexting.

Nintendo- 2 gigs

PS4 & Xbox = 8gigs

Four gigs would be healthy and just two would be skimping a little, IMO. Three would be reasonable.

Since RAM costs next to nothing and low RAM is the single greatest technological inhibitor for current gen consoles (small level sizes, broken up open worlds, low view distance/LOD distance) they should put in as much as is reasonable. 4-8GB in my opinion.

Depends on the speed of the games. If games are delivered on fast flash cards, they might be fine with 512 Mb, but around 2 GB would be really nice to have, especially if they use rather slow discs again

Depends on the speed of the games. If games are delivered on fast flash cards, they might be fine with 512 Mb, but around 2 GB would be really nice to have, especially if they use rather slow discs again

ArchoNils2

Wat, there are games, like Crysis2, that go into the 2gb range TODAY. Rage came before its time, even for pc hardware, at 1gb of vram it goes from poppy crap, to pop-in once, but you'd need 4gb or so to make a notable improvement in its graphics... but go back to popping constantly as the consequence of that improvement.

An SSD, even with a couple hundred megabytes per second isn't going to make 512 any more useful than it is today (worthless).

What is the point in having 'no' future proofing what so ever? Bare minimum should be 4, 8 should be expected(in-line with previous gens), and 16 would be "woah momma".

[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]

Depends on the speed of the games. If games are delivered on fast flash cards, they might be fine with 512 Mb, but around 2 GB would be really nice to have, especially if they use rather slow discs again

Inconsistancy

Wat, there are games, like Crysis2, that go into the 2gb range TODAY. Rage came before its time, even for pc hardware, at 1gb of vram it goes from poppy crap, to pop-in once, but you'd need 4gb or so to make a notable improvement in its graphics... but go back to popping constantly as the consequence of that improvement.

An SSD, even with a couple hundred megabytes per second isn't going to make 512 any more useful than it is today (worthless).

What is the point in having 'no' future proofing what so ever? Bare minimum should be 4, 8 should be expected(in-line with previous gens), and 16 would be "woah momma".

Consoles never really had that much Ram to begin with and you can't really comprare them to your OS which has a lot of background programs and services running at all time. Consoles are fine with less memory, though I do agree, the more the better. I'd like to see 4GB Ram or more, but I doubt this will be the case. We also don't know much about next gen system. It'ss very possible that Sony and MS are just improving the ssystems slightly while throwing gimmicks at us, just like Nintendo did with the very sucessful Wii

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="ArchoNils2"]

Depends on the speed of the games. If games are delivered on fast flash cards, they might be fine with 512 Mb, but around 2 GB would be really nice to have, especially if they use rather slow discs again

ArchoNils2

Wat, there are games, like Crysis2, that go into the 2gb range TODAY. Rage came before its time, even for pc hardware, at 1gb of vram it goes from poppy crap, to pop-in once, but you'd need 4gb or so to make a notable improvement in its graphics... but go back to popping constantly as the consequence of that improvement.

An SSD, even with a couple hundred megabytes per second isn't going to make 512 any more useful than it is today (worthless).

What is the point in having 'no' future proofing what so ever? Bare minimum should be 4, 8 should be expected(in-line with previous gens), and 16 would be "woah momma".

Consoles never really had that much Ram to begin with and you can't really comprare them to your OS which has a lot of background programs and services running at all time. Consoles are fine with less memory, though I do agree, the more the better. I'd like to see 4GB Ram or more, but I doubt this will be the case. We also don't know much about next gen system. It'ss very possible that Sony and MS are just improving the ssystems slightly while throwing gimmicks at us, just like Nintendo did with the very sucessful Wii

ps1 2
ps2 32
ps3 512
logical progression 8192

Progress in tech is, and has been, ~consistent. Moore's 'law' has not slowed down 'yet'.

Put any and all aspects of the OS argument to rest, Rage and Crysis are easily able of getting into that(2gb) range W/O THE SYSTEM RAM 0, 0 none 0. The OS doesn't eat multi gb of the vram.

If the consoles to 4/4, or 8 shared, it should be 8 regardless. The only exception would be a not fully next gen console (wii-u expectations) being in the 1.5-2gb range, or if the 'big guys' And Nintendo go the ~Wii route for next gen.

Ram is cheap, so they should opt for at least 4GB RAM...

Ram is cheap, so they should opt for at least 4GB RAM...

Malta_1980

Ram isnt cheap for consoles, its not like you go and buy it yourself and put it together yourself, it has to be saudered into the machine in a factory, with workers.

[QUOTE="Malta_1980"]

Ram is cheap, so they should opt for at least 4GB RAM...

crimsonman1245

Ram isnt cheap for consoles, its not like you go and buy it yourself and put it together yourself, it has to be saudered into the machine in a factory, with workers.

they make contracts and buy a considerable huge amount of RAM to install in their consoles so they still get it a very cheap price compared to what we pay for... At least thats how it normally works... as regards the labour costs at their factory thats a different story, here we're just talking about RAM costs as a seperate item...

4GB would be perfect for the PS4 if Sony goes with the rumored 64-bit architecture. And I don't know how are things with consoles but the Wii U is supposedly using a 32-bit architecture and that can't use more than 3 GB anyway, so 2GB will be more than fine for it.

GPU: 192 bit 2/3 GB GDDR5

CPU: 2/3 GB DDR3

Between 4-6 GB of total ram

Maybe PS4GB :lol: