Wouldn't 4GBs be good enough? I'd imagine the PS4 would run into bottlenecking issues that would prevent it from being able to effectively utilize all of that RAM, when the rest of the PS4's specs are mid-range at best. It would be like purchasing a 680 GTX when your CPU only runs at 3.0GHz.
Isn't 8GBs of RAM a bit excessive?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Never underestimate the RAM. Â Think about the RAMifications of your actions op.
.
Why do cows care so much what other people think or have to say about Sony :?Why are on Sony hater so obsessed with the PS4? Worry about your own crapboxes.
StrongBlackVine
Â
Also, you have no ram, therefore opinion invalid :cool:
We have a good relationship this gen :)
We have a good relationship this gen :)
ActicEdge
:lol:
Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
We have a good relationship this gen :)
Wiimotefan
:lol:
Blatantly stolenn from another user but it was too good to not be used again.
The improved RAM amount ánd quality is not for an FPS-increase primarily. You're using RSX as an example btw...how is that any comparable to the PS4? It's mainly put in there so RAM will never be a bottleneck and developers won't have to use tricks, like derezzed object details and it will help immensly with pop-in issues. But think bigger, more (and better) RAM can mean a lot more detail in open-world games and a lot more detail in general in every game. The increased amounts of RAM is for developer friendly-ness.Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.
Strakha
[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
We have a good relationship this gen :)
ActicEdge
:lol:
Blatantly stolenn from another user but it was too good to not be used again.
No shame in that, I saved the image as soon as I saw it. Â :P
stolen from gaf
[QUOTE="Strakha"]The improved RAM amount ánd quality is not for an FPS-increase primarily. You're using RSX as an example btw...how is that any comparable to the PS4? It's mainly put in there so RAM will never be a bottleneck and developers won't have to use tricks, like derezzed object details and it will help immensly with pop-in issues. But think bigger, more (and better) RAM can mean a lot more detail in open-world games and a lot more detail in general in every game. The increased amounts of RAM is for developer friendly-ness.Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.
DrTrafalgarLaw
I used the RSX and GeForce 7800 as example in case someone questioned if future games would be different to the benchmarks of BF3 for the 1.5GB and 3GB. They were not that generation as card manufacturers always err on the side of giving cards as much or more RAM than they need for peak performance. A couple of FPS is the best you will likely get out of the card with more RAM. The biggest evidence 4GB would have been enough is that the PS4 dev kits had 4GB and it's likely the marketing people rather than the tech people who decided on 8GB so it wouldn't have a number smaller than the Xbox which isn't actually using almost half of it's RAM for gaming anyway. Also earlier in this thread I mentioned the PS4 is 8 times more powerful in processing power but has almost 16 times more RAM than the PS3. This adds to the considerable evidence that the decision to upgrade to 8GB was more of a marketing decision than a practical one.
Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.
Â
Strakha
Your logic here doesn't really make sense. PC games have to target a wide variety of hardware, so the developers will come up with a fixed budget based on common hardware and that budget will determine exactly how much memory is consumed by the game. Then when you run the game you might have way too much memory or not enough memory, depending on how recent and expensive your video card is. If you have enough memory then the GPU runs normally, and if you don't your performance rapidly degrades since the driver will attempt to page data in and out of video memory during a frame. If you have way more than enough memory for a game there's no "bonus", it performs exactly the same as if you had exactly enough memory. On consoles a developer knows exactly how much memory will be available on that platform, so there's no chance of "using too much" or "not using enough"...they will simply use all of it. There is of course a limit on how much a game can read and write to memory during a frame which is determined by the bandwidth and other hardware characterstics, but even if you're bottlenecked by bandwidth it's still better to have more memory since you can keep more textures/meshes/AI/physics objects/whatever in memory at any given time without having to unload them.
Log in to comment