PS4 8gb GDDR5, a huge waste of fast memory?

im not talking about system RAM

having 8gb or so of system RAM is very usefull to record videos and a lot of stuff can be pre loaded to the system RAM

but system RAM bandwidth is around 20gb/s, its on slow ddr3 badwidth range

im talking about the fast GDDR5 expensive RAM that has around 180gb/s

but sadly the PS4 GPU cant handle all this fast RAM

battlefield 4 on PC high settings (better than PS4) 900p only uses 1200mb of fast Vram

need for speed rivals only 1000mb

assassins creed only 900mb

they surely could make those games use more of the RAM and have better textures

but this would impact the GPU performance

bf4 would never run on 60fps

need for speed and ac4 would not reach even the 30fps

or in the other hand they could keep the framerates and add better textures to make use of more of the 8gb fast Vram

but visual quality would have to be cut elsewere

all this happens because the pitcairn GPU in PS4 cant handle more than 1,5 gb of ram

you can check it for yourself on the 7850 graphics card benchmarks comparing 1gb vs 2gb gddr5 ram versions of the card

i think PS4 would never have a performance impact if it had 2gb gddr5 Vram + 6gb ddr3 ram

developers are claiming that kill zone a exclusive game (that cant be compared in any way to a PC game) is using 3gb of Vram

i call it BS and maket strategy from sony

we know the killzone has very nice visuals and that gpu would never be able to handle 3gb vram alongside all those nice visuals tech

No. 8GB is shared memory.

PS4 real specs are

2GB for OS

4GB for game assets, equivalent of 4GB of DDR3

and 2GB for video processing

So basically is equivalent to a low-middle-range PC with 4GB of RAM and 2gb of GPU. Quite humble specs.

And to-the-metal optimization makes up for the very weak CPU.

\thread

I think MS and Sony both missed an opportunity. especially using the x86-64 arc MS uses 3GB for the OS and 5 for the games, PS4 uses 3.5 for the OS and 4.5 for the games. They would have been better off going with 4GB DDR3 for the system and 4GB GDDR5 for the GPU IMO. Thats what gaming PCs do and thats what the steambox is doing. I know MS added the eSRAM for the GPU to compensate which is good but sony did nothing to compensate the GDDR5 to the CPU issue. also they are both capped, PS4 at 20GB/s to the CPU and X1 at 30GB/s to the CPU

@jhonMalcovich:

i forgot putting system RAm usage

bf4 is 1,8gb

need for speed 1,4

assassins creed only 600mb

so on system Ram real game usage for next gen systems you are good with 2gb

and OS ram on my PC windows 7 = 1gb on windows 8 = 900mb,

how can those crappy UI (no way near a real OS) on the next gen systems use 3gb? they might be reserving a lot of ram for video recording and tv stuff or maybe they are just bad programers

with battlefield 4 on ultra settings 1080p (way above any next gen systems) all i need is:

2gb Vram

2gb system ram

1gb windows 7

total 5gb

i have 4gb ddr3 + 2gb mid range graphics card so i can use 1gb to record videos on a ram drive

still make no sense having 8gb gddr5 ram

Is a part of this because all the games are shared on the PS3 or where rushed to meet launch window?

dont worry TC tormentos will explain it to you and ronvalencia will try to debunk it

Unlimited power potential.

The 8GB is also system RAM, so they can use it for shit other than just graphics

B*tch please, don't try to be a smartass, this is 8GB of motherf****** GDDR5 we're talking about, not some dirty DDR3 released in 1337 Xbone is using

What ever the specs are, Sony got the better deal out of all 3 next gen consoles. They learned hard from their proprietary cell and hard to handle architecture and made the most powerful console ever conceived.

maybe you don't know but the PS4 was built around what game developers wanted, not Sony or Cerny, and they wanted unified memory. I'm pretty sure that game developers and Cerny know more about hardware architecture than you, so whatever flaws you think you know about the system... You're wrong.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

the generation just started. Come back in 6 years and let's discuss it.

Why

are

we

spacing

every

sentence?

It is system RAM. It's not dedicated to the GPU.

I have 16GB of system RAM and 2GB of VRAM.

Does that make sense?

@Gue1

Not really. After the PS3 debacle, Cerny was going with a unified RAM pool. If the systems were meant to be "game systems only" That would be fine, but with consoles being more of an "all in one" device now, it wasn't a great design

(click on the photo for full rez)

These are called OLT (inside the red circle) and help boost CPU performance up to 70% by increasing the efficiency of multithreading, nonetheless PS4 and XboxOne have the same CPU (as seen in photo above) but OLT units are missing from the PS4 cpu.

Weak PS4 CPU confirmed!

No it's not. It gives the ps4 a nice edge over the xbox one coupled with their graphics processor. It's always good to be better than your competitor and less expensive too? The Xbone and ps4 are the same design. Every game that is ported should look better on the ps4.

This stuff isn't rocket science. cpu>memory bandwith>gpu. The cell was different. Both these consoles have the same design and so does a pc for that matter. So in this case more compute units, faster memory does equal better. the xbone has a slightly higher clock on its cpu which is the same thing in the ps4. 1.75 ghz vs 1.6 but who cares. Memory and compute units on the gpu will make a good deal of difference. The xbone has a small memory cache but it's not going to outperform gddr5 memory.

Do you all know what you are on about when you talk about specs? Most of it just goes over head :P

@jhonMalcovich:

The ps4 shits on a low to mid range pc..

All you trolls claiming to know what you are talking about just stop please.. The ps4 is much more balanced then the xbox one.. The 8 core jaguar can't even use close to 30 gb/s in a cycle.. A 12 core sandy bridge has like peak 50 gb/s and real world only uses like 36 gb/s...

Sony's implementation is much more simple yet more powerful, the choice to go with a nice 20 gb/s feeding the jaguar cpu is a great choice between not too much and too little bandwidth to the cpu..

Gddr5 is superior in every way to eSRAM except for like one or two operations.. 32 mb of 150 gb/s memory or 8 gb of memory that runs at 171 gb/s to the whole system..

@MK-Professor:

im not a PS fanboy and have no intetions to buy a PS4 but...

HAHAHAA are u mad!!! how is the better CPU claim being proved by multiplatform games???

This just proves that the DDR5 is.. kind of useless in a sense.. The GPU will bottleneck the speed advantage and in the end the only advantage the PS4 has over the X1 is that the GPU is larger..Another thing is Dev's don't have to deal with all the different Operating System layers to program through with the PS4.

In the end we won't see huge graphical differences between the two systems. Both are lower - mid range pc's that are well optimized.

Low to mid range PC shits on a Ps4 AND on you.

yes its better than x1

not that gddr5 is a great feature, its standart for 50 dollars graphics cards

the ddr3 on X1 is simply stupid and a huge bottleneck

the question is, since the gpu cant handle more than 1,5gb gddr5 why give it 8gb?

sony could have built the system with 2gb gddr5 + 10gb ddr3 and advertise it as a 12gb system (still would have the same performance) for the same cost

@xboxiphoneps3:

i consider my PC mid range

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naO0daBZeRo

OLT units are everything

so far games released for the PS3 and X1 are still built with the PS3 and 360 in mind, two platforms that didnt have enough ram.

in 2 years or so we should have a clearer answer to this question.

even if the ~4GB available to games is too much for the GPU to handle in terms of textures there are still plenty of other uses for it though. having larger buffers set up to reduce or remove loading screens in the next elder scrolls for example.having more data available in memory for the AI to process. things like that. ram isnt just about graphics at the end of the day.

Only time you will never get close to those paper numbers is using sythitic benchmarks that are designed to thrash the hardware. Games use a fraction of the resources that are available.

@osan0: yes, so hey could save using regular dd3 ram instead of the expensive graphics standart gddr5

For unified memory, faster is better.

question is what does he consider low or medium ranged pc. A low end pc for me is like using a dual core cpu 2gb and GPU below AMD 6800's or Nvidia's 460 series.

A modern medium spec pc craps all over the PS4.

I am not sure if it would have been better for Sony to cut down on that memory to maybe 4-6gb gddr5 which is cheaper and go with a more powerful APU, instead of 7850 to 7950 Radeon.

Its all about costs , size limits, and the requirements needed to power and cool the hardware. A 7850 only uses about130w max while a normal 7950 uses 200w, while a 7950 boost uses 225+w

@osan0:

I agree. We'll have to wait and see. At least the RAM isn't the bottleneck this time around and for years to come. And Devs will have no problem using all that RAM, KZ SF is already using up 3GB for graphics alone.

I think it's MS that ended up with the worst choice in RAM. They would have been better of having the same memory architecture as a PC. Split pools, 8GB DDR3 as system RAM, and 2GB GDDR5 on the GPU, rather than the difficult and useless ESRAM.

Its a huge waste, only increases cost and power usage. This is proof that a PC with just 2GB of GDDR5 can kick the living daylights of the PS4 which is hugely bottlenecked by the tablet grade CPU. Super charged PC my ass.

I stopped reading as soon as you said high settings of bf4 on on PC were better then PS4. PS4 is a mix of high and Ultra.

according to who?

All the PS4 needs to do is be the best looking gaming console and it'll be a success.

It's not competing with the fringe PC gaming market. And nor should it, since that market requires spending lots of money and DIY knowledge to enjoy.

Games BUILT for the PS4 (Killzone) look phenomenal and are an example of how powerful the PS4 is. PC ports/multiplats do not really show off a system's potential. As great as BF4, CoD, AC4, etc... look on the PS4, they aren't even built for the PS4. They're just multiplats.

We'll see the power of the PS4 in 2014. Killzone was just a sample/tech demo, IMO.

lol, fringe PC market

@lostrib: Digital Foundry.

Foilage,draw distance , alpha effects were equal to high. While lighting and textures equaled Ultra.

you have you love these sony hangdowns not one single person had a answer or solutions to debunking all they say well its better than the x1but it doesn't have them bottlenecks because it has virtual memory too.

according to tormentos its 7 gigs of gddr5 for gaming and it has a custom cpu arm to offset the OS needs.

@MK-Professor said:

(click on the photo for full rez)

These are called OLT (inside the red circle) and help boost CPU performance up to 70% by increasing the efficiency of multithreading, nonetheless PS4 and XboxOne have the same CPU (as seen in photo above) but OLT units are missing from the PS4 cpu.

Weak PS4 CPU confirmed!

8 Aces 64 commands,volatile bit...

Heavily modify for compute the PS4 GPU is,and can run both at the same time without compute hurting graphics,which ease workloads on the CPU,that with true HSA design and hUMA.

Find me one for $399 that beat the PS4 then you have a point.

Most is False, foliage like bushes appear when get you closer, objects like buildings do the same thing at longer distances, Rocks and ground textures are worse...

The PS4 and Xbox One versions of Battlefield 4 turn in the comparable effects quality as PC on high settings (as opposed to its ultra setting). The upscale process from lower resolutions does muddy the clarity of water shaders on consoles, however.

Both Consoles use the same grade of texture quality as PC on high settings. Grass and rock density is cut back considerably though, and draw distance for these elements is closer-field too. The PC version adds more defined shadows to the environment vs the consoles.

depth-of-field isn't as intense on PC during cut-scenes. This helps hide the cut down geometry and objects on PS4 and Xbox One at certain distances,

PS4

PS4

Pc above

the idea of splitting up the ram like on the PC is not a bad idea for costs. it would be interesting to know why MS, sony and nintendo didnt go that route (i am sure it was considered). if i was to speculate:

it would mean the APU would need two memory controllers instead of one which would increase the cost of the APU (or take a chunk of transistors away from other processing elements). it would also make the motherboard more complex to manufacturer since it would need the circutry for 2 different types of ram. its also not as developer friendly as a unified memory architecture.

i think thats why they havent used that setup anyway but as i say, speculation

last gen all 3 consoles had a seperate GPU and CPU which meant there was going to be 2 memory controllers anyway. the PS3 and wii used different types of ram and the costs of making that work just had to be sucked up. i think the reason the PS3 used 2 different types was because the cell required XDR ram which was not compatible with the memory controller in the RSX. the wii of course was an extension of the GC and needed to maintain the same hardware and architecture to be compatible with the GC.

a split pool setup similar to the PC would certainly have been better than the current setup of the X1 in terms of performance but it may have further increased the cost of production. given the price and performance advantage the PS4 already has that would not do the X1 any favours.

in fairness though to both MS and sony, in terms of the overall hardware i am happy with both consoles. well balanced, well thought out, both built with developers in mind and very sensible. they shouldnt cause nearly as many headaches as the PS3 did last gen.

as for the wiiu, probably the worst thought out console nintendo designed since the N64. its fine they only wanted something roughly as powerful as a 360 but it looks like they did it in the most awkward and convoluted way possible. i mean the 3DS was initally nonsensical but after reading the iwata asks and taking a closer look at the hardware it made sense (more reliable performance, easier for smaller devs to use, lower dev costs. important elements of a handheld.). i honestly cant see why nintendo made the decisions they did with the wiiu hardware. they go on and on about power draw but its a console not a handheld. not something to get to obsessed over for a console (yes before anyone asks i pay my own electricity bill).

Please read folks the new AMD APUs have what in them ..........ddr3 all of them even the more powerful ones and not because they knew it was cheaper but a better balance with the cpu I said it before having gddr5 as system ram it was going to struggle I really think killzone used much of the resources they could use in the ps4 they used all of the memory 4.5gb and they used all 6 cores that's tapping it out.

u really have zero clue what ur talking about dont u....