The ultimate PS3 RAM debunk!!!!

First lets start off with the basic RAM structure:

360: The 360 has 512mb unified RAM which isn't as powerful because everything is stored in one pool.

PS3: The PS3 has several pools of RAM. One RAM pool is 256mb GDDR3 which is the type of RAM that the 360 uses. The other pool is 256mb XDR RAM which is faster than GDR3, approximately 12x faster. Developers can also take RAM from both pools if they need too, making it flexable between dedicated and shared.

Next lets talk about the speed of the RAM. Most people think that the speed of RAM is useless because it doesn't process data. This is why they are wrong:

360: The 360 uses GDDR3 RAM which is standard in most computers now days. GDDR3 is faily fast RAM but not the fastest.

PS3: One of the PS3s pools has XDR RAM which is 12x faster than GDR3. The speed of the RAM does in fact matter. The faster the RAM, the faster textures and effects can be accessed and used. This means that the PS3s one pool is much better than the 360s unified.

The processor:
360: The 360s processor does not do anything to help out the RAM.

PS3: The Cell processor has the ability to run RAM functions such as effects and textures. By doing this developers can take off a great deal of load off of the RSX, giving them more room to work with.

Accessibility:
360: Due to its old and well known form of RA, the devs can use the 360 to its full limits.

PS3: The PS3s hard infastructure, although more powerful, is giving devs a hard time, but that will change when they get the feel for the tech.

There you go!!! ;)

I still don't understand why people think that ps3 has less memory. The ps3 has the same amount of ram as xbxo 360, but the os is taking up more ram. The updates are making the os take less ram.

John Carmack is a brilliant guy, but most of you are really changing up his words. He isn't saying that ps3 has lack of memory compared to xbox 360 but, has lack of memory compared to a geforce 8800 with 756 mb.

ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)Miles0T0Prower

[QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)snorlaxmaster

Carmack>Sonybeardtm

Well, at least Carmack is less biased than Sony.

Yeh... I'm going to go with Carmack (A dev without any PS3 experience) over Sony and other devs (who made the system and have had more experience with it) on this one... SpigleyMcCheese

" The processor:
360: The 360s processor does not do anything. "

:lol: you sure you didnt mean

" The goggles do not do anything. "

cause that makes alot more sense

ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)Miles0T0Prower

First lets start off with the basic RAM structure:

360: The 360 has 512mb unified RAM which isn't as powerful because everything is stored in one pool.

PS3: The PS3 has several pools of RAM. One RAM pool is 256mb GDR3 which is the type of RAM that the 360 uses. The other pool is 256mb XDR RAM which is faster than GDR3, approximately 12x faster. Developers can also take RAM from both pools if they need too, making it flexable between dedicated and shared.

^ The XDR RAM has a huge latency compared to any type of RAM, resulting in not so great performance.

Next lets talk about the speed of the RAM. Most people think that the speed of RAM is useless because it doesn't process data. This is why they are wrong:

360: The 360 uses GDR3 RAM which is standard in most computers now days. GDR3 is faily fast RAM but not the fastest.

^ No the average computer uses DDR2 Ram , what you are talking about is the GPU VRAM.

PS3: One of the PS3s pools has XDR RAM which is 12x faster than GDR3. The speed of the RAM does in fact matter. The faster the RAM, the faster textures and effects can be accessed and used. This means that the PS3s one pool is much better than the 360s unified.

Unless there are benchmarks you cannot exactly prove this, and again, theres more to it than Clock-Speed, Latency is very important.

The processor:
360: The 360s processor does not do anything.

PS3: The Cell processor has the ability to run RAM functions such as effects and textures. By doing this developers can take off a great deal of load off of the RSX, giving them more room to work with.

Accessibility:
360: Due to its old and well known form of RA, the devs can use the 360 to its full limits.

PS3: The PS3s hard infastructure, although more powerful, is giving devs a hard time, but that will change when they get the feel for the tech.

There you go!!! ;)

snorlaxmaster

[QUOTE="SpigleyMcCheese"]Yeh... I'm going to go with Carmack (A dev without any PS3 experience) over Sony and other devs (who made the system and have had more experience with it) on this one... snorlaxmaster

Official Press Release,

Sony: Yes are ram does suck compared to the 360ies

1 day later:

Sony's PS3 salesa drop by 75%

Face it if sony actuly told the truth about the streangth of their system no one would buy it.

[QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)ChiChiMonKilla

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"][QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)-wii60-

lol cows with damage control mode again..Its so sad to see the cows trying to prove John Carmack wrong.. It seems that all cows are game developers and they know more than John Carmack.. :roll:-wii60-

Carmack>Sonybeardtm

Sony knows the PS3 better than Carmack. Your statement = useless fanboy talk.

[QUOTE="-wii60-"][QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"][QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)snorlaxmaster

I still don't understand why people think that ps3 has less memory. The ps3 has the same amount of ram as xbxo 360, but the os is taking up more ram. The updates are making the os take less ram.

John Carmack is a brilliant guy, but most of you are really changing up his words. He isn't saying that ps3 has lack of memory compared to xbox 360 but, has lack of memory compared to a geforce 8800 with 756 mb.

numba1234

ah, thanks for clearing it up

We all know how notorious sony is for telling the truth...

[QUOTE="SpigleyMcCheese"]Yeh... I'm going to go with Carmack (A dev without any PS3 experience) over Sony and other devs (who made the system and have had more experience with it) on this one... snorlaxmaster

carmack is a complete dork.

he>you.

bandwidth hardly, speed maybe on the one side...but both they aren't = in parts as RSX grabbing from Cell's Pool is at a MUCH greater disadvantage, it's read speed is AWFUL.

Carmack is not the only developer that has stated 360 more efficent memory design...

I still don't understand why people think that ps3 has less memory. The ps3 has the same amount of ram as xbxo 360, but the os is taking up more ram. The updates are making the os take less ram.

John Carmack is a brilliant guy, but most of you are really changing up his words. He isn't saying that ps3 has lack of memory compared to xbox 360 but, has lack of memory compared to a geforce 8800 with 756 mb.

numba1234

Then why did he not simply say both xbox 360 AND ps3 lack memory compared to a geforce 8800?

bandwidth hardly, speed maybe on the one side...but both they aren't = in parts as RSX grabbing from Cell's Pool is at a MUCH greater disadvantage, it's read speed is AWFUL.

Carmack is not the only developer that has stated 360 more efficent memory design...

Innovazero2000

You can see the huge jump in graphics in 2nd gen games at the 2007 e3 I dare say they looked better than all 360 games besides gears and cod4 imo.

[QUOTE="Innovazero2000"]

bandwidth hardly, speed maybe on the one side...but both they aren't = in parts as RSX grabbing from Cell's Pool is at a MUCH greater disadvantage, it's read speed is AWFUL.

Carmack is not the only developer that has stated 360 more efficent memory design...

ChiChiMonKilla

You can see the huge jump in graphics in 2nd gen games at the 2007 e3 I dare say they looked better than all 360 games besides gears and cod4 imo.

Could you provide a link to the 50 MB OS claim? I heard it was brought down to 84 MB, but haven't seen any further updates on the matter.

ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)Miles0T0Prower

everyone knows Carmack's and MS' love story... that's as old as the first doom.

he never tried that hard to put anything on sony's platforms.

WTF? 360 is weak because all memory is in a single pool. This tells me you don't have a clue to what you're saying.

So I suppose the PS3 is more powerful because the Memory is in 2 pools making it harder for the memory to be accessed if you need more than 256. And if 2 pools is better why didn't they make 10 pools?

Your post is WAY WAY off.

[QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)snorlaxmaster

I believe John Carmack because he is one of the devs who is designing his game for all platforms.

bandwidth hardly, speed maybe on the one side...but both they aren't = in parts as RSX grabbing from Cell's Pool is at a MUCH greater disadvantage, it's read speed is AWFUL.

Carmack is not the only developer that has stated 360 more efficent memory design...

Innovazero2000

RSX doesn't need to read Cell's pool at great speeds. i'll tell you why:

devs can use the Cell to render gfx, and by doing so, it'll use it's own memory pool to access whatever the tasks it'll process for the gfx card.

[QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)SambaLele

everyone knows Carmack's and MS' love story... that's as old as the first doom.

he never tried that hard to put anything on sony's platforms.

From the same interview, Carmack also stated:

"That's sort of the Microsoft way. They start off with a piece of crap, and then over a number of versions taking a lot of people with them over the painful route they eventually get to something that's better than what they are competing against."

and

"The PS3 still does have in theory more power that could be extracted"

It doesn't sound like he's a MS lackey to me. Plus, he is developing on both MS and Sony platforms. He has no reason to glorify one over the other.

Sony knows the PS3 better than Carmack. Your statement = useless fanboy talk.

_AsasN_

Hope you're kiding. Sony wont admit that the RAM in PS3 is worse than 360, even if it's true. Sony knows Carmack statement is true, but wont reveal it for marketing purpose.

[QUOTE="snorlaxmaster"][QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)Supafly1

I believe John Carmack because he is one of the devs who is designing his game for all platforms.

there were other devs making games to more than one platform that doesn't agree with him...

also, when did john carmack become the god of development? he's a great dev, contributed a lot to the industry, especially in the past. but that's not the case anymore. now he's just a great dev... i trust him the same much i trust all the other devs saying that ps3 has that problem, and also the same much as i trust all other devs that say it doesn't. some says the ps3 is stronger overall, some say it isn't. all are great devs, but a lot is saying it for interest. i'll keep it to the games... right now, when i play motorstorm i see that the PS3 has no problem rendering great textures, with a lot of cars on the track and a beatiful scenario to play on. and that's a game released in less than 6 months in PS3's life... i know that there'll be a lot of even greater (graphically at least) games. like the 360 will... i don't see why argue this much these things. let's wait and see the games. the victorious system is acknowledged around the end of the generation, not in the beginning or in the middle of it.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="Miles0T0Prower"]ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)mattbbpl

everyone knows Carmack's and MS' love story... that's as old as the first doom.

he never tried that hard to put anything on sony's platforms.

From the same interview, Carmack also stated:

"That's sort of the Microsoft way. They start off with a piece of crap, and then over a number of versions taking a lot of people with them over the painful route they eventually get to something that's better than what they are competing against."

and

"The PS3 still does have in theory more power that could be extracted"

It doesn't sound like he's a MS lackey to me. Plus, he is developing on both MS and Sony platforms. He has no reason to glorify one over the other.

the last line you adressed is hardly a positive comment towards the PS3... he speaks like that power will never be touched...

while he complains, there are devs scratching that power, like GG, like SquareEnix, and a lot of sony's first party dev companies. and yes, but judging he's past developments on sony's platforms, it's not hard to say he doesn't like sony's platforms that much. can you list me some ps and ps2 titles from him? as far as i know there's only quake III revolution for the PS2 and Final Doom for the ps...

ok its john carmack's(great dev thats been here for years) word against yours (no offense)Miles0T0Prower

Carmack was saying that in the context of working with his new engine. His new engine is suppose to work using the same code, for all systems (except wii). While the PC, 360, and even Mac have similar architecture. The PS3 is entirely different. Carmack needs to find a way to get it work with the ps3 architecture while still work on the other systems using the same freaking code! That's why he was complaining. For a dev who can focus on the ps3's hardware and make a game specifically designed around it, they have no where near the problems and memory complaints that Carmack would have... He wasn't saying the ps3 isn't capable of what the 360 is easily capable of. He's just saying something we all knew, the ps3's architecture is hard to work with when you're porting...

You forgot to mention that the XDR is for the Cell, which makes no sense becuase the extra speed would totally make up for the lack of ram dedicated for the GPU. Sony loved the Cell to much. Sure the speed of the ram helps the Cell, but when the PS3 is bottlenecked graphically because of it, they should have rethought where they put the ram.

You forgot to mention that the XDR is for the Cell, which makes no sense becuase the extra speed would totally make up for the lack of ram dedicated for the GPU. Sony loved the Cell to much. Sure the speed of the ram helps the Cell, but when the PS3 is bottlenecked graphically because of it, they should have rethought where they put the ram.

Wasdie

I'm going to trust sony and IBM's design over what you think :|

Carmack clearly said that PS3 is technically more powerful, but it is harder to use that power, which is 100% correct. PS3OwnsYou

indeed. the questions for the PS3 are how long will it take to really tap, and how much will have been tapped by the time the PS4 rolls around. I suspect the PS3 will never reach its potential.