The ultimate PS3 RAM debunk!!!!

um XDR isnt much faster then GDDR3, 22.4GB/s vs 25.6GB/s. Also the PS3 OS takes up 96MB of memory, vs 32 of the 360. So again COWS FAIL.dracolich666

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

He hasnt really done anything worth praising in the past +10 years.

Then how come my PS3 loads webpages as medium speed (not slow) and my computer which has 2 GB of Ram loads webpages lighting fast?

Then how come my PS3 loads webpages as medium speed (not slow) and my computer which has 2 GB of Ram loads webpages lighting fast?

wallpaper42

The gigaram of the PS3 is distinctly better at monocrunching databits when it's at full DR, however it's also susceptible to reduction when its ddr-flume is bunged with bloated polygons. The 360 architecture however allows sound and visual particles to accelerate and even overtake the mainframe, thus theoretically inflating visual appearance to the point of inversion.

And that's a fact

The gigaram of the PS3 is distinctly better at monocrunching databits when it's at full DR, however it's also susceptible to reduction when its ddr-flume is bunged with bloated polygons. The 360 architecture however allows sound and visual particles to accelerate and even overtake the mainframe, thus theoretically inflating visual appearance to the point of inversion.

And that's a fact

poptart

Multi cores have NOTHING to do with amount of ram available. The 360 OS uses less ram the that of the PS3, thus more ram is available at any given time. You just need to move on and accept that. I guess you could probably deny it with some pseudointellectual nonsense, but you'd just look foolish. farrell2k

[QUOTE="farrell2k"]

Multi cores have NOTHING to do with amount of ram available. The 360 OS uses less ram the that of the PS3, thus more ram is available at any given time. You just need to move on and accept that. I guess you could probably deny it with some pseudointellectual nonsense, but you'd just look foolish. ChiChiMonKilla

A big factor in RAM is how much of it you have, you ever see PC game boxes with a requirement for RAM besides how much?

[QUOTE="ChiChiMonKilla"][QUOTE="farrell2k"]

Multi cores have NOTHING to do with amount of ram available. The 360 OS uses less ram the that of the PS3, thus more ram is available at any given time. You just need to move on and accept that. I guess you could probably deny it with some pseudointellectual nonsense, but you'd just look foolish. farrell2k

I have no clue what I am talking about? Kind of like this:

If you have to go into the cells memory then of course the performance will take a hit. However now that the ps3's os only takes up 50mb and devs are getting used to the system that should not be a problem. Also remember carmack is a pc dev who is used to working with a unified memory pool like most devs and he also likes a single fast cpu over a multi core cpu.

ChiChiMonKilla

Dude, just stop. I can clearly see now that you have no idea what you're talking about. The only devs writing code for uma are probably only the guys working on viva pinata and other low resource, casual games :) PC devs mainly work with 2 seperate memory arrays - one for system ram, and one for video ram. Of corse this is why 99% of PC games system requirement's labels usually read something like "xxx series card with 16, 32, 64mb etc video ram available." LOL. You're too funny, dude.

I can just imagine Carmack and ID working on doom 4 in a PC uma environment with onboard video lol.

If those guys at anantech are as smart as you say, you need to spend way more time there..

Why don't you give each other a hug?

Why don't you give each other a hug?

poptart

Here is a simple explanation of numa vs uma I left out alot of details so don't flame me this is only for farrell2k.The PS3 Memory is built around the NUMA architecture.

NUMA -Non Unified Memory Architecture. (for instance, the 360 uses the UMA, or Unified Memory Architecture).

256 XDR2 RAM for the rsx and xdr for the cell (developed by Rambus, also called "Yellowstone". Now let me explain, XDR RAM stands for Xtreme Data Rate, and is the currently the fastest RAM availible on the market.

This serves as the System RAM for the Cell processor and rsx. Cell needed ultra fast and low latency RAM to keep up with it, which is why Sony (in part) opted for NUMA. NUMA provides speed, and you can have 2 differant RAM sets.

With UMA you can only have one Pool of the same type of RAM (as far as I know).

With NUMA the benefits are: 2 Pools of differant kinds of RAM, and lots of bandwidth (Speed).
Downfall: You can't "Allot" RAM to CPU or GPU, its pre set. However, RSX has a very good connection to XDR2, so it can reach out and use it if it wishes. (there are some penalties if you store shader intensive textures though, its best to use your light textures in XDR and heavy shader textures in xdr2)

Benefits of UMA: You can allot as much RAM as you want to either CPU or GPU.
Downfall: Slow, very slow. 360 has half the bandwidth of the PS3.. In order to operate under UMA, you must have edram (360 has 10MB of edram to alleviate some of these issues). You can only have one pool of memory: for the 360 thats GDDR3... GDDR3 is very good for GPU's, not so much for CPUs... so Xenon gets the shaft on this one.

For more details read my earlier poston xdr/2 with micro threading vs ddr3 on data calls. I am sleepy sorry for any mistakes I am playing forza 2 and doing this might have made me sloppy butI am too tired to care now.

Carmack is smarter than anybody in the game business with the exception of maybe Tim Sweeney

Gabe Newell is pretty smart and he thinks the PS3 is a piece of turtle poo

Then how come my PS3 loads webpages as medium speed (not slow) and my computer which has 2 GB of Ram loads webpages lighting fast?

wallpaper42

Cause Microsoft didn't make it

Carmack is smarter than anybody in the game business with the exception of maybe Tim Sweeney

Gabe Newell is pretty smart and he thinks the PS3 is a piece of turtle poo

No_Talent_Dev

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

Sony's word? LMAO!! You blew it with that line alone. No one care what Sony thinks. There have been at least a dozen or more games delayed for the PS3 due to it being so complicated to program for it. The Cell processor is giving developers fits. I expect more PS3 games to get pushed back to 2008 because of it too. They may finally figure it out, but by the time they do, most people won't care. The PS3 is a architectural nightmare. If may not break, but it a nightmare to program on.

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!!! ;)

snorlaxmaster

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!!! ;)

snorlaxmaster

Hmm, your opinion versus John Carmack . . . I pick John Carmack

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Why don't you give each other a hug?

ChiChiMonKilla

Here is a simple explanation of numa vs uma I left out alot of details so don't flame me this is only for farrell2k.The PS3 Memory is built around the NUMA architecture.

NUMA -Non Unified Memory Architecture. (for instance, the 360 uses the UMA, or Unified Memory Architecture).

256 XDR2 RAM for the rsx and xdr for the cell (developed by Rambus, also called "Yellowstone". Now let me explain, XDR RAM stands for Xtreme Data Rate, and is the currently the fastest RAM availible on the market.

This serves as the System RAM for the Cell processor and rsx. Cell needed ultra fast and low latency RAM to keep up with it, which is why Sony (in part) opted for NUMA. NUMA provides speed, and you can have 2 differant RAM sets.

With UMA you can only have one Pool of the same type of RAM (as far as I know).

With NUMA the benefits are: 2 Pools of differant kinds of RAM, and lots of bandwidth (Speed).
Downfall: You can't "Allot" RAM to CPU or GPU, its pre set. However, RSX has a very good connection to XDR2, so it can reach out and use it if it wishes. (there are some penalties if you store shader intensive textures though, its best to use your light textures in XDR and heavy shader textures in xdr2)

Benefits of UMA: You can allot as much RAM as you want to either CPU or GPU.
Downfall: Slow, very slow. 360 has half the bandwidth of the PS3.. In order to operate under UMA, you must have edram (360 has 10MB of edram to alleviate some of these issues). You can only have one pool of memory: for the 360 thats GDDR3... GDDR3 is very good for GPU's, not so much for CPUs... so Xenon gets the shaft on this one.

For more details read my earlier poston xdr/2 with micro threading vs ddr3 on data calls. I am sleepy sorry for any mistakes I am playing forza 2 and doing this might have made me sloppy butI am too tired to care now.

No offense, but where do you get that the 360 has "half" the bandwidth, and you do know depsite XDR's fast data rate, it's latency is rather bad. UMA can have whatever type of ram is wishes, but at the expense of flexability, it becomes expensive...

Xenon still has plenty of bandwidth around it (the dual 11GB upstream/downstream for GPU hookup, Cell has something similar with FlexIO however) (The L2 and front side sit on 256bit buses, 21GB FSB) And because of the EDRAM which knocks out the traditionally bandwidth hoggers (Alpha blending, the frame buffer, etc) most of the systems actual 22+ GB's is alloted to whatever the system needs.

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

I stopped reading right there, because it was immediately apparent to me that the TC had no idea what he was talking about.

Carmack is smarter than anybody in the game business with the exception of maybe Tim Sweeney

Gabe Newell is pretty smart and he thinks the PS3 is a piece of turtle poo

No_Talent_Dev

Are you kidding me? If Newell is asked about it he'll say its **** no matter what it is. Also Naughty Dog seems darn impressed with the PS3 and I frankly don't care if they are Sony owned, they aren't liars and they are some of the best (if not THE BEST) when it comes to multi-threaded code.

Carmack has been making some good engines but as far as the games themselves that he makes they are displaying diminishing returns. BTW, I would love to know how you calculate intelligence without a widespread test of some sort.

Cause Microsoft didn't make it

No_Talent_Dev

Given a clean install of Firefox 2.0.0.6 and a clean install of IE7, guess which one loads pages more quickly on a given system? If you said IE7 you are BUZZ, incorrect. Opera loads pages even faster than either of them to boot. :|

But whatever, its pretty clear you are a fakeboy so I'm going to just quit responding to you now.

I have some comments:


1) Speed is inversely proportional to complexity; and 360 RAM setup is less complex than PS3

2) PS3 has 2 different types of RAMs with different speeds: How can someone use them seamlessly? Will there
be no timing issues because of different speed?

3) 360 on the other hand has 512MB and devs can use/partition them adaptively.
Wasn't it or something similar, the reason for Intel Core 2 duo (referring to processor memory) being faster?

I have some comments:


1) Speed is inversely proportional to complexity; and 360 RAM setup is less complex than PS3

2) PS3 has 2 different types of RAMs with different speeds: How can someone use them seamlessly? Will there
be no timing issues because of different speed?

3) 360 on the other hand has 512MB and devs can use/partition them adaptively.
Wasn't it or something similar, the reason for Intel Core 2 duo being faster?

dk_2007

Speed isn't necessarily inversely proportional to complexity. While this is the case when speaking of linear systems, compartemental systems often benefit from increased complexity. This is why we are moving to multicore systems, have moved from graphics cards to full fledged GPUs, have accelerated graphics cards and Physics Processing Units, etc.

When the different parts of a system can be properly compartementalized, increased complexity is often beneficial. However, if the complexity occurs in a single part or linear stream of parts, then you are correct in the complexity resulting in decreased performance. This is why RISC processors such as the PPEs are so fast at what they're designed to do. They have fewer circuits resulting in less flexibility but greater performance in a single kind of task.

For one your info is wrong. XDR isnot 12x more powerful than GDDR3. It actually is only a 32-bit (standard 16-bit)memory that just runs at a faster Mhz rate . GDDR3 in PS3/360 is 128bit wide. Bandwidth wise it is almost equal with GDDR3. The XDR in PS3 is 24GBs compared to the GDDR3 of 22.4 GBs. Plus the split architecture is not better. In PCs it is usually not a good thing for shared because the fastest ram is 64-bit DDR3 ATM where GDDR4 memory in videocards is becoming availble and is much faster.rexoverbey

The bandwidth number for the XDR is actually 25.6 GB/s.

Additionally, according to Wikipedia and Toshiba (the XDR manufacturers) it's actually much lower latency than GDDR3.

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.

mikasa

"Sharing main memory with the display function reduces the amount of memory available to applications, and main memory is not as fast as the specialized video memory on stand-alone cards (see video RAM)."

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=shared+video+memory&i=51248,00.asp

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

[QUOTE="mikasa"]

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.

Redfingers

"Sharing main memory with the display function reduces the amount of memory available to applications, and main memory is not as fast as the specialized video memory on stand-alone cards (see video RAM)."

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=shared+video+memory&i=51248,00.asp

1) It doesn't reduce the the amount of memory available to applications if the amount of total memory is the same whether it's combined or split. It just means the amounts allocated to the system and display functions can be resized as needed.

2) This comment is based of PC architecture where slower DDR RAM or even SDRAM is used in place of the faster GDR (or other similar types of Video RAM) is used for the graphics. The 360 has the faster video RAM throughout.

In other words, RAM in a collective pool does not make it weaker, only more flexible.

[QUOTE="-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:R-Dot-Yung

Regardless of what Carmack says...the PS3's RAM is capable of pulling off anything the 360 is capable of pulling off, it just takes a lot more skill

Um. Carmack did actually say that.

funny post

all the lemmings jumping on carmack's cock bandwagon

honestly i can't say i've enjoyed any ID game since q3

anyways.. to swing the pendulum the other way..

"Now, before the fanboys eat me alive, Carmack doesn't think the PS3 is useless. His hopes for the PS3 lie on the possibility of the PS3 being a more open platform than previous consoles, with developers being given more freedom to make patches and mission packs without permission or registration. The chances of Microsoft ever allowing this kind of freedom are slim to none."

oh and the fact that the ps2 was harder to develop for than the xbox says a little too

some more..

"Recently, he noted that although the PS3 has the edge in overall power, the Xbox 360 offers a simpler development platform, a sentiment he echoes in his most recent interview."

lack of ram helps contribute to the overall edge i guess

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

Sony's word? LMAO!! You blew it with that line alone. No one care what Sony thinks. There have been at least a dozen or more games delayed for the PS3 due to it being so complicated to program for it. The Cell processor is giving developers fits. I expect more PS3 games to get pushed back to 2008 because of it too. They may finally figure it out, but by the time they do, most people won't care. The PS3 is a architectural nightmare. If may not break, but it a nightmare to program on.

Splinter Cell Conviction, UT3, Haze, Too Human. Your turn.

Can someone please link me to the report on John Carmack and the ram of 360 and PS3?

Everyone seems to be saying Carmack's perspective is right, but where is his report?

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.snorlaxmaster

The XDR in the PS3 has about 110% of the bandwidth of the GDDR3 in the 360.  10% - that's a long way from 12x.

Go back to school, and don't try to argue tech again until you know something about it.

[QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

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.

mattbbpl

"Sharing main memory with the display function reduces the amount of memory available to applications, and main memory is not as fast as the specialized video memory on stand-alone cards (see video RAM)."

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=shared+video+memory&i=51248,00.asp

1) It doesn't reduce the the amount of memory available to applications if the amount of total memory is the same whether it's combined or split. It just means the amounts allocated to the system and display functions can be resized as needed.

2) This comment is based of PC architecture where slower DDR RAM or even SDRAM is used in place of the faster GDR (or other similar types of Video RAM) is used for the graphics. The 360 has the faster video RAM throughout.

In other words, RAM in a collective pool does not make it weaker, only more flexible.

1) no?

2) no.

Although it may be based on PC architecture, I fail to see how the Xbox 360's uma is any different or somehow exempts it from either comments. I'll accept the first comment, but not the second. I have read consistently across several sources that dedicated video memory is in fact faster than unified memory.

More flexible, yes, but at a cost.

At any rate it is provable that the XDR used as the main RAM in the PS3 is in fact faster than the GDDR3 used as unified memory in the Xbox 360 due to having higher bandwidth (25.6 GB/s versus 22.4 GB/s) and presumably lower latency.

"XDR DRAM or extreme data rate dynamic random access memory is a high-performance RAM interface and successor to the Rambus RDRAM it is based on, competing with the rival DDR SDRAM technology. XDR was designed to be effective in small, high-bandwidth consumer systems, high-performance memory applications, and high-end GPUs. It eliminates the unusually high latency problems that plagued early forms of RDRAM. Rambus owns the rights to the technology. XDR is used by Sony in the PlayStation 3 console."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDR_DRAM

There were many comments about latency and of course somebody brought up it being Rambus, so I hope that dispels that myth.

"Samsung has won a seat inside the Sony Playstation 3 with the first 90nm 512 Megabit XDR chips. XDR stands for Extreme Data Rate (which should really be EDR, but X looks better in an acronym), which in turn stands for hot and fast memory for multimedia applications. At transmission speeds up to 9.6GB per second, these chips will fly about 12 times faster than DDR400 memory. They're especially designed to handle maximum performance for applications requiring advanced imaging and 3D graphics. As a general rule, we approve of maximum performance. Carry on, Samsung."

http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/23/samsungs-in-the-90nm-512mb-xdr-ram-slot-of-the-ps3/

" The Samsung 256Mb XDR has an Octal Data Rate process that transfers data at eight bits per clock cycle, while cranking up the transfer speed to an industry-leading eight gigabytes per second. That speed is 10 times faster than DDR 400 memory and five times faster than RDRAM (PC800). To transfer data in a stable manner at the extremely high speeds, Samsung is using Differential Rambus(R) Signal Level (DRSL) technology."

http://www.physorg.com/news2838.html

" As a result, XDR DRAM achieves an order of magnitude higher performance than today's standard memories."

"Low-latency, Fast-cycles cores"

"System memory bandwidth is more important than ever before. The increase in processor performance, multimedia and 3D graphics, high bandwidth memory is essential to sustain system performance.
XDR DRAM provides exceptional performance with low latency for these applications"

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/products/dram/Products_XDRDRAM.html

I really hope to someday dispel the really prevalent myths that XDR is somehow higher latency and slower than GDDR3.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Redfingers"][QUOTE="mikasa"]

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.

Redfingers

"Sharing main memory with the display function reduces the amount of memory available to applications, and main memory is not as fast as the specialized video memory on stand-alone cards (see video RAM)."

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=shared+video+memory&i=51248,00.asp

1) It doesn't reduce the the amount of memory available to applications if the amount of total memory is the same whether it's combined or split. It just means the amounts allocated to the system and display functions can be resized as needed.

2) This comment is based of PC architecture where slower DDR RAM or even SDRAM is used in place of the faster GDR (or other similar types of Video RAM) is used for the graphics. The 360 has the faster video RAM throughout.

In other words, RAM in a collective pool does not make it weaker, only more flexible.

1) no?

2) no.

Although it may be based on PC architecture, I fail to see how the Xbox 360's uma is any different or somehow exempts it from either comments. I'll accept the first comment, but not the second. I have read consistently across several sources that dedicated video memory is in fact faster than unified memory.

More flexible, yes, but at a cost.

At any rate it is provable that the XDR used as the main RAM in the PS3 is in fact faster than the GDDR3 used as unified memory in the Xbox 360 due to having higher bandwidth (25.6 GB/s versus 22.4 GB/s) and presumably lower latency.

It's because dedicated video memory is usually of a faster type than general system memory. i.e. GDDR3 vs. DDR2.

In the 360's case, it's all GDDR3, which is what's used in the Geforce 7 series cards.

I'm not arguing that it's better than the PS3's memory. In fact, the PS3's memory offers slightly more bandwidth. However, your statement was misinformed and based off an entirely different system architecture (one in which a video card steals system memory which is slower to begin with and must travel through the slower and longer AGP or PCIE Bus).

Really, the way that article is written doesn't fully give my point justice. This is from Wiki:

"The disadvantage of this design is lower performance because system RAM usually runs slower than dedicated graphics RAM, and there is more contention as the memory bus has to be shared with the rest of the system. It may also cause performance issues with the rest of the system if it is not designed with the fact that some RAM will be 'taken away' by graphics in mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Memory_Architecture

That makes it very clear.

Really, the way that article is written doesn't fully give my point justice. This is from Wiki:

"The disadvantage of this design is lower performance because system RAM usually runs slower than dedicated graphics RAM, and there is more contention as the memory bus has to be shared with the rest of the system. It may also cause performance issues with the rest of the system if it is not designed with the fact that some RAM will be 'taken away' by graphics in mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Memory_Architecture

That makes it very clear.

Redfingers

Once again, you're using something that's written about the PC arcthitectures. This type of setup is used as a value solution, not a performance solution.

You'll see that the points I brought up are in your quote. See "System RAM usuall runs slower than dedicated graphics RAM". This is in direct reference to the use of something like DDR or DDR2 instead of GDDR3.

Also, my point about this viewpoint stemming from a setup where a video card can "steal" graphics away from the processor is also noted. See the line: "It may also cause performance issues with the rest of the system if it is not designed with the fact that some RAM will be 'taken away' by graphics in mind."

The only point that may stand out of that post is "there is more contention as the memory bus has to be shared with the rest of the system". This depends entirely on the way the bus architecture is set up. I'm not sure how the 360's is or how console's bus architectures have traditionallly been set up in the past when using a split memory architecture.

A "direct reference" includes a direct reference, whereas neither quotation included any kind of reference to any kind of memory.

I expect you to look up some fact sheets on Xbox 360 architecture and begin figuring out precisely how the bus architecture is set up, because I could never expect myself to be able to fully comprehend an article like this:

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/1

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=1

Until such time as you make it clear to me, I'm going to go with the general stuff.

http://www.innerbits.com/blog/2007/05/09/ps3-memory-footprint/

Proof that the Playstation 3's memory footprint is being reduced via updates and that John Carmack is either misinformed or inaccurate.

Please keep in mind that this article only references 1.60. I believe we're at firmware 1.90. Additionally, the article says that the firmware SDKs go out to developers before the actual firmware updates are issued to consumers. So if Carmack is completely in the dark about this, I don't know what to say. This guy isn't really the Christ of game development if he can't realize something I've figured out with a little net research when he's literally working directly with it.

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

from what Im seein it seems as sony has a 100 mb for the xmb got damn! that is a problem!

[QUOTE="numba1234"]

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.

xboxps2cube

from what Im seein it seems as sony has a 100 mb for the xmb got damn! that is a problem!

It's not the XMB. My link shows you the exact breakdown for a lot of the features. It's excessive, yeah, and it's stuff like friend's lists and everything like that. I don't know exactly how it works, but it's there for you to look at and digest if you would like.

A lot of the stuff that's reserving memory is stuff like PSP remote play, friend's lists, voice chat, etc. That's in-game stuff, for much of it.

[QUOTE="xboxps2cube"][QUOTE="numba1234"]

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.

Redfingers

from what Im seein it seems as sony has a 100 mb for the xmb got damn! that is a problem!

It's not the XMB. My link shows you the exact breakdown for a lot of the features. It's excessive, yeah, and it's stuff like friend's lists and everything like that. I don't know exactly how it works, but it's there for you to look at and digest if you would like.

A lot of the stuff that's reserving memory is stuff like PSP remote play, friend's lists, voice chat, etc. That's in-game stuff, for much of it.

Well I think sony can make it more efficient or make it so when in a game it uses a mini version of the full tools the xmb has to offer to let more ram go for games.

A "direct reference" includes a direct reference, whereas neither quotation included any kind of reference to any kind of memory.

I expect you to look up some fact sheets on Xbox 360 architecture and begin figuring out precisely how the bus architecture is set up, because I could never expect myself to be able to fully comprehend an article like this:

http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/1

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=1

Until such time as you make it clear to me, I'm going to go with the general stuff.

Redfingers

Ah, I like both of those sites. Thanks for getting something reputable.

As far as what they say in terms of buses, both the PS3 and 360 feature a UMA bus, meaning the graphics chip, CPU, sounds card, etc. pass information along the same bus.

This means that the unified architecture has no bearing on the bus bandwidth as the GPU and CPU share the same bus anyway.

This means that there isn't really a drawback to using a unified memory bank with this architecture, either in memory performance or bandwisth performance.

It should also be noted that the 360 saves a great deal of bandwidth congestion by incorporating the 10MB of EDRAM.