To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!
To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!
To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!Miko2097
Well no one thinks about the added up cost over time. Even if the difference between 2 or 4 GB is something like $30 (entirely plausible, especially with having a motherboard able to handle more RAM chips if needed), over the life time of the console that could be something on the terms of $30 x 30 million consoles. That's $900 Million in manufacturing costs RIGHT there. There is a reason why adding another 256 MB to the Xbox 360 from the original 256 MB total cost MS upwards of $1,000,000,000. You need to redesign the motherboard (which makes it more substantial) to take more RAM, and either add more RAM chips, or use higher density RAM.
You have to factor in that the PS4 and Xbox720 will be launching in 2014 at the earliest. If they continue the trend of 10 year lifespans then they will be around until the year 2024. Taking this into consideration, 4 GB of Ram is way too small. 4 GB of RAM would be great if the 720 and PS4 launched late this year or late last year even. In 2014, a bare minimum of 8 GB of RAM will be required. 12 GB should be considered.
As far as the Wii, for the type of system they are shooting for I think 2 GB of RAM will be just fine. They could even get away with 1 GB. If the rumors are true of a 512 MB RAM Wii2 then they are in big trouble. Of course they could always launch a Wii3 in 2016 to fix things.
To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!Miko2097
Check the link below. That is a 2 GB stick of Laptop DDR3 1333 RAM for $21.99 retail. That is the normal price, not a big special.
You have to factor in that the PS4 and Xbox720 will be launching in 2014 at the earliest. If they continue the trend of 10 year lifespans then they will be around until the year 2024. Taking this into consideration, 4 GB of Ram is way too small. 4 GB of RAM would be great if the 720 and PS4 launched late this year or late last year even. In 2014, a bare minimum of 8 GB of RAM will be required. 12 GB should be considered.
As far as the Wii, for the type of system they are shooting for I think 2 GB of RAM will be just fine. They could even get away with 1 GB. If the rumors are true of a 512 MB RAM Wii2 then they are in big trouble. Of course they could always launch a Wii3 in 2016 to fix things.
alexfla
crysis only uses like 1.2 gbs and no one has topped that since 2007, i think 4gbs is plenty for a console, 6gb is the most reasonable for long term
You have to factor in that the PS4 and Xbox720 will be launching in 2014 at the earliest. If they continue the trend of 10 year lifespans then they will be around until the year 2024. Taking this into consideration, 4 GB of Ram is way too small. 4 GB of RAM would be great if the 720 and PS4 launched late this year or late last year even. In 2014, a bare minimum of 8 GB of RAM will be required. 12 GB should be considered.
As far as the Wii, for the type of system they are shooting for I think 2 GB of RAM will be just fine. They could even get away with 1 GB. If the rumors are true of a 512 MB RAM Wii2 then they are in big trouble. Of course they could always launch a Wii3 in 2016 to fix things.
savagetwinkie
crysis only uses like 1.2 gbs and no one has topped that since 2007, i think 4gbs is plenty for a console, 6gb is the most reasonable for long term
Crysis will look like a dinosaur in 2024. Most of us will be middle aged by then and some of us seniors. 6 GB is nothing when you put it into perspective like that.
[QUOTE="Miko2097"]To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!alexfla
Check the link below. That is a 2 GB stick of Laptop DDR3 1333 RAM for $21.99 retail. That is the normal price, not a big special.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820144371 DDR3 is extremely common at the moment (cheaper than DDR2). We don't even know if Ninty will use DDR3, as not a single console right now uses a PC standard of RAM, unless you count GDDR3, but it was a graphics specific standard and DDR3 wasn't available yet. And yes, there are differences between GDDR3 and DDR3.
Truth be told, Wii 2 will have the same graphical power as Wii does, Nintendo knows very well that this is formula for success. Since Wii sold triple the amount of Gamecube with little to no hardware improvement, I predict the Wii 2 to once again outsell the Wii by at least three times of what 80 millions unit the Wii has sold with no major hardware improvement.
More ram =/= better graphics and such. Consoles don't need that much ram considering they aren't running tons of apps at the same time and a huge OSMonsieurX
More RAM does mean better graphics and such. Think about the N64 and it's memory expansion. If they added more RAM to any current consoles they would benefit from it. They could have more detail or a higher res. Your second sentence is true though.
i would be very dissapointed if it was only 512MB (and very frustrated if its less). i would like to see 1GB unified but 768MB would also be ok....it would make getting 720P consistently that much easier. however i would really like to see 1GB. thats assuming ninty are only going for something a bit more powerful than the PS3 and 360 of course. if there going for something significantly more powerful then of course more ram would be nice. i wonder what they will use though. the latest GDDR? maybe some weird ram we dont usually hear of thats really fast and/or has a low latency. im guessing that itll be the latest GDDR. rumour has it the CPU is similar to the 360 so maybe they will just upgrade the memory controller for GDDR5 or whatever they can get their hands on. but ninty always seem to dig up ram types we dont usually hear of. so who knows.
[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]More ram =/= better graphics and such. Consoles don't need that much ram considering they aren't running tons of apps at the same time and a huge OSnameless12345
More RAM does mean better graphics and such. Think about the N64 and it's memory expansion. If they added more RAM to any current consoles they would benefit from it. They could have more detail or a higher res. Your second sentence is true though.
well within reason. more ram can improve graphics as long as the rest of the hardware can deal with the higher levels of detail, draw distances and such like. eg putting 2GB onto something like the wiis GPU would be completly pointless...it wouldnt be able to deal with all that data. but putting 256MB into something like an 8800GTX would also be a disaster and really limiting. its all about trying to get the right balance...just the right amount of ram to allow the rest of the hardware sing. too much is a pointess expense and too little leads to hell.
[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]More ram =/= better graphics and such. Consoles don't need that much ram considering they aren't running tons of apps at the same time and a huge OSosan0
More RAM does mean better graphics and such. Think about the N64 and it's memory expansion. If they added more RAM to any current consoles they would benefit from it. They could have more detail or a higher res. Your second sentence is true though.
well within reason. more ram can improve graphics as long as the rest of the hardware can deal with the higher levels of detail, draw distances and such like. eg putting 2GB onto something like the wiis GPU would be completly pointless...it wouldnt be able to deal with all that data. but putting 256MB into something like an 8800GTX would also be a disaster and really limiting. its all about trying to get the right balance...just the right amount of ram to allow the rest of the hardware sing. too much is a pointess expense and too little leads to hell.
True, however there are graphics mods on the PC that eat up 1 gig of VRAM and more and the difference is quite apparent.
The N64 memory expansion did make a difference especially in games that required it.
[QUOTE="Miko2097"]To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!PC_Otter
Well no one thinks about the added up cost over time. Even if the difference between 2 or 4 GB is something like $30 (entirely plausible, especially with having a motherboard able to handle more RAM chips if needed), over the life time of the console that could be something on the terms of $30 x 30 million consoles. That's $900 Million in manufacturing costs RIGHT there. There is a reason why adding another 256 MB to the Xbox 360 from the original 256 MB total cost MS upwards of $1,000,000,000. You need to redesign the motherboard (which makes it more substantial) to take more RAM, and either add more RAM chips, or use higher density RAM. Yes but Microsoft made a sensible decision in choosing 512MB over 256MB. Epic showed them a tech demo that persuaded them that the graphics would be much better with 512MB.
More RAM does mean better graphics and such. Think about the N64 and it's memory expansion. If they added more RAM to any current consoles they would benefit from it. They could have more detail or a higher res. Your second sentence is true though.
nameless12345
well within reason. more ram can improve graphics as long as the rest of the hardware can deal with the higher levels of detail, draw distances and such like. eg putting 2GB onto something like the wiis GPU would be completly pointless...it wouldnt be able to deal with all that data. but putting 256MB into something like an 8800GTX would also be a disaster and really limiting. its all about trying to get the right balance...just the right amount of ram to allow the rest of the hardware sing. too much is a pointess expense and too little leads to hell.
True, however there are graphics mods on the PC that eat up 1 gig of VRAM and more and the difference is quite apparent.
The N64 memory expansion did make a difference especially in games that required it.
yup thats true on the mods (loving the morrowind overhaul at the mo :D)...but again they also put more demands on the chip also. so we have the processors to put the ram to good use. ive only played N64 games on the GC but the difference in textures between OOT (which didnt use it) and MM (which did as far as i know) is indeed quite apparent. ninty skimped too much on the ram with the N64.
More RAM does mean better graphics and such. Think about the N64 and it's memory expansion. If they added more RAM to any current consoles they would benefit from it. They could have more detail or a higher res. Your second sentence is true though.
nameless12345
well within reason. more ram can improve graphics as long as the rest of the hardware can deal with the higher levels of detail, draw distances and such like. eg putting 2GB onto something like the wiis GPU would be completly pointless...it wouldnt be able to deal with all that data. but putting 256MB into something like an 8800GTX would also be a disaster and really limiting. its all about trying to get the right balance...just the right amount of ram to allow the rest of the hardware sing. too much is a pointess expense and too little leads to hell.
True, however there are graphics mods on the PC that eat up 1 gig of VRAM and more and the difference is quite apparent.
The N64 memory expansion did make a difference especially in games that required it.
if 1080p will be standard on the Wii 2 then it will need all the RAM it can get. the system will be pushing twice the pixels of 720p and you're not even talking about the higher res textures required at 1080p. you can get away with low res easier in 720p but not in 1080p.
Anything less than 2GB of RAM would dumb, because RAM is so so so cheap.
This^^^ I just bought a 2GB RAM module for my netbook for like £20. that's dirt cheap. If Nintendo bought it in bulk they'd get it for much less. 2GB should be the minimum for Wii 2. You guys realize that the RAM in consoles is generally GDDR3 or some equivalent, not standard DDR3, right?
[QUOTE="osan0"] well within reason. more ram can improve graphics as long as the rest of the hardware can deal with the higher levels of detail, draw distances and such like. eg putting 2GB onto something like the wiis GPU would be completly pointless...it wouldnt be able to deal with all that data. but putting 256MB into something like an 8800GTX would also be a disaster and really limiting. its all about trying to get the right balance...just the right amount of ram to allow the rest of the hardware sing. too much is a pointess expense and too little leads to hell.CwlHeddwyn
True, however there are graphics mods on the PC that eat up 1 gig of VRAM and more and the difference is quite apparent.
The N64 memory expansion did make a difference especially in games that required it.
if 1080p will be standard on the Wii 2 then it will need all the RAM it can get. the system will be pushing twice the pixels of 720p and you're not even talking about the higher res textures required at 1080p. you can get away with low res easier in 720p but not in 1080p.
Hearing as how suposedly the new Wii chip will be comparable in power to the AMD R700 series chips and capable of DX11 effects, it would be almost strange if they used only 512 megs of RAM. Even low-end graphics cards have 1 gb these days.
It better be able to play dvds at the least.. I still found it hilarious that the Wii couldn't play any dvd's yet the PS2 and Xbox, consoles from last gen, could.
RAM is really cheap now, 4 gigs for $40 and sometimes less. Also devs say that the lack of ram is the biggest bottleneck in the PS360 so hopefully Nintendo is listening and will address this:)
There's really no excuse to skimp on ram from this point on.
If the Project Cafe rumors are true, then I would only expect 1gb of RAM. I'm hoping 1.5gb though, and if they put in 2gb I would be ecstatic.
CwlHeddwyn
given how cheap 2GB is Nintendo would be stupid to go for less.
Yeah, but it sounds like this system is meant to compete more with the 360 and PS3 and therefore wouldn't use the extra memory. And also, it is Nintendo, so bare minimum is to be expected.
[QUOTE="Miko2097"]To those who argue memory is cheap and that Wii 2 should have at least 2-4gb of ram is just mad. Why do you think laptops usually have lower spec than their bigger desktop brothers and cost significantly more? Consoles are compact and therefore must run cooler. You cannot simply throw in full size PC components. No comparison!CwlHeddwyn
Well no one thinks about the added up cost over time. Even if the difference between 2 or 4 GB is something like $30 (entirely plausible, especially with having a motherboard able to handle more RAM chips if needed), over the life time of the console that could be something on the terms of $30 x 30 million consoles. That's $900 Million in manufacturing costs RIGHT there. There is a reason why adding another 256 MB to the Xbox 360 from the original 256 MB total cost MS upwards of $1,000,000,000. You need to redesign the motherboard (which makes it more substantial) to take more RAM, and either add more RAM chips, or use higher density RAM. Yes but Microsoft made a sensible decision in choosing 512MB over 256MB. Epic showed them a tech demo that persuaded them that the graphics would be much better with 512MB. The cost was a gamble, but it payed off, and the hardware's graphical potential went much higher because of it. Interestingly, I wonder how either the 360 or PS3 would've faired with 256 MB of RAM total like both were originally designed for. Sure texture resolutions would've been much lower (among other things), as well as general game graphics quality, but I think we would've seen more 60 FPS games since the amount of memory available probably wouldn't have the capacity to hold enough data to bottleneck the GPU too much went it came to fillrates. The flip side of this could've been much more streaming and smaller levels in games. Andyes, Epic, among others were able to convince MS to move the memory size up.
Assuming the R700 series GPU rumors are true, the specific GPU used would be the determining factor of what amount of memory to have. R740 (Radeon 4770) would be good with 2 GB, be it split into seperate system and video memory pools or unified, which would be much cheaper, but not as fast of course. With a split system, 2 GB System RAM, and 1 GB VRAM would be best I think. R730 (Radeon 4650/4670) would be fine on 1 GB, but 1.5 to 2 GB would be best.
I'm still trying to figure out whether the 512mb of RAM we've all heard about is the actual total of ram in the sytem or if it's saddled up next to the gpu, in which case, this thing would absolutely trounce the 360 and ps3 in the graphical fidelity. I'm not an expert on this stuff, but i know enough to realize that 512mb of total system RAM would be a bottleneck for an r700 gpu...probably. It;s funny though, because IGN, which is our most reliable source for wii 2 (cafe) news of any kind whether we like it our not, makes no mention of a RAM quantity in their specs article. Interesting...kind of a wierd thing to skip over if you ask me. Maybe the RAM amount hasnt been decided yet?? hmmmm.I'm betting aroun 2gb. If nintendo wants dev's to be happy, and they should this time around, then they know not to limit the power of the gpu by bottlenecking it with a small quantity of RAM, and dev's have been complaining about that with the HDtwins for a while. They'll do it right this time around tho, i have no doubt.
[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"][QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Well no one thinks about the added up cost over time. Even if the difference between 2 or 4 GB is something like $30 (entirely plausible, especially with having a motherboard able to handle more RAM chips if needed), over the life time of the console that could be something on the terms of $30 x 30 million consoles. That's $900 Million in manufacturing costs RIGHT there. There is a reason why adding another 256 MB to the Xbox 360 from the original 256 MB total cost MS upwards of $1,000,000,000. You need to redesign the motherboard (which makes it more substantial) to take more RAM, and either add more RAM chips, or use higher density RAM.
PC_Otter
Yes but Microsoft made a sensible decision in choosing 512MB over 256MB. Epic showed them a tech demo that persuaded them that the graphics would be much better with 512MB. The cost was a gamble, but it payed off, and the hardware's graphical potential went much higher because of it. Interestingly, I wonder how either the 360 or PS3 would've faired with 256 MB of RAM total like both were originally designed for. Sure texture resolutions would've been much lower (among other things), as well as general game graphics quality, but I think we would've seen more 60 FPS games since the amount of memory available probably wouldn't have the capacity to hold enough data to bottleneck the GPU too much went it came to fillrates. The flip side of this could've been much more streaming and smaller levels in games. Andyes, Epic, among others were able to convince MS to move the memory size up.
Assuming the R700 series GPU rumors are true, the specific GPU used would be the determining factor of what amount of memory to have. R740 (Radeon 4770) would be good with 2 GB, be it split into seperate system and video memory pools or unified, which would be much cheaper, but not as fast of course. With a split system, 2 GB System RAM, and 1 GB VRAM would be best I think. R730 (Radeon 4650/4670) would be fine on 1 GB, but 1.5 to 2 GB would be best.
[QUOTE="CwlHeddwyn"] Yes but Microsoft made a sensible decision in choosing 512MB over 256MB. Epic showed them a tech demo that persuaded them that the graphics would be much better with 512MB.revofanboy2005
The cost was a gamble, but it payed off, and the hardware's graphical potential went much higher because of it. Interestingly, I wonder how either the 360 or PS3 would've faired with 256 MB of RAM total like both were originally designed for. Sure texture resolutions would've been much lower (among other things), as well as general game graphics quality, but I think we would've seen more 60 FPS games since the amount of memory available probably wouldn't have the capacity to hold enough data to bottleneck the GPU too much went it came to fillrates. The flip side of this could've been much more streaming and smaller levels in games. Andyes, Epic, among others were able to convince MS to move the memory size up.
Assuming the R700 series GPU rumors are true, the specific GPU used would be the determining factor of what amount of memory to have. R740 (Radeon 4770) would be good with 2 GB, be it split into seperate system and video memory pools or unified, which would be much cheaper, but not as fast of course. With a split system, 2 GB System RAM, and 1 GB VRAM would be best I think. R730 (Radeon 4650/4670) would be fine on 1 GB, but 1.5 to 2 GB would be best.
What about the 4850-90?
RV740 is the most balanced GPU in the range as far as performance/watt/die size goes, and was manufactured on 40 nm from the get go which would be easier to shrink to 32/28/lower. 48xx chips are all 55 nm.
[QUOTE="PC_Otter"] The cost was a gamble, but it payed off, and the hardware's graphical potential went much higher because of it. Interestingly, I wonder how either the 360 or PS3 would've faired with 256 MB of RAM total like both were originally designed for. Sure texture resolutions would've been much lower (among other things), as well as general game graphics quality, but I think we would've seen more 60 FPS games since the amount of memory available probably wouldn't have the capacity to hold enough data to bottleneck the GPU too much went it came to fillrates. The flip side of this could've been much more streaming and smaller levels in games. Andyes, Epic, among others were able to convince MS to move the memory size up.
Assuming the R700 series GPU rumors are true, the specific GPU used would be the determining factor of what amount of memory to have. R740 (Radeon 4770) would be good with 2 GB, be it split into seperate system and video memory pools or unified, which would be much cheaper, but not as fast of course. With a split system, 2 GB System RAM, and 1 GB VRAM would be best I think. R730 (Radeon 4650/4670) would be fine on 1 GB, but 1.5 to 2 GB would be best.
PC_Otter
What about the 4850-90?
RV740 is the most balanced GPU in the range as far as performance/watt/die size goes, and was manufactured on 40 nm from the get go which would be easier to shrink to 32/28/lower. 48xx chips are all 55 nm.
Oh. Darn:( I was hoping that since we're getting alot of reports that Cafe will be quite a bit more beefy than the current gen of systems, they'd go for one of the higher end 4000's, but that's probably wishful thinking. I guess comparing what could end up in a console gpu to a PC card isn't right though, since needless to say there are different purposes that have to be served.
Well it's basically confirmed it has 512 mb of video memory, so I'm guessing it'll have 1 gig total, maybe 1.5 gigs.
mitu123
They honestly couldn't get 1GB video memory?
I really don't think 512 is that terrible if they get 1.5 gigs total. 1 Gig total is pushing it, but I don't think any video game, even one on the very high end 4xxx cards isn't going to be bottlenecked by 512 mb in a video game console.
Log in to comment