Consoles and memory.

This is generally speaking about console memory, it isn't meant to offend though I imagine some people will still choose to be.

Here's a question for you.

Why do they always give consoles too little memory? They invest in these decent CPUs and GPUs but then slap in this tiny amount of ram they both have to rely on, granted it is fast low latency ram but it can still only store a certain amount at any one time.

Something I feel is one of the main differentiators on PC as opposed to consoles is the abundance of memory. Memory means bigger levels with better textures and better normal maps; memory is the reason Far Cry had to be remade and not ported, memory is the reason Crysis cannot be ported no matter how far they scale it back.

This generation graphics has been less about resolution and poly count and more about what is painted on those polygons, all the shaders in the world won't make up for a muddy texture and a equally low resolution normal map. Shaders are nice, but the majority of what you are seeing on characters and the environment is textures and normal maps. Memory also plays a role in the type of work your CPU can do because physics and AI work has to be stored somewhere, low memory can become a bottleneck for the CPU. LOD items are also stored in memory to allow greater draw distances and improved performance.

Seeing how important memory is for next generation games, especially at higher resolutions where a shoddy texture will stand out, why the cheap out? Why invest in Xenon graphics cards and Cell processors to leave something responsible for significant visual and game play aspects of your games as an after thought?

I think they would have been better off with 512/512 instead of 256/256, even if it meant sacrificing some GPU or CPU power to make up for the cost, I really do. I don't know if they could squeeze Crysis levels into that but it would mean bigger game levels with high resolution detail, it would mean Gears of War and Mass Effect 360 would at least look like their high resolution PC counterpart.

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7681/masseffect2008062718330mu2.jpg

Yeah I really don't get it either. 4GB of good DDR2 is like $50 now. Should've had 512/512 in 360 and maybe 512XDR/1GB GDDR3 in PS3. Another problem is the low bandwidth of the systems.

I mean they can get around memory limitations but it is so cheap and makes it so much easier on developers. Plus look at 360 trying to run Supreme Commander. That games needs 4GB to run properly.

Yeah, i agree.

I mean couldnt they of just slapped an extra 512mb in there.

Pc's have the operating system to worry about. Kind of the biggst factor to it. And console tend to stream the info as they need it from the disk.vaderhater

Come now, you know the OS isn't that big a factor on a modern 1.5/2GB system. Even with only 1GB ram Crysis will still run on a XP machine with that, quality settings turned down granted but it is enough to store the giant maps that won't fit on consoles.

I actually did have a paragraph on the difference between streaming and how a game like Crysis manages memory, but as you can see the post was already pretty big so I thought it could live without it.

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Pc's have the operating system to worry about. Kind of the biggst factor to it. And console tend to stream the info as they need it from the disk.AnnoyedDragon

Come now, you know the OS isn't that big a factor on a modern 1.5/2GB system. Even with only 1GB ram Crysis will still run on a XP machine with that, quality settings turned down granted but it is enough to store the giant maps that won't fit on consoles.

I actually did have a paragraph on the difference between streaming and how a game like Crysis manages memory, but as you can see the post was already pretty big so I thought it could live without it.

That low latency memory is extremely expensive at the time of its launch. It would probably mean that the price would have to raise atleast $75 at retail to double up the memory. At that point the consoles become rather expensive.

Remember that consoles are sold at a loss. For the hardware they contain, their price is unbeatable. Of course, console game's are price gouged to make up the difference. Its not so simple as tacking on more memory to remain more competative with PC hardware. That extra memory has to come out of someone's pocket. Ultiamtely, these companies decied that 512 is the sweet spot between enough for develoepers and easy enough on consumer's wallets.

Adding in more memory later simply isn't a good idea.

Yes but we are talking about 512megs of memory total for graphics and everything right? try crysis on that wilth xp or something in the background.vaderhater

Sorry but I am not quite sure what you are saying, try to run Crysis in the same amount of memory consoles have on PC?

And microsoft wanted 256mb shared. That would've been fun.

Still, we don't really know. I don't think the engineers at Sony/MS (ninty is excluded, the system is slow everywhere) are idiots. While I'm sure more RAM is better (can't be argued, actually), we don't know if changing the system specs to lower CPU/GPU power and higher RAM would be a superior solution - maybe the changes would not be proportional, leading to worse performance, and increasing the price would be a no-no. Sony suffered greatly with the 500+ pricepoint, and MS didn't have happy fun times at $400, either.

I suppose both manufacturers came to the conclusion that the current specs were the optimal price/performance spot.

In any case, I would've paid an extra $50-75 on both consoles for more memory in a hearbeat.

I think one good example of the memory amount being problematic is Metal Gear Solid 4, I say this with caution because I don't want to get my head ripped off by swarming... devoted PS3 fans.

Now anyone who is honest and doesn't feel the need to defend their titles against the smallest criticism can agree on one thing; MGS4 was plagued by loading screens, lots of them. It seems in order to maintain the games high quality they sacrificed some of the memory that would have went to filling out the level, so the levels are smaller and loading screens are more frequent.

Obviously additional memory would have relieved this problem.

PC's need more memory because their OS's and background tasks do a lot more...
I mean Vista needs a MINIMUM 512MB RAM... So if you have a PC running with 1GB the OS would use half or more (Windows generally uses about half of your with background tasks i think) So theres only 512MB left...

Dashboard uses 32MB of ram

XMB uses 48MB of ram (Down from 64MB after FW Update 1.8)

Pretty much its just the fact that PC's do other things apart from run games, whereas consoles don't.

Also the CPU ram (256MB) for the PS3 which is separate to the GPU ram (Doesn't make it inacsessible however)
Is nearly twice as fast as the RAM most of the high end PC gaming rigs use today (So i've heard) Although that will change in a while.

I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.AmyMizuno

[QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.fluxorator

Yes it was. 1GB was nothing then. RAM has been the cheap part for a long time. Probably since it's the most competitive market.... so many companies make it.

Best thing 360 could've had is 512 system RAM and 512GDDR3. Unified is pointless when regular system RAM is so cheap.

memory is the reason Crysis cannot be ported no matter how far they scale it back.

AnnoyedDragon

People seem to be arguing around what is being said rather than commenting on it, such as criticising PCs naturally higher memory requirements to justify consoles lower or compression technologies.

Regardless of what people say; having more memory is never a bad thing. You can try to rationalize why it doesn't need it, but between a Crysis port being impossible and frequent MGS4 loading screens; the signs more memory would greatly benefit consoles is everywhere.

Also for the record £11 for a gig of DDR800 means OS and background process memory usage is a none issue for PC gamers.

[QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.Lazy_Boy88

Yes it was. 1GB was nothing then. RAM has been the cheap part for a long time. Probably since it's the most competitive market.... so many companies make it.

Best thing 360 could've had is 512 system RAM and 512GDDR3. Unified is pointless when regular system RAM is so cheap.

Well i only remember RAM prices dropping rapidly late 06/early 07... They may have always been the cheap part, but not this cheap.

These days, you can get like 2GB sticks for like $40 . The price of two 1GB sticks in 06 would have been closer to $200.

Also PS3 uses XDR (?) which is a lot faster than the ram most PCs run on now, so it would be more expensive...

Crysis is getting ported to the ps3nickkcin10

And MGS4 is coming to 360, people like to believe what they want even if the Devs outright tell them no.

People have been fighting over which console Crysis is coming to for over a year now; even when Crytek focuses entirly on Crysis: Warhead, a PC exclusive, they think Crysis is still secretly under development for console.

Here is the word; A Crysis port is impossible, what console optimised games come out in the future under the Crysis name on the other hand is up for debate. But Crysis itself, the game on PC right now, cannot be ported to consoles because of memory limitations.

[QUOTE="nickkcin10"]Crysis is getting ported to the ps3AnnoyedDragon

And MGS4 is coming to 360, people like to believe what they want even if the Devs outright tell them no.

People have been fighting over which console Crysis is coming to for over a year now; even when Crytek focuses entirly on Crysis: Warhead, a PC exclusive, they think Crysis is still secretly under development for console.

Here is the word; A Crysis port is impossible, what console optimised games come out in the future under the Crysis name on the other hand is up for debate. But Crysis itself, the game on PC right now, cannot be ported to consoles because of memory limitations.

When they port a game it doesn't have to be exactly the same... Remember all the half-assed ports to PS3 from in 07?

When they port a game it doesn't have to be exactly the same... Remember all the half-assed ports to PS3 from in 07?fluxorator

It is not just a matter of scaling a few things back to make it work; we're talking complete level redesign, cutting out major game play that made Crysis what it is.

It would be like Metal Gear Solid without the stealth, what Far Cry Instincts is to Far Cry PC.

[edit]

So far it seems that is something the developers are not willing to do, it would be a far too different experience to warrant having the same name as the PC version.

Let's suppose the difference between 512 MB and 1 GB of memory was $10 per unit. Sounds pretty reasonable, right? That translates to over $150 million in lost profit, and that's just from the launch of the Xbox 360 to now. Even if you assume they were able to cost-reduce it by half after a year, that's still at least $70 million.

You have to ask, "by spending this extra $70 million, will I sell enough additional consoles to make it back in royalties?" If not, regardless of whether it would have made a better machine, it doesn't make sense to put it in.

Pc's have the operating system to worry about. Kind of the biggst factor to it. And console tend to stream the info as they need it from the disk.vaderhater

it makes no difference, the fact of the matter is games like cryisis still uses over 1gb + 256+ of vram. back in 2004 farcry used as much ram as console have today.

console lack ram and there is no excuse to why there is so little

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]Pc's have the operating system to worry about. Kind of the biggst factor to it. And console tend to stream the info as they need it from the disk.vaderhater

Come now, you know the OS isn't that big a factor on a modern 1.5/2GB system. Even with only 1GB ram Crysis will still run on a XP machine with that, quality settings turned down granted but it is enough to store the giant maps that won't fit on consoles.

I actually did have a paragraph on the difference between streaming and how a game like Crysis manages memory, but as you can see the post was already pretty big so I thought it could live without it.

this thread is about how 512mb just aint enough ram for modern games. try taking the disk out of your 360 and see how long it runs for. crysis on a 2gb system will probably run most of a level without anythin being loaded into the ram.

512mb was lowend in 2005 and now it is just tiny.

a single core cpu with 1gb ram would mean crysis could be done on consoles and would have allowed much more developer freedom.

the fact even laptops from when x360 came out had more ram is pretty sad and now they typical have 4-6x as much ram and can run many games better than console because consoles lack ram

That low latency memory is extremely expensive at the time of its launch. It would probably mean that the price would have to raise atleast $75 at retail to double up the memory. At that point the consoles become rather expensive.

Remember that consoles are sold at a loss. For the hardware they contain, their price is unbeatable. Of course, console game's are price gouged to make up the difference. Its not so simple as tacking on more memory to remain more competative with PC hardware. That extra memory has to come out of someone's pocket. Ultiamtely, these companies decied that 512 is the sweet spot between enough for develoepers and easy enough on consumer's wallets.

Adding in more memory later simply isn't a good idea.

XaosII

that is true but it doesn't all have to be fast ram. ddr400 is still fine for crysis

And microsoft wanted 256mb shared. That would've been fun.

Still, we don't really know. I don't think the engineers at Sony/MS (ninty is excluded, the system is slow everywhere) are idiots. While I'm sure more RAM is better (can't be argued, actually), we don't know if changing the system specs to lower CPU/GPU power and higher RAM would be a superior solution - maybe the changes would not be proportional, leading to worse performance, and increasing the price would be a no-no. Sony suffered greatly with the 500+ pricepoint, and MS didn't have happy fun times at $400, either.

I suppose both manufacturers came to the conclusion that the current specs were the optimal price/performance spot.

In any case, I would've paid an extra $50-75 on both consoles for more memory in a hearbeat.

Grive

well if you want to put that theory to test compare a pc running a core 2 duo with 1gb ram and 8800gtx with a pentium D 2gb ram and 8600gt and you will find the seconds system will run games just as well and sometimes better eventhough it has much less proccessing power. fast cpu/gpu with little ram and the power goes to waste

PC's need more memory because their OS's and background tasks do a lot more...
I mean Vista needs a MINIMUM 512MB RAM... So if you have a PC running with 1GB the OS would use half or more (Windows generally uses about half of your with background tasks i think) So theres only 512MB left...

Dashboard uses 32MB of ram

XMB uses 48MB of ram (Down from 64MB after FW Update 1.8)

Pretty much its just the fact that PC's do other things apart from run games, whereas consoles don't.

Also the CPU ram (256MB) for the PS3 which is separate to the GPU ram (Doesn't make it inacsessible however)
Is nearly twice as fast as the RAM most of the high end PC gaming rigs use today (So i've heard) Although that will change in a while.

fluxorator

why wont you consolietes give up this agrument? sure pc need more but they don't need 4-8x more. vista uses around 400mb when a game is running and then on a 2gb system there is still 1600mb for the game + 500mb for the graphics while consoles only have around 480mb free for both the cpu and gpu.

the thing is system ram makes basicly no different to the performance, its the vram that needs to be fast and a 7800gt has ram that is 10gb/s faster than both ps3/x360 and an 8800gt is over 30gb/s faster.

the fact that ps3 uses close to 1/4 of what win xp uses when it has no where near as many features is very week

[QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.fluxorator

nor was the gpu/cpu, memory is always the cheapest component and is always overlooked by console makes. had x360 only had the 256mb ms was going to put in til epic had their way games like cod4, bioshock gears would never have been the same

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

memory is the reason Crysis cannot be ported no matter how far they scale it back.

nickkcin10

Link?

Let's suppose the difference between 512 MB and 1 GB of memory was $10 per unit. Sounds pretty reasonable, right? That translates to over $150 million in lost profit, and that's just from the launch of the Xbox 360 to now. Even if you assume they were able to cost-reduce it by half after a year, that's still at least $70 million.

You have to ask, "by spending this extra $70 million, will I sell enough additional consoles to make it back in royalties?" If not, regardless of whether it would have made a better machine, it doesn't make sense to put it in.

lowe0

just cut down the cpu and add more ram and you will have better overall performance

[QUOTE="fluxorator"][QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.imprezawrx500

nor was the gpu/cpu, memory is always the cheapest component and is always overlooked by console makes. had x360 only had the 256mb ms was going to put in til epic had their way games like cod4, bioshock gears would never have been the same

I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.AmyMizuno

[QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.fluxorator

And neither was the CPU or GPU. Either way, when you are ordering millions of them, it gets crazy cheap per item. Sony and MS could have increased the lifespans of PS3/360 by around an extra 2-3 years if they added a bit more RAM.

[QUOTE="AmyMizuno"]I agree. 512 MB memory is not nearly enough for next-gen gaming. I think this was a huge mistake, because memory is one of the cheapest components inside a computer.Steppy_76

If Microsoft had a long-term vision with the Xbox 360, they could have given it extra RAM anyways (even if it costs more) and make up for the loss by benefitting from a longer lifespan for the Xbox 360.

800 dollar PS3?Steppy_76

PS3 actually did cost that much when it launched in the UK.

All I'm saying is with the money they spent on stuff like Cell and Blu-ray; PS3 could have buffed all its components as opposed to a select few, put a healthy chunk of ram in there.

The texture and normal map improvements alone would have made up for performance losses in other areas, the majority of visuals are made up by these two.