Isn't 8GBs of RAM a bit excessive?

  • 191 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by nekrothing (387 posts) -

Wouldn't 4GBs be good enough? I'd imagine the PS4 would run into bottlenecking issues that would prevent it from being able to effectively utilize all of that RAM, when the rest of the PS4's specs are mid-range at best. It would be like purchasing a 680 GTX when your CPU only runs at 3.0GHz.

#2 Posted by clyde46 (44986 posts) -
More RAMS = BETTA GRAFIX!
#3 Posted by KarateeeChop (4590 posts) -

with the touchpad processor, move 2.0 and eyetoy 2.0 it's good to have 8gb so that at least some ram will be used for the games. :(

#4 Posted by StrongDeadlift (5147 posts) -

Never underestimate the RAM.  Think about the RAMifications of your actions op.

Beautiful-Laying-Ram.jpg

#5 Posted by The_Game21x (26342 posts) -

No it's not excessive.

#6 Posted by clyde46 (44986 posts) -

with the touchpad processor, move 2.0 and eyetoy 2.0 it's good to have 8gb so that at least some ram will be used for the games. :(

KarateeeChop
At least the PS4 will have some games. (Sorry, couldn't resist :P )
#7 Posted by Mr_BillGates (3186 posts) -

Consoles decides the standard for graphics.

#8 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

It probably is. In terms of processing power the PS4 is about 8 times as powerful as the PS3 but it has about 16 times more RAM. I was expecting 4GB given the rumoured specs that turned out to by correct in every area besides the amount of RAM.

#9 Posted by bobbetybob (19180 posts) -
Can we have some sort of PSA stickied at the top of the forum explaining what GDDR5 RAM is please?
#10 Posted by metroidfood (11173 posts) -

Can we have some sort of PSA stickied at the top of the forum explaining what GDDR5 RAM is please?bobbetybob

But that would take out all of the fun of SW.

#11 Posted by Inconsistancy (8091 posts) -

Wouldn't 4GBs be good enough? I'd imagine the PS4 would run into bottlenecking issues that would prevent it from being able to effectively utilize all of that RAM, when the rest of the PS4's specs are mid-range at best. It would be like purchasing a 680 GTX when your CPU only runs at 3.0GHz.

nekrothing

Analogy fail, frequency != performance.

Would rather have more than enough than "just enough", as it is, it'll be good for swapping in more data than the GPU/CPU can chew on. Games like Rage will get a huge boost in texture quality while getting a substantial reduction in pop-in, and more games will be like The Witcher2 with no loading screens.

And since MS/Sony are going a route with more multi-media function, it also serves background functions (you know, I said this a long time ago).

#12 Posted by clyde46 (44986 posts) -

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]Can we have some sort of PSA stickied at the top of the forum explaining what GDDR5 RAM is please?metroidfood

But that would take out all of the fun of SW.

You're sig is awesome!
#13 Posted by BPoole96 (22784 posts) -
Can we have some sort of PSA stickied at the top of the forum explaining what GDDR5 RAM is please?bobbetybob
Seriously. I'm not sure if I'm ready to handle several years of Cows creaking themselves over GDDR5 RAM. It bothers me even more that I guarantee many of the cows boasting about it don't even know what RAM stands for
#14 Posted by ConanTheStoner (4785 posts) -

Cow%20&%20Ram.jpg.

#15 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
Now? Yeah. But remember, consoles are supposed to last for at least 8 years now.
#16 Posted by Douevenlift_bro (5035 posts) -

I thought only cows talked about RAM...

 

and No, you're pretty much wrong on everything. Sleep well sir.

#17 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

A better analogy would be buying a budget video card with 2GB apposed to 1GB or any card with more RAM than it can effectively use. The extra RAM isn't going to improve the frame rates of any game by more than a few FPS because it doesn't even have enough bandwidth to effectively use the smaller amount of RAM.

#18 Posted by Silenthps (7275 posts) -
for a console that'll last till probably 2020+? it's not enough.
#19 Posted by ShadowriverUB (5515 posts) -

with the touchpad processor, move 2.0 and eyetoy 2.0 it's good to have 8gb so that at least some ram will be used for the games. :(

KarateeeChop
Touch pad data have only x and y of two touches and some other values, you will count it bytes ; p camera data also should not take much. Game assets is what takes ram the most
#20 Posted by ActionRemix (5707 posts) -

It has to share the RAM with the GPU and it's going to be doing video compression in the background among other tasks.

#21 Posted by StrongBlackVine (8418 posts) -

Why are on Sony hater so obsessed with the PS4? Worry about your own crapboxes.

#22 Posted by ShadowriverUB (5515 posts) -

It has to share the RAM with the GPU and it's going to be doing video compression in the background among other tasks.

ActionRemix
Video compresion dont take much, its mainly blow for CPU
#23 Posted by andmcq (259 posts) -

Not excessive at all. 1gb for the OS, 3gb for the GPU and the rest for the other parts of the system for example.

#24 Posted by StrongDeadlift (5147 posts) -

Why are on Sony hater so obsessed with the PS4? Worry about your own crapboxes.

StrongBlackVine

Why do cows care so much what other people think or have to say about Sony :?

 

Also, you have no ram, therefore opinion invalid :cool:

Beautiful-Laying-Ram.jpg

#25 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

I feel people are still misunderstanding what he is saying. If you went and put 8GB of RAM in a GeForce 7800 (the card the PS3's GPU is based on) it's still going benchmark almost exactly same as a 512MB model on any game. Unless nvidia and ATI are putting way too little RAM in their current cards 8GB seems excessive (though not all of that is used on graphics) for a card with about the performance level of a 580. I would say about 1.5-2Gb is about right for a card with that performance which leaves 6-6.5GB for the OS and system RAM in the PS4. It seems excessive but then again every Sony console since the PS1 seems to have something strange about it's design that turns out to be a waste of their money in terms of real world performance. It wouldn't be a Sony console without something like this.

#26 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (13427 posts) -

Isn't the ammount of threads about ram a bit excessive?

#27 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3687 posts) -

All I know is that I would rather it have too much then not enough.... I'm sure 3-5 years into its life cycle potential will be just about maxed out. If the rumors are true about the Xbox 720 having lower specs, it will show in due time. Either way I dont care, I will let the games speak for themselves.

If PS4 releases a SOCOM game that doesnt suck complete ass, then PS4 wins. Period... lol

#28 Posted by Tessellation (8797 posts) -
for sh!tty consoles it isn't...is a closed box that needs to share the ram with rest of the system..CPU,GPU etc...so it needs as much RAM as possible but it won't make magic either...PC in the other hand can go up to 48GB of dedicated RAM just for the system and them you have your GPU with 2,3 and 6gig dedicated just for the GPU,that alone is a massive step over consoles... lets not forget superior CPU and GPU's.
#29 Posted by Tessellation (8797 posts) -

Not excessive at all. 1gb for the OS, 3gb for the GPU and the rest for the other parts of the system for example.

andmcq
this man knows what he is talking about.
#30 Posted by lostrib (34504 posts) -

But it's GDDR5! That means it has more G's and more 5's!

#31 Posted by ActicEdge (24375 posts) -

Cow%20&%20Ram.jpg

We have a good relationship this gen :)

#32 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5117 posts) -
Butthurt hermits still raging over that RAM!!! :lol:
#33 Posted by Wiimotefan (4064 posts) -

Cow%20&%20Ram.jpg

We have a good relationship this gen :)

ActicEdge

:lol:

#34 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.

HD7970-35.jpg

#35 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5117 posts) -

Isn't the ammount of threads about ram a bit excessive?

ReadingRainbow4
Yes. If the next MS system has more than 8 you can expect Hermits and Cows to making even more threads on this.
#36 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

Isn't the ammount of threads about ram a bit excessive?

TheWalkingGhost

Yes. If the next MS system has more than 8 you can expect Hermits and Cows to making even more threads on this.

It will have 8GB but it was rumoured to have 8 from the start as the OS is rumoured to use 3.5GB of that RAM meaning it won't be avilable for gaming purposes. That's a bit excessive too but 6GB would have be too little with the OS uses that much. The OS in the PS4 will only use 1GB.

#37 Posted by ActicEdge (24375 posts) -

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Cow%20&%20Ram.jpg

We have a good relationship this gen :)

Wiimotefan

:lol:

Blatantly stolenn from another user but it was too good to not be used again.

#38 Posted by Cranler (8730 posts) -

Could the extra ram be used to load maps in the background? Or for instance if your in an Elder Scrolls game and youre near a cave it would start loading the data into ram in case you decide to enter the cave?

#39 Posted by clyde46 (44986 posts) -

Could the extra ram be used to load maps in the background? Or for instance if your in an Elder Scrolls game and youre near a cave it would start loading the data into ram in case you decide to enter the cave?

Cranler
The large amount of RAM can help a whole lot of things. You can have better looking textures, better animations, AI, audio. The list is rather long, however you will run into problems if the APU they are using is not up to snuff.
#40 Posted by DrTrafalgarLaw (4440 posts) -

Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.

HD7970-35.jpg

Strakha
The improved RAM amount ánd quality is not for an FPS-increase primarily. You're using RSX as an example btw...how is that any comparable to the PS4? It's mainly put in there so RAM will never be a bottleneck and developers won't have to use tricks, like derezzed object details and it will help immensly with pop-in issues. But think bigger, more (and better) RAM can mean a lot more detail in open-world games and a lot more detail in general in every game. The increased amounts of RAM is for developer friendly-ness.
#41 Posted by Wiimotefan (4064 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiimotefan"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Cow%20&%20Ram.jpg

We have a good relationship this gen :)

ActicEdge

:lol:

Blatantly stolenn from another user but it was too good to not be used again.

No shame in that, I saved the image as soon as I saw it.  :P

#42 Posted by TheWalkingGhost (5117 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Could the extra ram be used to load maps in the background? Or for instance if your in an Elder Scrolls game and youre near a cave it would start loading the data into ram in case you decide to enter the cave?

clyde46
The large amount of RAM can help a whole lot of things. You can have better looking textures, better animations, AI, audio. The list is rather long, however you will run into problems if the APU they are using is not up to snuff.

People should wait and see what Devs do with this. Right now just be happy the system won't be starved for memory like other systems. More power and Ram = Better games for all, even Hermits as now your ports of console games maybe better. The PS4 won't hold the PC back if it is the lead system and the game then ported over.
#43 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -

[QUOTE="bobbetybob"]Can we have some sort of PSA stickied at the top of the forum explaining what GDDR5 RAM is please?metroidfood

But that would take out all of the fun of SW.

I doubt it. People would ignore the sticky, just like everything else.
#44 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (19818 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Cranler"]

Could the extra ram be used to load maps in the background? Or for instance if your in an Elder Scrolls game and youre near a cave it would start loading the data into ram in case you decide to enter the cave?

TheWalkingGhost
The large amount of RAM can help a whole lot of things. You can have better looking textures, better animations, AI, audio. The list is rather long, however you will run into problems if the APU they are using is not up to snuff.

People should wait and see what Devs do with this. Right now just be happy the system won't be starved for memory like other systems. More power and Ram = Better games for all, even Hermits as now your ports of console games maybe better. The PS4 won't hold the PC back if it is the lead system and the game then ported over.

Yes it will, it will just take a year or so to start holding the PC back like usual.
#45 Posted by StrongDeadlift (5147 posts) -

ps4copy.jpg

stolen from gaf

#46 Posted by DrTrafalgarLaw (4440 posts) -
[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="clyde46"] The large amount of RAM can help a whole lot of things. You can have better looking textures, better animations, AI, audio. The list is rather long, however you will run into problems if the APU they are using is not up to snuff.

People should wait and see what Devs do with this. Right now just be happy the system won't be starved for memory like other systems. More power and Ram = Better games for all, even Hermits as now your ports of console games maybe better. The PS4 won't hold the PC back if it is the lead system and the game then ported over.

Yes it will, it will just take a year or so to start holding the PC back like usual.

>Claims consoles holding backs PC >Still plays Battlefield 3 You would have an actual point, if you weren't playing those pew pew games.
#47 Posted by silversix_ (14075 posts) -
Aren't u tired of fugly textures? The more ram the better.
#48 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

[QUOTE="Strakha"]

Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.

HD7970-35.jpg

DrTrafalgarLaw

The improved RAM amount ánd quality is not for an FPS-increase primarily. You're using RSX as an example btw...how is that any comparable to the PS4? It's mainly put in there so RAM will never be a bottleneck and developers won't have to use tricks, like derezzed object details and it will help immensly with pop-in issues. But think bigger, more (and better) RAM can mean a lot more detail in open-world games and a lot more detail in general in every game. The increased amounts of RAM is for developer friendly-ness.

I used the RSX and GeForce 7800 as example in case someone questioned if future games would be different to the benchmarks of BF3 for the 1.5GB and 3GB. They were not that generation as card manufacturers always err on the side of giving cards as much or more RAM than they need for peak performance. A couple of FPS is the best you will likely get out of the card with more RAM. The biggest evidence 4GB would have been enough is that the PS4 dev kits had 4GB and it's likely the marketing people rather than the tech people who decided on 8GB so it wouldn't have a number smaller than the Xbox which isn't actually using almost half of it's RAM for gaming anyway. Also earlier in this thread I mentioned the PS4 is 8 times more powerful in processing power but has almost 16 times more RAM than the PS3. This adds to the considerable evidence that the decision to upgrade to 8GB was more of a marketing decision than a practical one.

#49 Posted by Teuf_ (30805 posts) -

Benchmarks of 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580. It's very rare for a card manufacturer to put less RAM in a card than it can use effectively. The PS3's RSX was based on the GeForce 7800 which at the time came in 256MB (the same amount of RAM it had in the PS3) and 512MB versions. In benchmarks the version with more RAM will only perform a few FPS better as is the case with the 580 which is similar in floating point operations to the card in the PS4. Considering this and the benchmarks below I believe about 1.5GB is about right for a card of the performance of the one in the PS4 and 6.5GB for OS and system RAM seems excessive. The difference is less than 3 FPS when the card is pushed to the point when it is only performing just above what is considered a playable frame rate of 30 FPS.

HD7970-35.jpg

 

Strakha

Your logic here doesn't really make sense. PC games have to target a wide variety of hardware, so the developers will come up with a fixed budget based on common hardware and that budget will determine exactly how much memory is consumed by the game. Then when you run the game you might have way too much memory or not enough memory, depending on how recent and expensive your video card is. If you have enough memory then the GPU runs normally, and if you don't your performance rapidly degrades since the driver will attempt to page data in and out of video memory during a frame. If you have way more than enough memory for a game there's no "bonus", it performs exactly the same as if you had exactly enough memory. On consoles a developer knows exactly how much memory will be available on that platform, so there's no chance of "using too much" or "not using enough"...they will simply use all of it. There is of course a limit on how much a game can read and write to memory during a frame which is determined by the bandwidth and other hardware characterstics, but even if you're bottlenecked by bandwidth it's still better to have more memory since you can keep more textures/meshes/AI/physics objects/whatever in memory at any given time without having to unload them.

#50 Posted by Strakha (1781 posts) -

There is of course a limit on how much a game can read and write to memory during a frame which is determined by the bandwidth and other hardware characterstics, but even if you're bottlenecked by bandwidth it's still better to have more memory since you can keep more textures/meshes/AI/physics objects/whatever in memory at any given time without having to unload them.

Teufelhuhn

Yes and that is exaclty what I was trying to demonstrate and that's why whether it's a 256MB 7800 vs 512MB 7800 or 1.5GB 580 vs 3GB 580 you aren't going to see much a perfromance boost by giving it more RAM because card developer always err on the side of caution when it comes to RAM.