PS3 RAM vs Xbox 360 RAM

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="micky4889"]

ya the ps3s ram runs at 3.2ghz over 4 times the speed of the 360s ram

also i think the 360s os is 32mb and the ps3s is 64mb not sure though because i think sony redused it since then

HardTarget86

what the hell do you mean by "more flexible"?

Both the Xbox 360's total 512 MB shared RAM and the PS3's 256 MB video RAM, which are both GDDR3, are clocked at 700 Mhz each. Check your specs. That's the exact same speed. The bandwidth's the same too, 22.4 GB/s if I remember correctly.

Meanwhile, PS3 has main RAM or CPU RAM that's clocked to 3.2 Ghz, but it's XDRAM, theoretically greatly superior to GDDR3....it's certainly faster, seeing as it's clocked higher and has a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. Refer to the above and make the comparison.

ALSO:

Me and many others have constantly debunked this rumor that the PS3's RAM cannot be accessed by both processors: The RAM in the PS3 is at LEAST turbocache, meaning the GPU can access both pools, and I have supporting evidence that suggests it goes both ways, despite their being a bottleneck. In fact, I have a research article from Sony suggesting that the RAM in the PS3 is "unified," so much so that in the research they conducted they were able to share texture data between the GPU and CPU through the UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE. Interesting, no?

Very interesting...would be nice to see some links, tho...but good 2 know.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]

Implicit spin? I only ask that you read the benchmarks. They conducted the trial themselves. Unless it's some black-ops tomfoolery that never actually happened, I suggest you trust them over some backwater yokel in a videogame forum screaming uneducated insults.

Plus, it's my understanding that that series of GPU from Nvidia is turbocache.

Edit: And here's your independent confirmation:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453&p=9

HuusAsking

It also says the PS3 has 2 HDMI ports. The eerie thing in that article though, is here:

NVIDIA claims it is more powerful than the GeForce 7800 GTX. But how can that be? There are a couple of options:

The most likely explanation is attributed to nothing more than clock speed. ... a 28% increase in core clock speed from the 110nm GeForce 7800 GTX ... which would make the RSX "more powerful" than the G70.

There is one other possibility, one that is more far fetched but worth discussing nonetheless. NVIDIA could offer a chip that featured the same transistor count as the desktop G70, but with significantly more power if the RSX features no vertex shader pipes and instead used that die space to add additional pixel shading hardware.

Remember that the Cell host processor has an array of 7 SPEs that are very well suited for a number of non-branching tasks, including geometry processing. Also keep in mind that current games favor creating realism through more pixel operations rather than creating more geometry, so GPUs aren't very vertex shader bound these days. Then, note that the RSX has a high bandwidth 35GB/s interface between the Cell processor and the GPU itself - definitely enough to place all vertex processing on the Cell processor itself, freeing up the RSX to exclusively handle pixel shader and ROP tasks. If this is indeed the case, then the RSX could very well have more than 24 pipelines and still have a similar transistor count to the G70, but if it isn't, then it is highly unlikely that we'd see a GPU that looked much different than the G70.AandTech

The PS3 IS vertex limited. RSX: Vertex input limited? *FKATCT

Game developers have had to use the Cell to pre-cull geometry to get the games to run well just like that last paragraph predicted. Could their weird prediction there have been true?

In general though... more memory allows developers to create larger and more detailed enviroments. Think of it like this... more graphics memory allows you to have images that have greater texture variety or detail or amount of geometry. More graphics memory is also necessary if you plan on having higher resolution images with higher orders of filtering. More system memory allows you to do more things at the same time... and many other less tangible things that gamers will not see as this deals with the actual game enviroment rather than the rendering of the image.micky4889

Sure, you can work around some memory limitations, but at some point you're going to find yourself trying to squeeze a baker's dozen into an egg carton--you simply can't do it. Hideo Kojima himself said he hit a wall when he made MGS4--it's fantastic, but still not quite how he envisioned it.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="micky4889"]

ya the ps3s ram runs at 3.2ghz over 4 times the speed of the 360s ram

also i think the 360s os is 32mb and the ps3s is 64mb not sure though because i think sony redused it since then

HardTarget86

what the hell do you mean by "more flexible"?

Both the Xbox 360's total 512 MB shared RAM and the PS3's 256 MB video RAM, which are both GDDR3, are clocked at 700 Mhz each. Check your specs. That's the exact same speed. The bandwidth's the same too, 22.4 GB/s if I remember correctly.

Meanwhile, PS3 has main RAM or CPU RAM that's clocked to 3.2 Ghz, but it's XDRAM, theoretically greatly superior to GDDR3....it's certainly faster, seeing as it's clocked higher and has a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. Refer to the above and make the comparison.

ALSO:

Me and many others have constantly debunked this rumor that the PS3's RAM cannot be accessed by both processors: The RAM in the PS3 is at LEAST turbocache, meaning the GPU can access both pools, and I have supporting evidence that suggests it goes both ways, despite their being a bottleneck. In fact, I have a research article from Sony suggesting that the RAM in the PS3 is "unified," so much so that in the research they conducted they were able to share texture data between the GPU and CPU through the UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE. Interesting, no?

Very interesting...would be nice to see some links, tho...but good 2 know.

Latency?

Actually the PS3 has a type of RAM that is considered one of the fastest in the world. It's not even used very often in gaming computers yet.AIH_PSP

ps3 OS takes up 64mb x360 OS takes up 32mb you also have to remember x360 has an added 10mb of edram which is only used for the GPU the 360 ram is clocked at 700mhz PS3 gpu ram is 700mhz and the system ram is at 3.2ghz as it is combined with the cell i think although it may be the other way round but im sure im right :) plus x360 edram has an extremely high bandwidth therefore it doesnt affect framerates at all or only a tiny bit if the edram is used for anti aliasing or the high res, HDR etc etc basically meaning the 360 GPU is free of at least one high bandwidth effect or anything else in a game which is a really good benefitBeaglesniffer

I think with FW 1.80 the PS3 OS takes up 48... not sure about other updates however...

[QUOTE="Beaglesniffer"]ps3 OS takes up 64mb x360 OS takes up 32mb you also have to remember x360 has an added 10mb of edram which is only used for the GPU the 360 ram is clocked at 700mhz PS3 gpu ram is 700mhz and the system ram is at 3.2ghz as it is combined with the cell i think although it may be the other way round but im sure im right :) plus x360 edram has an extremely high bandwidth therefore it doesnt affect framerates at all or only a tiny bit if the edram is used for anti aliasing or the high res, HDR etc etc basically meaning the 360 GPU is free of at least one high bandwidth effect or anything else in a game which is a really good benefitfluxorator

I think with FW 1.80 the PS3 OS takes up 48... not sure about other updates however...

ya the ps3s ram runs at 3.2ghz over 4 times the speed of the 360s ram

micky4889

[QUOTE="micky4889"]

ya the ps3s ram runs at 3.2ghz over 4 times the speed of the 360s ram

lowe0

Graphics processor

Memory Bandwitdth: 360 21.6 GBps - PS3 22.4 GBps

System memory

System Memory Bandwidth: 360 22.4 GBps - PS3 25.6 GBps

[QUOTE="fluxorator"]

[QUOTE="Beaglesniffer"]ps3 OS takes up 64mb x360 OS takes up 32mb you also have to remember x360 has an added 10mb of edram which is only used for the GPU the 360 ram is clocked at 700mhz PS3 gpu ram is 700mhz and the system ram is at 3.2ghz as it is combined with the cell i think although it may be the other way round but im sure im right :) plus x360 edram has an extremely high bandwidth therefore it doesnt affect framerates at all or only a tiny bit if the edram is used for anti aliasing or the high res, HDR etc etc basically meaning the 360 GPU is free of at least one high bandwidth effect or anything else in a game which is a really good benefitHuusAsking

I think with FW 1.80 the PS3 OS takes up 48... not sure about other updates however...

Sony has been continually lowering the memory requirements for XMB so they could have it in-game. Sony can't take the memory away now, games have already been created since then that take advantage of it. It would break software compatibility to up the requirements again.

[QUOTE="lowe0"][QUOTE="micky4889"]

ya the ps3s ram runs at 3.2ghz over 4 times the speed of the 360s ram

mbrockway

Graphics processor

Memory Bandwitdth: 360 21.6 GBps - PS3 22.4 GBps

System memory

System Memory Bandwidth: 360 22.4 GBps - PS3 25.6 GBps

Sony has been continually lowering the memory requirements for XMB so they could have it in-game. Sony can't take the memory away now, games have already been created since then that take advantage of it. It would break software compatibility to up the requirements again.

mbrockway

[QUOTE="mbrockway"]

Sony has been continually lowering the memory requirements for XMB so they could have it in-game. Sony can't take the memory away now, games have already been created since then that take advantage of it. It would break software compatibility to up the requirements again.

HuusAsking

All PS3 games come with firmware updates on disc. The game would come with at least the firmware required to run it, just like the PSP.

The 360 certainly has a superior memory set up when compared to the PS3, that said, the PS# CAN access the 256 that is supposed to be used exclusivly fro the CPU, and use it for the GPU, its just not very effecient, but it can be done

I'm telling you people, these two systems are rediciously close in power, the fanboys here in system wars argue over graphics after comparing picture with microscopes

BOTH systems are awesomely powerful, both system produce roughly the same quality graphics, we should be arguing about the game, upcoming and currently out, thats the main diffrence between these two systems

The 360 certainly has a superior memory set up when compared to the PS3, that said, the PS# CAN access the 256 that is supposed to be used exclusivly fro the CPU, and use it for the GPU, its just not very effecient, but it can be done

I'm telling you people, these two systems are rediciously close in power, the fanboys here in system wars argue over graphics after comparing picture with microscopes

BOTH systems are awesomely powerful, both system produce roughly the same quality graphics, we should be arguing about the game, upcoming and currently out, thats the main diffrence between these two systems

crispytheone88

Why must we always butt heads on this issue?

Get it?! Get it!!!???

Chutebox

BOTH systems are awesomely powerful, both system produce roughly the same quality graphics, we should be arguing about the game, upcoming and currently out, thats the main diffrence between these two systems

crispytheone88

PS3 has the better RAM options for gaming. Period, end of story. There is absolutely no reason why a game should need more than 256MB of general purpose RAM. We're not doing supercomputer modeling and simulations, we're playing games.AmyMizuno

So, are we all suddenly people who designed the PS3 and 360, so we know exactly how any game can utilize the RAM in each console? Are we all suddenly developers who know how to use this power effectively, so we know exactly how each game uses the RAM?

I didn't think so. So unless someone here actually developed a game for either, or either of the systems, hardware comparison threads really should die.
carrot-cake

You don't need to be a game developer to know that RAM is important for games. As a PC gamer, I can tell you that having little RAM can make some games unplayable. I remember how hard it was for me to play NeverWinter Nights 2 on my PC when I had 512mb RAM, it lagged and crashed alot so I gave up on it. as soon as I upgraded to 1024mb RAM, it ran smooth. Please explain how we need to be game developers to know that RAM is important for games?

General RAAMBurnsmiesta

He looks better on the PC version of Gears of War, due to more RAM :P

[QUOTE="Burnsmiesta"]General RAAMPandaBear86

He looks better on the PC version of Gears of War, due to more RAM :P

In the PLAYSTATION 3, the FlexIO interfaces connecting the Cell BE to its companion chips provide an aggregate bandwidth of 40 GB/s.

Rambus, that makes flexIO, the memory controller in Ps3 says it provides 40GB/s throughput. Where does this 22GB/s value come from?

[QUOTE="carrot-cake"]So, are we all suddenly people who designed the PS3 and 360, so we know exactly how any game can utilize the RAM in each console? Are we all suddenly developers who know how to use this power effectively, so we know exactly how each game uses the RAM?

I didn't think so. So unless someone here actually developed a game for either, or either of the systems, hardware comparison threads really should die.
PandaBear86

You don't need to be a game developer to know that RAM is important for games. As a PC gamer, I can tell you that having little RAM can make some games unplayable. I remember how hard it was for me to play NeverWinter Nights 2 on my PC when I had 512mb RAM, it lagged and crashed alot so I gave up on it. as soon as I upgraded to 1024mb RAM, it ran smooth. Please explain how we need to be game developers to know that RAM is important for games?

In the PLAYSTATION 3, the FlexIO interfaces connecting the Cell BE to its companion chips provide an aggregate bandwidth of 40 GB/s.

Rambus, that makes flexIO, the memory controller in Ps3 says it provides 40GB/s throughput. Where does this 22GB/s value come from?

lordxymor

First of all if i am not mistaken, the PS3s CPU can indeed access the second pool of 256mb GDDR3 RAM (which is used for GPU) and add it to the current 256mb XDR RAM. This process however cannot be the inverse due to bottlenecking problems. As far as the 360s RAM goes, it is way easier for devs to put a majority of the RAM available towards one or the other eithere CPU or GPU. However that as well has its certain draw backs. Unified RAM creates its own bottleneck as both the GPU and the CPU are trying to take the same RAM which slows down opperations altoghether. I thought it should also be noted that the PS3s OS not only takes 60-something mb i believe, and that the 360 has another 10mb dedicated for AA i believe (feel free to correct me if i am wrong).snorlaxmaster

In the PLAYSTATION 3, the FlexIO interfaces connecting the Cell BE to its companion chips provide an aggregate bandwidth of 40 GB/s.

Rambus, that makes flexIO, the memory controller in Ps3 says it provides 40GB/s throughput. Where does this 22GB/s value come from?

lordxymor

[QUOTE="arachosia"]

Does it really matter? As we've seen, both systems seem to be very similar in graphics capabilities.

I'm surprised they only have 512MB of RAM though...RAM is so cheap. Couldn't they have put at least 2GB in their systems?

PandaBear86

Well apparently when Epic begged for the 360 to have 512mb RAM instead of 256mb, MS said it would cost them a whopping $900 million during the consoles lifecycle. I have no ideahow this could be true :|

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="arachosia"]

Does it really matter? As we've seen, both systems seem to be very similar in graphics capabilities.

I'm surprised they only have 512MB of RAM though...RAM is so cheap. Couldn't they have put at least 2GB in their systems?

jasonharris48

Well apparently when Epic begged for the 360 to have 512mb RAM instead of 256mb, MS said it would cost them a whopping $900 million during the consoles lifecycle. I have no ideahow this could be true :|

It does when multiplied by like 50 million 360's. >_

[QUOTE="jasonharris48"][QUOTE="PandaBear86"][QUOTE="arachosia"]

Does it really matter? As we've seen, both systems seem to be very similar in graphics capabilities.

I'm surprised they only have 512MB of RAM though...RAM is so cheap. Couldn't they have put at least 2GB in their systems?

mbrockway

Well apparently when Epic begged for the 360 to have 512mb RAM instead of 256mb, MS said it would cost them a whopping $900 million during the consoles lifecycle. I have no ideahow this could be true :|

It does when multiplied by like 50 million 360's. >_

Well its obvious that more RAM is very important for games, as a PC gamer, I also know that playing with a low amount of RAM isn't very good at all. However, we all know that RAM for consoles are used a bit different than a PC. Also, all of the hardware such as the CPU and GPU would also probably be used differently, where as in a PC game its much easier to comprehend how the games use the hardware effectively.carrot-cake

There is absolutely no reason why a game should need more than 256MB of general purpose RAMAmyMizuno