PS3 RAM vs Xbox 360 RAM

We have all seen threads where people compare the overall power of PS3 vs 360. However, lets just focus on the RAM for now, since both consoles can be easily bottle-necked by their low RAM. With the Xbox 360, you have 512mb shared between the CPU and GPU. If you play a game which requires more focus on CPU and less on graphics (such as a RTS game), then this would be a great advantage, since the CPU can take up like 70% of the total RAM if needed to.

As for the PS3, you have 256mb dedicated to CPU and another 256mb dedicated to GPU. You have the same RAM in total, but the CPU cannot "borrow" some of the GPU's RAM if it needed to, which could be a disadvantage for some games and make it harder for developers. However I am sure the PS3 has faster RAM to compensate.

Your thoughts? How much memory do the operating systems take on the PS3 and 360? I heard that the 360 takes 32mb of RAM while the PS3 takes 96, but I'm not too sure at all.

God no, not another one of these......

I know where I want to RAM your console.

Why must we always butt heads on this issue?

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

We have all seen threads where people compare the overall power of PS3 vs 360. However, lets just focus on the RAM for now, since both consoles can be easily bottle-necked by their low RAM. With the Xbox 360, you have 512mb shared between the CPU and GPU. If you play a game which requires more focus on CPU and less on graphics (such as a RTS game), then this would be a great advantage, since the CPU can take up like 70% of the total RAM if needed to.

As for the PS3, you have 256mb dedicated to CPU and another 256mb dedicated to GPU. You have the same RAM in total, but the CPU cannot "borrow" some of the GPU's RAM if it needed to, which could be a disadvantage for some games and make it harder for developers. However I am sure the PS3 has faster RAM to compensate.

Your thoughts? How much memory do the operating systems take on the PS3 and 360? I heard that the 360 takes 32mb of RAM while the PS3 takes 96, but I'm not too sure at all.

PandaBear86

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

The Standard HDD alleviates some of the problem, but really, both systems really could use even more RAM than they got.

Luckily, if Burnout/COD4/MGS4/Gears of War/BioShock/Assassin's Creed/Elder Scrolls are any indication, both system's are pretty even in the end.

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?

Yep, but the PS3 OS is taking less ram over time, i think due to some updates and what not. As for the RAM in general, due to the way its done on the PS3, it seems bottlenecked and much more work is required to overcome it. Tell me something, or who ever has played UT3 on PS3, when checking out enviroment textures in the game, is it as detailed as Gears in most of the areas?

The Standard HDD alleviates some of the problem, but really, both systems really could use even more RAM than they got.

Luckily, if Burnout/COD4/MGS4/Gears of War/BioShock/Assassin's Creed/Elder Scrolls are any indication, both system's are pretty even in the end.

SolidTy

Nuh, just drives up cost, consdering the consoles are more gaming sufficient, most of the ram is done with the game, unlike PC's and its OTHER applications that run in the background.

doesn't work like PC's.

And did you know the 360 originally was going for 256 ram? but thanks to Epic and gears they needed more.

with how cheep ram is now days I don't understand why both consoles don't have like 2g+

PS3s split ram might be it's biggest drawback next to drive speed.

*shrug* both are playing some cool games :D

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?

arachosia

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 :|

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?

arachosia

lol you said 2g too he he

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

The Standard HDD alleviates some of the problem, but really, both systems really could use even more RAM than they got.

Luckily, if Burnout/COD4/MGS4/Gears of War/BioShock/Assassin's Creed/Elder Scrolls are any indication, both system's are pretty even in the end.

HardTarget86

Nuh, just drives up cost, consdering the consoles are more gaming sufficient, most of the ram is done with the game, unlike PC's and its OTHER applications that run in the background.

doesn't work like PC's.

And did you know the 360 originally was going for 256 ram? but thanks to Epic and gears they needed more.

Yeah, I knew that. EPIC and Cliffy took M$ aside and said, "Pony up the RAM you guys~" It's pretty funny, if you look back at it.

[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 :|

In his latest podcast, Xbox Live's Major Nelson included a Q&A with Epic Games VP Mark Rein. In it, Rein discussed how Gears of War played a major role in the Xbox 360 shipping with 512 MB RAM instead of 256 MB, and how the move cost Microsoft a billion dollars.

"The interesting thing is that story you all heard about us costing Microsoft a billion dollars… that's actually true," Rein explained.

So what happened was, my partner Tim Sweeney, we kept arguing and arguing like, we really wanted a hard drive in every single machine; that was something we really wanted but we realized that the 512 megs of RAM was way more important, cause otherwise you couldn't do this level of graphics if you had to both write your program and do your graphics in 256 megs. Nothing would really look that HD."

"So we argued, and argued, and what Tim did is he actually sent a screenshot of what Gears of War would look like if we only had 256 megs of memory. So the day they made the decision, we were apparently the first developed they called; we were at Game Developers Conference, was it two years ago, and then I got a call from the Chief Financial Officer of MGS and he said 'I just want you to know you cost me a billion dollars' and I said, 'we did a favor for a billion gamers'."

To answer your question the ps3 has superior ram than the 360 and much faster just play msg4 and you will see

msg4 is probably the best shooter on any system. Even better than ummm should i say it shhhh crysis.

Why must we always butt heads on this issue?

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

Chutebox

Oh come one! No one? This is frigging golden man!

To answer your question the ps3 has superior ram than the 360 and much faster just play msg4 and you will see

msg4 is probably the best shooter on any system. Even better than ummm should i say it shhhh crysis.

steve8198

MGS4 looks good but i'm not sure if thats because of the ram.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

Why must we always butt heads on this issue?

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

Chutebox

Oh come one! No one? This is frigging golden man!

*crickets chirping* :P

"So we argued, and argued, and what Tim did is he actually sent a screenshot of what Gears of War would look like if we only had 256 megs of memory. So the day they made the decision, we were apparently the first developed they called; we were at Game Developers Conference, was it two years ago, and then I got a call from the Chief Financial Officer of MGS and he said 'I just want you to know you cost me a billion dollars' and I said, 'we did a favor for a billion gamers'."HardTarget86

Lol. Does anybody have that screenshot of Gears of war using a 256mb version of the Xbox 360?

To answer your question the ps3 has superior ram than the 360 and much faster just play msg4 and you will see

msg4 is probably the best shooter on any system. Even better than ummm should i say it shhhh crysis.

steve8198

I'm a HUGE mgs fan, but your going a little overboard, MGS4 does hold up some of the best character models, expecially in it's realtime cutscenes (almost CGI-like in some scenes), but in gameplay, MGS4 suffers from quite ALOT of low rez textures in its enviroments, with a few high rez ones here and there, if you look closer.

And yeah, MGS4 is the best single player experience, with a story that can't be matched.

We have all seen threads where people compare the overall power of PS3 vs 360. However, lets just focus on the RAM for now, since both consoles can be easily bottle-necked by their low RAM. With the Xbox 360, you have 512mb shared between the CPU and GPU. If you play a game which requires more focus on CPU and less on graphics (such as a RTS game), then this would be a great advantage, since the CPU can take up like 70% of the total RAM if needed to.

As for the PS3, you have 256mb dedicated to CPU and another 256mb dedicated to GPU. You have the same RAM in total, but the CPU cannot "borrow" some of the GPU's RAM if it needed to, which could be a disadvantage for some games and make it harder for developers. However I am sure the PS3 has faster RAM to compensate.

Your thoughts? How much memory do the operating systems take on the PS3 and 360? I heard that the 360 takes 32mb of RAM while the PS3 takes 96, but I'm not too sure at all.

PandaBear86

The PS3 os is down to 48mb. Been that way since FW1.80 I believe.

The PS3 os is down to 48mb. Been that way since FW1.80 I believe.mbrockway

I see. Cool :)

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

micky4889

To answer your question the ps3 has superior ram than the 360 and much faster just play msg4 and you will see

msg4 is probably the best shooter on any system. Even better than ummm should i say it shhhh crysis.

steve8198

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?

arachosia

As for the PS3's RAM running at 3.2GHz, that means little since it can only fetch data 64bits at a time (in contrast, the 360's RAM is Dual Data Rate, meaning a 128-bit pipe), so it has more opportunities to fetch but can fetch less per fetch. That's why the overall RAM advantages of the PS3 vs. the 360 aren't nearly as profound as some would have you believe. Even in the early days, I noted the theoretical bandwidth limits of the two to be less than 10% apart.

We have all seen threads where people compare the overall power of PS3 vs 360. However, lets just focus on the RAM for now, since both consoles can be easily bottle-necked by their low RAM. With the Xbox 360, you have 512mb shared between the CPU and GPU. If you play a game which requires more focus on CPU and less on graphics (such as a RTS game), then this would be a great advantage, since the CPU can take up like 70% of the total RAM if needed to.

As for the PS3, you have 256mb dedicated to CPU and another 256mb dedicated to GPU. You have the same RAM in total, but the CPU cannot "borrow" some of the GPU's RAM if it needed to, which could be a disadvantage for some games and make it harder for developers. However I am sure the PS3 has faster RAM to compensate.

Your thoughts? How much memory do the operating systems take on the PS3 and 360? I heard that the 360 takes 32mb of RAM while the PS3 takes 96, but I'm not too sure at all.

PandaBear86

Uh, yes it can, but there is a bottleneck involved with that process, it creates latency inside the system, which is why devs try to avoid it.

with how cheep ram is now days I don't understand why both consoles don't have like 2g+FragTycoon

Well, if I'm remembering correctly, retail RAM prices didn't begin dropping dramatically until early 2007...

And even compared to early 2007, prices are much lower now than they were during that time. These days, you can get 2GB sticks for like 40 bucks. By comparison: the combined price of two 1GB modules in mid-2006 would've been ~$200 or more.

[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

MojondeVACA

lolwut?,the CPU ram runs only at 3.2ghz on the ps3....the video ram of the xbox360 is more flexible (double data rate) and it runs at 1.4ghz,ps3 video ram runs also at 1.4ghz

Xbox 360 vs. PlayStation 3 vs. Wii: A Technical Comparison

The 360 uses a 512mb pool of 700mhz GDDR3 Ram (1.4ghz effective), same as the PS3's video ram. The PS3's cpu uses 3.2ghz XDR. I don't see how you could use the word "only 3.2ghz" when its twice as fast as the GDDR3.

[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?

HuusAsking

As for the PS3's RAM running at 3.2GHz, that means little since it can only fetch data 64bits at a time (in contrast, the 360's RAM is Dual Data Rate, meaning a 128-bit pipe), so it has more opportunities to fetch but can fetch less per fetch. That's why the overall RAM advantages of the PS3 vs. the 360 aren't nearly as profound as some would have you believe. Even in the early days, I noted the theoretical bandwidth limits of the two to be less than 10% apart.

different UMA vs. seperate pools of memory. While the 360 is more flexable, the PS3 allows for higher memory bandwidth and lower latancy as the 360 CPU doesn't have an on-die memory controller and needs to go through the GPU to access ram. Tradeoffs basically. A bottleneck is only a bottleneck if a dev chooses to make it one.

with how cheep ram is now days I don't understand why both consoles don't have like 2g+

PS3s split ram might be it's biggest drawback next to drive speed.

*shrug* both are playing some cool games :D

FragTycoon

indeed, both consoles should of at least had 1gb of RAM.

[QUOTE="HardTarget86"][QUOTE="SolidTy"]

The Standard HDD alleviates some of the problem, but really, both systems really could use even more RAM than they got.

Luckily, if Burnout/COD4/MGS4/Gears of War/BioShock/Assassin's Creed/Elder Scrolls are any indication, both system's are pretty even in the end.

SolidTy

Nuh, just drives up cost, consdering the consoles are more gaming sufficient, most of the ram is done with the game, unlike PC's and its OTHER applications that run in the background.

doesn't work like PC's.

And did you know the 360 originally was going for 256 ram? but thanks to Epic and gears they needed more.

Yeah, I knew that. EPIC and Cliffy took M$ aside and said, "Pony up the RAM you guys~" It's pretty funny, if you look back at it.

its good that they did, as nothing would work very well.

Graphical fidelity or should I say visual fidelity will also depend on geometry, (procedural) animation and physics IMO.

Waternoose has to go through Xenos for access to the system memory. CPU and GPU will always be fighting over the same pathway.

IIRC the L2 cache in Waternoose is not the same speed all over, but it has uniform latency.

All SPE memory accesses have to be pre-planned and anticipated to achieve any kind of efficiency with Cell. There is a possibility of contention, but in most cases I think RSX vertex shader workload/post-processing will be farmed out to SPEs to execute and the results read/streamed.

What is the built-in compression that the 360 has?

I think the only advantage 360's memory architecture has over PS3 is in the framebuffer and ease of use for the developer due to the UMA

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?

arachosia

both systems were finalised in 2005- so RAM prices back then were higher.

developers wanted 128MB of RAM for the original Xbox- but MS only gave them 64MB due to costs.

MS originally intended a puny 256MB for the X360 but Epic convinced them to pay $900million to fit it with 512MB after showing a tech demo of gears running on 256MB compared to 512MB.

[QUOTE="PandaBear86"]

We have all seen threads where people compare the overall power of PS3 vs 360. However, lets just focus on the RAM for now, since both consoles can be easily bottle-necked by their low RAM. With the Xbox 360, you have 512mb shared between the CPU and GPU. If you play a game which requires more focus on CPU and less on graphics (such as a RTS game), then this would be a great advantage, since the CPU can take up like 70% of the total RAM if needed to.

As for the PS3, you have 256mb dedicated to CPU and another 256mb dedicated to GPU. You have the same RAM in total, but the CPU cannot "borrow" some of the GPU's RAM if it needed to, which could be a disadvantage for some games and make it harder for developers. However I am sure the PS3 has faster RAM to compensate.

Your thoughts? How much memory do the operating systems take on the PS3 and 360? I heard that the 360 takes 32mb of RAM while the PS3 takes 96, but I'm not too sure at all.

Nagidar

Uh, yes it can, but there is a bottleneck involved with that process, it creates latency inside the system, which is why devs try to avoid it.

Yes this is true the RSX can saturate both RAM pools. This is obviously not as optimal as having one dedicated pool. The question was whether it could access the XDR, it clearly can via Redwood. How much this helps RSX is up in the air

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][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?

micky4889

As for the PS3's RAM running at 3.2GHz, that means little since it can only fetch data 64bits at a time (in contrast, the 360's RAM is Dual Data Rate, meaning a 128-bit pipe), so it has more opportunities to fetch but can fetch less per fetch. That's why the overall RAM advantages of the PS3 vs. the 360 aren't nearly as profound as some would have you believe. Even in the early days, I noted the theoretical bandwidth limits of the two to be less than 10% apart.

different UMA vs. seperate pools of memory. While the 360 is more flexable, the PS3 allows for higher memory bandwidth and lower latancy as the 360 CPU doesn't have an on-die memory controller and needs to go through the GPU to access ram. Tradeoffs basically. A bottleneck is only a bottleneck if a dev chooses to make it one.

I have no clue what you guys are talking about.:?Chutebox

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]I have no clue what you guys are talking about.:?HuusAsking

Yea I know, you guys are going pretty in-depth, which intrigues me and loses me lol.

[QUOTE="micky4889"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][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?

HuusAsking

As for the PS3's RAM running at 3.2GHz, that means little since it can only fetch data 64bits at a time (in contrast, the 360's RAM is Dual Data Rate, meaning a 128-bit pipe), so it has more opportunities to fetch but can fetch less per fetch. That's why the overall RAM advantages of the PS3 vs. the 360 aren't nearly as profound as some would have you believe. Even in the early days, I noted the theoretical bandwidth limits of the two to be less than 10% apart.

different UMA vs. seperate pools of memory. While the 360 is more flexable, the PS3 allows for higher memory bandwidth and lower latancy as the 360 CPU doesn't have an on-die memory controller and needs to go through the GPU to access ram. Tradeoffs basically. A bottleneck is only a bottleneck if a dev chooses to make it one.

It is more related to the memory's particular architecture and design. It would be more accurate to say that the Cell's XDRAM uses 2 memory links, each of which are 32 bit wide for a total of a 64 bit wide memory interface, clocked at 800Mhz and is QUAD pumped... meaning four transfers per clock which effectively makes the memory 3.2 GHz in effective clock speed. The XBox360 uses GDDR3, which is a lot like DDR memory which is DOUBLE pumped, meaning two data transfers per clock clocked at 700MHz which effectively makes the memory 1.4 GHz in effectively clock speed. The GPU is the system's north bridge in the system and it has two memory links that are 64 bit wide each for a total of a 128 bit wide memory interface. There is more at work than how wide the data bus is however... and as such a 64 bit wide data bus is no more theoretically bottlenecked using QDR than a 128 bit wide data bus using DDR. There are plenty of other things that can influence though...

[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

MojondeVACA

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?

Also: in their benchmarks, the Cell processor was capable, despite the bottlenecks, of obtaining graphics rendering performance equivalent to a "high end GPU," or as they later stated, roughly a high-end model of the Nvidia 7800. Older card, to be sure, especially now, when PC GPU's wtfpwn the worldzarrz, but even so, that's incredible performance for a dedicated CPU acting as an auxiliary through unified memory which has a performance bottleneck.

[QUOTE="FragTycoon"]with how cheep ram is now days I don't understand why both consoles don't have like 2g+Velocitas8

Well, if I'm remembering correctly, retail RAM prices didn't begin dropping dramatically until early 2007...

And even compared to early 2007, prices are much lower now than they were during that time. These days, you can get 2GB sticks for like 40 bucks. By comparison: the combined price of two 1GB modules in mid-2006 would've been ~$200 or more.

They used DDR3 they could have stuck 2 gigs of DDR2 in for less than half the cost at the time

Heres some mid 2005 comparisons, 1 gig of DDR2 (corsair xms2 800mhz) retailing for as low as $55, the cheapest 1 gig stick of DDR3 sitting at $225 (Kingston Value 1066mh) these are retail prices tho but youd have to assume some correlation to what a console maker would be paying the manufacturers.

link

[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

BobHipJames

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.

Graphics processor

Memory Bandwitdth: 360 21.6 GBps PS3 22.4 GBps

System memory

System Memory: 360 22.4 GBps PS3 25.6 GBps

How does the PS3 achieve higher bandwidth when it can only fetch data 64 bits at a time (whereas with the 360 it's 128 bits--I hear it employs Dual Channel).
HuusAsking

Pure clock speed. Its twice as fast so it makes up for the 64-bit channel, I guess. I already linked the info on the 3 systems specs: 360 PS3 Wii specs Comparison

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="FragTycoon"]with how cheep ram is now days I don't understand why both consoles don't have like 2g+pieatorium

Well, if I'm remembering correctly, retail RAM prices didn't begin dropping dramatically until early 2007...

And even compared to early 2007, prices are much lower now than they were during that time. These days, you can get 2GB sticks for like 40 bucks. By comparison: the combined price of two 1GB modules in mid-2006 would've been ~$200 or more.

They used DDR3 they could have stuck 2 gigs of DDR2 in for less than half the cost at the time

Heres some mid 2005 comparisons, 1 gig of DDR2 (corsair xms2 800mhz) retailing for as low as $55, the cheapest 1 gig stick of DDR3 sitting at $225 (Kingston Value 1066mh) these are retail prices tho but youd have to assume some correlation to what a console maker would be paying the manufacturers.

link

Screw DDR3 AND DDR2, the performance gains are so marginal it's ridiculous due to the insane latency.

But yeah DDR2 would be much preferable to DDR3 considering the latency gains on 3 over 2 are pretty huge, especially considering the price-performance ratio.

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="FragTycoon"]with how cheep ram is now days I don't understand why both consoles don't have like 2g+pieatorium

Well, if I'm remembering correctly, retail RAM prices didn't begin dropping dramatically until early 2007...

And even compared to early 2007, prices are much lower now than they were during that time. These days, you can get 2GB sticks for like 40 bucks. By comparison: the combined price of two 1GB modules in mid-2006 would've been ~$200 or more.

They used DDR3 they could have stuck 2 gigs of DDR2 in for less than half the cost at the time

Heres some mid 2005 comparisons, 1 gig of DDR2 (corsair xms2 800mhz) retailing for as low as $55, the cheapest 1 gig stick of DDR3 sitting at $225 (Kingston Value 1066mh) these are retail prices tho but youd have to assume some correlation to what a console maker would be paying the manufacturers.

link

http://research.scea.com/ps3_deferred_shading.pdf

There's the link on the unified memory....has the benchmarks and everything.

[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.

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

I dont care about the RAM of either system as long as they look as good as Bioshock, Gears of War, and Mass Effect on the 360 and as good as Ratchet, Uncharted, and MGS4 on the PS3.

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

BobHipJames