iamrob7's forum posts

#1 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

I watched at 1080p and saw nothing impressive.

zzzzzzzz PC gamers making things up now?

KillzoneSnake

 

The video is not in 1080p, I know that is how it is listed on youtube but if you think the 1080p it shows is anything even close to how 1080p actually looks like in game, well then you clearly don't know what 1080p looks like in such a game.

#2 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]You don't understand that the resolution of textures you are using is not going to be above the resolution the game is actually in i.e 1080p.  So in a 1080p game the best texture resolution you will get is 1080p.  1080p textures with all the current graphical bells and whistles available in game on top of them use at most 3GB RAM in total.  

 

No game will be released for a long time that uses anything like the full 8GB available on the PS4.  If ever.  By the time the 8GB becomes relevant, the PC equivalent will be a generation ahead or more.  

 

As for the 650ti, of course GPU memory is important, RAM is important.  The point is 8GB worth over 3GB worth for the foreseeable future is going to be meaningless for the PS4.  3GB over 1GB is a completely different thing, it's a big advantage in plenty of games.  

tormentos

You don't under stand that the PS4 at 1080p will have more resources to use than the 7870 probably.. Resolution is not the only thing that dictate ram usage,as you saw on the link i posted different setting have different ram requirements,you claim your PC use 1.5GB,but i showed you how the game on that same resolution can eat up as much as 2.2GB.. That is depending on the game,the textures,how much is going on and many other variables.. Your whole argument is based on your believe that sony can't take advantage of that ram soon enough,maybe you are confusing power with ram,getting to know the hardware to get more out of the GPU isn't quite the same as been ram limited,the PS3 was ram limited pretty much since it started..

 

I've already said on numerous occasions that RAM usage is down to any number of things.  Specifically resolution and graphical features.  

 

My whole argument is based on the belief that Sony will not be able to utilise the full 8GB in a game for quite a while to come, by the time they are able to the PC equivalent will have left it far behind.  There is nothing to suggest that 8GB is going to be utilised by any console game in the near future.  Nothing at all.

#3 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHWPGmf_A_0

 

Crysis 2 on a x1950 pro, graphics card from 2006.  Uncharted 3 and Halo 4 use graphical features that didn't exist in 2006.  Can a 2006 PC run them?  I don't see why not if it can run Crysis 2 just aswell if not better than consoles.  

 

Secondly a 7850 most certainly will not "run any gamg out now on max" unless a horribly unplayable framerate second is acceptable to you.  In which case a x1950 from 2006 can run any modern game on MAX settings if framerate is irrelevant for you.  

 

tormentos

The x1950 is basically a 360 with more ram,but 1 year later and even so the frame rate is all over the place and look at the comments on the video,the PS3 has a 7800GTX with 256MB of vram,not 512MB.. The PS3 has a mid 2005 GPU with half the bandwidth of its PC counter part and half the ram.. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=548 Before you even quote me hit that link,the 7850 hit 30 or more frames per second in max settings in 1080p quite easy,in fact it runs Battle Field 3 on 2560x1600 ultra at 32FPS which on consoles is more than playable. Now the PS4 GPU is actually stronger,custom and more efficient that the 7850..

You said "nothing runs like Halo 4 or uncharted on a 7800GTX", that's impossible to know because those games are unavailable on the PC.  Crysis 2 seems like a more demanding game than either of those to me and seeing as a x1950 pro runs Crysis 2 at higher settings than either console with comparable framerates.  Who knows whether a 7800GTX could handle Halo 4 or uncharted at decent framerates.  

 

The PS3 has a custom GPU, it is not an actual 7800GTX, you realise that right?

 

The 7850 is a decent card.  Nothing wrong with it at all, it does not however max out every single game at an acceptable framerate. Let's take Crysis 3 for example, it would eat a 7850 alive maxed out.  30 frames per second is the bare minimum.  It also averages 20 FPS for BF3 at 1440p;

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7870-review-benchmark,3148-6.html

 

So I seriously doubt it could get 30FPS on ultra in BF3 at 1600p, do you have a source for this claim?

#4 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]I love how when you have no viable response to anything I've said you just repeat yourself like a parrot.  

 

When a statement is more easily interpreted using a more commonly understood use of a word, whether that usage is technically accurate or not, it makes it the right choice.  It's only "WRONG" for people like you, who pointlessly waste their time on meaningless semantics that have no bearing on anything.  

Silenthps

It seems to me that you're just afraid to admit that you're wrong so you come in here with your post-modern bull. You've had about 5 people in the thread calling you out about your usage of the word which clearly prove that your usage of it did NOT bring clarity and only caused more confusion and you still can't admit it. Is it really that hard to call it GDDR5 like everyone else who knows even a tad about hardware already do?

 

It seems to me you have no real response, rather a lot of pseudo analysis.  3 people mentioned it, the first was clearly just upset because he had nothing else to say.  The second person posted something completely different initially and when I responded and pointed out their post was irrelevant, only then did they suddenly jump on the semantic train.  Presumably as they had no other response to my retort on their initial comment.

 

Aside from that, there is you.  Someone who either doesn't understand what post modernism is or is just using it flippantly to describe something they don't really seem to understand.  I'm not skeptical of interpretation, I'm practical.  There is a huge difference.  I'm not debating an the rights and wrongs of absolutism.  I'm talking about the practical usage of language, there is no deep philosophical point beyond simple practicality.  

 

Your assertion that it did not bring clarity is not born out by the facts.  Not a single person misunderstood what I was saying.  A few took issue with the semantics, but they didn't misunderstand.  Whereas inevitably if I hadn't referred to the memory as GDDR5 I would have had numerous consolites badgering me about how my post only dealt with GPU RAM and I didn't realise that the playstation GDDR5 would be used system wide.  That's because it got reported like that.  The way I posted meant that the maximum number of people understood, as the only people it marignalised were those who understood the meanings already and would be able to decipher my post.  Don't blame me for being practical, blame reality.  

#5 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

Ummm... Crysis 3 on Ultra uses about 2GBs of System RAM and 2.2 - 2.9 GBs of Video RAM for me. That adds up to around 4.2 - 4.9 GBs in general.

I can see the PS4 having 5GBs of it's RAM for gaming. So that fits under it's budget. In addition, since the PS4 uses an APU and a unified memory system, there will be no need to duplicate information, which leads to lower RAM usage. The weaker points to the console are the CPU and then the GPU. We should worry more that the CPU will be enough and the GPU enough to run as a normal video GPU and a GpGPU at the same time than scream 8GB GDDR5!!!!!

All that RAM is useless if the chips processing the data aren't powerful enough to handle the load.

ShadowDeathX

 

On Very high with every setting in 1080p.  I am using 1.2GB system RAM and 1.5GB VRAM.  :S

 

What resolution are you running in?

#6 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"] I didn't say you were disputing it and I understood what you wrote. By calling it DDR5 ram all you're doing is creating more confusion. Silenthps

 

What confusion am I creating?  What problem is it going to cause?  Please explain to me the major issue using "DDR5" to describe GDDR5 being used system wide is going to cause when that is how most people interpret it anyway?  GDDR5 being used system wide is an advancement on the current PC setup, so would DDR5 be if it existed.  The net effect of either is the same for the purposes of any discussion or interpretation.  Especially on this board.  

well for one it already caused problems, there's still lots of people who still don't know the difference between the two, when DDR5 does come out, people will be more confused. Sony has no problem calling it gddr5 in their tech papers nor do any other websites, i don't see what's so hard about calling it what it actually is. In fact it would be much more clear if you just called it "GDDR5 used as system memory" from the start, if you don't feel comfortable with just saying its GDDR5. What if I started calling "GDDR5 being used system wide" as "hamster" instead? Are you saying that wouldn't cause confusion? Words have meaning and the G is important.

 

 

What problem has it caused?  How does it matter whether people know the difference between the two?  They understand GDDR5 is superior to DDR3 just as DDR5 would be.  So it causes no problem.  DDR5 won't be out for years and by that time this PS4 8GB thing will be ancient history.  

 

Your analogy is very silly, I used DDR5 rather than "hamster" because DDR5 had been reported and it also suggests that this new more advanced memory than DDR3 is being used system wide.  In an ideal world I would be to say GDDR5 and not get 20 responses from people saying I didn't understand it is being used system wide, this isn't an ideal world though.  Far simpler to negate that by referring to it as DDR5 as has been reported everywhere and most people immediately understand.  

 

Words can only cause confusion when their use of meaning is misleading, there is nothing in my point, my post or anything I've said that is in any way subverted by referring to it as DDR5.  Picking on semantics that have no consequence is just petty and a complete waste of everyones time.  

 

If I had addressed a conference of developers as a Sony employee and labelled it inaccurately, then we have relevance, because the finer details matter.  In a discussion on SW, the only thing that has relevance is, is it better than ddr3.  Which it is, no matter what label is used.  

#7 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

I'm not caught up on the symantics, im caught up in the syntax. GDDR5 is not DDR5 and is not called DDR5 and cannot be called DDR5. It already has the name GDDR5 and that relates to something very specific. This isn't liberal arts, trying to find meaning and give clever names to things. Fact is its GDDR5 no matter how its used, and calling it DDR5 is misleading and wrong. It is a WRONG statement. Nothing about that is up for discussion. Its just how it is wether you like it or not

way2funny

 

Haha, that's precisely the kind of blinkered animosity I was describing.  Syntax is the form of a sentence??  Semantics is the meaning, Syntax is form and the principles of structure.  You are dealing with Semantics, not syntax, when you criticise the use of DDR5 in place of GDDR5.  It's the meaning you have a problem with is it not?

 

I'm not sitting an exam with yes or no answers, I'm expressing ideas and thoughts in the shape of a discussion.  If I expressed those ideas in a better way to more people using an innaccurate definition of a word, which would have hindered me and wasted my time if I'd used it correctly, then that would be a smart move.   

 

If the great minds that have caused jumps in our evolution throughout the ages had thought like you, we would all be banging sticks together in caves grunting at one another still.

 

Also it is Semantics, not Symantics.  Symantics alludes to symmetry of definition perhaps, a new word, ah the wonders of language ey.

Fact is its GDDR5 no matter how its used, and calling it DDR5 is misleading and wrong. It is a WRONG statement. Nothing about that is up for discussion. Its just how it is wether you like it or not

 

I love how when you have no viable response to anything I've said you just repeat yourself like a parrot.  

 

When a statement is more easily interpreted using a more commonly understood use of a word, whether that usage is technically accurate or not, it makes it the right choice.  It's only "WRONG" for people like you, who pointlessly waste their time on meaningless semantics that have no bearing on anything.  

#8 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

Right im glad you are aware that it is being used as system memory, but it is NOT DDR5 and is not called DDR5. Its called GDDR5 no matter where and how you use it.

way2funny

 

Meaning is about consensus and relevance.  That's how language is developed and used.  Take the word gay its meaning is happiness essentially, yet that meaning is completely different now, in fact after 50 years or so it now has an additional meaning in a dictionary.  Why?  because it was used differently by the consensus.  People used it to express and label something, a homosexual.  This is how all language has evolved.

 

Years ago I did a physics degree, there are endless concepts and labels used which are applied and used completely differently in normal conversation so as to express an appropriate meaning given a discussion about this or that.  In particular with someone who lacks the technical side of awareness.  That's how language develops and words create different meanings.  It is how language is supposed to be used.  To express your meaning in the best way possible.

Your insistence on me using GDDR5 instead of DDR5 in the title reminds me of some academics who couldn't stand to see a scientific term misused from its written definition, even if the misuse actually produced a greater understanding of the underlying concept.  I'm not suggesting that they were wrong or that they didn't have a valid point, but for me it's entirely dependent on circumstance.  Only when the misuse of a concept/word actually affects the meaning behind the point/concept you are getting across is it worth arguing about or getting upset about.  That's not the case here and hence I don't really understand your motivation.  You understood what my point was presumably?  You also understood that using DDR5 as opposed to GDDR5 mislead nobody in any meaningful way?  You understand that GDDR5 has not been used as system memory before?  So it is not unreasonable to use a term to describe GDDR5 being used as system memory, seeing as DDR5 has been widely reported and will be understood by most people.  With popular associations in mind, why would DDR5 not be a reasonable way to express the meaning of GDDR5 used as system wide memory?  It seems to me like a good way to express it.  DDR5 doesn't exist as a different entity, so there can be no confusion.  

 

I understood why the first guy picked on it, because he found the post upsetting and had no other viable response but to pick on petty semantics.  Your motivation seems to be different though, it's the actual semantics that you are caught up on.  Perhaps because I responded to your initial post about something else highlighting its irrelevance.  Maybe because you had no response to that, you decided to pick on the semantics, I'm not sure.  People such as yourself will always puzzle me, but each to their own ey.  

I'm not caught up on the symantics, im caught up in the syntax. GDDR5 is not DDR5 and is not called DDR5 and cannot be called DDR5. It already has the name GDDR5 and that relates to something very specific. This isn't liberal arts, trying to find meaning and give clever names to things. Fact is its GDDR5 no matter how its used, and calling it DDR5 is misleading and wrong. It is a WRONG statement. Nothing about that is up for discussion. Its just how it is wether you like it or not

 

Haha, that's precisely the kind of blinkered animosity I was describing.  Syntax is the form of a sentence??  Semantics is the meaning, Syntax is form and the principles of structure.  You are dealing with Semantics, not syntax, when you criticise the use of DDR5 in place of GDDR5.  It's the meaning you have a problem with is it not?

 

I'm not sitting an exam with yes or no answers, I'm expressing ideas and thoughts in the shape of a discussion.  If I expressed those ideas in a better way to more people using an innaccurate definition of a word, which would have hindered me and wasted my time if I'd used it correctly, then that would be a smart move.   

 

If the great minds that have caused jumps in our evolution throughout the ages had thought like you, we would all be banging sticks together in caves grunting at one another still.

 

Also it is Semantics, not Symantics.  Symantics alludes to symmetry of definition perhaps, a new word, ah the wonders of language ey.

#9 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

[QUOTE="iamrob7"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"] He actually believes that sony will not use the ram because PC developers are not using it...:lol: I would love to see sony using 5 or 6 GB of ram and trowing incredible textures,effects and things at once,i would love to see how those 660TI and most mid to high range GPU start to choke.. Is something they never think about they think that as long as the GPU is strong nothing can hurt them..:lol: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6359/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-review/6 They don't want to understand what happen when a GPU get Vram limited.. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6359/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-review/15 Look at the huge blow that GPU take when they are ram starved,in both cases the 650ti or the 7850 the result was the same,as long as the game doesn't demand allot of ram is ok,as soon as a game ask to much ram the impact is latent.. 33FPS difference between both models of 7850 just because one had 1GB more of ram,in the same resolution.xboxiphoneps3

 

You don't understand that the resolution of textures you are using is not going to be above the resolution the game is actually in i.e 1080p.  So in a 1080p game the best texture resolution you will get is 1080p.  1080p textures with all the current graphical bells and whistles available in game on top of them use at most 3GB RAM in total.  

 

No game will be released for a long time that uses anything like the full 8GB available on the PS4.  If ever.  By the time the 8GB becomes relevant, the PC equivalent will be a generation ahead or more.  

 

As for the 650ti, of course GPU memory is important, RAM is important.  The point is 8GB worth over 3GB worth for the foreseeable future is going to be meaningless for the PS4.  3GB over 1GB is a completely different thing, it's a big advantage in plenty of games.  

 

lol bro RAM is not just used for textures.... its used for tons of other things.. faster loading times, more particles in the air, more randomness in the game, bigger landscapes, more NPC's in the game, etc... a bunch of things benefit from extra RAM

 

That's why I said textures + all the available bells and whistles then.  That's why I talked about Planetside 2 and DayZ, the two games with the largest amount of players in the largest area available right now.  Those are the benefits of extra RAM and the limit with every graphical feature available in those huge environments right now is around 3GB.  8GB provides no advantages until new features are developed that utilise it.  By then the PC equivalent will be a generation ahead.

 

Faster load times are all about your HD, i.e. an SSD will make a big improvement.  Rendering is related to the above.  

#10 Posted by iamrob7 (2138 posts) -

LOL

DDR8...DDR9

What's up with all the nonsense threads.

glez13

 

The idea was to express how much further PC memory would be ahead of the PS4's 8GB by the time it became relevant.  It wasn't a prediction of DDR8 or 9 actually existing.  I kinda thought that would be pretty obvious :S