@sooty said:
@branthog said:
@sooty said:
@grimluck343 said:
Unless we're talking about the 8GB of GDDR5 which would be kind of crazy expensive and isn't commonly available for home PCs.
and for good reason, it's not worth it. I don't know why Sony are going forward with it, it's kind of crazy and is just going to make it uber expensive.
RAM speeds make absolutely fuck all difference to gaming. You gain like 2 FPS by having the fastest vs. the slowest DDR3.
At least it makes for fancy tech demos.
The absolute highest end PC hardware is quite insane. You can have triple 680s I believe, that's probably enough to run BF3 on ultra at 200+ FPS at 1080P. I think current hardware just means current high-mid to high end, not highest, because highest is insanely expensive.
I'm not a circuit designer or anything of the sort, but I assume the RAM is shared with the GPU, in which case using DDR5 (the same as current GPUs) would be beneficial.
Also, you can do quad-sli with current GTX cards. :)
That would be pretty nutty, at the same time though I find it really hard to believe any game could possibly need that much, the amount of VRAM we need for PC games hasn't really changed in such a long time, 512 was fine for like 4 years and then 700-1GB cards started becoming standard in the mid-high end space. I don't see these new consoles coming out and making it so all PC versions of games require a 2GB video card or anything.
Unless they are aiming to go beyond 1080P, in which case nifty, but fuck I'll need another new TV.
I think people are overlooking a lot of things, here. When everyone was telling me that my obsession with consoles having a ton of RAM was insane, I kept pointing out that new consoles are not going to be just playing games. They're going to do a lot more, simultaneously, as PCs do. And I was right. You're going to need a lot of memory to run a game, an OS with an interface overlay, all the social networking stuff in the background, live streaming of your game to other people, recording of fifteen minutes or more of your live game content to the hard drive for recording. That is a lot of stuff that console is doing and, frankly, I'm surprised they can make a go at all that with only 8gb.
As for the DDR5, if for no other reason, it's likely because it made more sense to go with all DDR5 than break it apart so that there is dedicated VRAM which is DDR5 and then DDR3 for system memory (which, who knows, may age poorly over the next five or ten years).
For a ten-year cycle, you need to do as much future-proofing as possible, so developers don't hit a wall two years down the road, like many complaints with the last generation of consoles and they're already clearly doing a lot from day one with this hardware, when you factor in all the additional functionality around and beyond just the actual game playing (even recording high quality HD at 30fps to an SSD on a PC while playing a game consumes significant resources).
I think their hardware sounds reasonable and I'm impressed that they're being ambitious. I don't think it's overkill, at all. (Again, I'm not a hardware guy, primarily but a software guy -- so to a degree I'm just spouting mildly-educated opinion form my armchair and nothing more).
@grimluck343 said:
@sooty Depends really. If they're going to try to stretch the cycle for these new consoles another seven to eight years than having fast ram could be very beneficial towards the end of the cycle.
RAM speeds and timings (fast vs slow, low vs high) make a pretty much irrelevant difference to game performance though, there's plenty of PC benchmarks to back up that, but if what Branthog said is true and they can allocate system RAM to the video card then that's definitely going to give developers more flexibility.
I believe this is how both existing consoles already do this (shared RAM with a dedicated chunk of it allocated to VRAM, like onboard motherboard graphics typically do).
Log in to comment