The PS3 Has Crappy Amount of RAM, Right?

So why can't they use something like 'readyboost' or some kind of optional/forced cache RAM?

I was just thinking of this after reading how some folks were annoyed by Skyrim and it was brought up that some (most?) of the lag/long load times is because of the piss poor RAM on the PS3.

Then again, I could just be talking outa my ass.

It isnt the ammount i dont think. Its how the ps3 stores the data onto its memory. The engine skyrim uses just does not agree with how the ps3 does its thing ram wise. (from what ive heard anyway do not own a ps3)

The xbox 360 only has like 512mb of ram but doen't seem to have the problems (or to such a high degree)the ps3 has running skyrim. (again from what i heard have a 360 but not skyrim)

Think Bethesdas even knew about there game engine playing hissy fits on the ps3 they just never fixed it. Understandable that ps3 owners being annoyed about it if this is true.

But i get what your aiming at with skyrim and questioning ram ammounts since games like that tend to eat up memory like no tomorrow.

Maybe im talking outa my arse as well. Maybe a techical mind can enlighten :D

The 360 has it's meager 512 MB shared between the CPU and the GPU, which allows some freedom.
The PS3 has 256MB exclusively for the CPU and 256 MB dedicated to the GPU, which is more restrictive.
The 360 is more flexible and easier to develop on for many other reasons too, but this is no excuse for Bethesda.
Beth should make their games work properly on the PS3 or not release them on the PS3 at all.

Ragetrain:
It isnt the ammount i dont think. Its how the ps3 stores the data onto its memory.

One is the response to the other.

The PS3 has very poor amounts of RAM compared to anything else thats runs games.

To over come this lack of hardware...

*sigh*

Games on consoles use very complicated algorithms so they can squeeze as much data onto the RAM as possible. And its here the problems arise.

Tanis:
So why can't they use something like 'readyboost' or some kind of optional/forced cache RAM?

How would more RAM help?

There is a very big difference between Consoles and Computers in terms of how the games are built and then subsequently play.

Games on PC adapt themselves to the settings applied vs the hardware supplied. For example I can put all of my settings for the Witcher 2 on Ultra-high... it will be very pretty... it'll lag like fuck but it will be a sequence of very pretty pictures.
If you added more RAM to a PC then that would be great and the game would improve unless RAM wasn't the problem in performance.

Games for consoles are tailored to the console and their specific hardware specifications.
Double the amount of RAM... will the game improve? No. Only half the RAM will be used and the game would remain the same...

If you wanted an improvement you'd have to re-write the fundamental workings of the game to account for this extra RAM you're adding and if that was done then there... likely wouldn't be an improvement. It's the algorithms that Skyrim has an issue with and the algorithms are merely a solution to the lack of RAM...

Solution.

But a computer... like me :)

I thought the Ps3 had RIDICULOUS video RAM, which is why we haven't even pushed the thing graphically yet but really poor system RAM, like half the 360's, which is why we can't do party chat and stuff like that...the Vita has less video RAM than the Ps3 but more system RAM, hence the ability to party chat....infact I think the Vita is more powerful than the 360 but I'd have to check my numbers on that..

Veldt Falsetto:
I thought the Ps3 had RIDICULOUS video RAM, which is why we haven't even pushed the thing graphically yet but really poor system RAM, like half the 360's, which is why we can't do party chat and stuff like that...the Vita has less video RAM than the Ps3 but more system RAM, hence the ability to party chat....infact I think the Vita is more powerful than the 360 but I'd have to check my numbers on that..

The PS3 has been push graphically, don't blame the RAM just because it didn't turn out how you wanted it to be all those years ago.

Did you know, the xbox has a better GPU than the PS3? That's one of the reasons games are generally worse on PS3, devs are forced to use the cell to get anything done and it's notoriously hard to work with.

Always thought it was weird how people blame the PS3 for a problem that's exclusive to one game. One notoriously buggy game that the developers have admitted was badly optimised and have pretty much fixed now at least in my experience. I just don't think Skyrim is the most intense game on the console and yet it's the only one with this problem.

E - just realised I was trying to be fair in a fanboy post, I think I'm doing it wrong. *ahem* LOLZ PS3 RULES 360 SUCKS. All is as it should be now.

Matthew94:

Veldt Falsetto:
I thought the Ps3 had RIDICULOUS video RAM, which is why we haven't even pushed the thing graphically yet but really poor system RAM, like half the 360's, which is why we can't do party chat and stuff like that...the Vita has less video RAM than the Ps3 but more system RAM, hence the ability to party chat....infact I think the Vita is more powerful than the 360 but I'd have to check my numbers on that..

The PS3 has been push graphically, don't blame the RAM just because it didn't turn out how you wanted it to be all those years ago.

Did you know, the xbox has a better GPU than the PS3? That's one of the reasons games are generally worse on PS3, devs are forced to use the cell to get anything done and it's notoriously hard to work with.

I got it wrong, what I meant was the Ps3 has split it's RAM and system memory so it can render the games better but it puts the multitasking at a disadvantage at the same time

The stats are;
Ps3 - CPU 3.2 GHz Cell Broadband Engine with 1 PPE & 7 SPEs
System Memory 256 MB system and 256 MB video (this is what I was talking about
Graphics 550 MHz NVIDIA/SCEI RSX 'Reality Synthesizer'

Xbox 360 - CPU 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon
System Memory 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon
Graphics 500 MHz ATI Xenos

Now let's look at the Vita

Vita - CPU 4-core ARM Cortex-A9 MPCore
System Memory 512 MB RAM, 128 MB VRAM
Graphics 4-core SGX543MP4+

So basically the Vita can't pump out the same graphics as the Ps3 or 360 but renders them faster than the 360 and has more system ram than the Ps3 any day of the week and a better CPU than the two.

Looking at this, I should get a Vita LOL

EDIT: Just for fun

Wii - CPU IBM PowerPC-based "Broadway"
Graphics ATI "Hollywood"
512 MB Internal flash memory

Pearwood:
Always thought it was weird how people blame the PS3 for a problem that's exclusive to one game. One notoriously buggy game that the developers have admitted was badly optimised and have pretty much fixed now at least in my experience. I just don't think Skyrim is the most intense game on the console and yet it's the only one with this problem.

E - just realised I was trying to be fair in a fanboy post, I think I'm doing it wrong. *ahem* LOLZ PS3 RULES 360 SUCKS. All is as it should be now.

Yeah, it's kinda crazy how people thought it was the job of the PS3 to make Bethesda's game work better.

to be fair the ps3 had no idea what the future of gaming would be like, they hit the nail on the head with blue ray disk but then smash their sisters kneecaps with the ram situation and the ridiculousness number of cores(smidgen of hyper-ball)

as it turns out the Xbox set up was just easier to work with but that's no excuse for releasing a game with the flaw that screws over a sizable part of you customers

I had the same problem with new vegas's lag. Now I just buy bethesda/obsidian games for 360 and other games for my PS3.

Douglas Dover:
to be fair the ps3 had no idea what the future of gaming would be like, they hit the nail on the head with blue ray disk but then smash their sisters kneecaps with the ram situation and the ridiculousness number of cores(smidgen of hyper-ball)

as it turns out the Xbox set up was just easier to work with but that's no excuse for releasing a game with the flaw that screws over a sizable part of you customers

I believe Blu-Ray was a mistake too, it was the reason for the $600 price tag of the PS3 at launch and it really hasn't been that successful. Only a very small percentage of games took advantage of the extra space and blu-ray movies still occupy only a small corner in most video stores.

Blu-Ray could grow given enough time but I don't think it will have that time. I believe we are moving towards solid state media and I'll bet most people just stream their movies these days.

Tanis:
-snip-

256MB main memory, 256MB for the GPU.

The main memory is XDR RAM, not commonly used, but massively low latency and hugely faster than the DDR or GDDR of the day (the other 256MB is GDDR3 for the GPU). So while it has a low capacity, it makes up for in being able to shunt things to and from memory incredibly quickly.

Working in such a tight environment means a totally different programming paradigm to that of PC. So console ports usually undergo huge memory management algorithm additions to tightly control what is being put in memory to ensure that the capacity isn't exceeded. In a sense, developers like this as they get a chance to highly optimise the game in the process AND it gives them set boundaries to work to. The disadvantage is that these practices can turn out horribly, see Skyrim for PS3.

If we're going to talk the future regarding Orbis and the 720 (I still don't know of another name to call it), then I'd expect these to have no more than 2 GB of RAM. Their OS' are not full fledged like Windows or Mac OS and thus will not require the same amounts of RAM needed to tick it over. And considering that modern games take up between 1 and 2 GB of RAM when running (BF3 takes up just over 1.1GB with high presets), you don't need any more than that.

Of course, in 2018/2020, we'll perhaps be restarting this conversation all over again about how the PS5 and XBox 1440 will need only 5 trillion petabytes to cope with modern games. I kid.

Crono1973:
-snip-

Sony has too much of a stake in Blu-Ray since it is the prime backer AND has a movie arm that uses it extensively; you can pretty much guarantee that they'll have one in Orbis. Though i'm also sure they'll provide download offerings too, just so fingers are kept in all pies.

Crono1973:

Pearwood:
Always thought it was weird how people blame the PS3 for a problem that's exclusive to one game. One notoriously buggy game that the developers have admitted was badly optimised and have pretty much fixed now at least in my experience. I just don't think Skyrim is the most intense game on the console and yet it's the only one with this problem.

E - just realised I was trying to be fair in a fanboy post, I think I'm doing it wrong. *ahem* LOLZ PS3 RULES 360 SUCKS. All is as it should be now.

Yeah, it's kinda crazy how people thought it was the job of the PS3 to make Bethesda's game work better.

Your post does not tell the whole story.

360
CPU: IBM PowerPC, Tri-Core, 3.2Ghz
RAM: 512MB GDDR3
GPU: ATi Xenos (Basically an modified X1850) at 500Mhz, with 10MB eDRAM.

PS3
IBM PowerPC "Cell Broadband", 3.2Ghz
RAM: 256MB XDR DRAM System Memory
GPU: NVIDIA RSX (Essentially a Geforce 7800 upgraded slightly) @ 550Mhz
VRAM: 256MB GDDR3

Wii
IBM "Hollywood" (PowerPC G4 based, basically higher clocked gamecube CPU) @ 729Mhz
RAM: 64MB GDDR3 main system memory
GPU: ATi "Hollywood" (Based on Gamecube's "Flipper GPU", higher clocked)
VRAM: 24MB 1T-SRAM

For Giggles
Gamecube
CPU: IBM PowerPC "Gekko" (PowerPC 750CXe Core) @ 486Mhz
RAM: 24MB 1T-SRAM Main System Memory
GPU: ATi "Flipper" 162mhz
VRAM: 3MB 1T-SRAM

Nintendo 64
CPU: NEC VR4300 (MIPS R4300i) clocked at 94Mhz (Could not use DMA to access main memory)
RAM:4MB Unified (up to 8MB) R-DRAM clocked at 500Mhz (16 bit bus) Horrible Access latency
RCP/GPU: 62.5Mhz Multi-Function chip (Handles video, audio, I/O, and contains the memory controller) Also hindered by a 4KB Texture Cache.

This is why the PS3 exclusives are so pretty. Love and care has been taken to assure it runs properly and they don't have to waste time with two different setups. *hugs R&C to chest*
I always thought the PS3 handled it's games better. Plus they just have better exclusives. I'm prolly way off topic anyways so nvm me.

rudolphna:

Crono1973:

Pearwood:
Always thought it was weird how people blame the PS3 for a problem that's exclusive to one game. One notoriously buggy game that the developers have admitted was badly optimised and have pretty much fixed now at least in my experience. I just don't think Skyrim is the most intense game on the console and yet it's the only one with this problem.

E - just realised I was trying to be fair in a fanboy post, I think I'm doing it wrong. *ahem* LOLZ PS3 RULES 360 SUCKS. All is as it should be now.

Yeah, it's kinda crazy how people thought it was the job of the PS3 to make Bethesda's game work better.

Your post does not tell the whole story.

360
CPU: IBM PowerPC, Tri-Core, 3.2Ghz
RAM: 512MB GDDR3
GPU: ATi Xenos (Basically an modified X1850) at 500Mhz, with 10MB eDRAM.

PS3
IBM PowerPC "Cell Broadband", 3.2Ghz
RAM: 256MB XDR DRAM System Memory
GPU: NVIDIA RSX (Essentially a Geforce 7800 upgraded slightly) @ 550Mhz
VRAM: 256MB GDDR3

Wii
IBM "Hollywood" (PowerPC G4 based, basically higher clocked gamecube CPU) @ 729Mhz
RAM: 64MB GDDR3 main system memory
GPU: ATi "Hollywood" (Based on Gamecube's "Flipper GPU", higher clocked)
VRAM: 24MB 1T-SRAM

For Giggles
Gamecube
CPU: IBM PowerPC "Gekko" (PowerPC 750CXe Core) @ 486Mhz
RAM: 24MB 1T-SRAM Main System Memory
GPU: ATi "Flipper" 162mhz
VRAM: 3MB 1T-SRAM

Nintendo 64
CPU: NEC VR4300 (MIPS R4300i) clocked at 94Mhz (Could not use DMA to access main memory)
RAM:4MB Unified (up to 8MB) R-DRAM clocked at 500Mhz (16 bit bus) Horrible Access latency
RCP/GPU: 62.5Mhz Multi-Function chip (Handles video, audio, I/O, and contains the memory controller) Also hindered by a 4KB Texture Cache.

Your post doesn't even begin to tell the story. Here's the story: If you make a console game, you need to make it run well on that console. It was Bethesda's job to make Skyrim run well on the PS3 or else they should not have released it.

Tanis:
So why can't they use something like 'readyboost' or some kind of optional/forced cache RAM?

I was just thinking of this after reading how some folks were annoyed by Skyrim and it was brought up that some (most?) of the lag/long load times is because of the piss poor RAM on the PS3.

Then again, I could just be talking outa my ass.

Allow me to let you know that readyboost is a joke, and should only be considered on a Sunday, where you are unable to go to the store and buy more RAM, or on a system that should not be handling Vista/Win7.

Secondly, 512 aint that bad if you have one task and one task alone. 512 is unacceptable in the PC side of things because your OS needs to do a lot of things, just so you, the end user can do even more things. If you wanted to, you could use Windows CE to create a distribution that works with only a minuscule amount of ram, but you'd be gutting a lot of what Windows uses to work on just about every machine under the sun, and you would eschew a lot of features that you may not think of.

So, when we look at the tasks that each console does, the games that have been built for them, yeah. The specs are reasonable, and offer a lot of leeway for developers. This does not mean that the developers can slack, and use the same fucking broken engine over, and over!!

I would say more on the subject, but personally, I have a bit of bias against Bethesda, and everyone else said everything important about the hardware configurations of Consoles.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here