Latest Rumour Suggests PS4 Will Have Half The RAM Of Xbox 720

mistercrow

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 10, 2007
24,742
238
0
Texas
#92
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5991922]I thought DDR3 & GDDR3 was different for some reason. Sent via Codec[/QUOTE] I dont know. All I know is that the 360 uses GDDR3. lol
 
Oct 18, 2006
5,040
88
48
#93
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5991922]I thought DDR3 & GDDR3 was different for some reason.
Sent via Codec[/QUOTE]

I had thought there we some differences as well, I know for the most part both DDR3 and GDDR3 are the same, but I had though GDDR3 was tweaked more for graphics cards, hence the "G" on the GDDR.
 

mistercrow

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 10, 2007
24,742
238
0
Texas
#94
[QUOTE="MonkeyClaw, post: 5991934]I had thought there we some differences as well, I know for the most part both DDR3 and GDDR3 are the same, but I had though GDDR3 was tweaked more for graphics cards, hence the "G" on the GDDR.[/QUOTE] Yeah thats what I've always thought.
 

TGO

Ancient
Feb 26, 2006
10,293
31
48
38
purgatory
#95
[QUOTE="radgamer420, post: 5991931]I dont know. All I know is that the 360 uses GDDR3. lol[/QUOTE]

Thats what I was referring to, ie the 360 has GDDR3 RAM but the 720 has DDR3
I was just correcting Average because he kept mentioning GDDR3

Sent via Codec
 

mistercrow

Ultimate Veteran
Nov 10, 2007
24,742
238
0
Texas
#96
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5991946]Thats what I was referring to, ie the 360 has GDDR3 RAM but the 720 has DDR3 I was just correcting Average because he kept mentioning GDDR3 Sent via Codec[/QUOTE] Oh ok I understand now.
 

Vulgotha

Power Member
Jan 6, 2007
15,776
148
0
29
#97
[QUOTE="MATRIX 2, post: 5991887]I find that hard to believe since the fastest DDR3 memory (DDR3-3000) tops out at 24GB/s.

And seeing as DDR4 will be coming to consumer platforms in 2014, it would be rather shortsighted of MS not to use GDDR5.[/QUOTE]

There are other considerations at play. For one DDR3 is dirt cheap at the moment, for another I think it is becoming clear (totally conjecture!) that they are focusing on more than just gaming with this box. Maybe it will have DVR features or some other special stuff.. If this is the case the CPU is going to need reasonable access to memory in order to adequately perform these functions.

To make up for the lackluster bandwidth they've included special custom silicon to aid the GPU.

I'm not entirely sure I like this direction, but I haven't seen any games yet (or anything for Orbis) so I cannot pass judgment. Until I get something more concrete, though, my opinion here is that MS didn't want to go balls out for performance like they did with the 360 and Xbox with this new device. The Wii made an impression and they'd rather aim for the casual market out of the box, make a profit immediately (or very soon after launch), and target the living room as an entertainment center.

So far I'm not impressed with what I'm seeing. From either side..
 
Oct 18, 2006
5,040
88
48
#99
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5991952]It has a HDMI in don't it?
Sounds like a center box in the livingroom for everything to run through to me

Sent via Codec[/QUOTE]

Maybe they are going to have Tru2way or something similar which will allow the system to be used as a cable box and/or DVR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tru2way
 
S

Soldier 95B

Guest
I like what Sony did with PlayTV in the UK. I hope they include that in the PS4 for the states as well.
 
Oct 18, 2006
5,040
88
48
[QUOTE="Completely Average, post: 5991985]There is a reason I keep saying GDDR3 and not DDR3.

The rumors are that AMD is making both CPU and GPU, right?



Care to guess who invented GDDR memory?


Why would AMD pay to license out DDR memory from someone else when GDDR is their own product?[/QUOTE]

Good point!
 

mondofish

Staff Writer & Graphic Designer
Dec 14, 2009
492
6
0
32
Buxton, Maine
From what I have seen in a lot of the "next-gen" tech demos the vast graphical improvements lie not in the textures and environments, but in the quantity and quality of effects and particle rendering (i.e...bloom, lighting, all that jazz) This rumored architecture sounds like the right system for the job. I think the next Playstation is going to be just fine and you'd be kidding yourself if you think you know better then Sony in that regard.
 

MATRIX 2

Forum Sage
Jul 29, 2005
8,554
109
63
D.C.
[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5991951]There are other considerations at play. For one DDR3 is dirt cheap at the moment, for another I think it is becoming clear (totally conjecture!) that they are focusing on more than just gaming with this box. Maybe it will have DVR features or some other special stuff.. If this is the case the CPU is going to need reasonable access to memory in order to adequately perform these functions.

To make up for the lackluster bandwidth they've included special custom silicon to aid the GPU.

I'm not entirely sure I like this direction, but I haven't seen any games yet (or anything for Orbis) so I cannot pass judgment. Until I get something more concrete, though, my opinion here is that MS didn't want to go balls out for performance like they did with the 360 and Xbox with this new device. The Wii made an impression and they'd rather aim for the casual market out of the box, make a profit immediately (or very soon after launch), and target the living room as an entertainment center.

So far I'm not impressed with what I'm seeing. From either side..[/QUOTE]

Ehh I'm doubtful.

And I fail to see why they can't achieve those things with a unified GDDR5 memory setup.

Also GDDR5 has been in use since 2009 so it should be fairly cheap as well. MS doesn't have any major costs to deal with outside of the CPU/GPU setup. Blu-ray drives should be as cheap as dvd drives were for the 360. Everything else is pretty straightforward so I don't see why they can't put in decent internals and keep the next xbox at ~$400. (even with an integrated kinect 2 sensor/bundled with every next xbox)

This will be the longest gap between successive gaming consoles so MS has to come up with something decent.
 

Vulgotha

Power Member
Jan 6, 2007
15,776
148
0
29
Because GDDR5 is alot more expensive than DDR3. They would probably spend as much on 4GB of GDDR5 as they would 8GB of DDR3. For their purposes they don't want GDDR5.

This could be why Sony 'only' has 4GB of GDDR5 vs MS's rumored 8GB of DDR3. Expense.

However, long term it may be Sony who saves the money. If they're opting for 4GB of GDDR5 on a 128bit bus they, the second GDDR5 drops in price they start saving money. It's unlikely that the cost to create buses is going to go down anywhere near as much over the years.

So if MS has 8GB of DDR3 using a 256bit bus, while DDR3 is at rock bottom like right now, the savings won't really translate as much long term. They're still going to need the bandwidth provided by that bus width.

@Everyone else

It doesn't matter who 'invented' GDDR, what matters is the specifications and demands MS has of their engineers and the guys at AMD.
 
Last edited:

J3ff3

Elite Guru
Dec 30, 2006
5,216
45
0
36
[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5991951]There are other considerations at play. For one DDR3 is dirt cheap at the moment, for another I think it is becoming clear (totally conjecture!) that they are focusing on more than just gaming with this box. Maybe it will have DVR features or some other special stuff.. If this is the case the CPU is going to need reasonable access to memory in order to adequately perform these functions.

To make up for the lackluster bandwidth they've included special custom silicon to aid the GPU.

I'm not entirely sure I like this direction, but I haven't seen any games yet (or anything for Orbis) so I cannot pass judgment. Until I get something more concrete, though, my opinion here is that MS didn't want to go balls out for performance like they did with the 360 and Xbox with this new device. The Wii made an impression and they'd rather aim for the casual market out of the box, make a profit immediately (or very soon after launch), and target the living room as an entertainment center.

So far I'm not impressed with what I'm seeing. From either side..[/QUOTE]

i'm not either. but lackluster bandwidth? rumours so far suggest that, with esram, the durango has 170gb/s and the ps3 has 192. both higher than the 7970's 155 (or so i believe)
 

Itachi

Forum Sage
Nov 13, 2010
8,246
110
0
Winterfell
[QUOTE="J3ff3, post: 5992171]i'm not either. but lackluster bandwidth? rumours so far suggest that, with esram, the durango has 170gb/s and the ps3 has 192. both higher than the 7970's 155 (or so i believe)[/QUOTE]

But the ESRAM is only 32mb, as far as I know you feed ESRAM with the main RAM and the ESRAM then sends it to the GPU right? So that means that at one time only 32mb of data is going to GPU? That is a considerable limitation is it not? I read that EDRAM is one of the reasons why games like Killzone aren't possible on 360.

I have no idea how embedded RAM works, or 3d rendering for that matter:confused:
 

mynd

Ultimate Veteran
May 3, 2006
20,865
182
63
47
Down Under
[QUOTE="itachi73378, post: 5992184]But the ESRAM is only 32mb, as far as I know you feed ESRAM with the main RAM and the ESRAM then sends it to the GPU right? So that means that at one time only 32mb of data is going to GPU? That is a considerable limitation is it not? I read that EDRAM is one of the reasons why games like Killzone aren't possible on 360.

I have no idea how embedded RAM works, or 3d rendering for that matter:confused:[/QUOTE]

No its not an input cache at all.

When ever you write create graphics, you have to "write" the results back to the frame buffer (normally multiple), these include the z-buffer, the actual frame buffer, and in the case of deffered rendering, multiple frame buffers with various things.

So normally you go...

READ From memory: Textures, model data
OPERATE: In the GPU with you shader code.
WRITE to memory: Your various framebuffers.

So your constantly read/write read/write your memory when creating a single frame.

Dont forget CAS/RAS delays and you can be waiting 3 clocks before being able to write.


They throw ESRAM in to the mix as a frame buffer accumulator.

READ From memory: Textures, model data
OPERATE: In the GPU with your shader code.
WRITE to ESRAM: Your various frame buffers.

End result your VRAM is just read read read read until the image is complete, then the frambuffers are written back to VRAM and displayed.

Think of the ESRAM as a giant GPU output cache.

Normally you "build" you image in the VRAM, the same place you get all your raw data from.

In the case of ESRAM, you build you image in a completely separate place.
 
Last edited:

J3ff3

Elite Guru
Dec 30, 2006
5,216
45
0
36
[QUOTE="itachi73378, post: 5992184]But the ESRAM is only 32mb, as far as I know you feed ESRAM with the main RAM and the ESRAM then sends it to the GPU right? So that means that at one time only 32mb of data is going to GPU? That is a considerable limitation is it not? I read that EDRAM is one of the reasons why games like Killzone aren't possible on 360.

I have no idea how embedded RAM works, or 3d rendering for that matter:confused:[/QUOTE]
i'm no expert, because on the face of it it would appear that 32gigs would achieve nothing. but i would assume its not a case of having to empty the memory before refilling it, so the bandwidth (@102gb/s) is most important ie its a constant flow that the gpu can access. this would tie in with the fact that 10mb edram should've been useless on the 360 (what's 10mb going to achieve?), and the fact that more knowledgable people than i say that the bandwidth is cumulative. ie esram bandwidth + ddr3 bandwidth.

more importantly, and if i remember rightly, the 360s edram was implemented at a late stage and therefore had read/write access problems. it was tacked on, so to speak. hopefully this esram isn't, but maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in....
 

Vulgotha

Power Member
Jan 6, 2007
15,776
148
0
29
[QUOTE="J3ff3, post: 5992171]i'm not either. but lackluster bandwidth? rumours so far suggest that, with esram, the durango has 170gb/s and the ps3 has 192. both higher than the 7970's 155 (or so i believe)[/QUOTE]

But it's still just 32MB of ESRAM. That's not a legitimate fullsale replacement, and it's still a lower number than the GDDR5 figures we have.
 

mynd

Ultimate Veteran
May 3, 2006
20,865
182
63
47
Down Under
[QUOTE="J3ff3, post: 5992196]i'm no expert, because on the face of it it would appear that 32gigs would achieve nothing. but i would assume its not a case of having to empty the memory before refilling it, so the bandwidth (@102gb/s) is most important ie its a constant flow that the gpu can access. this would tie in with the fact that 10mb edram should've been useless on the 360 (what's 10mb going to achieve?), and the fact that more knowledgable people than i say that the bandwidth is cumulative. ie esram bandwidth + ddr3 bandwidth.

more importantly, and if i remember rightly, the 360s edram was implemented at a late stage and therefore had read/write access problems. it was tacked on, so to speak. hopefully this esram isn't, but maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in....[/QUOTE]

The problem was they didnt have enough of it 10mb wasn't enough to hold a 720p image with associated frame buffers.

The end reuslt is, you actually have to "tile" the 360 frame, so the GPU does a lot more work than normal to get it out.

Its a testament to how fast it was that it still did this easily.

The 360 would have it double its framerate, if they had put in about 4 more mb of EDRAM.

[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5992205]But it's still just 32MB of ESRAM. That's not a legitimate fullsale replacement, and it's still a lower number than the GDDR5 figures we have.[/QUOTE]

It can be, if it's being used in the one place you actually need that sort of bandwidth.
 
Last edited:

MATRIX 2

Forum Sage
Jul 29, 2005
8,554
109
63
D.C.
[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5992156]Because GDDR5 is alot more expensive than DDR3. They would probably spend as much on 4GB of GDDR5 as they would 8GB of DDR3. For their purposes they don't want GDDR5.

This could be why Sony 'only' has 4GB of GDDR5 vs MS's rumored 8GB of DDR3. Expense.

However, long term it may be Sony who saves the money. If they're opting for 4GB of GDDR5 on a 128bit bus they, the second GDDR5 drops in price they start saving money. It's unlikely that the cost to create buses is going to go down anywhere near as much over the years.

So if MS has 8GB of DDR3 using a 256bit bus, while DDR3 is at rock bottom like right now, the savings won't really translate as much long term. They're still going to need the bandwidth provided by that bus width.

@Everyone else

It doesn't matter who 'invented' GDDR, what matters is the specifications and demands MS has of their engineers and the guys at AMD.[/QUOTE]

Last I checked MS isn't against losing money on the hardware initially if they can reduce manufacturing costs fairly quickly.

(remember epic pushing MS to have 512MB of ram in the 360 over 256MB and a standard HDD, cost MS 1 billion dollars.)

Also based off their shortsightedness regarding the deal with nvidia for the original xbox gpu I think they would be more aware of the pitfalls of going with DDR3 instead of GDDR5 (regarding cost).
 

Centurion

Dedicated Member
May 15, 2008
1,014
5
0
[QUOTE="MATRIX 2, post: 5991887]I find that hard to believe since the fastest DDR3 memory (DDR3-3000) tops out at 24GB/s.

And seeing as DDR4 will be coming to consumer platforms in 2014, it would be rather shortsighted of MS not to use GDDR5.[/QUOTE]

DDR3-2133 with 256-bit bus would give 68.2GB/sec..
 
Dec 23, 2010
1,537
47
0
[QUOTE="Vulgotha, post: 5992156]Because GDDR5 is alot more expensive than DDR3.[/QUOTE]

Who told you that? They are actually really close to the same price. You can get PC video cards with a GB of GDDR5 for less than $100 retail now. Strip away the PCB, GPU, and cooling system and you're probably only looking at $15 or so for the RAM.

And like I said before, EVERY GPU on the market today is designed for GDDR5. NOTHING runs on DDR4. It would be a massive expense to redesign a GPU and Memory Controller that works with DDR3. Seems kind of silly to spend that sort of money for RAM that offers less than 1/10th the bandwidth of the standard GDDR5.



Like I said before, I'll bet money the 360 uses GDDR5 RAM. I'll also bet money that the final console only ships with 4GB, and not the rumored 8GB. I think you'll find that the hardware difference between the next Xbox and the PS4 will be even less than the current 360 and PS3. From a developer point of view it will be fairly irrelevent, and the same applies to end users as well.

And for the record, it's virtually impossible to do native 1080p with DDR3. The bandwidth required just isn't there, and I can assure you the next Xbox will be doing 1080p native with Anti Ailiasing, and so will the PS4.




[QUOTE="Centurion, post: 5992246]DDR3-2133 with 256-bit bus would give 68.2GB/sec..[/QUOTE]

Which is less than half the bandwidth of GDDR5 with no cost savings. You're looking at about $75 for the RAM alone in that configuration if you're buying it from a good supplier. You can get GDDR5 for about $15 per GB.

I just don't see it happening. I especially don't see AMD reworking their GPU Memory Controller to use RAM that has half the bandwidth of their cheapest retail GPU currently in production.
 
Last edited: