They probably will, even if all the features they've shown can run on 512MB, in case they wanted to add more features. Maybe 1-1.5GB, they can just optimize it down the road.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
RUMOR: So Killzone: SF was only using 1.5GB of VRAM
- Thread starter nhlducks35
- Start date
They probably will, even if all the features they've shown can run on 512MB, in case they wanted to add more features. Maybe 1-1.5GB, they can just optimize it down the road.
It was very funny to read the first few pages of this thread, but it's easily understandable when we consider the development of the devkit. It's going to be a long until devs use the potential to the fullest and not for the most obvious and boring purposes.
Crysis 3 vRAM usage
So that's why 8x MSAA tanked my 7870
The 8GB is the only RAM pool, doubt many games will use much more than 2GB VRAM.
Dictator93
Member
The shading performance of More AA is quite the reason why it tanks performance.
Theonik
Member
A GAF Ram would ram no amount of RAM since a GAF Ram can’t ram RAM.
First of all, GDDR5 is NOT DDR5. People need to stop saying that.
To answer your question, it would probably not even work because of how the cell architecture is designed, but assuming it could, and they could use it to solve a lot of the PS3's bottlenecks. (especially memory bandwidth) it would make a substantial difference. The amount isn't even important in this case, you'd run into other bottlenecks on a PS3 before it mattered. The bandwidth and unified pool would be the bigger benefits to a PS3, while the RSX would still be underpowered.
i've always heard that ram was the main issue on consoles, much more than cpu/gpu. So why some seem so upset about ps4 removing this issue? I also find curious that a few days ago, durango's rumoured 8GB ram vs 4GB on Orbis (despite faster one) was , for a few, going to be an issue for sony's console for multiplatforms especially open world games and such.
Interesting reactions.
Afaik, 8gb of fast ram will allow developers to use all the power cpu/gpu have with almost no limitations, unlike previous generations , being ps3 a clear example of that.
we have more memory than expected, high bandwidth, i heard that ps4 had 32 rops vs 16 on durango and don't know about shader performance, but could those extra CUs provide that?
Interesting reactions.
Afaik, 8gb of fast ram will allow developers to use all the power cpu/gpu have with almost no limitations, unlike previous generations , being ps3 a clear example of that.
we have more memory than expected, high bandwidth, i heard that ps4 had 32 rops vs 16 on durango and don't know about shader performance, but could those extra CUs provide that?
I'm sure that what we saw with Killzone was just an alpha build most programmed on a dev kit. They couldn't have had the actual PS4 hardware for that long.
Not too sure on how much of a bump it'll get before release but as it already stands it'll be a mighty impressive launch title for the console.
Not too sure on how much of a bump it'll get before release but as it already stands it'll be a mighty impressive launch title for the console.
Crysis 3 vRAM usage
Holy crap I had no idea the nicer AA options cost so much ram. I guess that explains the impact on performance at the top end, but luckily there are cheaper options that aren't as demanding. These still seem way higher than they should be though. Perhaps Crysis 3 is not very well optimised?
Dictator93
Member
Nope. Deferred rendering AA has huge memory costs-
Beyond that rope garbage... the game is very optimized.
Sarcasm? You decide!
Damn, fair enough. What about bandwidth wise, how taxing are these AA options on memory bandwidth?
Please show me a screenshot of the Tearing. Or are you just a Troll?
Very. Nvidia across the board have worse memory bandwidth than AMD cards in the same price bracket and at 1080p with no or little AA they usually trade blows, but not when you ramp up AA. Looking at the memory bus alone Nvidia uses 192bit for 660-660ti and 256bit for 670-680 while AMD uses 256bit for 7850-7870 and 384bit for 7950-7970. There are more factors to it (the last gen Nvidia 580 had a 384bit bus), but the proof is in the pudding as you can see below.
Here's a very good post about the 660-660ti and why the most common 2GB models aren't really 2GB. Kinda off topic, but it shows how memory bandwidth can be hid from consumers.
And I think from a technical perspective that Crysis 3 is really well optimized. They aren't the best around in making a pretty game art wise, but the beta used 100% of my GPU (common) and pretty much 100% of my four CPU cores (not common) so I think it moved tasks between both using as much of the total performance as it could. It's also the only game I know of where AMDs eight core CPU beat Intels quad cores. In raw performance AMDs eight cores aren't bad for the price, but making very threaded games is hard so most games performed much better on Intel's CPUs because they had much more powerful cores. It wasn't that uncommon to see even Intels dual core i3 beat eight core AMD CPUs.
Also, tearing doesn't result from having too small amount of memory.
It is direct result from having one boolean saying that you do not want to have vsync on. (single line of code.)
That's silly. RAM is like replacing the gasoline in the gas tank with Nitrous oxide. And then strapping rocket engines to the back. And setting it on fire for good measure.
he was being sarcastic
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Crysis 3 vRAM usage
Nice chart - so we should basically expect great AA for next-gen with ~7 GB for games?
Lagspike_exe
Member
1080p with 2xMSAA and FXAA gives an insanely better IQ than basically any graphicaly intensive 3D game from this gen. Nothing more should be expected on 99% games, as most people can't notice and it become prohibitively expensive.
Very. Nvidia across the board have worse memory bandwidth than AMD cards in the same price bracket and at 1080p with no or little AA they usually trade blows, but not when you ramp up AA. Looking at the memory bus alone Nvidia uses 192bit for 660-660ti and 256bit for 670-680 while AMD uses 256bit for 7850-7870 and 384bit for 7950-7970. There are more factors to it (the last gen Nvidia 580 had a 384bit bus), but the proof is in the pudding as you can see below.
Here's a very good post about the 660-660ti and why the most common 2GB models aren't really 2GB. Kinda off topic, but it shows how memory bandwidth can be hid from consumers.
And I think from a technical perspective that Crysis 3 is really well optimized. They aren't the best around in making a pretty game art wise, but the beta used 100% of my GPU (common) and pretty much 100% of my four CPU cores (not common) so I think it moved tasks between both using as much of the total performance as it could. It's also the only game I know of where AMDs eight core CPU beat Intels quad cores. In raw performance AMDs eight cores aren't bad for the price, but making very threaded games is hard so most games performed much better on Intel's CPUs because they had much more powerful cores. It wasn't that uncommon to see even Intels dual core i3 beat eight core AMD CPUs.
is AMD the current best?
Wtf? I don't even know if what you list is true or not but how would using more RAM fix these problems? Nonsense. It's all up to the developpers, it's not solely related to the specs.
Titan?
Galacticos
Banned
He trolled you good.
This is likely and is probably an indication of how much launch window releases will be created. I think the 8gb will only be fully utilized by first parties within 2 years, the time needed to adjust engines and design targets.
Does anyone know (and this is a pure technicality, just for curiosity) how much DDR5 is needed to perform the same as 8gb DDR3 ? Is there any correlation at all?
Does anyone know (and this is a pure technicality, just for curiosity) how much DDR5 is needed to perform the same as 8gb DDR3 ? Is there any correlation at all?
If the chip itself doesn't become a bottleneck. You can have a jabillion (I calculated this with science) GB GDDR5 RAM connected to a GPU, if the GPU is loaded with other stuff it won't help doing AA. I think the 7850-like chip in the PS4 will be able to do a decent amount of AA on launch games and for a few years at least, but once they start loading the GPU up and hitting its capacity they will have to turn down things like AA to free up its power for other effects.
Unless Sony has a required minimum AA level like Microsoft did.
"Current best" depends on what price point you look at. ~200? Probably AMD (I haven't really checked what recent card prices have fallen to). ~1000? Probably Nvidia.
Well not exactly:
With 32ROPs and 72TMUs shouldn't we at least expect FXAA (if not allied with MSAA or simply MLAA) without taking any significant performance hits? Then again, the option to drop resolution (dynamic) always exists.
This is not how it works. Capacity, bandwidth and altency are not interchangeable. Read this thread.
In my opinion we should, but having 8 instead of 4 GB has basically no bearing on that.
Uh, no. Thanks for adding to the discussion tho.
He did actually
Wishmaster92
Member
Durante lets see if i understand everything. Lets say i have a ps3 with 8gb of ddr3 ram instead of 256/256 split ram. Needless to say the ps3 is going to hit a bottleneck because the gpu and cpu is pure crap and can't handle more than lets say 2gb of ddr3. What im getting to is why would sony include 8gb of GDDR5 if the gpu won't be able to handle it? Seems like a waste of money if the system can only utilize 4gb of ram... The system is obviously optimized to get the full performance of the 8gb gddr5.
They can do other things with all that memory. Game engines rather than video assets may go up in size for instance. But I think the 7850 is perfectly capable of good AA on some great looking games, like I said above I'm just thinking for future games when the GPU is more tied up developers may choose to turn off AA in favor of other visual effects.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Well, in addition to 8gb gddr5 ram, ps4 is said to have 32 ROPS (the same amount as an hd7970) and 72 TMUs (between a 7850 and a 7870).
Also keep in mind resolution of ps4 games top out at 1080p and pc games regularly go higher than that, so that could looked at as another win.
Compared to durango, ps4 is looking more high end with faster ram, more TMUs and double the Render Output Units.
In terms of graphics, ps4 will probably be as good as consoles are gonna get next gen.
Wishmaster92
Member
I wouldn't mind if all ps4 games used mlaa in order to save more performance for other stuff, especially with games being rendered in 1080p. Also what would 32 rops mean from the gpu and ram perspective of things? Like kleegamefan said, that is comparable to the 7970.
weekend_warrior
Banned
Bahahahaha, people will never forget this, will they?
Agent Ironside
Member
PS4 might have more RAM, but Xbox has more sheep.
The Xbox doesn't have any RAM at all? This is not good.
Very much this. First, people need to realize this is one memory pool for the whole machine. It's not like with a PC where you have a certain amount of dedicated RAM for the GPU and then system RAM.
On top of this, I remember seeing some benchmark testing that found that anything more than 3GB of VRAM was overkill at 1080P unless you wanted to supersample the shit out of your game while still running tons of AA. There was some 4GB card that actually performed worse than the 3GB version.
and people need to realize this is a good thing.
Sure but they seem to think they can just devote 6GB of RAM to the GPU and see no problem.
Betrayer of hope
Banned
Ofcourse. There would be a massive difference.
I am poor with examples but think of RAM as your fuel tank and GPU and CPU as your engine/power transmission.
The limiting factor for the ps4 will not be the RAM but the cpu and the gpu. They are both sharing a unified memory pool. Not only that but there is an OS RAM to be taken care off. So all the ram on earth won't make any difference like one poster said if the cpu and gpu can't make it count.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Somehow I doubt the second statement is true. Otherwise, Sony would not have opted for 8 GB and devs wouldn't have been screaming for that much.
Similar threads
- x2
- Poll