By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - WiiU has only 1GB for running the game

curl-6 on 13 September 2012
Viper1 said:
HappySqurriel said:

There are a few things I would like to know before I really comment on whether 1GB is too little or enough for games, how much embedded memory is on the CPU and GPU and whether that memory is included in the 1GB total is a good starting point.

It is plausable that the CPU would have 32MB of embedded dram built into it which would allow most of data that the CPU will manipulate on a per-frame basis to be stored in embedded memory, and if the GPU had 64MB (or more) embedded memory it could hold all of the screen buffers and have a high performance texture cache. If embedded memory was not included in the memory total, then the 1GB of memory would (mostly) be used for storing game assets (models, textures, etc) that are in the "level" but not necessarily being rendered to screen; and with decent streaming from the disk to memory 1GB would not be that bad.

This.

And with a 22.5 MB/s data transfer rate, streaming will work beautifully.

How does this data rate compare with the PS3/360?
I tried to look it up but they have different rates for disc-to-console, GPU-to-RAM, etc, and I don't know which the Wii U stat refers to.



Around the Network
Viper1 on 13 September 2012
curl-6 said:
Viper1 said:
HappySqurriel said:

There are a few things I would like to know before I really comment on whether 1GB is too little or enough for games, how much embedded memory is on the CPU and GPU and whether that memory is included in the 1GB total is a good starting point.

It is plausable that the CPU would have 32MB of embedded dram built into it which would allow most of data that the CPU will manipulate on a per-frame basis to be stored in embedded memory, and if the GPU had 64MB (or more) embedded memory it could hold all of the screen buffers and have a high performance texture cache. If embedded memory was not included in the memory total, then the 1GB of memory would (mostly) be used for storing game assets (models, textures, etc) that are in the "level" but not necessarily being rendered to screen; and with decent streaming from the disk to memory 1GB would not be that bad.

This.

And with a 22.5 MB/s data transfer rate, streaming will work beautifully.

How does this data rate compare with the PS3/360?
I tried to look it up but they have different rates for disc-to-console, GPU-to-RAM, etc, and I don't know which the Wii U stat refers to.

PS3 is a 2x Blu-ray drive so 9 MB/s.
X360 uses a 12x DVD drive which gives about 10.6 MB/s single layer and 7.9 MB/s dual layer.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Chandler on 13 September 2012

I like the PS3 a lot but one thing I hate is booting games like Demons Souls or Uncharted. The loading times are ridiculous. I'm all over the 22 MB/s transfer rate, should make loading times much more bearable. Also, I'm spoiled from handheld gaming. Flip open and play, amazing.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

drkohler on 13 September 2012
Viper1 said:
HappySqurriel said:

There are a few things I would like to know before I really comment on whether 1GB is too little or enough for games, how much embedded memory is on the CPU and GPU and whether that memory is included in the 1GB total is a good starting point.

It is plausable that the CPU would have 32MB of embedded dram built into it which would allow most of data that the CPU will manipulate on a per-frame basis to be stored in embedded memory, and if the GPU had 64MB (or more) embedded memory it could hold all of the screen buffers and have a high performance texture cache. If embedded memory was not included in the memory total, then the 1GB of memory would (mostly) be used for storing game assets (models, textures, etc) that are in the "level" but not necessarily being rendered to screen; and with decent streaming from the disk to memory 1GB would not be that bad.

This.

This.. what???

I wish people would stop calling the eDram "Ram". It is not "usable" ram, it is a frame buffer for the GPU - which has some advantages in speeding up rendering, and some disadvantages (out goes the deferred renderung technique, but nothing comes free).

"1G ram for the game" doesn't really say enough. Is it 1G ram for the game code or 1G ram for the game (which includes the space for textures etc for the GPU). In the latter case, the memory in the WiiU would only be roughly twice the memory of the PS360 (and leave an insane amount to the OS). I'd assume we have 1G code ram and 1G (OS + GPU ram) in the WiiU.



justinian on 13 September 2012
JazzB1987 said:
radishhead said:
How come PCs require so much more RAM than consoles?


Consoles directly access the games and the games are made so the hardware can directly access it.   Pc's have windows the OS is always turned on not like on consoles  and therefore uses ram and PC ressources.  The games also cant directly communicate with the hardware  they need  for example DirectX DirectSound etc...  all this needs ressources and thats one of the reasons why your Pc has to be better than your console to play the same games with same graphics.

The other reason is because of 100 different geforce or amd cards etc the games cant use the graphics cards etc. whole power because programming all software to use the maximum of every gpu, cpu etc. out there  costs to much money and time. You cannot optimize games on PC  like you can on a console.

This makes a lot of sense to me. PC game developers do have to take into account the numerous types of processors, graphics cards - maybe even different versions of Windows and direct x - out there to get the widest market, while a console only has one set spec to get the ultimate performance.

To me this also explains why the large majority of  PC games are not miles ahead of the current crop of HD console games in terms of how a games looks.

I have played Crysis, Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033 maxed out on an  intel 6 core, AMD 6990,  8GB DDR3 RAM, Win7 64 PC and expected far better than what can be achieved on a 512MB PS3/x360. Yes they are better looking on the PC but not near the margin I expected running these games on a PC above the games's  recommended hardware spec.

What I am saying simply is that I am not really impressed with what a top spec PC is able to achieve above a HD console. Obviously this my opinion, others may think different.

So from that I believe a 2GB total memory console will do amazing things compared a current HD 512 total RAM console.

But I still can't help but to think ahead regarding the competion.

I am a big nintendo fan and I will be honest here. I do not want a similar situation next gen were the wii is this gen. An underpowered console ignored by developers who want their triple A titles to look pretty - or at least tolerable. To some ninty fans this doesn't matter but it does to me.

Will a PS4 with 3 or 4GB total RAM be far superior? I don't know, I am not that knowledegable in such things but I guess it will.

I happy with the processor, graphics, pad and everything else the wii u has keepng cost in mind.

I will keep the faith that the wii u's RAM is enough to keep it close in terms of power to the yet to be revealed competition.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 13 September 2012
drkohler said:
Viper1 said:
HappySqurriel said:

There are a few things I would like to know before I really comment on whether 1GB is too little or enough for games, how much embedded memory is on the CPU and GPU and whether that memory is included in the 1GB total is a good starting point.

It is plausable that the CPU would have 32MB of embedded dram built into it which would allow most of data that the CPU will manipulate on a per-frame basis to be stored in embedded memory, and if the GPU had 64MB (or more) embedded memory it could hold all of the screen buffers and have a high performance texture cache. If embedded memory was not included in the memory total, then the 1GB of memory would (mostly) be used for storing game assets (models, textures, etc) that are in the "level" but not necessarily being rendered to screen; and with decent streaming from the disk to memory 1GB would not be that bad.

This.

This.. what???

I wish people would stop calling the eDram "Ram". It is not "usable" ram, it is a frame buffer for the GPU - which has some advantages in speeding up rendering, and some disadvantages (out goes the deferred renderung technique, but nothing comes free).

"1G ram for the game" doesn't really say enough. Is it 1G ram for the game code or 1G ram for the game (which includes the space for textures etc for the GPU). In the latter case, the memory in the WiiU would only be roughly twice the memory of the PS360 (and leave an insane amount to the OS). I'd assume we have 1G code ram and 1G (OS + GPU ram) in the WiiU.

I really depends on what you mean as "useable" ...

On the CPU the eDram would (most likely) be a L3 cache which would generally hold everything that was accessed in memory regularly. On the GPU the eDram would (most likely) be the screen buffers and a texture cache. Depending on the resolution you're rendering at, and depending on how much eDram there is, would determine whether you would need to swap textures out of this cache while rendering a frame; hypothetically speaking, with 64MB of eDram while rendering at 720p, 16MB would (probably) be used by buffers leaving 48MB for a texture cache, and that would represent around 64 texels for every pixel you render (assuming a modest 6:1 compression on the texture).



Adinnieken on 13 September 2012
lilbroex said:
Adinnieken said:
Zkuq said:

Ahem, a few fixes I feel like I need to make. First, PS3 has 256 MB of RAM and 256 MB of VRAM and they're not the same thing. Second, 360 has 512 MB of memory shared between the system and the GPU so it's not all RAM either (in any games at least). Also, your claim of PS360 using 256 of RAM for the OS is just ridiculous. It's simply not possible for the PS3 because it has 256 MB of RAM total. Last I heard anything about PS3 OS's memory usage, it was 60-90 MB I think - and it could have been much lower. Don't know about the 360 though but I doubt it's 256 MB because games would have hardly anything to work with.

And now I'm not entirely sure but I wouldn't say PCs have more RAM because of running more processes. Those processes aren't even running most of the time so why would the use RAM then? Games alone use much more RAM on PC than they do on consoles. If I had to guess, I'd say some of it goes to better graphics and stuff (if you can keep more stuff in memory, why not?), some of it goes to running the games better (PC games typically go above 30 frames per second, and yes, I know RAM isn't exactly the primary concern here but it's a factor nonetheless), and some of it goes to 'heavier' architecture (ie. games get more direct access to hardware on consoles).

Great first paragraph, horrible second paragraph. 

Just to add to the first one, the Xbox 360 uses 32 MB of RAM for the OS and the PS3 uses 50 MB.  The Xbox 360 has 512MB - 32MB available to a game at any given time, where as the PS3 is a little bit different.  If memory serves me correctly, available to a game would be 256MB - 47MB and available to video would be 256MB - 3MB.  However, the PS3 GPU can access the system RAM through an expensive process, so the GPU has potentially up to 462 MB.  But again, it's an expensive proposition to use any part of the system memory from the GPU.  Not to mention, the CPU has so little memory that using what's left for video would probably create more problems than it solves.

If a process is running it is using memory.  Processes are terminate-stay resident (TSR) programs.  If you're old enough, like me, you can recall a time when such processes didn't exist.  You either ran a single program or you didn't.  TSRs either offer a UI until "closed" like Skype, or they never display a UI.  Most of the services within Windows are the latter.  An OS is just a kernel with basic I/O functionality.  The modern OS, with the aid of other programs running in the background actually give it functionality.  The UI of your OS is a separately running program from the actual kernel.  The ability to log in is a separate function from the core OS.  The ability to connect to the Internet, not a Web browser but connect to the Internet, is a separate function of the OS.  All of these parts and pieces require programs, programs that run in memory and as processes.  To be more efficient, they run constantly, so they're always on. 

So yes, the reason PCs need so much memory is in fact because of everything that is running on them.  That's one reason why some people prefer Linux, because depending on the distribution, and how you configure it on install, you can produce an OS that is extremely lean and has few resource requirements.  Games may in fact take more memory on a PC than a console, but that's largely due to the fact that PC games have to support a wider array of hardware, and some functionality that is built into consoles much be built into PC game.

You did the same thing your are correcting him for it seems.

If a process is a expensive, that means it use a lot of resources so it would leave the PS3 with anyhwhere near 462 MB of RAM. That would simplyh be impossible.

In this case, the expense is in time.  For the GPU to access the system memory, it isn't an efficient process.  A game would need to be extremely hard pressed for video memory.  In some cases, it would be worth it, but in the majority of cases it just wouldn't be.

The 462MB would be an up to amount.  It's likely with code running in the background, it wouldn't have that much available, but since the amount of memory for any given application (game) would be variable, it's hard to provide an accurate number of how much would definitely be available. 

The purpose is not to inflate the amount of memory available, but to provide a more complete picture as to how the two consoles work.  The PS3 has only 256MB of system memory, and 256MB of video memory, but the GPU can -- through an expensive process -- access the system memory.  Also, I didn't architect the god-forsaken system, I'm just relaying information about it.  The unified memory of the Xbox 360 is better, however it meant Microsoft used more expensive GDDR3 memory rather than DDR3 memory for the system and GDDR memory for the GPU.



Zkuq on 14 September 2012
Adinnieken said:
Zkuq said:

Ahem, a few fixes I feel like I need to make. First, PS3 has 256 MB of RAM and 256 MB of VRAM and they're not the same thing. Second, 360 has 512 MB of memory shared between the system and the GPU so it's not all RAM either (in any games at least). Also, your claim of PS360 using 256 of RAM for the OS is just ridiculous. It's simply not possible for the PS3 because it has 256 MB of RAM total. Last I heard anything about PS3 OS's memory usage, it was 60-90 MB I think - and it could have been much lower. Don't know about the 360 though but I doubt it's 256 MB because games would have hardly anything to work with.

And now I'm not entirely sure but I wouldn't say PCs have more RAM because of running more processes. Those processes aren't even running most of the time so why would the use RAM then? Games alone use much more RAM on PC than they do on consoles. If I had to guess, I'd say some of it goes to better graphics and stuff (if you can keep more stuff in memory, why not?), some of it goes to running the games better (PC games typically go above 30 frames per second, and yes, I know RAM isn't exactly the primary concern here but it's a factor nonetheless), and some of it goes to 'heavier' architecture (ie. games get more direct access to hardware on consoles).

Great first paragraph, horrible second paragraph. 

Just to add to the first one, the Xbox 360 uses 32 MB of RAM for the OS and the PS3 uses 50 MB.  The Xbox 360 has 512MB - 32MB available to a game at any given time, where as the PS3 is a little bit different.  If memory serves me correctly, available to a game would be 256MB - 47MB and available to video would be 256MB - 3MB.  However, the PS3 GPU can access the system RAM through an expensive process, so the GPU has potentially up to 462 MB.  But again, it's an expensive proposition to use any part of the system memory from the GPU.  Not to mention, the CPU has so little memory that using what's left for video would probably create more problems than it solves.

If a process is running it is using memory.  Processes are terminate-stay resident (TSR) programs.  If you're old enough, like me, you can recall a time when such processes didn't exist.  You either ran a single program or you didn't.  TSRs either offer a UI until "closed" like Skype, or they never display a UI.  Most of the services within Windows are the latter.  An OS is just a kernel with basic I/O functionality.  The modern OS, with the aid of other programs running in the background actually give it functionality.  The UI of your OS is a separately running program from the actual kernel.  The ability to log in is a separate function from the core OS.  The ability to connect to the Internet, not a Web browser but connect to the Internet, is a separate function of the OS.  All of these parts and pieces require programs, programs that run in memory and as processes.  To be more efficient, they run constantly, so they're always on. 

So yes, the reason PCs need so much memory is in fact because of everything that is running on them.  That's one reason why some people prefer Linux, because depending on the distribution, and how you configure it on install, you can produce an OS that is extremely lean and has few resource requirements.  Games may in fact take more memory on a PC than a console, but that's largely due to the fact that PC games have to support a wider array of hardware, and some functionality that is built into consoles much be built into PC game.

Yeah, I know about actual processes... I just messed up with the terms because it seemed some people were calling programs processions and I was really talking about programs. Either way, I should have said something about actual processes so thanks for correcting me on that. Also, I think I'm about done here because this seems to be getting a bit too advanced for me. :p



ninetailschris on 14 September 2012

You can tell when people don't know tech and look at numbers and don't understand that you need to look at 5 different things before you say low ram = weak.

Sometimes I think some gamers think there all technical expects from seeing one number and knowing how everything interacts with each other.



"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen"  ~ max