By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Baron on 12 September 2012
Edit Thread
Viper1 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
Viper1 said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

As I wrote, exclusives should have no problems, rather devs used to Wii's 90-100MB total RAM should feel like in Heaven (so we should expect wonders from those that already did them with far less RAM). I should add some things: graphics should be OK, GPU is more powerful and feature-rich, so just reserving 0.5GB to graphics should make them noticeably better than current gen. And about system RAM and multiplats, those originally developed on Wii U or systems with even less RAM should be fine too, and even games developed for PCs with 2GB RAM should be fine, as those 2GB take into account that Windows can easily eat 1GB. So the only problems could arise on games with huge levels and large numbers of interactive objects if originally developed on systems with more main RAM. About PC games ports, troubles could start for those with 3GB or more MINIMUM RAM requirements. So we talk about quite a narrow subset of all the possible games, as such PC games would have the PC as their main platform anyway, while for games developed on consoles, Wii U, being released first could be often the original platform of multiplats, while in other cases, devs could probably take into account WiiU limits to maximize their game audience. And for graphics, no problem at all again, as engines are scalable widely enough up and down, graphics RAM size difference between WiiU and competitors will be a lot smaller in percentage than the one between Wii and HD twins, not to mention that 1080p will be the target res of the vast majority of TVs next gen, higher res will be niche for years, so it will be at most optional for games, if considered at all.
So yes, small RAM could surely create some problems, requiring additional work for porting some multiplats, but in a very limited number of cases.

Part of the reason I made my statement is because too few of us are considering the advances in features like Texture Streaming and Sparse Voxel Octree.   Texture Streaming greatly reduces the need for RAM to store lots of textures locally.  They get dumped onto a faster medium like a hard drive (a flash based scratch pad is even better and the Wii U has 8 GB of flash memory), are decompressed and them streamed into the scene as needed.  SVO is an Level Of Detail system that generates not just textures but geometry in real time based on distance from view.

Yes, and this makes a lot of sense, as even with huge video RAM, large worlds could have more textures overall than what can be loaded at a time. Anyhow, I'm not a graphics whore, 0.5GB video RAM is fine for me, I was a lot more worried for main RAM, as it could affect gameplay (dynamic loading can almost do miracles in this case too, but sometimes it isn't enough, particularly if resources and/or dev time are scarce), but 1GB on platforms with lean OS' like consoles should be fine in most cases too. Then there are wizards like those at CDProjekt RED that can squeeze a game like The Witcher 2 in a 512MB total RAM console, and well, for them it looks like 1.5GB total RAM should be vast and comfortable like a royal palace.

Agreed.

Too many of us are equating their home computer RAM to console RAM and thinking all factors are equal and a new console in this day and age should come with no less than 6 GB because that'w what the average PC comes with now.

You could almost analogize the situation with a sports car's top speed.   It may be able to hit 200 MPH (6 GB) but you'll never take it there.  Not even close.   If, according to local traffic laws, 75 MPH (1.5 GB) is all you are legaly allowed to travel....then 200 MPH (6 GB) is irrelevant for practical usage.

That's not entirely accurate. Nowadays there are plenty PC games that use (almost) 6 GB of RAM. Battlefield 3 on 1080p @ Ultra settings for instance will utilize 6 or more GB's of RAM.

The difference between PC's and consoles is the heavy OS and the dozens of processes running in the background while playing a game. Where Windows 7 requires 1 GB of RAM minimum (the 64 bit version requires 2 GB's even) a console OS uses a lot less. I reckon 512 MB of system memory is more than sufficient for any console.

What is most important with consoles is video memory. At the time of the 360's launch, normal graphics cards had 256 MB of memory and the high end ones had 512 MB. That's why the 360 and PS3 also had 512. That's what was deemed sufficient for any game. Off course back then the most common gaming resolution was 1024x768. Now the most common gaming resolution is 1080p. 2.6 times larger than 1024x768. The result of that can be seen with today's GPU's. Budget cards are equipped with 1 GB and high end cards feature 2 or even 3 GB's of RAM. With that in mind and the performance of the 360 and PS3 @ their launch in mind I think we can say that a console with 1 or 1.5 GB's of video memory, like the Wii U is rumored to have, will be sufficient for 1080p gaming.

I expect the next XBox and Playstation to have between 2 and 4 GB's of video memory as I expect the next series of graphics cards will also have that amount of RAM.