Adinnieken said:
No, it doesn't. The Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM - 32MB for the OS. That's up to 480MB of RAM that the game can take advantage of. Granted, a game is likely going to be displaying graphics at the same time, so that 480MB will be used up some by graphics. Nevertheless, the Xbox 360 offers flexibility of being able to use more memory than the PS3 is capable of offering. |
Yes. Yes indeed. I try to explain this to people for years, but they just don't get it.
95% of the people who talk about specs and stats don't understand really them. For years I've seen the PS3 has 512 and 360 has 512 argument. Just saying that doens't mean anything without looking at the other factors. 256X2 and 512 are not the same thing. I'm not even going to getting to the 10 MB EDRAM difference.
The effective RAM capabilities of the PS3 are below that of the 360 and ontop of that, the 360's GPU offers better performance. This is why most ports have a higher frame rate on the 360 more effects and object, even if the core game was built from the ground up for the PS3 like FFXIII. Large scale games that requires enormours amount of data to be loaded at all time like Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption receive better performance on the 360.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/247104/red-dead-redemption-sub-hd-on-ps3/
Honestly, Bethesda should have just downgraded the graphics or something else to alleviate the bottleknecking. Any decent analysis can pin point what the problem causer is. They made it clear that the 360 was their target console for it before it was even released it. They more or less just shoved it into the PS3 without seeing what will work and what will not. This is clearly a simple case of a lazy ports.
To properly fix this they would have to go back and rebuild the game then rerelease it. Either that, or they release a patch that scales the game down to the requirements of a PC on low setting.
You can't work around memory limitations.







