By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Adinnieken on 16 October 2012
Edit Thread
sergiodaly said:
Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
many people are forgetting that PS3 can use the HDD to cache data the RAM claims are not possible to prove right unless bethesda "himself" say so... also, if the devs didn't think the PS3 was able to manage the game, or if they think they aren't talent enough to master the platform, they should not release it. the PS3 is the way it is long before the start of this game development, so is their fault to launch a broken piece of SW.

Seriously?  You want to equate a cache with RAM?

A cache is a temporary repository of information, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 use the HDD to cache data, but it isn't an efficient process.  If it was, then people would have been using HDDs as RAM long ago.  Cached RAM is grossly inefficient compared to actual physical RAM.  If you ever want to test this out, open up as many programs as you possibly can on your computer and consume all of the available physical RAM, then keep opening very active programs.  The issue, as I understand it with Skyrim occurs with the length of play.  The more you play, the more you acquire, and the more data that is required to be saved.  You can't cache data that you need active in RAM to "use" it. 

Where a cache is frequently used is when you actively switch between data.  For instance, you have two documents open and only enough RAM to have one open at any given time.  While you may have both open, only one is active in memory (RAM) while the other one is cached.  This may seem like an unrealistic example, but trust me, there was a time when that was a perfect example of how it worked. 

I'm sure the PS3 caches, but caching doesn't resolve this problem.  It would only compound the problem.

believe me... i know the differences between HDD and RAM... that does not make it useless. in this thread people also say Xbox can use 480Mb for game data and you also know that is impossible to use 480MB for game data, and i didn't see you running here and  use all your technical knowledge to say they are wrong. my point was not to say that HDD cache could solve this, if people was talking about PS3 RAM they should that this into consideration in their 4th grade math...

also, HDD cache is not used in Xbox because there are units without HDD so devs can't rely on that.

If a HDD is present, the Xbox 360 caches.  Trust me.  I've gone through clearing the cache enough times with Oblivion to know that is in fact the case.  I've also gone through enough DVD drive failures to test it.  See, one of the steps to test a bad DVD is to remove the HDD and ensure the console isn't reading off the HDD in case it's a bad HDD. 

Yes, the Xbox 360 does cache.  Shame on you for saying that it doesn't.

Why would I disprove myself?  I'm the one saying it can use up to 480MB for the game.  And how is it impossible?  The amount of memory necessary at any given point fluctuates.  I'm not saying a game can use 480MB all the time.  I'm saying the game can have up to 480MB of memory, which is absolutely true.

Fair enough.  Do you know how big the PS3's cache is?  Let's say it's 128MB.  So in addition to the 218MB of RAM, developers have a 128MB disk cache to temporarily place data on.  They can still only hold up to 218MB into memory.  The Xbox 360 still has more RAM for it to actively work with data.

A developer could throw some data up to the PS3's GPU and utilize the GPU's memory as well, but again, this would be incredibly inefficient.  Which is why developers don't tend to use these types of features.  It's also one of the reasons why with the development of the Xbox 360 Epic encouraged Microsoft to include 512MB of RAM instead of 256MB, and it's the reason why they purportedly encouraged Microsoft double the RAM on the next Xbox.  It's also the reason why one of the most inexpensive, but beneficial upgrades you can do to a computer is the addition of memory and consistently has been since 1981.