Adinnieken said:
sergiodaly said:
probably we are talking apples and oranges here...
480 are used for game data (what i mention in my post) and graphics data (textures and so on) if its filled up with 480 of game data nothing appears at the screen. no one play a black screen.
if people separate the data between game data and graphics for PS3, its the same with xbox 360... i know that the merged ram of xbox gives devs more flexibility but is slower moving graphics data around... if the game loads up all necessary graphics data to RAM not a lot more than 200 MB will be available to game data... you r wrong if you think other wise.
the OS can cache for sure... for what i know devs shouldn't trust on HDD to cache since not all units have HDDs.
funny that now it is not a useless feat. :)
BTW 128mb a bit over kill, devs could only need around 30 to 50 mb of cache in the HDD witch is loaded to RAM in about a second... not that great but better than nothing.
my view still stands... bethesda are to blame... and in my opinion, are a sub par development team. might be a creative one but not very good in implementing their creativity.
|
I think you over estimate exactly how much memory it costs to display an image on the screen. Consider for a second, when you go to the load screen what exactly you're looking at. A black screen, with a character/creature, text, and a loading bar. You're looking at less than 500K. So, yeah. Pretty much 480MB.
|
like i said... it makes it more flexible... for devs to load up a bunch of game data on low graphics demanding scene but 480mb on full game ruining is impossible and makes the comparison bogus and false...
