mantlepiecek said:
Nope. If PS3 has only 218 MB RAM for games none of the multiplats would have even worked properly on it. GT 5 1280x1080 wouldn't even be possible on it. PS3 can use both memories for the games, it has been stated by devs themselves. Did you fail in language btw? edit : I just noticed. You said PS3 has 218 MB RAM for games and then go on to say that it is 45%. Nope, according to you it is 55% less RAM than the 360, further proving you are both sh!t at maths and language. It is 45% of the total 360 RAM, but 55% less Further showing how absurd your point is. |
No, the PS3 can't.
The system has only access to 256MB of RAM. The video has access to its 256MB of RAM, plus it has access to the 256MB of RAM of the system. The problem is, the latter is a time consuming, resource intensive process. This isn't my opinion. This is fact, as proven through this link:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/9
Specifically this quote:
"The biggest change is that RSX supports rendering to both local and system memory, similar to NVIDIA’s Turbo Cache enabled GPUs. Obviously rendering to/from local memory is going to be a lot lower latency than sending a request to the Cell’s memory controller, so much of the architecture of the GPU has to be changed in order to accommodate this higher latency access to memory."
Or this here:
http://wiki.ps2dev.org/doku.php?id=ps3:rsx
"The RSX is the graphics and audio rendering chip of the PS3. It has access to 256MB of dedicated local DDR3 memory. It also has access system memory through the high-speed FlexIO bus of the Cell using DMA operations."
Or you can read this:
http://www.ps3news.com/PlayStation-3/playstation-3s-ram-and-rsx-explained/#ixzz29ZwJq03y
"Just so you know, the PS3 has 512MB of RAM (256 for video and 256 for system). The Cell chip has 256MB of completely sharable RAM, the GPU has 256MB of dedicated RAM. Now the key here is what type of RAM it is."
The fact that I incorrectly stated that the PS3 has 45% less memory than the Xbox 360 rather than 55% doesn't make your argument stronger. It just reinforces mine. The Xbox 360 has more memory available for the system at any given point, than the PS3. Arguing a fact which you cannot disprove through fact but you can only attempt to shoot down via opinion doesn't make you right.
That ability for the Xbox 360 to provide the game up to 480MB of RAM, give or take 500K for a load screen, is an advantage to the Xbox 360. It means if the game temporarily demands it, it is possible for the console to provide it. The PS3 does not have that option. The graphics sides of things does have a greater amount of memory available to render graphics with if necessary. However access to the other half of that memory. the system memory, comes at a price.
The fact that no game up until Skyrim has hit that ceiling just means developers have either not pushed the capabilities of the system that hard, or they've written their code efficiently enough so they haven't hit that glass ceiling, or they've gimped their games in some aspect.
The fact that you can have GT5 in whatever resolution means nothing. The debate isn't about whether or not the PS3 has enough video memory or whether it can access additional memory, the debate is over the fact that the Cell processor is limited to what is available out of the 256MB.
