By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fillet on 14 April 2013
Edit Thread
VGKing said:
fillet said:
VGKing said:
fillet said:
VGKing said:
walsufnir said:
fillet said:
RAM doesn't make graphics, limitation of RAM makes it harder to make games with free flowing open play without constant loading screens.

You could put 100GB of RAM in a calculator, it's still a calculator.

It's great news about the 8GB of RAM in the PS4 but some members here don't seem to grasp what that actually means.

I thing I have to comment on this, not saying anything counterwise.

The ram-talk on this site is getting ridiculous to me.

The problem with ram is one thing: if you have ram that isn't sufficient a game will suffer.

If Sony had built ps4 with 4 gb of whatever ram you can imagine it would have still suffered of being less than 8 gb than nextbox. I know that ppl would have argued that the speed of gddr5 would make it still better but that nonsense. It is always the size of ram which is really making a difference, not necessarily the bandwidth which is only one side of the medal of truth. Less ram can't be bought on "sideways". It would be true if you build a system of 8 gb ram with ps/2-fp-ram, but that's not going to happen. The combination of bandwidth and latency is crucial for performance is crucial, yes. But that's it, because ram only serves the computational units.

Because of the big amounts of ram gives devs the opportunity to build games we can all look forward to. No matter if DDR3 or GDDR5.

I'm 50/50 with you on this one. While I agree that amount of RAM matters more than bandwidth, both are important. You can't really say that 4GB of GDDR5 would be inferior to 8GB of DDR3. It really depends on the game. 


This doesn't really come down to opinion.

4GB GDDR5 will perform FAR better than 8GB of DDR3.

1. Because no game on even a PC uses 4GB of video RAM on ultra high unless using multiple monitors and even then, don't think any does.

2. Both RAM and bandwidth are equally important depending on which is acting as the bottleneck, with 4GB+ of RAM in the Next gen consoles there is no RAM bottleneck, 8GB is going to make no difference in performance - at all.

3. GDDR5 vs DDR3 for graphics RAM makes a massive difference, by massive, we're talking as much as 30-40% higher frame rates in games, the quantity once you get to a certain point (of which 8GB is about to the moon and back more than that level) makes sweet FA difference.

4. There are lots of PC graphics cards that come with way more RAM than they need to because it's cheap as chips and a marketing ploy. The graohics cards in question though are too underpowered in compute performance to actually make use of that RAM.

 

Graphics RAM quantity = allows high screen resolutions, high res texures etc

Graphics RAM speed (GDDR5/DDR3/etc) = FRAME RATES!

GPU performance = FRAME RATES!

You need all 3 to support each other, so it's no good having 8GB of fast video RAM if the GPU isn't up to the challenge of making use of it.

On the PS4 it's based on a 7850-more or less, for something of that speed 2GB video RAM is more than enough and any more would be pointless because it's not powerful enough to support it.

This only pertains to the video RAM though which is shared with the system of course, but I'm making the point that 8GB of GDDR5 RAM does NOT equal GRAPHICS WOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!

So yes, you could have ultra high res textures/screen resolutions but you'd be running at stupidly low frame rates!

This is all basic 101 PC graphics card stuff, seriously, look it up :)

Don't mean to sound hostile here.

1. Irrelevant. Games are made with console limitations in mind. PC isn't exactly a good comparison for how next-gen games will perform.

2. Really? So 8GB makes no difference from 4GB? How come Sony upgraded it then? Braggin rights?

3. Really? Do you have a source or am I supposed to take your words as fact? Some comparison charts would be nice.

4. Well I have a feeling these graphics cards are about to be put to much better use in the next few years.

I'm not trying to argue with you, in fact you know a lot more than me on this stuff. Some sources to back up your statements would be nice though.


I haven't got the will to provide graphs etc to prove my point. I know what I know from being into computers and graphics cards and stuff for 15 years or so.

The information is freely out there with a quick google if you want to get educated on the ins and outs of it.

I'm not arguing here at all, not trying to prove a point or any "I'm right hahahaha" thing. It's just factually correct.

The fact Sony have put 8GB in there is a good thing, see my previous post. I'm not slagging off Sony here or trying to downplay their choice - please don't assume this is what it's about - quite the opposite. Can't wait for the PS4 and having 8GB of shared RAM is the best thing I heard at the PS4 announcement a month or so ago and one of the reasons I'll be getting one.

I'm just saying that 8GB isn't going to make the graphics better in games, this is not opinion it's straight up how it is :)

More RAM does not make games run better and the PS4 has so much that even 4GB is enough for the power of the GPU.

Seriously, I could rant on all night but best you google something like "2GB Vs 1GB graphics card performance"...have a little dig around and you will see it's been documented for nigh on 10 years that manufacturers add additional RAM as a selling point - but with no actual speed benefit. In some cases it can even run SLOWER because it might not be the same type of RAM used as the 1GB model of a certain graphics card etc.

I'm really not against Sony here so please don't read what I'm saying with a suspcious eye! ;)

See the bolded, graphics not better - but easier to develop for, not as much time needed optimizing for developers.

What you're saying really doesn't apply to the PS4. Especially the underlined part.

I'm not saying the more RAM, the better the graphics. I'm saying the more RAM, the better/bigger/faster EVERYTHING. Why do some open world games have shitty graphics while linear games like Uncharted 3 can push the boundaries of console graphics. In cases like this, I think that the more RAM, the better the graphics.

To your previous comment about design choice - I agree, yes for exclusives that full 8GB will likely be used at least for some games, but they won't make the graphics better, it might make the games more open in a certain way or not need as many load points, or some other benefit. Just not graphics.

My response to this comment would be simply that RAM isn't the real limitation in Uncharted, the reason it looks so good is because of the carefully programmed game world that has been optimized and employs tricks to not display as much detail say geometrically as you think you are seeing. Much like the old days when bitmaps were used sometimes extensively in polygonal games for more detailed objects but were just 2d planes in a 3d space that were "alwasy facing you".

Same goes here, increasing RAM isn't what got those 2d bitmaps eventually rendered in proper 3d as they (usually) are now. It was GPU power that did that.

Open world games have shitty graphics because it would be prohitively expensive to make the game not look shitty because of time to optimize and for artwork. Of course the open world nature has a cost on the visuals also from the power of the GPU and to a much lesser degree the CPU. The RAM on the platform running the open world game won't be the reason it looks shit on the texture/resolution level but may be the reason for a reduced amount of foliage in say a forrest, less NPCs, simpler scripting.

None of that is graphical based though.

Think of a bar chart, the graphics will look as good as the bar that is filled the lowest. Each bar represents CPU/GPU/RAM/Video RAM