RazorDragon said:
| Captain_Tom said:
LOL no it doesn't! I play it maxed out 100% and it only uses around 1500MB-1800MB. They then tried to fit that into 256MB. What happened? The PS3 and especially the 360 version can't even hold a steady 25 FPS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLLWtgVglTE
This is all while having some butt-ugly textures. So yeah your future for the Wii U looks great. I can't wait to see what happens to console versions of games when 2+ GB is standard (Which it will be by next year).
|
RAM has almost nothing to do with framerate. The 360 and PS3 versions can't hold 25FPS because the GPU and CPU are outdated compared to current PC specs. If you try to run, for example, Crysis on a HD 4870 512MB GPU and then on a HD 4670 1GB GPU, which card will run the game with better framerates? It's obvious that the HD 4870 will run it much better, even with less RAM. About the butt-ugly textures, that may be because PS3 and 360 lack RAM, but in the framerate department, it doesn't matter at all how much RAM you have.
|
Not necessarily.
Ram has a lot to do with framerates. Ram bandwith is directly related to framerates. If you have a Titan/I7 PC with DDR2 you would still just get 2 fps because the Ram would be too slow to deliever the data to the GPU.
Ram amount also has something to do with framerates. This is a problem that plagues consoles. Games today on consoles are mostly limited through Ram size. If there is not enough ram space like 360/PS3 for example the GPU has to compress and decompress the data it reads and writes to the Ram or else it wouldn't fit into the limited space. This costs GPU time and thats often the reason for the bad framerates on consoles.
