By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Square-Enix: Trouble Fitting FFXIV On PS3

Darc Requiem on 18 July 2010
KillerMan said:
Darc Requiem said:

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


I have also wondered this especially as Sony launched PS3 one year later. Nowadays production costs would be maybe couple of dollars more than they are now with current PS3 but in exchange PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360 so pretty many HD console buyers would have probably chosen PS3 instead of X360.

Yeah I was honestly stunned when the PS3 didn't have more total RAM. I thought that was one of Sony's biggest mistakes. Having more memory would have helped offset the trepidation developers felt about the PS3's unique architecture.



Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD on 18 July 2010
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.

ok got it. I thought sony sed ps3 was like a super computr. But they didnt put in enuf RAM

Ram is the main issue with the PS3, it's able to offset the older video chipset with the processing power that the Cell is able to excel in to provide good graphics with the RSX and good physics, but it would have been a much more powerful machine had they put in more memory for it. It's really just wasted power if you ask me, consoles have always been bottlenecked by memory, it's quiet retarded considering how cheap memory was even 5 years ago.

but PS3 was itslef expensive so more ram would have costed even more

and the games are still excelling

 

and do you have any idea how fast SSD's are compared to RAM?



Solid_Snake4RD on 18 July 2010
KillerMan said:
Darc Requiem said:

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


I have also wondered this especially as Sony launched PS3 one year later. They could have easily gone with 1gb of normal RAM and nowadays production costs would be maybe couple of dollars more than they are now with current PS3 but in exchange PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360. With this pretty many HD console buyers would have probably chosen PS3 instead of X360.

it would have lost more money on PS3

and HD consoles console buyers still wouldn't have bought PS3 instead of 360 as the price would have been more like ir was as it is



Darc Requiem on 18 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.

ok got it. I thought sony sed ps3 was like a super computr. But they didnt put in enuf RAM

Ram is the main issue with the PS3, it's able to offset the older video chipset with the processing power that the Cell is able to excel in to provide good graphics with the RSX and good physics, but it would have been a much more powerful machine had they put in more memory for it. It's really just wasted power if you ask me, consoles have always been bottlenecked by memory, it's quiet retarded considering how cheap memory was even 5 years ago.

but PS3 was itslef expensive so more ram would have costed even more

and the games are still excelling

 

and do you have any idea how fast SSD's are compared to RAM?

Yes and no. If they would have ditched the XDR  and went GDDR only, they could have included more total RAM at no additional cost.



Solid_Snake4RD on 18 July 2010
Darc Requiem said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.

ok got it. I thought sony sed ps3 was like a super computr. But they didnt put in enuf RAM

Ram is the main issue with the PS3, it's able to offset the older video chipset with the processing power that the Cell is able to excel in to provide good graphics with the RSX and good physics, but it would have been a much more powerful machine had they put in more memory for it. It's really just wasted power if you ask me, consoles have always been bottlenecked by memory, it's quiet retarded considering how cheap memory was even 5 years ago.

but PS3 was itslef expensive so more ram would have costed even more

and the games are still excelling

 

and do you have any idea how fast SSD's are compared to RAM?

Yes and no. If they would have ditched the XDR  and went GDDR only, they could have included more total RAM at no additional cost.

yes but then what would have been there for the CPU



Around the Network
Galaki on 18 July 2010

The spinning is LOL worthy.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Darc Requiem on 18 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Darc Requiem said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
dahuman said:
AkibaFan said:
selnor said:
BMaker11 said:
dahuman said:
selnor said:

As many have pointed out before. The PS3's memory architecture is the issue. it has only 256mb available to the CPU and 256mb available to GPU. 

Niether can borrow from each other. Whereas a PC has alot more available. And the Cell is a long way behind current CPU's.


dood..... the system can use the XDR for graphics, just not the GDDR3 for the system, you've obviously read or remembered wrong.

There hasn't been a thread with essentially negative PS3 news in a while. He was just lurking in the shadows and pounced at the soonest opportunity to make the system not seem as good as it is lol

So answering his question with truth, is lurking ok. 

Of course the PS3 version is gonna struggle next to the PC version. 

PC architecture is far more advanced than PS3 4 years into PS3 life in 'all' areas. 

I merely helped him to understand it's the lack of memory options on the console which is the issue. 

Dont start a flamewar. 

but cell dusn't give more memory?


CPUs by themselves usually don't have much memory.

ok got it. I thought sony sed ps3 was like a super computr. But they didnt put in enuf RAM

Ram is the main issue with the PS3, it's able to offset the older video chipset with the processing power that the Cell is able to excel in to provide good graphics with the RSX and good physics, but it would have been a much more powerful machine had they put in more memory for it. It's really just wasted power if you ask me, consoles have always been bottlenecked by memory, it's quiet retarded considering how cheap memory was even 5 years ago.

but PS3 was itslef expensive so more ram would have costed even more

and the games are still excelling

 

and do you have any idea how fast SSD's are compared to RAM?

Yes and no. If they would have ditched the XDR  and went GDDR only, they could have included more total RAM at no additional cost.

yes but then what would have been there for the CPU

Is that a serious question?



Reasonable on 18 July 2010

Is this even a surprise?  My only real surprise is how SE managed to get into this position given the PS3 specs are a matter of record they were well aware of going into the project.

I thought SE made a bit of a mess of FFXIII with the late decision to port and the resultant inferior 360 version, and here they are apparently focused on the PC (actually understandably given the difference in PC/PS2 focus for FFXI) and getting caught short by the very well known PS3 limitations next to current PC gaming kit.

This should have be carefully planned for with early decisions on how to handle the differences and what resolution, etc. to aim for on PS3 and how to manage the assets for both that would have served as a guide to the development across each platform.

Instead, it sounds like they're suddenly facing the issues posed by the PS3 late in the day the same way they suddenly faced getting their PS3 code and assets for FFXIII onto the 360 late in the day.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

KillerMan on 18 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
KillerMan said:
Darc Requiem said:

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


I have also wondered this especially as Sony launched PS3 one year later. They could have easily gone with 1gb of normal RAM and nowadays production costs would be maybe couple of dollars more than they are now with current PS3 but in exchange PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360. With this pretty many HD console buyers would have probably chosen PS3 instead of X360.

it would have lost more money on PS3

and HD consoles console buyers still wouldn't have bought PS3 instead of 360 as the price would have been more like ir was as it is


Yes but with more RAM PS3's value in eyes of normal customer would have risen a lot more compared to production costs because PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360. High price would have been better justified and this would have led more people to choose PS3 over X360. Now it cost a lot more than X360 but the games look about the same.



Solid_Snake4RD on 18 July 2010
KillerMan said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
KillerMan said:
Darc Requiem said:

RAM is always an achilles heel for consoles. While PCs always out pace consoles in CPU and GPU power, PC games have to account for the fact that not everyone PC owner is going to have the latest hardware. This helps consoles platforms because while PC devs have to account for the lowest common denominator, console devs are always pushing to get the most of hardware.

RAM is another story. Consoles tend to have a brief hardware power advantage at launch but they still are at disadvantage in RAM. Consoles usually have faster RAM at launch and combined with larger overhead of PCs that helps them initially. However PC's have far more RAM. When bought my launch 360 in 2005, my desktop had 2GB of RAM and GPU had 256MB of VRAM.

Honestly consoles makers need to try to squeeze as much RAM into there consoles at launch as possible. I think if Sony would have ditched the XDR RAM in order to have more total RAM it would have been far more advantageous. Having more RAM than the 360 would made it far more difficult for developers to switch projects from PS3 to 360. It also would have made it easier for them to use Blu-Ray's storage advantage for better textures.


I have also wondered this especially as Sony launched PS3 one year later. They could have easily gone with 1gb of normal RAM and nowadays production costs would be maybe couple of dollars more than they are now with current PS3 but in exchange PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360. With this pretty many HD console buyers would have probably chosen PS3 instead of X360.

it would have lost more money on PS3

and HD consoles console buyers still wouldn't have bought PS3 instead of 360 as the price would have been more like ir was as it is

Yes but with more RAM PS3's value in eyes of normal customer would have risen a lot more compared to production costs because PS3 would have real graphical advantage over X360.High price would have been better justified and this would have led more people to choose PS3 over X360.

a normal consumer doesn't know shit about RAM and all

we see that alot like iPHONE outselling its superior competitors

Now it cost a lot more than X360 but the games look about the same.

not really the exclusive games look alot better