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

Forums - Nintendo - 512 MB of Wii U's RAM "reserved for the OS. What's the total?

DanneSandin on 21 May 2012

@ JEMC
Well, I wouldn't say that GC were better then N64 actually... Better hardware doesn't mean better console. Was Wii better than PS360? At least in some aspects it was, no? PS2 didn't have as much power as GC (I think) but it was the better console...



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Around the Network
JEMC on 21 May 2012

@DanneSandin_ I was talking about the hardware: your newest console should be better than your old console, otherwise there is something inherently wrong with it.

If it will have better games or not thus making a better experience all along, is something that only time will tell.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Zim on 21 May 2012

Seems like a lot of people are posting without reading the neogaf thread and relevant posts.

Here are some key points from it. This information comes from someone who used to be a gaming journalist in france and still has plenty of connections. His information seems to be very reliable.

The 512mb of ram was from a now earlier dev kit, he stated that this information was from 2 and a half months ago and that there will be obviously be big changes leading up to release.

Nintendo hasn't come out and said the 512mb is for the 'OS'. Merely that was the amount locked away from devs use. It is likely they are, as you would imagine, being overly cautious with the amount they will need. It is much better to keep 512mb locked away and then need 256mb, than to lock away 256mb and then need 512mb.

The potential relevance of this is that there is a very good chance that developers will soon have more ram available to them as Nintendo finalizes its side more. It is very unlikely that the full 512mb will stay locked away as things get more final.

It also is perhaps an indicator to how much ram the console will have all together. If 512mb has been locked out then it is reasonable to assume there must be at least 1gb available.

The rumoured reasons for the large amount are things such as possible video chat, being able to suspend games and then pick up where you left off later etc.



Turkish says and I'm allowed to quote that: Uncharted 3 and God Of War 3 look better than Unreal Engine 4 games will or the tech demo does. Also the Naughty Dog PS3 ENGINE PLAYS better than the UE4 ENGINE.

Play4Fun on 21 May 2012

This source is from GAF and he says the console has AT LEAST 1GB RAM for games and another 512MB RAM not available to devs.


He's hinted that it will either be 1GB + 512MB or 1.5 GB +512mb OS.



Andrespetmonkey on 21 May 2012
Pemalite said:
Andrespetmonkey said:

If 4gb only costs £10 then I don't see why consoles can't have at least that. How cheap would that be if bought in very large amounts?

Edit: Just found this whilst googaling prices. lol


That was done in 2006.

I know, I just find it funny how only 5 years later 8gb is recommended whilst they were wondering if 2gb would be too much.


Since then, games want more memory, 4gb should be the minimum these days for PC's. Heck I noticed a small difference between moving from 4gb to 8gb of ram when alt-tabbing out of high-end games, didn't notice much with 32gb of ram though.
However, the PC is also allot more versatile and has to do allot more things in tandem, so the need for more ram is there.

http://blogs.bettor.com/Battlefield-3-developer-wants-8GB-of-RAM-in-the-PS4-and-Xbox-720-a1356


Seems every developer is screaming for more ram in the next lot of consoles.

However, the tricky part is the Video card often has to use the consoles ram for Video memory, So fast memory is just as important as lots of memory... Which is just like with IGP's in the PC space, which gain allot more performance with faster Ram.
And fast memory (Talking about faster than DDR3 here folks) is expensive as it isn't on the same level of being mass produced as the PC's DDR3 memory, so Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony need to balance the speed vs performance of the ram in their consoles to fit in a certain price budget.





My Music

Around the Network
DanneSandin on 21 May 2012
JEMC said:

@DanneSandin_ I was talking about the hardware: your newest console should be better than your old console, otherwise there is something inherently wrong with it.

If it will have better games or not thus making a better experience all along, is something that only time will tell.

Yes, tech wise it should be better than it's predecessor - but that doesn't mean it'll be a better console. There's more than simply the hardware that differs GC from Wii. The controlls meant the world for the Wii as with GC the controlls weren't the big thing... Yes, better hardware offers better and more options and functions for a console - but it is those options and functions that sets a console apart from the rest.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Badassbab on 21 May 2012

RAM is much cheaper now so the more the merrier. Hope it has bundles of Edram. 360 Edram helped it out a lot though it started to hold it back due to small amount.






haxxiy on 21 May 2012
Badassbab said:
RAM is much cheaper now so the more the merrier. Hope it has bundles of Edram. 360 Edram helped it out a lot though it started to hold it back due to small amount.


Console RAM has to be soldered onto the main board, they are way more expensive to manufacture than their PC counterparts.

That being said, I think 512 MB for OS is way too high, but it could happen for all I know. Probably the total RAM is around 1.5 GB then, with maybe an embedded GPU RAM for cheap antialiasing like the GC and the X360. 



 

 

 

 

 

VGKing on 21 May 2012

50/50 seems likely.



Jereel Hunter on 21 May 2012
Pemalite said:
Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 said:
They need to optimize the OS. The Ps3's OS at the start of this gen was at 100mb? Then they optimized it down to 10mb.

You can do it Nintendo!!!


Way off the mark. The PS3 OS at launch used 120mb, which Sony managed to drop to 96MB then to 50mb.

http://www.psuni.com/ps3-os-footprint-slashed-to-50mb-1798/

Still large when compared to the Xbox at 32mb, but then it's not entirely unexpected with Microsoft who has been making Operating Systems for decades, so they have the expertise.

512mb though is massive for a console, but I guess Nintendo is playing it safe, you can't increase an Operating Systems memory footprint on a console without serious reprecussions, but you can reduce it for future games.


I didnt' realize Xbox did it with so little - especially since features like cross-game chat built into the OS. If Nintendo truely is dedicating this much to the OS (something I'm not sure I believe) then chances are they want to be able to have pretty much complete access to system features inside a game. Right now my only real complaint about xbox/live is that if you're ina game, and you want to buy an add-on or download content, you usually have to exit the game to buy at the store, with a few exceptions. Nintendo giving lots of resources to the OS would allow users to pause a game and shop/surf the net, and switch back quickly. This makes sense. My friends and I play ME3 multiplayer all the time, and it takes forever for the game to start up, log into multiplayer, get a game started, etc. When I'm waiting for one of them to finish up, if I could be running an app on the OS ram like netflix until they're ready, and then switch over? That would be great. It's time they brought some true multitasking ability to consoles.