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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wiiu RAM 43% slower than PS360 RAM

fillet on 19 November 2012
Scoobes said:
fillet said:
Squilliam said:
fillet said:
Squilliam said:
fillet said:
Turkish said:
fillet said:
Makes fuck all difference, the speed of the main RAM hardly contributes anything towards performance.

/End thread.


huh what lol

Exactly what I said. RAM speed makes very little difference - if any to system performance in this context.

With the speed of RAM 10 years ago, yes it makes a difference because it's a bottleneck. With consoles 5 years ago that bottleneck didn't exist.

RAM speed makes hardly any difference.

For example, on PC DDR3 RAM at 1333Mhz Vs 2133Mhz....we're talking about 3-4% tops in terms of raw performance where RAM is important. In gaming, it would likely be even less than that.

Actually the speed of RAM matters more nowadays than it did 10 years ago. RAM has gotten slower relative to the performance of the CPU/GPU and a lot of silicon in the CPU/GPU is there simply to overcome this problem. If RAM had evolved as fast as everything else then we would have faster computers with quite different architectures.


Nothing to do with RAM, you're thinking of on die memory controllers as with latest Intel chips and with with AMD chips where it first started.

That's getting round the problem of the motherboard interconnect bus speed, nothing to do with the speed of the RAM itself.

With RAM and gaming, you need enough of it and that's it. Speed of RAM +/- negligible.

Nope.

"My conclusion: Usable memory amount is very much tied to available memory bandwidth. More bandwidth allows the games to access more memory. So it's kind of counterintuitive to swap faster smaller memory to a slower larger one. More available memory means that I want to access more memory, but in reality the slower bandwidth allows me to access less. So the percentage of accessible memory drops radically."

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62108


Not relevant, that's regarding GPU RAM, school boy error there mate.

In a GPU amount of memory, once you get to "enough" makes no difference. For example nvidia used to have this habit or releasing low powered varients of their graphics cards with massive amounts of VRAM to try and sucker people in, even though the cards were too slow to run at a resolution high enough to make use of the VRAM.

In a graphics card RAM speed is crucial and the basic raw deciding factor in it's general speed when running games that don't make extensive use of pixel and vertex shading units.

That's basic 101 graphics card knowledge.

See my other post. The same RAM is being used by the GPU.

Will have to look into this further. :)



Around the Network
F0X on 19 November 2012
shokenchi said:
lol at haters complaining anything they can find about the wii u. its not like they will buy the wii u in the first place even if its 1000x more powerful than the ps360.


I wouldn't even buy it if,it was that powerful (expensive), but I get the point.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Squilliam on 19 November 2012
fillet said:
Squilliam said:
fillet said:
Squilliam said:
fillet said:
Turkish said:
fillet said:
Makes fuck all difference, the speed of the main RAM hardly contributes anything towards performance.

/End thread.


huh what lol

Exactly what I said. RAM speed makes very little difference - if any to system performance in this context.

With the speed of RAM 10 years ago, yes it makes a difference because it's a bottleneck. With consoles 5 years ago that bottleneck didn't exist.

RAM speed makes hardly any difference.

For example, on PC DDR3 RAM at 1333Mhz Vs 2133Mhz....we're talking about 3-4% tops in terms of raw performance where RAM is important. In gaming, it would likely be even less than that.

Actually the speed of RAM matters more nowadays than it did 10 years ago. RAM has gotten slower relative to the performance of the CPU/GPU and a lot of silicon in the CPU/GPU is there simply to overcome this problem. If RAM had evolved as fast as everything else then we would have faster computers with quite different architectures.


Nothing to do with RAM, you're thinking of on die memory controllers as with latest Intel chips and with with AMD chips where it first started.

That's getting round the problem of the motherboard interconnect bus speed, nothing to do with the speed of the RAM itself.

With RAM and gaming, you need enough of it and that's it. Speed of RAM +/- negligible.

Nope.

"My conclusion: Usable memory amount is very much tied to available memory bandwidth. More bandwidth allows the games to access more memory. So it's kind of counterintuitive to swap faster smaller memory to a slower larger one. More available memory means that I want to access more memory, but in reality the slower bandwidth allows me to access less. So the percentage of accessible memory drops radically."

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62108


Not relevant, that's regarding GPU RAM, school boy error there mate.

In a GPU amount of memory, once you get to "enough" makes no difference. For example nvidia used to have this habit or releasing low powered varients of their graphics cards with massive amounts of VRAM to try and sucker people in, even though the cards were too slow to run at a resolution high enough to make use of the VRAM.

In a graphics card RAM speed is crucial and the basic raw deciding factor in it's general speed when running games that don't make extensive use of pixel and vertex shading units.

That's basic 101 graphics card knowledge.

It is pointless carrying on like this. You obviously understand less than what you think you understand.



Tease.

Squilliam on 19 November 2012
ninetailschris said:
Squilliam said:
fillet said:
Squilliam said:
fillet said:
Turkish said:
fillet said:
Makes fuck all difference, the speed of the main RAM hardly contributes anything towards performance.

/End thread.


huh what lol

Exactly what I said. RAM speed makes very little difference - if any to system performance in this context.

With the speed of RAM 10 years ago, yes it makes a difference because it's a bottleneck. With consoles 5 years ago that bottleneck didn't exist.

RAM speed makes hardly any difference.

For example, on PC DDR3 RAM at 1333Mhz Vs 2133Mhz....we're talking about 3-4% tops in terms of raw performance where RAM is important. In gaming, it would likely be even less than that.

Actually the speed of RAM matters more nowadays than it did 10 years ago. RAM has gotten slower relative to the performance of the CPU/GPU and a lot of silicon in the CPU/GPU is there simply to overcome this problem. If RAM had evolved as fast as everything else then we would have faster computers with quite different architectures.


Nothing to do with RAM, you're thinking of on die memory controllers as with latest Intel chips and with with AMD chips where it first started.

That's getting round the problem of the motherboard interconnect bus speed, nothing to do with the speed of the RAM itself.

With RAM and gaming, you need enough of it and that's it. Speed of RAM +/- negligible.

Nope.

"My conclusion: Usable memory amount is very much tied to available memory bandwidth. More bandwidth allows the games to access more memory. So it's kind of counterintuitive to swap faster smaller memory to a slower larger one. More available memory means that I want to access more memory, but in reality the slower bandwidth allows me to access less. So the percentage of accessible memory drops radically."

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62108


When you quote something from a wall of text you should tell people the paragraph because we don't know the context and could be cherry picked argument.

Why don't you read it? It is very informative.



Tease.

Dodece on 19 November 2012

Technical jargon is always so implicit. Everyone thinks that how they are seeing it should just be plain obvious to all the other people in the thread. Like the story of three blind men being asked to touch a object, but they weren't told what that object was. So each came back with a different interpretation based upon what part of the object they touched. By the way the story is about a Elephant, but that is aside from the point. I am sure that someone in this thread may have hit the nail on the head, but I haven't any clue whatsoever who that might be.

Anyway it seems that the consensus is that the Wii U is modestly better or merely on par with the capabilities of the High Def Twins. Which is what I expected months ago. Seeing as Nintendo is economical about design, they aren't a loss leader, and their control scheme split hardware resources. Reality seems to be matching reasoning. With that all said. I think the real issue is that Nintendo really needed to unquestionably exceed the competition. In order to shake brand loyalties. People just don't leave their comfort zones for about the same, or even for just a little bit better.

There is one thing that really irked me in this thread. Developers are hardly impartial sources. Most especially if they have a financial stake in a products launch. Anyone who has developed for the platform either has a title that is launching with the platform, or will launch in a short time frame. Any negativity on their part could drive down the sales of the platform, and in doing so drive down their own sales. Few developers would be so self defeating.

To get a genuine developers take on the hardware your going to have to wait between five to six months. Which is about the time it takes for the sales of their games to slow to a trickle. That is when you are going to get their honest opinion, because that is when they are going to start juggling the pros and cons of continuing their own development on the platform. Just look at the PS3s first year. It wasn't really till early summer that developers started to come out of the woodwork, and started to state their opinions on the record.

This is one thing I can say with some certainty that we really do have to wait on.



http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece

Around the Network
oni-link on 19 November 2012

Wow...just...wow...I knew this site was full of anti-Nintendo fanatics like Turkish, VGking etc...but I didn't know it was this rampant!!! I'll wait for a full analysis of the system before jumping the gun. I take it that the term "no one is saying Wii U is not more powerful than PS360...the question is how much" that these people hide behind is thrown out the window b/c of some presumed RAM speed (what the heck). Never mind that the Wii U has better latency, more eDRAM, double the amount of RAM or a better GPU or even CPU. Well I am totally happy with my Wii U, which seem to outperform both PS360 on CoD: BO 2 on the videos that are currently making rounds on the web right now.



Turkish on 20 November 2012
oni-link said:
Wow...just...wow...I knew this site was full of anti-Nintendo fanatics like Turkish, VGking etc...but I didn't know it was this rampant!!! I'll wait for a full analysis of the system before jumping the gun. I take it that the term "no one is saying Wii U is not more powerful than PS360...the question is how much" that these people hide behind is thrown out the window b/c of some presumed RAM speed (what the heck). Never mind that the Wii U has better latency, more eDRAM, double the amount of RAM or a better GPU or even CPU. Well I am totally happy with my Wii U, which seem to outperform both PS360 on CoD: BO 2 on the videos that are currently making rounds on the web right now.

You can read Digital Foundrys review.



BluGamer23 on 20 November 2012
VGKing said:
Faxanadu said:
Oh my, people really need to get a life.

So many gamers feel thretened by the new Nintendo console that they need to talk about such unimportant things as technical specs?
Try talking about games for a change.

Technical Specs are extremely important if you are even the slightest bit interested in technology.
Technical specs are the difference between getting 3rd party support or not.

"Technical specs are the difference between getting 3rd party support or not."  <-- what?.. please explain about vita in this case?..



 

 

HoloDust on 20 November 2012
oni-link said:
Wow...just...wow...I knew this site was full of anti-Nintendo fanatics like Turkish, VGking etc...but I didn't know it was this rampant!!! I'll wait for a full analysis of the system before jumping the gun. I take it that the term "no one is saying Wii U is not more powerful than PS360...the question is how much" that these people hide behind is thrown out the window b/c of some presumed RAM speed (what the heck). Never mind that the Wii U has better latency, more eDRAM, double the amount of RAM or a better GPU or even CPU. Well I am totally happy with my Wii U, which seem to outperform both PS360 on CoD: BO 2 on the videos that are currently making rounds on the web right now.


No one is saying Wii U is not more powerful than PS360 :p

Seriously, I think that would be silly - I'm quite certain Zelda and other 1st parties will look great. From what I'm seeing here, debate is more about how these specs will affect 3rd parties - since you mentioned BLOPS2, take a look at those shadows for example - I don't remember I've seen that in something like 10 years, and that memory bandwidth might be problem - I'm sure they can fix such things, and make it same as on PS360 (or better), once they learn how to do it "Nintendo" way.

In my opinion, even if it turns out WiiU is just slightly more powefull than Twins, newer GPU will and more RAM will make it much more easier for developers to code than on current consoles (as some developers are alraedy stating). But, it would've been really nice if Nintendo went just one extra mile, and made system bit more powerfull, so that can be clear right out of the box it belongs more to NextBox/PS4 power category, and not PS360.



PullusPardus on 20 November 2012

I need sources, and experts on the subject

why did they compare RAM with a GPU ? , of course a GPU can run graphics faster , it is a Graphics Processing Unit after all, both should work with each other.
RAM can be slower if it has more memory since the memory cycles have more space to work on

to make it more clear imagine this is Wii U's memory

|............o............................................................................|

the ball in the middle is moving left and right and left and right.

this is the other console's memory

|....o..........................|

which one is going to make faster cycles? the one with the shorter space of course

It also depends on the quality of the RAM, some bigger ram is actually faster than shorter ram.
this all doesn't really matter and has nothing to do with processing speed since CPUs are actually the ones that determine operation speed, RAM is just Random Access Memory , memory that your computer access without saving it, like texture models, the bigger the RAM the more Textures are going to load, the faster your GPU the better they load, CPUs handle the math, GPU the graphics, and RAM the weight, WiiU's MiiVerse take a lot of ram for example, since its flashy but not fully optimized, they need to fix some loading issues,when loading from game to miiverse , this can be fixed with a future firmware update so its no biggie.