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

Forums - Sony Discussion - " PS4 is easier to develop for than PC and built around the Share button "

ethomaz on 11 March 2013
Kasz216 said:

Not really no.  It depends on the game.  For something like Braid or a FPS it's better... for something computer intensive though like Civilization or a RTS...  DDR3 would be better.  There you need DDR3's better latency to process all the behind the scenes moves that you mostly don't even see due to fog of war.

 

But my point was, GDDR5 has better bandwith and worse latency.  One moves faster while the other can carry more per movement.

It's like a difference between a racecar and a truck... and GDDR5 is the truck.

DDR3 is faster.  GDDR5 can process more at once.   Meaning for games where you just have the graphics show up, and they basically stay that way.  GDDR5 is better.   For games where you need to make tons of trips where there are tons and tons of decisions being made one right after another.  DDR3 is better.

Nope... the faster GDDR5 overcome the lack of latency.

A little example....

DDR3 can carry 10 "data" per movement
GDDR5 can carry 1 "data" per movement

DDR3 can do 12 movement per second
GDDR5 can do 170 movement per second

DDR3: 10 x 12 = 120 per second
GDDR5: 1 x 170 = 170 per second

The low latency is just a big issue for out of order computational data... gamers not use this kind of data... the computational data used in gamer can be processed by GPU too... is always the same parallel in line tasks.

For gamers the GDDR5 is way better than DDR3... there is no doubt about that in any PC hardware forum I checked.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 11 March 2013
ethomaz said:
Kasz216 said:

Not really no.  It depends on the game.  For something like Braid or a FPS it's better... for something computer intensive though like Civilization or a RTS...  DDR3 would be better.  There you need DDR3's better latency to process all the behind the scenes moves that you mostly don't even see due to fog of war.

 

But my point was, GDDR5 has better bandwith and worse latency.  One moves faster while the other can carry more per movement.

It's like a difference between a racecar and a truck... and GDDR5 is the truck.

DDR3 is faster.  GDDR5 can process more at once.   Meaning for games where you just have the graphics show up, and they basically stay that way.  GDDR5 is better.   For games where you need to make tons of trips where there are tons and tons of decisions being made one right after another.  DDR3 is better.
Nope... the faster GDDR5 overcome the lack of latency.

A little example....

DDR3 can carry 10 "data" per movement
GDDR5 can carry 1 "data" per movement

DDR3 can do 12 movement per second
GDDR5 can do 170 movement per second

DDR3: 10 x 12 = 120 per second
GDDR5: 1 x 170 = 170 per second

The low latency is just a big issue for out of order computational data... gamers not use this kind of data... the computational data used in gamer can be processed by GPU too... is always the same parallel in line tasks.

For gamers the GDDR5 is way better than DDR3... there is no doubt about that in any PC hardware forum I checked.

First off, you completely made up those numbers.

Secondly your numbers are backwords.  I thought you said you were a developer in another thread.  How do you not know the difference between Latency and Bandwith.

Latency is the time it takes for a process to be processed.

Bandwith is the amount of data that can be processed at once.

GDDR5 has better Bandwith at the cost of Latency.

So using your made up numbers it would be....

 

GDDR5 can carry 10 "data" per movement

DDR3 can carry 1 "data" per movement

GDDR5 can do 12 movement per second

DDR3can do 170 movement per second

GDDR5: 10 x 12 = 120 per second

DDR3: 1 x 170 = 170 per second

 

Meaning either your opinion or logic has to change.



Kynes on 11 March 2013

Ethomaz, please don't talk about something you don't understand. GDDR5 is a great memory to have for predictable things and big data chunks, but your example is ridiculous. GDDR5 is great for scripted sequences, so Sony developers will feel at home using it



ethomaz on 11 March 2013
Kasz216 said:

First off, you completely made up those numbers.

Secondly your numbers are backwords.  I thought you said you were a developer in another thread.  How do you not know the difference between Latency and Bandwith.

Latency is the time it takes for a process to be processed.

Bandwith is the amount of data that can be processed at once.

GDDR5 has better Bandwith at the cost of Latency.

So using your made up numbers it would be....

 

GDDR5 can carry 10 "data" per movement

DDR3 can carry 1 "data" per movement

GDDR5 can do 12 movement per second

DDR3can do 170 movement per second

GDDR5: 10 x 12 = 120 per second

DDR3: 1 x 170 = 170 per second

No. Latency is the delay time between a data is accessed and another.... DRR3 can do more access in the same period than GDDR5 but GDDR5 can carry more data per access..

My example was bad because I mixed the words but it is still valid for gamers.... there is no way DDR3 is better for games than GDDR5.

Low latency is better for CPU that act in a linear fashion (execute instruction A, then B, then C, etc...)... so the CPU needs additional instruction for execution and in this case the low latency of DDR3 give you a fast response... and you can avoid the bad latency increasing the numbers of cores of a CPU so you can split the linear instruction between the cores (that is not the best scenario but helps when you have low latency).

So the 8-cores at low speed of the PS4 was choose on purpose to avoid that low latency... for low latency a 8-core CPU at low clock works better than a 4-core CPU at high clock.

That said... over 90% of a game processing is parallel and not act in a linear fashion... so the low latency not interfere in anything... in fact the high bandwidth is have more advantage than low latency for games... even the CPU calcs for games (AI, Physics, etc) are not linear... just parallel simulations... so even here the high bandwidth is better.

The Nextbox and Wii U have a big bottleneck to work due the use of DDR3... so they try to avoid that using eDRAM or eSRAM (Microsoft is even using data move engine units to remove this task from CPU/GPU trying to gain speed to fix the low bandwidth) but I can't say if the result will be good or bad (I expect good in MS console and not so good in Wii U).

Even AMD is adding support to GDDR5 in your future APU for PC Desktop.

ethomaz on 11 March 2013
Kynes said:

Ethomaz, please don't talk about something you don't understand. GDDR5 is a great memory to have for predictable things and big data chunks, but your example is ridiculous. GDDR5 is great for scripted sequences, so Sony developers will feel at home using it

I just mixed the words but my example is correct..
.
GDDR5 is better for everything in a game.

Around the Network
hinch on 11 March 2013
Kasz216 said:
ethomaz said:
Kasz216 said:

Who is Jonathan Blow and why doesn't he know the difference between GDDR5 and DDR3.
And the difference is the GDDR5 is better for games than DDR3... that's common sense... fast ram is better for games than low latency ram.

Jonathan Blow is the developer behind Braid and now The Witness.

Not really no.  It depends on the game.  For something like Braid or a FPS it's better... for something computer intensive though like Civilization or a RTS...  DDR3 would be better.  There you need DDR3's better latency to process all the PC moves that you mostly don't even see due to fog of war.

Ever play a Civ game with a shitty CPU but good graphcis card?  You can be waiting a whole hour for the damn PC to finish it's moves.

But my point was, GDDR5 has better bandwith and worse latency.  One moves faster while the other can carry more per movement.

It's like a difference between a racecar and a truck... and GDDR5 is the truck.

DDR3 is faster.  GDDR5 can process more at once.   Meaning for games where you just have the graphics show up, and they basically stay that way.  GDDR5 is better.   For games where you need to make tons of trips where there are tons and tons of decisions being made one right after another.  DDR3 is better.

 

Not that it should make THAT much of a difference anyway.

GDDR5 will always be better than DDR3 for games.

There's a reason why AMD/Nvidia use GDDR5 memory in their graphics cards.. its because the GPU will always benefit from higher bandwidth. Latency will not hinder a GPU's peformance as much as being throttled by low bandwith. The inclusion of ESRAM in the Nextbox to balance out the shortcomings of DDR3 says it all really.



phenom08 on 11 March 2013
ethomaz said:
Kasz216 said:

Not really no.  It depends on the game.  For something like Braid or a FPS it's better... for something computer intensive though like Civilization or a RTS...  DDR3 would be better.  There you need DDR3's better latency to process all the behind the scenes moves that you mostly don't even see due to fog of war.

 

But my point was, GDDR5 has better bandwith and worse latency.  One moves faster while the other can carry more per movement.

It's like a difference between a racecar and a truck... and GDDR5 is the truck.

DDR3 is faster.  GDDR5 can process more at once.   Meaning for games where you just have the graphics show up, and they basically stay that way.  GDDR5 is better.   For games where you need to make tons of trips where there are tons and tons of decisions being made one right after another.  DDR3 is better.
Nope... the faster GDDR5 overcome the lack of latency.

A little example....

DDR3 can carry 10 "data" per movement
GDDR5 can carry 1 "data" per movement

DDR3 can do 12 movement per second
GDDR5 can do 170 movement per second

DDR3: 10 x 12 = 120 per second
GDDR5: 1 x 170 = 170 per second

The low latency is just a big issue for out of order computational data... gamers not use this kind of data... the computational data used in gamer can be processed by GPU too... is always the same parallel in line tasks.

For gamers the GDDR5 is way better than DDR3... there is no doubt about that in any PC hardware forum I checked.


Wow lol, do you enjoy making things up?



kitler53 on 11 March 2013
Troll_Whisperer said:
Two minute buffer, does that mean it records the last two minutes? I thought it was 15, or that's what the rumours said.


15 was only a rumor.  on the playstation meeting sony described the feature but never put a number to how long of a time it can record.  to the best of my knowledge sony has made any follow up comments to confirm how far back you can buffer.

also the quote is, "it has a chip that’s always recording to a maybe two-minute buffer".  based on that maybe i wouldn't take this as confirmation of 1-2 minutes either.

not sure how far back of a buffer one needs but, as i wouldn't want to share in the middle of a multiplayer match so i feel like 5-10 minutes is about right.



ethomaz on 11 March 2013
phenom08 said:


Wow lol, do you enjoy making things up?

Read my next comment I tried to explain better

Kasz216 on 11 March 2013
hinch said:
Kasz216 said:
ethomaz said:
Kasz216 said:

Who is Jonathan Blow and why doesn't he know the difference between GDDR5 and DDR3.
And the difference is the GDDR5 is better for games than DDR3... that's common sense... fast ram is better for games than low latency ram.

Jonathan Blow is the developer behind Braid and now The Witness.

Not really no.  It depends on the game.  For something like Braid or a FPS it's better... for something computer intensive though like Civilization or a RTS...  DDR3 would be better.  There you need DDR3's better latency to process all the PC moves that you mostly don't even see due to fog of war.

Ever play a Civ game with a shitty CPU but good graphcis card?  You can be waiting a whole hour for the damn PC to finish it's moves.

But my point was, GDDR5 has better bandwith and worse latency.  One moves faster while the other can carry more per movement.

It's like a difference between a racecar and a truck... and GDDR5 is the truck.

DDR3 is faster.  GDDR5 can process more at once.   Meaning for games where you just have the graphics show up, and they basically stay that way.  GDDR5 is better.   For games where you need to make tons of trips where there are tons and tons of decisions being made one right after another.  DDR3 is better.

 

Not that it should make THAT much of a difference anyway.

GDDR5 will always be better than DDR3 for games.

There's a reason why AMD/Nvidia use GDDR5 memory in their graphics cards.. its because the GPU will always benefit from higher bandwidth. Latency will not hinder a GPU's peformance as much as being throttled by low bandwith. The inclusion of ESRAM in the Nextbox to balance out the shortcomings of DDR3 says it all really.

You know... unless a game requires more CPU use then GPU use... which is why people generally don't use GDDR5 for CPUs.  (Well actually never until the PS4.)