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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How will the Wii U fit games on the PS4, if the PS4 will have 7GB RAM available?

curl-6 on 14 April 2013
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 3, Black Ops, and World at War ran on the Wii despite the Wii having 88MB of RAM to the PS3/360's 512MB.


That's wrong, the PS3 had 256MB available total and about 200MB available for games.

Porting from 200MB to 88MB is nothing compared to going from 7GB to 1GB.

Games using 5GB (if they ever come out and deducting about 2GB for video use) will have to have integral features removed and watered down beyond belief and likely not even recognizable from the original.

You have to think that games using 200MB aren't going to be doing anything amazing on the memory level Vs massive open world type games that 5GB would be needed for, those games wouldn't even be possible in any context, watered down or not on a system with 1GB of RAM.

No, the PS3 had 512MB of RAM, it was just split into two 256MB pools, (video and system) with initially 120MB set aside for the OS, which was later shrunk to 50MB.

And don't underestimate thow much memory can be saved by trimming draw distance and texture resolution.

Those pools are separate though with the memory used for the OS coming from the system RAM pool.

So point stands that PS3 has circa 200MB to play with for system RAM against the Wii's 88MB.

That's the reason for Bethesday having so many problems with the PS3 because they ported from the Xbox/PC

200MB for system RAM, but another 256MB for video.



Around the Network
Ljink96 on 14 April 2013
richardhutnik said:
Ljink96 said:
I don't think Nintendo is worried about this. They've found numerous ways to outsmart the competition. It isn't much of how much RAM you have but what you do with that RAM. If your company is smart enough you might just try to make your game playable on all current gen consoles. It isn't like PS, hard core games sold well on Nintendo consoles in the first place. The Wii had a short cut yet prosperous life with its first party software alone. I don't think at all for a second that Nintendo doesn't need 3rd party support but they rarely depend on it.

Outsmart their competition, like they did with the Gamecube and N64?  The WIi had motion control and reached the causal market.  It was a second console for a lot of hardcore gamers also.

Nintendo was trying to bank on having a system that could also get third-party support, but do it in a way that stood out.  As of now, not being able to do third-party AAA releases is going to hurt long-term.  Nintendo maybe carves out its own niche, but the niche is pretty much just the second screen, which Microsoft and Sony do offer solutions for.

Well, we are talking about now. Times have changed. The Wii was the one on top last gen and if Nintendo markets Wii U properly it will have a good following. The second screen that MS and Sony have are bull crap compared to Wii U. The Wii U is based around the gamepad it was made just for the Wii U. The PSV and PS3 cross play is nothing compared to it. Do you even have a Wii U? You can't vouch for something that you don't have.

It really can't be matched and when Nintendo's software shows this later on, it will become quite obvious. How can you even begin to compare the three? The XBOX surface thing is also a joke. If the audience doesn't get Wii U right now then they will really really miss Surface and PSV crossplay. They just aren't the same.

Do people think that Wii  just got lucky because of casuals? It took a large part but there are those that wanted it to play Smash Bros. and Zelda remember? I bet if Sony came up with the Sonii then you'd credit them to the fullest and leave out all casual interactions. Nintendo's name might be "Leave luck to Heaven" but 100+ years of luck is unheard of. Try again bro.



zarx on 14 April 2013

Possible (with large cut backs in visuals, draw distance, asset variety, physics etc) sure, will it be economically viable for developers to essentially make a separate game and rendering engine specifically for the Wii U as well as create a lower quality set of assets and also modify levels to fit? For most games I doubt it, for a few like sports games and maybe things like CoD probably as sports licenses often have clauses that they have to be on every viable platform (which is why the PS2 still gets some) and CoD is big enough that it would probably be worth it.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

fillet on 14 April 2013
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 3, Black Ops, and World at War ran on the Wii despite the Wii having 88MB of RAM to the PS3/360's 512MB.


That's wrong, the PS3 had 256MB available total and about 200MB available for games.

Porting from 200MB to 88MB is nothing compared to going from 7GB to 1GB.

Games using 5GB (if they ever come out and deducting about 2GB for video use) will have to have integral features removed and watered down beyond belief and likely not even recognizable from the original.

You have to think that games using 200MB aren't going to be doing anything amazing on the memory level Vs massive open world type games that 5GB would be needed for, those games wouldn't even be possible in any context, watered down or not on a system with 1GB of RAM.

No, the PS3 had 512MB of RAM, it was just split into two 256MB pools, (video and system) with initially 120MB set aside for the OS, which was later shrunk to 50MB.

And don't underestimate thow much memory can be saved by trimming draw distance and texture resolution.

Those pools are separate though with the memory used for the OS coming from the system RAM pool.

So point stands that PS3 has circa 200MB to play with for system RAM against the Wii's 88MB.

That's the reason for Bethesday having so many problems with the PS3 because they ported from the Xbox/PC

200MB for system RAM, but another 256MB for video.


Of course, but that video RAM can't be used as system RAM. You can only compare available system RAM when talking about available RAM. Same with a PC. You can have a Geforce TITAN with 6GB of video RAM but if you only have 2GB of system RAM for latest PC games on high then you will have major caching to disk.

Basically, video RAM doesn't make up for system RAM and vice versa (technically it can work the other way but the bus connecting the 2 is too slow to make this a realistic proposition). Obviously on the Xbox 360 it's shared so no problem there and same with PS4.



curl-6 on 14 April 2013
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 3, Black Ops, and World at War ran on the Wii despite the Wii having 88MB of RAM to the PS3/360's 512MB.


That's wrong, the PS3 had 256MB available total and about 200MB available for games.

Porting from 200MB to 88MB is nothing compared to going from 7GB to 1GB.

Games using 5GB (if they ever come out and deducting about 2GB for video use) will have to have integral features removed and watered down beyond belief and likely not even recognizable from the original.

You have to think that games using 200MB aren't going to be doing anything amazing on the memory level Vs massive open world type games that 5GB would be needed for, those games wouldn't even be possible in any context, watered down or not on a system with 1GB of RAM.

No, the PS3 had 512MB of RAM, it was just split into two 256MB pools, (video and system) with initially 120MB set aside for the OS, which was later shrunk to 50MB.

And don't underestimate thow much memory can be saved by trimming draw distance and texture resolution.

Those pools are separate though with the memory used for the OS coming from the system RAM pool.

So point stands that PS3 has circa 200MB to play with for system RAM against the Wii's 88MB.

That's the reason for Bethesday having so many problems with the PS3 because they ported from the Xbox/PC

200MB for system RAM, but another 256MB for video.


Of course, but that video RAM can't be used as system RAM. You can only compare available system RAM when talking about available RAM. Same with a PC. You can have a Geforce TITAN with 6GB of video RAM but if you only have 2GB of system RAM for latest PC games on high then you will have major caching to disk.

Basically, video RAM doesn't make up for system RAM and vice versa (technically it can work the other way but the bus connecting the 2 is too slow to make this a realistic proposition). Obviously on the Xbox 360 it's shared so no problem there and same with PS4.

But system isn't the only thing that takes up RAM in games, a huge proportion of it is eaten up by textures and the like, which use video RAM, so to say the system only had 256Mb "total" and 200MB available "for games" isn't true.



Around the Network
Raze on 14 April 2013

the wii u has the main ram, and the gpu vram. The PS4 has 8 gb total, 1 gb for OS, and is sharing the remainder of the ram between graphics, data processing, phjysics, etc. So in essence, the PS4 doesn't have 7 GB to dedicate to just graphics, etc, but is sharing them amongst several areas. Thus, the Wii U can still perform a lot of the core functions, with less shaders, lower LOD, and so forth. It really just comes down to engine scalability. A good scalable engine can run the same game on 2 differently powered systems with little issue.



The Carnival of Shadows - Folk Punk from Asbury Park, New Jersey

http://www.thecarnivalofshadows.com 


richardhutnik on 14 April 2013
zarx said:
Possible (with large cut backs in visuals, draw distance, asset variety, physics etc) sure, will it be economically viable for developers to essentially make a separate game and rendering engine specifically for the Wii U as well as create a lower quality set of assets and also modify levels to fit? For most games I doubt it, for a few like sports games and maybe things like CoD probably as sports licenses often have clauses that they have to be on every viable platform (which is why the PS2 still gets some) and CoD is big enough that it would probably be worth it.

If the Wii U isn't a dominant platform, companies aren't going to dedicate resources to putting out exclusive versions for the Wii U.  It is pretty much code to the X86 platform and minor tweak.  As it is now, for example, EA isn't even doing Tiger Woods for the Wii U.



fillet on 14 April 2013
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
fillet said:
curl-6 said:
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 & 3, Black Ops, and World at War ran on the Wii despite the Wii having 88MB of RAM to the PS3/360's 512MB.


That's wrong, the PS3 had 256MB available total and about 200MB available for games.

Porting from 200MB to 88MB is nothing compared to going from 7GB to 1GB.

Games using 5GB (if they ever come out and deducting about 2GB for video use) will have to have integral features removed and watered down beyond belief and likely not even recognizable from the original.

You have to think that games using 200MB aren't going to be doing anything amazing on the memory level Vs massive open world type games that 5GB would be needed for, those games wouldn't even be possible in any context, watered down or not on a system with 1GB of RAM.

No, the PS3 had 512MB of RAM, it was just split into two 256MB pools, (video and system) with initially 120MB set aside for the OS, which was later shrunk to 50MB.

And don't underestimate thow much memory can be saved by trimming draw distance and texture resolution.

Those pools are separate though with the memory used for the OS coming from the system RAM pool.

So point stands that PS3 has circa 200MB to play with for system RAM against the Wii's 88MB.

That's the reason for Bethesday having so many problems with the PS3 because they ported from the Xbox/PC

200MB for system RAM, but another 256MB for video.


Of course, but that video RAM can't be used as system RAM. You can only compare available system RAM when talking about available RAM. Same with a PC. You can have a Geforce TITAN with 6GB of video RAM but if you only have 2GB of system RAM for latest PC games on high then you will have major caching to disk.

Basically, video RAM doesn't make up for system RAM and vice versa (technically it can work the other way but the bus connecting the 2 is too slow to make this a realistic proposition). Obviously on the Xbox 360 it's shared so no problem there and same with PS4.

But system isn't the only thing that takes up RAM in games, a huge proportion of it is eaten up by textures and the like, which use video RAM, so to say the system only had 256Mb "total" and 200MB available "for games" isn't true.


Crikey you're determined to prove me wrong but I'm afraid this is not the case.

Textures still need to pass through the system RAM and be stored there, they don't just jump from the hard drive/media to the video RAM. They get decompressed to the video RAM and that's why so much video RAM is needed for a scene for example, one reason anyway.

Anything that is in video RAM has been in system RAM at some point.

Even game worlds that are streamed have to pass through system RAM to be processed.



curl-6 on 15 April 2013
fillet said:

Crikey you're determined to prove me wrong but I'm afraid this is not the case.

Textures still need to pass through the system RAM and be stored there, they don't just jump from the hard drive/media to the video RAM. They get decompressed to the video RAM and that's why so much video RAM is needed for a scene for example, one reason anyway.

Anything that is in video RAM has been in system RAM at some point.

Even game worlds that are streamed have to pass through system RAM to be processed.

But at any one time the PS3 can have around 200MB worth of system data and 256MB of video data in memory.



Daisuke72 on 15 April 2013
cuberandgamer said:
How many games will take advantage of the 7 gigabytes of ram when most of the launch titles used 4 gb (less because of the OS)
All so, this is only a rumor. Maybe only 4 Gb is usable. maybe the wii u's gpu or cpu or something else is more powerful than whatever the ps4 has.


Wii U's GPU or CPU is confirmed to be nowhere as near as fast as the PS4's, neither are the rest of the components. 4GB for VRAM usable or 4GB for games in general? Cause no way in hell the PS4's OS is gonna use 4GB of RAM, not even windows uses that much. It'll use 1GB or less, easily, with the 7GB set aside for games which includes VRAM and so forth. 

 

Wii U will have a tough time keeping up in my opinion.