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

Forums - Sony - PlayStation 4 gives up to 5.5GB of RAM to game developers

ethomaz said:

teigaga said:

Well 77GB is reserved on the HDD (423GB available to users) but I'm not tech savy enough to know what it all means.Again, we should hopefully get answers at GDC.

It is not 77GB reserved...

The HDD manufacturers uses the 1000 notation to calc the size of HDD and not 1024 (the right)... so a 500GB HDD have 500,000,000,000 bytes and not 536,870,912,000 bytes.

If you convert to standard notation (1024) you have: 465.66 gigabytes

So 423GB available to users means 42GB reserved.

Unfortunately because of the way hard drives are marketed you are correct. I don't know if teigaga was attempting to make a negativ e point about the console but this is true in all situations when it comes to a standard hard drive. I am not as familiar with SSDs but both Xbox and PS4 will have a substantial part of the HDD reserved for the other stuff the consoles can do this gen. 



"I support the industry that's why I rock with all of the Big 3!"

Around the Network
teigaga said:
Mnementh said:
teigaga said:
Seriously, in what world is it normal for an OS to use nearly 4GB? Is it the live video capture or...?

I already thought that this feature that lets you share streams even from some time ago of your gameplay must be a hard hit on memory, but I thought probably Sony reserved enough harddisk to save it there. Seems it is more used for memory. Maybe the sharing-feature is deactivated or restricted if the game uses the extra gig.

Well 77GB is reserved on the HDD (423GB available to users) but I'm not tech savy enough to know what it all means.Again, we should hopefully get answers at GDC.

77GB is probably the OS on disc and the disk cache (virtual memory).  The Xbox One also has a chunk of the HDD taken up by the OS, which users are warned of on the prodcut page.  I'm not sure how much disk space the OS takes up though.  It'll be interesting to find out.



Adinnieken said:
(Documentation for the feature Sony referenced in its clarification - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/arch-handbook/vm.html )

Lets be honest. Sony could make this whole discussion go away quickly by saying, the OS uses 2GBs and games have 6GBs, but they haven't. They told Eurogamer, your terms are wrong. Sony hasn't attempted to offer correct numbers. What they did was clarify that there wasn't 1GB in play, therefore a set amount for the OS and a set amount for games, but games also had virtualized memory in the form of a disk cache.

An anonymous, non-credible, unverifiable source on GAF is not Sony responding. Sony has back channels, that are credible and verifiable that could respond to this article. They haven't. Sony is silent, their back channel sources are quite.

I don't get what is so bad about this that Sony just can't offer a quick, concise clarification to make this conversation go away. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Sony never give clarifications on rumors... they use big events to explain everything.



Adinnieken said:
(Documentation for the feature Sony referenced in its clarification - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/arch-handbook/vm.html )

Lets be honest. Sony could make this whole discussion go away quickly by saying, the OS uses 2GBs and games have 6GBs, but they haven't. They told Eurogamer, your terms are wrong. Sony hasn't attempted to offer correct numbers. What they did was clarify that there wasn't 1GB in play, therefore a set amount for the OS and a set amount for games, but games also had virtualized memory in the form of a disk cache.

An anonymous, non-credible, unverifiable source on GAF is not Sony responding. Sony has back channels, that are credible and verifiable that could respond to this article. They haven't. Sony is silent, their back channel sources are quite.

I don't get what is so bad about this that Sony just can't offer a quick, concise clarification to make this conversation go away. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Lol, the DRM situation was WAY worse, yet they remained silent.  Does the PS4 have console-wide DRM, now?  Nope.  So, quite using the "Sony won't say anything" to dream up the worst, just because you're hoping for the worse.



DF got banned on GAF after the latest Leadbetter's article: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=165365



Around the Network

Well some site made a catch from everything about this RAM subject... I won't create a new thread for that.

Rumor update: PS4 reserves up to 5GB of RAM for games [Update: 'Absolutely false', 6GB hinted]

Update: Brian Provinciano, head of confirmed PlayStation 4 developer Vblank Entertainment, has called the Digital Foundry rumors “absolutely false.”

“It’s absolutely false,” he said in response to the rumors. “Absolutely ridiculous.”

Provinciano went up with an editorial on the drama, in which he provides insight. He wouldn’t confirm how much memory is used, however.

Meanwhile, over on NeoGAF, known insider Thuway hinted PlayStation 4 will reserve six gigabytes of RAM for games and two for the operating system (Update within update: “There are games in development that are using 6 GB of RAM.”) BruceLeeRoy, another known insider, and forum admin Kagari corroborated Thuway’s report.

Obviously, nothing’s confirmed until Sony says something themselves. But considering they didn’t confirm numbers to Digital Foundry, I wouldn’t expect that at this point.

http://gematsu.com/2013/07/rumor-update-ps4-5gb-ram-games



Adinnieken said:
(Documentation for the feature Sony referenced in its clarification - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/arch-handbook/vm.html )

Lets be honest. Sony could make this whole discussion go away quickly by saying, the OS uses 2GBs and games have 6GBs, but they haven't. They told Eurogamer, your terms are wrong. Sony hasn't attempted to offer correct numbers. What they did was clarify that there wasn't 1GB in play, therefore a set amount for the OS and a set amount for games, but games also had virtualized memory in the form of a disk cache.

An anonymous, non-credible, unverifiable source on GAF is not Sony responding. Sony has back channels, that are credible and verifiable that could respond to this article. They haven't. Sony is silent, their back channel sources are quite.

I don't get what is so bad about this that Sony just can't offer a quick, concise clarification to make this conversation go away. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

This rumor started spreading on friday. It's now sunday. Week-end. As in, people are off work. Yeah, it's the internet and it's easy and this kind of thing could be answered quickly in a few minutes. But the point still stands. I don't think it's the place of any nobody from inside Sony to come forward and issue an official statement on the matter.

Let the week start before crying about them not giving a proper answer and explanation.

And even if they don't give one right away, what's the big effin' deal? 

I swear, gamers are the most self-centered and self-entitled crowd on the internet.



Wow the meltdown in this thread is fucking amazing.

Who gives a fuck if its 5.5gb or 6gb. HUGE DIFFERENCE HERE.

How about taking some chill pills and all go back to enjoying games that are created to amaze a gamer not the games that can store the most in ram lol.



 

 

thismeintiel said:

Lol, the DRM situation was WAY worse, yet they remained silent.  Does the PS4 have console-wide DRM, now?  Nope.  So, quite using the "Sony won't say anything" to dream up the worst, just because you're hoping for the worse.

Microsoft wasn't silent on the DRM issue. 

They never said "No comment", they said "We're not prepared to talk about this now.  We'll have more on that at E3."  Then once E3 came it became a trickle of information.

I'm going to be completely honest.  Everything, to me, is adding up that Microsoft is in a desperate rush to get the features they want in the OS.  I received some confirmation to this effect last week in an e-mail conversation I had with someone inside the Xbox Team.  My impression is that Microsoft is literally trying to hammer out the deliverable features as quickly as it can finish them.  Why was the TV feature front and center?  Because I think Microsoft had been working on it the longest.  In fact, I would even hedge bets that originally that was planned for MediaRoom and Microsoft at some point decided to double-down and make it a feature of the Xbox One.  The stuff talked about at E3 was App snapping, a feature of the OS that had to be hammered out early on.  Everything else except the games was discussed from a 10,000 ft perspective.  It was just an overview.

Contrast that to the Xbox 360's reveal and E3 presentation and you see these huge, glaring omissions about features and services.  The hardware specs were known long before the PS3 and Xbox 360 ever hit the show floor.  Not speculative numbers, solid, confirmed numbers.  The performance of each machine had been caclulated so that you could actually figure out before either console was released which one was actually going to offer better performance. 

The lack of information this time around is glaring, epsecially on Microsoft's part.  I've personally never see Microsoft so far back on their heels.  I don't think hardware was the setback, as had been rumored.  I honestly think Microsoft thought they had another year before Sony would launch the PS4 so they hadn't earnestly begun the software development.  Because what I see being behind is the feature set of the software, not the hardware. 

And just to be clear, since Sony gets to clarify terminology, the issue was never DRM.  The DRM was and always has been essentially the same as with the Xbox 360.  If Microsoft wanted to, it could, enable sharing on the Xbox 360 of the digital content.  However, in order to do so it would also have to force the Xbox 360 to connect to Xbox LIVE periodically.  The challenge for Microsoft was if you are borrowing content, do you still have the rights to it and if you don't, I need to do something with that content.  For that, they needed the periodic connection to Xbox LIVE. 

Anyone who uses the One Guide (TV) will need routine connection to the Internet as well, as the guide gets updated on a 24 hour basis. 

DRM was not a real issue.  The connectivity that sharing/lending in a digital library required was the issue.  I kept up on the patents.  A required connection was never a requirement of any of Microsoft's DRM/licensing patents.  Like this issue for Sony though, Microsoft did not get in front of it, and it did not control the issue.  Once it got away from Microsoft it was too late.  I don't think this issue is serious enough to get away from Sony, but as I said they could easily kill it by just saying once and for all what it is. 

I think for the most part, everyone on both sides of the debate (Big deal/not a big deal) have come to the conclusion that whatever it ends up being it isn't a serious issue.  If they both have the same 5GB available to them, games will essentially be the same.  If one has more and another has less, then more than likely multiplatform games will use the smaller amount to base their games on.

The secretive nature of such mundane things after the consoles have been revealed is absurd.  That criticism is lobbed against Microsoft as much as it is against Sony. 



Hynad said:
Adinnieken said:
(Documentation for the feature Sony referenced in its clarification - http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/arch-handbook/vm.html )

Lets be honest. Sony could make this whole discussion go away quickly by saying, the OS uses 2GBs and games have 6GBs, but they haven't. They told Eurogamer, your terms are wrong. Sony hasn't attempted to offer correct numbers. What they did was clarify that there wasn't 1GB in play, therefore a set amount for the OS and a set amount for games, but games also had virtualized memory in the form of a disk cache.

An anonymous, non-credible, unverifiable source on GAF is not Sony responding. Sony has back channels, that are credible and verifiable that could respond to this article. They haven't. Sony is silent, their back channel sources are quite.

I don't get what is so bad about this that Sony just can't offer a quick, concise clarification to make this conversation go away. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

This rumor started spreading on friday. It's now sunday. Week-end. As in, people are off work. Yeah, it's the internet and it's easy and this kind of thing could be answered quickly in a few minutes. But the point still stands. I don't think it's the place of any nobody from inside Sony to come forward and issue an official statement on the matter.

Let the week start before crying about them not giving a proper answer and explanation.

And even if they don't give one right away, what's the big effin' deal? 

I swear, gamers are the most self-centered and self-entitled crowd on the internet.


This. If they have to answer this rumour, the week-end isn't the most appropriate time to do it. If the rumours are totally or partially true, then answering them making things clear is the best thing to do, if they are totally false, the best thing will be to reaffirm the true specifications to stop the rumours, but without ever explicitly citing the rumours themselves and their creators.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!