VanceIX said: It's all good, lol But yes, the RAM can be shared, and that is good, and I'm not contesting that. The problem is the amount of RAM available. While PCs do have to handle the OS in RAM, there will still be plenty of DDR3 RAM left over for gaming with the PC. With the PS4, there will usually be ~2 GB available for graphics and ~2-3GB available for the system on a fairly intensive game (Killzone was more of a graphical showpiecce, which is why it put so much memory into graphics. Infamous SS may be a better example, and it only had 1.5GB memory dedicated for graphics). On a gaming PC, you can have 2-3GB for graphics and then ~5GB for the game. And using the RAM as a cache is actually useful, speeds up loading in many games.

You are also wrong about the Infamous thing. Of the 4.5GB of Ram used for that game and even as the image you posted showed, You can clearly see "loaded data" taking up 2.5GB. Loaded data (textures) is all GPU based memory. There are a few other stuff too, at the end of the day they are using around 1.3GB for CPU.  And if you look at this article on The Order. You will see another case of the GPU using over 3GB of the available memory.

The simple truth of it is tht unless you are running a game like WoW most games can run with very little CPU memeory. In the CPU what even takes up the most memory in most cases are render targets. But you are right on one thing, PC having more memory is always a good thing. 

this generation isn't as powerful as the last one was in early years, but isn't as expensive also, lot of the new cards support 4k or 120fps, i dont think that was the objective of sony or ms, home consoles are optimised and will make good graphics, for a exceptional price! thats can't be denied, and there is a lot of games that will only come out on consoles.

comparing a console to a mid/high end GPU is like comparing a VW golf GTI with a M5/Aventador

Intrinsic said: VanceIX said: It's all good, lol But yes, the RAM can be shared, and that is good, and I'm not contesting that. The problem is the amount of RAM available. While PCs do have to handle the OS in RAM, there will still be plenty of DDR3 RAM left over for gaming with the PC. With the PS4, there will usually be ~2 GB available for graphics and ~2-3GB available for the system on a fairly intensive game (Killzone was more of a graphical showpiecce, which is why it put so much memory into graphics. Infamous SS may be a better example, and it only had 1.5GB memory dedicated for graphics). On a gaming PC, you can have 2-3GB for graphics and then ~5GB for the game. And using the RAM as a cache is actually useful, speeds up loading in many games. You are also wrong about the Infamous thing. Of the 4.5GB of Ram used for that game and even as the image you posted showed, You can clearly see "loaded data" taking up 2.5GB. Loaded data (textures) is all GPU based memory. There are a few other stuff too, at the end of the day they are using around 1.3GB for CPU.  And if you look at this article on The Order. You will see another case of the GPU using over 3GB of the available memory. The simple truth of it is tht unless you are running a game like WoW most games can run with very little CPU memeory. In the CPU what even takes up the most memory in most cases are render targets. But you are right on one thing, PC having more memory is always a good thing.

Loaded data is not being used by the GPU at all times, it is more like a cache, and it includes not only textures but also things like audio, animations, lighting effects, physics, etc all which are handeled by the CPU. The GPU is not using that memory to render at any given point, so it is a system resource, which is then fed to the GPU to render. Texture atlases were only 200MB in size overall, and that was the major textures. 

And yes, most PC games can run with little memory, but I'll put that blame on the old consoles, which only had 512MB of memory, meaning PC games were held back in memory usage as well. With the newer consoles, you'll see a lot more of the memory being used efficiently.

I like my PS4, and I like my Xbox One. Games on the two consoles look very similar on my 47 inch LG! They look very pretty, and I imagine there is more in both consoles.

But I got a new laptop over the weekend (i7 4710M + GTX 860M + SSD + 16GB RAM) and booted up Tomb Raider. I will try hooking the laptop up to the TV later this week for a direct comparison.

Suffice is to say anyone purchasing one of these consoles and then getting into an argument about which console produces better graphics looks even more ridiculous this generation than any of the generations past - and that is saying something. A decent PC craps on them far quicker than any recent generation, and the two consoles are so similar in their capabilities that more than any time in history marketing and games will be the only real points of differentiation between them.

When did this whole elitist mentality start? PS4 is more powerful than Xbox1 and Xbox1 is more powerful than Wii U. Gaming PCs are much more powerful than all of the above. That never mattered before. What really matters are the games each platform gets. Some will prefer Xbox1 for the exclusives on that platform and some will get a PS4 for exclusives on that platform. Others will get Wii U for the exclusives and others will go the way of the PC which all good. Many will get combinations of any of the above. The power of each platform really shouldn't matter as long as the games are there. 

VanceIX said: Loaded data is not being used by the GPU at all times, it is more like a cache, and it includes not only textures but also things like audio, animations, lighting effects, physics, etc all which are handeled by the CPU. The GPU is not using that memory to render at any given point, so it is a system resource, which is then fed to the GPU to render. Texture atlases were only 200MB in size overall, and that was the major textures.  And yes, most PC games can run with little memory, but I'll put that blame on the old consoles, which only had 512MB of memory, meaning PC games were held back in memory usage as well. With the newer consoles, you'll see a lot more of the memory being used efficiently.

Well, that may be true. But look at some info from  The Order.

• 2GB texture budget
• 87.5MB geometry budget
• 75MB character texture 

All the above are handled by the GPU. Again if you look at teh Killzone pdf it denotes such assets under GPU memory and not system/cpu. Everything is fed to the GPU by the CPU, so its not actually right to say that cause something hasn't been fed its belongs to the system cause all the CPU does is set the render targets for the GPU to actually render and looking at game anatomy you will fid that render targets don't also take up a lot of space. At the end of the day, its not the CPU that uses that 2GB for textures. The order article also clearly shows the audio budget seperately from what I have listed above. And a seperate animation budget of 87MB. Ther is an obviousl trend here and you will notice that CPU based resouces never use up that much. GPU based resources are what always uses the bulk of the ram. So if these are all part of the 2.5Gb of loaded data for infamous, you will still find that its using around 2GB for texture data.

iamserious said: When did this whole elitist mentality start? PS4 is more powerful than Xbox1 and Xbox1 is more powerful than Wii U. Gaming PCs are much more powerful than all of the above. That never mattered before. What really matters are the games each platform gets. Some will prefer Xbox1 for the exclusives on that platform and some will get a PS4 for exclusives on that platform. Others will get Wii U for the exclusives and others will go the way of the PC which all good. Many will get combinations of any of the above. The power of each platform really shouldn't matter as long as the games are there.

Hahahaha...... have you been living under a rock since the start of console gaming? These things have always mattered. Back since the sega megadrive when sega was touting blast processing. To the arguments of an n64 being two duct taped 32bit processors and thus not true 64bit. To the CD vs cart wars. As long as there is more than one platform, there will always be these arguments. These things will always matter cause somewhere deep down human beings alays want o have the best of anything they are getting.

If there is something I don't think applies to these arguments (and that i find silly) its actually when people start comparing the performance of consoles to PCs. I think everything that makes a PC a PC simply just puts it in a very different class of its own. Consoles cannot compete with PCs in the same way that PCs cannot compete with the cost:performance ratio of consoles. 

Intrinsic said: VanceIX said: Loaded data is not being used by the GPU at all times, it is more like a cache, and it includes not only textures but also things like audio, animations, lighting effects, physics, etc all which are handeled by the CPU. The GPU is not using that memory to render at any given point, so it is a system resource, which is then fed to the GPU to render. Texture atlases were only 200MB in size overall, and that was the major textures.  And yes, most PC games can run with little memory, but I'll put that blame on the old consoles, which only had 512MB of memory, meaning PC games were held back in memory usage as well. With the newer consoles, you'll see a lot more of the memory being used efficiently. Well, that may be true. But look at some info from  The Order.   2GB texture budget 87.5MB geometry budget 75MB character texture  All the above are handled by the GPU. Again if you look at teh Killzone pdf it denotes such assets under GPU memory and not system/cpu. Everything is fed to the GPU by the CPU, so its not actually right to say that cause something hasn't been fed its belongs to the system cause all the CPU does is set the render targets for the GPU to actually render and looking at game anatomy you will fid that render targets don't also take up a lot of space. At the end of the day, its not the CPU that uses that 2GB for textures. The order article also clearly shows the audio budget seperately from what I have listed above. And a seperate animation budget of 87MB. Ther is an obviousl trend here and you will notice that CPU based resouces never use up that much. GPU based resources are what always uses the bulk of the ram. So if these are all part of the 2.5Gb of loaded data for infamous, you will still find that its using around 2GB for texture data.

Ah, but is that 2GB texture being rendered, and thus being used by the GPU, or just being cached by the system? That's the important distinction here. On PC, textures can be stored on the DDR3 RAM and then sourced to the GPU to render using the DDR5 RAM. On PS4, the GPU is not directly using those textures, so it is fair to say that it is not part of the graphical memory allotment. On PC, textures and such are stored on DDR3 and then transferred in smaller amounts to the GPU when it needs them, and while rendering shows up in the DDR5. The GPU has no need to directly use the giant texture budget when only a fraction of the textures may show up at any one time.

That's on PC. On PS4 the GPU has direct access to the memory stored, but since the CPU still has to process the cache before outputting to the GPU, it could be considered system memory, instead of direct GPU memory.

the-pi-guy said: VanceIX said: A high-end card starts at $299 for the 280x, not $500. Sorry for any misunderstanding though. I was talking about the R9 290X.  It was the one that was in the article that I was commenting on.

If you really looked around for that card, reference card only, probably find it for 350 (which is probably what they are using, cause it's like 450 in Australia and it's usually really expensive for PC parts here compared to USA)

VanceIX said: Ah, but is that 2GB texture being rendered, and thus being used by the GPU, or just being cached by the system? That's the important distinction here. On PC, textures can be stored on the DDR3 RAM and then sourced to the GPU to render using the DDR5 RAM. On PS4, the GPU is not directly using those textures, so it is fair to say that it is not part of the graphical memory allotment. On PC, textures and such are stored on DDR3 and then transferred in smaller amounts to the GPU when it needs them, and while rendering shows up in the DDR5. The GPU has no need to directly use the giant texture budget when only a fraction of the textures may show up at any one time. That's on PC. On PS4 the GPU has direct access to the memory stored, but since the CPU still has to process the cache before outputting to the GPU, it could be considered system memory, instead of direct GPU memory.

I was just going to say that all that works differently on PS4 cause the PS4 writes directly to memory. But you said it.

However, Pcs run better if they can cache GPU data on system memory and send it to the GPU when needed cause thats faster than having to read all that data from storage whenever its needed. But since the PS4s GPu can write directly to memory, all it needs is the reder order from the CPU. data cahced in memory is basically just waiting for the GPU to access it. And in some cases the GPU doesn't even need permission from the CPU (compute).

Having said that, I still think its not actually right to call GPU based data a system resource even if its not yet being used by the GPU. Especially in the caeo os a PS4 which works differently from PCs. Cause every game engine still runs everything throug the CPU. The CPU still has to simulate the entire frame before the GPU draws i anyways. The way I see it, is that when looking at memory use in consoles, just keep it simple and look at what is activelu using memory at anytime andhow much of it its using. If you do that, you will find that the GPU is always using as much as 2x the amount of Ram that the CPu is using at anytime. Its has been said before, the GPu is way more important for consoles than anyting else.

PCs have the advantage that was necessitated from a disadvantage to go about this differently. Like I said earlier they can cache data to system ram and send it to the GPU ram when needed cause thats faster than getting it from storage. This was made necesaary because of how much more CPU memory PCs have as opposed to their GPU ram in the past. It allowed for more efficient use of the GPU and took advantage of teh amount of RAm that is actually left idle on the CPU. Till this day its still done this way cause games really don't need up to 4-6GB of CPU memory to run. Most of that memory on the cpu is used as a cache for the GPU.