@ Rock_on_2008

A PC needs more memory to also run Windows / DirectX, Windows is very inefficient and eats up memory (and CPU cycles).

Much RAM is mostly needed for high quality graphics and audio (which can be downgraded), but using streaming methods not all graphics and audio needs to be loaded into memory at once. Game engines can be adapted and optimised to better suit consoles.

Never Winter Nights 2 could be made to run on HD consoles very well. Crytek for instance states a port of Crysis to HD consoles would be pretty straight forward.

You made a false distinction, the main RAM situation on 360 and PS3 is similar in terms of size to work with. Only thing you would do differently is design the game engine differently to suit either console's architecture. The PS3 also has a default haddrive, which could be used for something like virtual memory on the PC.

What false distinction did I make? As far as I know, my statement was totally accurate and I stand by it:

On the PS3, system RAM is 256 MB (the other 256 MB are graphical memory). On the 360, there's no distinction between graphical/system memory, it's just a total of 512 MB to be divided as developers prefer.

wtf...

Also @ the OP. The 360 runs GDDR3 512mb. Most Pc's still use DDR2. As already mentioned Vista for instance plus all the virus protection systems running in the background also take up PC memory, so it is far closer than you imagine. DDR3 ram is alot more efficient than DDR2.

The fast XDR Ram in the PS3 can also be divided as developers prefer.

What's new there? 256 MB of System RAM which can be used as developers prefer, why would anyone expect anything different and in what way did I contradict that in my post?

You truly are the master of spin.

If he were the master, we wouldn't have picked up on it

I was being sarcastic, I realize it was not that obvious though ;)

On a PC you can't use CPU memory for the graphics card unlike is the case with regard to the PS3's GPU. Cheap unified memory solutions on the PC (like some laptops) are similar as the 360's situation. This is a cheaper but less powerful approach as only CPU or GPU can access the memory at a time.

Technically it's far better for the GPU to be able to access its own memory and the CPU to be able to access its own memory simultaneously. Bandwidth is very important to a GPU, low latency is very important to CPUs, both are negatively impacted with a unified memory setup.

@ NJ5 & Starcraft

Could we please keep this discussion polite and intelligent?