As Windows evolves, it eats always more memory, Win 2000 was at little more than 200MB with only antivirus, firewall, antispyware and default services on, XP increased the requirements to a level that then was considered almost eccessive for the average memory equipped, but now is neglectable, but Vista has really excessive requirements for the average current PC. While consoles have streamlined OS's, with only carefully selected essential services on (mainly network), leaving almost all the memory to games. The HW is standard for all consoles of the same model, this allows more optimization, that on PC would require an impossible wor to address all the possible configurations. And as MikeB wrote, the engine may be modified to address strenghts and weaknesses of consoles HW compared to PC's.
And in favour of consoles, now comes the fact that still PCs are strongly tied to 32bit, making still difficult to make full use of 64bit addressing and more than 4GB RAM, the legacy SW, and HW too, with 64bit drivers still scarce, especially on older HW, is so strong that even Windows 7 will still have a 32bit version too, so the opportunity of Windows PCs as a whole architecture, not only a minority, to do a really huge jump in memory dotation compared to current gen consoles is postponed to a distant future, to the desktop version of Windows successive to "Vienna". This gives consoles manufacturers all the time they want to design the next generation so that their memory will fare well compared to that equipped by the average PCs available then. Moreover, if next gen comes before the second to next Windows version manages to shift a vast majority of users to 64bit, consoles could even have more usable RAM than average PCs for years and this could even menace Windows itself more than Linux and MacOSX. Current gen consoles felt short as general purpose home computers because of too little RAM for productivity bloatware, next gen could be adequate in every section and simpler than PCs. It would be ironic, quite like Dante's Inferno's "contrappasso" (talion) or greek tragedies' catastrophes because of hubris, if in its race against Sony MS started a thing bigger even than itself

@MikeB

Err, yes?

Yes, still CELL can't really access 'local memory' and RSX is much slower when it tries to access CELL:s memory when you compare it to X360 architechture. The thing is that it is still fast enough. If there would be more memory, it would complicate things of course.

22.4 GB/s = 22937,6 MB/s , thats 764,6MB/s for each 1/30 second. So you can read the memory about 1.5 times in that time.

Yes, it works like cache I know, thats why it must be so damn fast. Just think about, if CELL and RSX would have unified memory CELL would have been able assist RSX way beyond X360:s scope. Now it must sacrifice its own memory to assist with any post effects that need data from framebuffer and even to get that data it much bother RSX to send it.

Its not really the same, you can dump everything on harddrive on PC and there would be no disc swaps like there would be on X360.

Of course its more intelligent aproach because it is THE CELL. Oh crap... This sony fud everywhere is making my head hurt. The best one was the one with Saddam & ps2. I just lolled so hard back then. Show me this study, which have used ONE ps3 to mimic parts of the human brain real time. Anyway whats the deal with this thing? This gen really can't simulate brains real time.

Thats interlaced moving picture. Hopefully you know what that means. Actually 60 is smooth and human eye can usually see difference up to 100. Some ppl can do it even up to 120.

Yes, yes, CELL is the almighty processor that can do everything, I am sorry but its not. :)

Because ppl usually buy moderate priced goods mostly. Btw, try using video projectors. Even they are cheaper than HDTV:s.

@ NJ5

Regarding that PC, that's just the bare hardware. Still needs a keyboard, mouse, dedicated monitor (a TV for consoles people usually own already), sound boxes and if you're not a pirate a copy of Windows. Some potential additional costs to take into consideration, if you don't already own a PC or own a laptop instead.

MikeB said: @ NJ5 Regarding that PC, that's just the bare hardware. Still need a keyboard, mouse, dedicated monitor (a TV for consoles people usually own already), sound boxes and if you're not a pirate a copy of Windows. Some potential additional costs to take into consideration.

I don't know a single person that would want to buy a moderate to high-end gaming PC that doesn't already have a computer from which they can garner a keyboard, mouse and monitor.  Probably uninstall then re-install a pre-existing copy of windows as well.

Come on Mike, consider the target market.

 

@ Deneidez

But why would you do that other than for some developer tests?

Game engine executable code is usually tiny, why would you need that much CPU memory? It's the textures and audio which usually take much memory. So it makes much more sense for the RSX to take advantage of the XDR Ram than it would be for the Cell to use the GDDR3. Again low latency is important to CPUs.



Latency isn't much of an issue for GPUs, bandwidth is the GPU can potentially can take advantage of both XDR and GDDR3 simultaneously to increase bandwidth (of course the CPU in such a situation will have to wait).



I was referring to devs usually picking the cheapest solution available to them. (Actually it's probably the publisher which sets such requirements)

MikeB said: @ Deneidez Yes, still CELL can't really access 'local memory' But why would you do that other than for some developer tests? Game engine executable code is usually tiny, why would you need that much CPU memory? It's the textures and audio which usually take much memory. So it makes much more sense for the RSX to take advantage of the XDR Ram than it would be for the Cell to use the GDDR3. Again low latency is important to CPUs.

 

Because occlusion culling, animation, and physics is handled by the CPU and it needs full access to every vertex that makes up every polygon in the system; on top of this the CPU has to handle the loading, preloading and streaming of data from the disc.

 

@MikeB

'Local memory' = RSX memory, how about if it would like to help RSX?(Yes, I know it can do it by sacrificing its own memory with current setup.) Also executables today aren't that 'tiny'. Especially if you have IoE-system and they take even more if you need to use lots of branch predicting. Uhm, where do you put for example all geometry, objects info(AI, health & stuff), let me guess you use just random numbers to 'simulate' game? :)

MikeB said: @ NJ5 Actually, the thread title is wrong. 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. Like on the PC, the PS3 setup is much better (twice the bandwidth). Of course should be noted both types of memory can be accessed by both the GPU and CPU. The PS3's fast XDR Ram has very low latency which is very important to CPUs, especially for the Cell processor. Potentially if needed the GPU can access both types of RAM simultaneously, latency isn't much of an issue for GPUs (the RSX also has relatively large cache) and such an approach would significantly add bandwidth which is more important.

Man, you never fail me to spin the PS3. Even when the 2.4 update was making PS3 bricks, you are like this cat:

You should take lessons from Baghdad Bob. He said the U.S. soldiers were killing themselves and would die as soon as they entered Baghdad. As he was announcing it, U.S. tanks were rumbling past his building!

Please, wake up and stop trying to tout the PS3's supernatural abilities. It's pathetic when I see you post, I know it's gonna be all-pro Sony, lite on actual facts and devoid of unbiasness.

OT: RAM in consoles will always trail PCs. Why? You can open a PC up and add mad RAM. Not so much with a console, well, without voiding your warranty.

 

madskillz said: MikeB said: @ NJ5 Actually, the thread title is wrong. 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. Like on the PC, the PS3 setup is much better (twice the bandwidth). Of course should be noted both types of memory can be accessed by both the GPU and CPU. The PS3's fast XDR Ram has very low latency which is very important to CPUs, especially for the Cell processor. Potentially if needed the GPU can access both types of RAM simultaneously, latency isn't much of an issue for GPUs (the RSX also has relatively large cache) and such an approach would significantly add bandwidth which is more important. Man, you never fail me to spin the PS3. Even when the 2.4 update was making PS3 bricks, you are like this cat: You should take lessons from Baghdad Bob. He said the U.S. soldiers were killing themselves and would die as soon as they entered Baghdad. As he was announcing it, U.S. tanks were rumbling past his building! Please, wake up and stop trying to tout the PS3's supernatural abilities. It's pathetic when I see you post, I know it's gonna be all-pro Sony, lite on actual facts and devoid of unbiasness. OT: RAM in consoles will always trail PCs. Why? You can open a PC up and add mad RAM. Not so much with a console, well, without voiding your warranty.

I thought his accepted name was comical ali? You know, because it sounded like that other guy, chemical ali.

As good as the Cell is, due to the other parts of the ps3 consoles wouldn't stand up to a $2K+ pc right now. But who cares at the moment??? Major PC exclusives might not be playable for consoles, but that doesn't make the PC games more enjoyable now does it??? Most games developed these days are for consoles anyway...