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

Forums - Sony Discussion - IF PS3 had 320MB RAM, would be the king

rajendra82 on 18 November 2008

If I was the king everyone would have Ferraris.



Around the Network
kibebr on 18 November 2008

As I am the king, I have a PS3 :p



PSN: franco-br
MGS4, GH, MW2, GT5p, WipeoutHD, etc..etc..

Aprisaiden on 18 November 2008

Really compared to PS3 which has 32nm of RAM having seemed like plenty at the time.

The question is how long until 512mb of RAM in PS3 / 360 starts to limit what developers can do to the point where developers want a new more powerful platform to work with...



haxxiy on 18 November 2008

I think developers actually want to work with a platform in which they can sell a lot games haha. A new console anytime soon would bankrupt them.



 

 

 

 

 

dbot on 18 November 2008

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, it would be Christmas every day.

The original spec for the PS3 had 1 gig Ram and 1 gig Video memory. I think Sony put Ken in rehab when they saw that.



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Around the Network
goddog on 18 November 2008

it would need much more ram then that to tap out the cell, 2 gigs of a conventional memory pooled would have been better even if it was sharred would have cut down on cost, and made developing easier, though ames might have sloppier code.

consoles have always had the problem of sparring ram to keep cost down, this always ment the top end of the cpus would never come close to being met with to many cycles where the cpu is idle wating for data... this is compounded by the nature of the cell, which often needs to wait for some data to be done somewhere else before proceding on a new task, ram could work around this, by giving it more work to do while it waits, or decreasing calls for data that is not in the ram... HDs are better than disc media, but not better then ram



come play minecraft @  mcg.hansrotech.com

minecraft name: hansrotec

XBL name: Goddog

Zkuq on 18 November 2008

Ah, I was wrong indeed! My memory has failed me. It doesn't matter in this case, though, as that wasn't the point. I think. Definitely something confused me.

Anyway, I still guess it'd be hard to go for 320 MB. 512 MB might be easier, though more expensive as well. That's simply because the amounts seem to be powers of two, which 320 isn't. I think I've never seen a RAM module not be a power of two.



kibebr on 18 November 2008

512RAM + 256Video should be expensibe!!! ouch



PSN: franco-br
MGS4, GH, MW2, GT5p, WipeoutHD, etc..etc..

radha on 18 November 2008
Zkuq said:
kibebr said:
Noo, i am saying 320MB of RAM + 250MB of Video... not decreasing from 512 to 320!

The PS3 has 512 MB of shared memory to use as RAM and for the RSX unlike the 360 which has 256 MB RAM and 256 MB for the graphics chip.  768 MB might have been just good but 1 GB could have been already too much... Besides, the type of memory the PS3 uses isn't what common PCs use; it's less used and thus, I believe, much more expensive. It's faster. That's why I think they didn't put very much memory in the first place (in addition to the price).

 

ok everytime i see some commenting about the ps3 memory the story is diferrent



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

FishyJoe on 18 November 2008

There is the current reality and the 'what if' world, where Sega would be ruling the console universe.