-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PSM: Sony adding more system memory and upgrades to PS3
- Thread starter monkeymagic
- Start date
- Status
sonycowboy
Member
NotMSRP said:
Or more need for HD as loading time to load up the extra RAM is increased.
sonycowboy said:
???
BR drive -> HD -> RAM
or
BR drive -> RAM
obvious to which one is faster
Programmers can load the minimum to start playing then load the rest of the RAM up in the background so the player doesn't know the loading is still continuing. That is one technique developers can use.
No guys. Adding more ram doesn't just equate to performance increase - sorry.
Adding more RAM means more things can be stored in local memory. Textures, entities, code, models, yadda yadda yadda.
But it's a balancing act, if the unit can hold more things in memory - that means the CPU may have to do that much more work operating on those things in memory. You become bound by a certain component usually. CPU, GPU, memory, HD, optical disc... depending on the situation and what is being run at the time.
Just adding memory doesn't mean that performance goes through the roof. Doubling memory wouldn't mean doubling performance. All the parts working in harmony is what the system is actually capable of.
It all has to be balanced with how much memory bandwidth you have, the graphics capabilities, and your CPU abilities as well. It's more complicated than these one liners I am seeing.
More memory on the whole is good, but there comes a point of diminishing returns.
PS3 needs to find the sweet spot - whatever that is for the system. The engineers would know far better than any of us what that sweet spot is.
Adding more RAM means more things can be stored in local memory. Textures, entities, code, models, yadda yadda yadda.
But it's a balancing act, if the unit can hold more things in memory - that means the CPU may have to do that much more work operating on those things in memory. You become bound by a certain component usually. CPU, GPU, memory, HD, optical disc... depending on the situation and what is being run at the time.
Just adding memory doesn't mean that performance goes through the roof. Doubling memory wouldn't mean doubling performance. All the parts working in harmony is what the system is actually capable of.
It all has to be balanced with how much memory bandwidth you have, the graphics capabilities, and your CPU abilities as well. It's more complicated than these one liners I am seeing.
More memory on the whole is good, but there comes a point of diminishing returns.
PS3 needs to find the sweet spot - whatever that is for the system. The engineers would know far better than any of us what that sweet spot is.
Dr_Cogent said:
@_@
This has got to be bizarro land where a rumor that the system is getting important specs upgraded is being met by tons of naysayers. I'm starting to think K.LEE's post about the anti-PS3 chatter is pretty spot on.
This rumor is like saying "Would you like FREE MONEY?" and yet people are trying to spin it into a bad thing. @_@
I'm sure one of the SPU in the Cell can be dedicated to load balancing without harming performance to gameplay. A lot of games, especially early games, will not use 100% of the PS3's hardware. Anyways, most work is done in the registers of the CPUs. Having more RAM means a larger canvas or storage space for fetching and storing data and instructions. Fetching data and instructions from RAM is a lot quicker than fetching from a DVD/BR drive or a HD drive.
sonycowboy
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
There's one irrefutable truth of developing. More memory is ALWAYS VERY GOOD. There's never enough. Why do you think that Microsoft was forced to move from 256-512? Because 512MB was the magic number?
It's true that more memory doesn't necessarily mean better performance, but it almost always ends up that way.
Data is constantly needing to be swapped in and out of memory and that will only be more true as we move to a multiprocessor system, where data requests are for entirely different purposes at the same time.
However, as far as rumors go, I'd say this one is unlikely. The system is expensive enough and I don't see them adding another 256MB anywhere.
Bebpo said:
Say what you like, it's true. I'm not naysaying, I'm just trying to get across to some of you here that adding memory does not necessarily equate into a performance gain.
If that were true, if the PS3 came with 2 terabytes of memory - would it be a benefit? NO!
It would just make the unit cost more and the majority of the memory would go unused. Like I said, there is a point of diminishing returns. And like I said, more memory in general is a good thing, but to a point.
digitalKiva
Member
brocke said:
Sure, but then you are getting the same poly count, lighting effects, etc. at the lower resolution that you are going to have at the 1080p resolution. However, if the game was designed to run at 720 or even 480 it could push a hella-lot more polys among other effects because processing power is not eaten up pushing the higher resolution.
monkeymagic
Banned
Dr_Cogent said:
To be fair 2 terabytes is not 768MB-1GB
At the lower end more ram is going to make a difference but obviously beyond a certain point it's not going to make any difference.
I would say 256MB-512MB is the lower end - MS thought so because they added another 256MB.
Dr_Cogent said:
Remember when Ram Packs were all the fad? Hell, Nintendo intentionally left out ram in the N64 to try and sell you a measly 4meg pack. And alot of people would say the PS2's major fault is lack of ram so how can you say a system cannot benefit from more ram? Do you know exactly how much memory developers will want 2 years from now?
sonycowboy said:
:lol
More memory in a Windows system is a good thing. You get less thrashing of virtual memory that way. But you obviously completely missed the point. This isn't Windows. There is no HD that comes standard with the PS3. And I already said, more memory in general is usually a good thing, but my point still stands - there are diminishing returns if you go overboard. I'm not saying that Sony is or not, but my point is to try to educate the lamens that more memory != better performance by default.
sonycowboy
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
:lol :lol
512MB is not enough for developers to say we never have to worry about memory again. You don't have to worry about "diminishing return" until that component is no longer a bottleneck and system memory will remain an architectural botteleneck for quite a while at current prices / capacities.
monkeymagic said:
That's my point. It's obvious who the rabid fans are here for Sony. My statement is nothing but the truth, but the clouded individuals here take it as a slam. Like I already said, only the engineers at Sony know what the proper amount of RAM is for the PS3. Just adding RAM doesn't automatically make your system faster though. Learn to read people.
It's not going to happen...
...but if it did, some more bandwidth would be nice too. It'd be nice to be able to store more and move more into and out of RAM.
But it won't happen
I'm fairly convinced that if they weren't just making it up, they were confusing it with the larger amounts of memory in the dev kit.
If it was a mixup with the dev kit, the other "low level changes" would be more interesting to hear about.
...but if it did, some more bandwidth would be nice too. It'd be nice to be able to store more and move more into and out of RAM.
But it won't happen
I'm fairly convinced that if they weren't just making it up, they were confusing it with the larger amounts of memory in the dev kit.
If it was a mixup with the dev kit, the other "low level changes" would be more interesting to hear about.
gofreak said:It's not going to happen...
...but if it did, some more bandwidth would be nice too. It'd be nice to be able to store more and move more into and out of RAM.
But it won't happen
OMG! Someone that actually fucking gets it!
Let's say you have 1 GB of RAM right? OK, so you have to fill that RAM right? Loads from the disc right? More memory to fill means you are going to wait longer in general for the optical disc to read all of that into memory.
Like I said, some of you guys just don't get it.
Dr_Cogent said:
I meant from memory to the CPU, GPU. But yeah..to fill memory would take longer with a same-speed optical disk, but the upshot is that after the initial load, less streaming would be required. Or you could have a similar load as before and fill half of memory, and then slowly stream in more and more to fill the rest of memory - subsequently that data would be available to the CPU/GPU without having to swap out other stuff. There'd be many ways of handling it.
From a CPU/GPU perspective, more memory would still be very handy of course, but greater bandwidth in addition would improve things further. That was my point.
gofreak said:
And I agree with this wholeheartedly. More memory alone without extra bandwidth is only half the equation. If the unit could improve it's memory bandwidth, then you start seeing even more improvements.
You guys are breaking this stuff up too much. It's a system. Say it with me now. SYSTEM.
sys·tem Audio pronunciation of "system" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sstm)
n.
1. A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
One seperate part being better without the rest of the components improving means you are still bound by your slowest components. More is more, this is true - but it's an interconnected SYSTEM. How that system performs on the whole is the most important and the point I am trying to drill into your thick skulls.
Dr_Cogent said:
Ok, care to finish your quote?
So you aren't going back and forth are your making the statement in regards to your make believe Terabytes of memory or are you not insinuating it pointless to add more memory? I can read fine.
And on the point of bandwidth, isn't both the BRD and memory high bandwidth?
Are we honestly arguing about if more memory would help or not? ugh...had this been the 360 I doubt we would be arguing this but--shit...this is retarded
considering the model, sound, and texture complexity we are going to be dealing with next gen, 512 RAM isn't that much and is actually on the lower end side. As it stands, RAM is still a bottleneck...how the hell can someone honestly argue that raising RAM won't be immediately beneficial?
considering the model, sound, and texture complexity we are going to be dealing with next gen, 512 RAM isn't that much and is actually on the lower end side. As it stands, RAM is still a bottleneck...how the hell can someone honestly argue that raising RAM won't be immediately beneficial?
Ponn01 said:
Ponn01
My point I was trying to make was that it's not just as simple as some have said here. More is better. More is usually better - to a point - that's my point.
I was presenting an extreme example to drive that point. Had the PS3 been released with 2 terabytes of memory, you would not see a huge gain in performance beyond probably 1 GIG or so or maybe even less.
Memory holds data. Simple as that. The more data you have, usually you have more operations to perform. It would be good for caching more data like a few have already suggested.
The main point was, I'm trying to make people see the whole picture. Just bumping up a single part may not have the exact implications that some may assume it would have.
I should have never brought it up, because apparently the zealots can't handle it. I was in no way slamming the PS3 or saying that it couldn't benefit from a memory size increase. Never was that my intention. My intention was to try to dismiss this perception that more always equals better. Sorry, not so in a complex system.
Of course bumping up RAM is not gonna be as effective as bumping up RAM, increasing the bandwidth, etc.Dr_Cogent said:
The same as running graphics cards in SLI doesn't double performance, but it does INCREASE IT
doubling the RAM to 1GB isn't gonna magically double the performance, and NO ONE said it would...hell, no one is that stupid to expect that increase:"performance gain" is 1:1...you're preaching to the choir...only your sermon has some cultish undertones
Dr_Cogent said:
I know what you were doing but you were using extreme fake numbers and arguing a pretty pointless argument. If they were saying they were putting a gig or more of ram then maybe I can see the need to "educate" people but when so far the bandwidth numbers Sony has been putting out clock the memory, the BRD drive, the GPU and CPU on the high end your point becomes lost.
Coupled with fact that memory has clearly been an issue with some consoles in the last two generations how anyone can feel the need to argue any point against a memory upgrade is dubious.
Ponn01 said:
Did I argue against a memory upgrade?
No, I didn't.
sly said:
No, more is not ALWAYS better. Because more immediately means it's going to cost more as well.
I would like to say that I am not against an increase in the PS3s memory. I'm sure it would probably benefit.
Straightballin
Member
Will probably see a cell speed upgrade to 3.6ghz or maybe even 4ghz
It was an exaggeration and a joke fitted into the "preaching to the choir" bit i could have said that everyone has an opinion and assholes and shit or something but that's too cliche i could also go around and be like dr cogent am idiot rosebud total haha me am brasil ninja but i don't care for that retarted movement to badly immitate a gimpish online dimshit so i passed on that tooDr_Cogent said:
seriously tho...is that all you have to say?
You are taking this to extremes. We are not talking in general terms here. In the case of PS3, if this were true, one wouldn't expect more than an additional 256-512mb. That -IS- an improvement, no question about it. You say you aren't against that upgrade, so why did you even start an argument when that's exactly what this thread is about?
Dr_Cogent said:
You are a moron, even going as far as doubling the ram to 1Gig would be a big improvement especially with the kind of bandwidth it is already using. Ranting about initial loadtimes? I dont recall too many people bitching about GTA's initial load. You are a retard for thinking anyone here expects some rediculous increase in the amount of ram.
Quit trying to save GAF from your mornic mispercetions.
dark10x said:
*rolls eyes*
You know what really kills me? Is how so many GAF'ers can just gloss over the parts that they don't have a problem with and focus in on something that makes them think they are winning an argument. Not once did I ever say that the PS3 wouldn't benefit from a memory increase. But oh wait? It certainly is being construed that way! Not a big surprise to say the least.
Maybe you guys need to take a deep breath and really think for a minute. Read everything I wrote. Everything. See if you can figure it out.
I doubt people like Gek can or will.
Dr_Cogent said:
Ok, to sum up why you are in this thread then
-if the PS3 was getting 1 - 2 terabytes of ram upgrade it would be pointless and go unused
-ram does not equal performance upgrade in extreme numbers
-everyone is idiots in the thread because they don't understand this is what you are arguing
-you think a ram upgrade for the PS3 is fine though
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING FOR IN THIS THREAD!
TheGamingGuru
Member
This thing is gonna cost a nice chunk of change if its true..as is, its not gonna be 300 bucks..i can tell you guys that now
Wakune said:
Tit for tat is what I say Wakune. Your dancing around with insults was easily seen through.
Get back on topic. If someone can honestly say I am wrong, please prove it. I am not. I never once said the PS3 won't benefit from a memory upgrade. Not once, so stop arguing the point.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
in an effort to get away from the endless loop of the mental giants of RAM, how abotu we discuss what the possibilities are of this quote?
What would be considered as "low-level upgrades"?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll