jarrod said:Not overall system RAM, just main RAM. Here's the breakdown for consoles this gen...
Dreamcast
-16MB main RAM
-8MB video RAM
-2MB audio RAM
-24KB L1 cache
PlayStation 2
-32MB main RAM
-4MB video RAM
-2MB audio RAM
-24KB L1 cache
-16KB scratch cache
-8KB VU0 cache
-32KB VU1 cache
GameCube
-24MB main RAM
-16MB auxilliary RAM
-3MB video RAM
-64KB L1 cache
-256KB L2 cache
Xbox
-64MB UMA
-32KB L1 cache
-128KB L2 cache
Then Xbox has no "system" ram?Shogmaster said:When I say "system RAM", I mean same as your "main" RAM. Notice I didn't say "total" RAM.
jarrod said:Then Xbox has no "system" ram?
PS2~ 32MB
GC~ 24MB
DC~ 16MB
XB~ 0MB
Nerevar said:that's an interesting interpretation of "unified memory".
If we compared UMA though (which would need to take over functions specified on other consoles by dedicated RAM pools) then why only compare main RAM in other machines? Why not include those RAM pools? It's not like Xbox can get away dedicating all 64MB to the same functions PS2 has 32MB for. That 64MB has to do the same as what PS2 has 32MB+4MB+2MB for.Nerevar said:that's an interesting interpretation of "unified memory".
jarrod said:If we compared UMA though (which would need to take over functions specified on other consoles by dedicated RAM pools) then why only compare main RAM in other machines? Why not include those RAM pools? It's not like Xbox can get away dedicating all 64MB to the same functions PS2 has 32MB for.
If you're comparing "system RAM", really it's...
64MB Xbox
43MB GameCube
38MB PlayStation 2
26MB Dreamcast
krypt0nian said:The bigger what if is which will end up hurting more:
1) the lack of a larger media format
2) the lack of a built in HDD
krypt0nian said:The bigger what if is which will end up hurting more:
1) the lack of a larger media format
2) the lack of a built in HDD
Well, where's the cut-off point for useful? You're being too selective here as GC's 24MB of 1T-SRAM is super fast compared to any memory in Xbox... depending on where we place the bar, one could say Xbox has no "useful" RAM too. It's not like the slow 16MB of A-RAM in GameCube is useless either, it's perfectly suitable for loading in texture data or audio (which is the intended design)... different architectures tend to rely on different approaches, that's all.Shogmaster said:Bad comparasin. All 64MB of XBox's RAM has useful bandwidth. You can devote 63 out of the 64MB for things requiring tons of bandwidth like textures (extreme and rediculous example, but still possible). 16 out of 43MB for GC has pathetic 83MB/sec bandwidth, only useful for audio, animation and the like.
jarrod said:Well, where's the cut-off point for useful? You're being too selective here as GC's 24MB of 1T-SRAM is super fast compared to any memory in Xbox... depending on where we place the bar, one could say Xbox has no "useful" RAM too. It's not like the slow 16MB of A-RAM in GameCube is useless either, it's perfectly suitable for loading in texture data or audio (which is the intended design)... different architectures tend to rely on different approaches, that's all.
Which is all beside the point really, as I've never heard of a developer cutting GC content due to it's RAM architecture. Rather than was always due to the smaller disc size...
developers have shown they prefer to simply cut content rather the spring for multiple discs.
Xbox 360 really does seem more like "GameCube 2" by the minute.
Amir0x said:The correct answer is that it'll hurt neither of them, but ONE of these sucks a lot more (hint: NO HDD IN PS3).
Well, going by what Neversoft, Atomic Planet and others have said... it isn't.Shogmaster said:I haven't heard the specific cases of either, but I'd think RAM is far more crucial than media.
Well, it's what happens. Expect the same to happen with 360 versus PS3 eventually.Shogmaster said:Additional GC disc would be less than a buck to make for the publishers. It's hardly a good reason to cut the GC version of the game.
Can't see the forest for the trees can you.Shogmaster said:Your clock is broken. Either that, or you don't know how to tell time.
jarrod said:Well, going by what Neversoft, Atomic Planet and others have said... it isn't.
Well, it's what happens. Expect the same to happen with 360 versus PS3 eventually.
Can't see the forest for the trees can you.
Nice wishful thinking. If EA, Activision, Ubisoft or whoever can save a buck by skimping on some bonus content, rest assured they will. And a dramactically smaller format than the assumed market leader sort of makes that an inevitability for Xbox 360.Mrbob said:I'd say the big difference is seeing 3rd party sales are better on Xbox than GC. So publishers will spend a little extra for the second or third disc whereas gamecube sales didn't justify the extra cost.
This is such a non-issue I can't believe it's being argued. So if it doesn't fit on one DVD, they put it on 2! OMG! WTF!?!?!?!?
It's the end of the fargin world!
Various Tony Hawks and MegaMan Anniversary. I'm sure there's others out there.Shogmaster said:I'm curious to see what games these were. If it's something like sports games, I can see how they wouldn't want disc changes.
Sure, there will be ways around that. But had Atomic Planet really put in the effort, they could've squeezed all the content from the PS2 MMAC on to a single GC disc as well without much hassle using readily available compression tools included in the GC SDK even.Shogmaster said:By the time PS3 games are wasting away the space on Blu-Ray ROMs, I'd think most devs will have the procedural synthesis business going to utilize the ROM and RAM space accordingly. Plus, there's also the HD space that can be utilized to pre-load data from the additional discs so that in gameplay, you only need to load the "main" disc.
You should give GameCube 2 more credit than that.Shogmaster said:That's not a forest. It's at best, it's the garden department at Home Depot.
Azrael said:If Rockstar is filling a dual-layer DVD now with primitive graphics and without a lot of FMV, you can bet they're going to need more than DVD 9 next generation.
jarrod said:Which is all beside the point really, as I've never heard of a developer cutting GC content due to it's RAM architecture. Rather than was always due to the smaller disc size... developers have shown they prefer to simply cut content rather the spring for multiple discs. Xbox 360 really does seem more like "GameCube 2" by the minute.
jarrod said:Various Tony Hawks and MegaMan Anniversary. I'm sure there's others out there.
Sure, there will be ways around that. But had Atomic Planet really put in the effort, they could've squeezed all the content from the PS2 MMAC on to a single GC disc as well without much hassle using readily available compression tools included in the GC SDK even.
In the end it's always going to come down to costs. And really, if publishers can get away with shaving costs, it's going to happen. Inevitable.
You should give GameCube 2 more credit than that.
Azrael said:We heard the same argument last generation about the Dreamcast's GD-ROM format. No game would need more capacity than what disc swapping 2-3 GD-ROM discs would offer. And yet, had the DC survived, there would have been no practical way to put something like GTA: San Andreas on the format without cutting a lot of content. If Rockstar is filling a dual-layer DVD now with primitive graphics and without a lot of FMV, you can bet they're going to need more than DVD 9 next generation.
sangreal said:Maybe. But then again, GTA:SA is single layer so....
sonycowboy said:Ahhhh..
So games only went from ~650MB to ~4.7GB this generation (95%+ of PSOne games were < 650MB, probably ~95% of current gen games < single sided DVD)
That's only a 7* growth. Whew! We're set for next gen. We've got plent of space. That won't happen again.
sangreal said:It would be more accurate, in my opinion, to look at how many games were constrained by the CD storage medium compared to how many games were constrained by DVD (0).
Gek54 said:Good job, you do realize there is no way to tell if a game has been constrained becuase there is no current medium being used that is larger than DVD.
Pellham said:Media storage capacity was a non-factor in this generation, so I doubt it will be one in the next generation. I don't care how much bluray discs can hold, at some point you're going to need to consider development costs of a 50 gigabyte game.
AP didn't want to go through the trouble of compressing sound files. As such, MM1-6 are missing their remixed soundtracks in the GC release... it's not a huge issue, but it's another example of lost content (due to disc size) that could've been easily gotten around.Shogmaster said:MEGAMAN ANNIVERSARY?!? X_x You've gotta be shitting me!
WTF, was that bitch mostly FMV or something? :lol
I dunno... looking at US sales, GameCube is actually MegaMan's biggest console market, yet Capcom USA/Atomic Planet still skimped on the GC release of MMAC. If GameCube had a larger capacity disc, this would never be an issue and alternatives (compression routines, multiple discs) don't seem to factor in even when GameCube is the primary market.Shogmaster said:I think it's more about the marketshare of your intended audience. Most pubs feel that GC buyers only care about kiddy games or Nintendo 1st party games, and they are not willing to put forward the effort and money to put out "none GCesque" games on GC.
Pretty much. Plus WiFi and a boomerang.Shogmaster said:If X360 is GC2, then what the hell is PS3? XBox 2 minus the hard drive and Live? :lol
There's at least a couple of notable differences between the hdd/no hdd scenario of this gen and the scenario which is likely to play out next gen, that should narrow the gap.sonycowboy said:So, gamers will be hurt because Sony & Microsoft have gone two different paths, and thus, at some level insured, that neither feature is well utilized.
Actualy, I think a single BD would be cheaper than multiple DVDs for publishers. We'll see a lot of single DVD games the first year or two I bet, just like all those CD based PS2 SKUs in 2000/2001.Yann said:Wouldn't surprise me at all to see PS3 games with multi dvd instead of a blu-ray at first. It's all about the cost.
TheDuce22 said:99% of xbox and ps2 games arent even 3 gigs. Even gamecube did just fine with all the ports thanks to compression technology. Not to mention the fact that its rediculously easy to package 2 dvds in a case if by some chance a game takes up more than 9 gigs. Most current pc releases still come on cds and nobody is complaining about that.
Which makes up a significant portion of the average games working set.Shogmaster said:16 out of 43MB for GC has pathetic 83MB/sec bandwidth, only useful for audio, animation and the like.
Every generation people fret that we have too much memory, and too much power, and that the only way to fully utilise it, will be procedurally generated shit. Forgetting that content creation tools are also getting bigger, better, and faster.Shogmaster said:By the time PS3 games are wasting away the space on Blu-Ray ROMs, I'd think most devs will have the procedural synthesis business going to utilize the ROM and RAM space accordingly.
TheDuce22 said:I just took a test sample of 4 xbox games and came up with an average of under 1 gig. HA!!
TheDuce22 said:99% of xbox and ps2 games arent even 3 gigs. Even gamecube did just fine with all the ports thanks to compression technology. Not to mention the fact that its rediculously easy to package 2 dvds in a case if by some chance a game takes up more than 9 gigs. Most current pc releases still come on cds and nobody is complaining about that.