PS3, only 256mb of ram?

FrankJH · 26 Mar 2007 at 08:57

mrk1@1 said:
Its now that matters tbh

When each console is meant to last a good 4 years (for Sony reputedly 10) no right now doesnt really matter at all - it will have very little significance.

In its lifetime it will probably be changed at least twice (as the PS2 was, one bulky original and two different slimlines) and maybe more not even including the on/off possibility of the 20GB unit coming to the uk

msmalls74 · 26 Mar 2007 at 09:06

Sorry dont want to make it a memory war type thing! What i was referring to was a chip to chip comparison not one chip versus a group of them. We know that DDR means double data rate ie the ram runs at 200MHz and the memory is clocked using both the falling and rising edges of the clock pulse which doubles the data rate of the clock thus a DDR2- 400 chip runs at 200Mhz but outputs data at 400Mhz. The memory bandwidth chart is very nice but it is a module, not single chip performance. Below is a single chip performance and module performance for ddr2. As stated earlier the "memory module" in the PS3 has a total aggregate bandwidth over 65Gb/sec according to the XDR info site, compare that with a dual DD2-800 whos theoretical total bandwidth for a dual is 12.8 Gb/s.

Standard name Memory clock I/O Bus clock Data transfers per second
DDR2-400 100 MHz 200 MHz 400 Million
DDR2-533 133 MHz 266 MHz 533 Million
DDR2-667 166 MHz 333 MHz 667 Million
DDR2-800 200 MHz 400 MHz 800 Million
DDR2-1066 266 MHz 533 MHz 1066 Million

Modules

For use in PCs, DDR2 SDRAM is supplied in DIMMs with 240 pins and a single locating notch. DIMMs are identified by their peak transfer capacity (often called bandwidth). Note these are all single not dual.
Module name Bus clock Chip type Peak transfer rate
PC2-3200 200 MHz DDR2-400 3.200 GB/s
PC2-4200 266 MHz DDR2-533 4.264 GB/s
PC2-5300 333 MHz DDR2-667 5.336 GB/s
PC2-6400 400 MHz DDR2-800 6.400 GB/s
PC2-8500 533 MHz DDR2-1066 8.500 GB/s

Like i said we dont need a XDR vs DDR debate on a console forum. Hope this just clears up some of the questions about PS3 memory (well for the cell anyway)

tomanders91 · 26 Mar 2007 at 15:52

so the PS3 has a better and more advanced proccessor than the 360, but the 360's GPU is slightly better? So which overall is better for gaming? Im pretty sure the PS3 will overtake the 360 in terms of graphics in a year (well i was until i saw this)

ic1male · 26 Mar 2007 at 16:00

Well, I think it was Ars Technica (but I could be wrong) that said the 360 has a more general purpose processor and is thus better as an all-round "computing" machine but the PS3's Cell processor is better suited for the types of computations that occur in games. Something to do with predictive branching or something which I don't get at all.

Kreeeee · 26 Mar 2007 at 16:03

What I was referring to was the GPU bandwitdh as surely using the GPU memory for CPU based operations will require a high GPU bandwidth and have a negative effect on latency.

Streeteh · 26 Mar 2007 at 16:09

Its all down to how well the cell processor is implemented. Its far more complicated to programme for than the powerpc cores in the 360, but in turn has far more potential.

If programmers stay lasy (like they have for the majority of ports so far for the PS3, with the 360 tending to display better graphics in the majority of sports games released on both consoles, as we all know, sports game ports tend to be quite lasy) then the 360 will have better results, however if the dev kits continue to improve and programmers manage to learn the architecture, the PS3 could indeed prove to have better visuals.

Thus far it seems that the PS3, when implemented correctly in for example Resistance, it is capable of dealing with far more processor based tasks, for example the insane number of AI controlled NPCs on screen at the same time. GOW does indeed look slightly more impressive but there tends to be less enemies at any one time and from my experience aren't quite as intellligent (though they are both very impressive examples of FPS AI and it is a very close cut thing).

There is also the 1st gen of games vs the 2nd gen arguement, GOW is classed as a second gen game and Resistance a 1st. If you compare Perfect Dark Zero, as 1st gen Xbox360 game, to Resistance, Resistance does indeed come out on top pretty easily, however it could also be argued that they have had more time to develop resistance (though i wouldn't tend to agree with this view). End of the day, it will be interesting to see what the 2nd gen of PS3 titles has to offer.

Ended up going quite off-topic there but i suppose it all flowed so i'm not gonna bother removing the off-topic parts.

Joebob · 26 Mar 2007 at 16:22

Chris1712 said:
So the same as DDR400 was @ dual channel was 4 years ago? N1 sony.

damn you caught me out - I didn't really have a clue as to what all those figures really meant I was just quoting it because it looked impressive

Streeteh · 26 Mar 2007 at 17:03

In retrospect, the PS2 had a 64bit cpu clocked at 294mhz with 32mb of ram yet continues to impress me with titles such as God of War 2, comparing PCs to a console generally doesn't make much of a fair comparison.

wannabedamned · 26 Mar 2007 at 17:14

tomanders91 said:
so the PS3 has a better and more advanced proccessor than the 360, but the 360's GPU is slightly better? So which overall is better for gaming? Im pretty sure the PS3 will overtake the 360 in terms of graphics in a year (well i was until i saw this)

I still believe it will in time. Using my crystal ball, I believe the gaps will show in 2008

Demon · 26 Mar 2007 at 18:47

wannabedamned said:
I still believe it will in time. Using my crystal ball, I believe the gaps will show in 2008

LOL...

Don't hold your breathe..

Both consoles are going to/already produce stunning games, and things will only get better..

To think one is going to consistently outperform the other is being a bit naive to be honest, the consoles are very different architecture wise, and both have significant strengths in key areas.. head over to beyond3d and read some real comments from actual developers, it'll make your head spin..

But then why care??? do you need a game to look worse on another console before you can be happy with yours???

I must be one of the few that looks at games on the 360 and PS3, and just love the fact both consoles prodcuce superb games.. and after reading the developers comments on forums, I can see that although both seem to offer vastly different performance on paper in different areas, the net result is neither will really 'outdo' the other, just maybe offer slightly different experiences..

each to their own.. just don't believe all the hype..

Abooie · 26 Mar 2007 at 18:53

tomanders91 said:
so the PS3 has a better and more advanced proccessor than the 360, but the 360's GPU is slightly better? So which overall is better for gaming? Im pretty sure the PS3 will overtake the 360 in terms of graphics in a year (well i was until i saw this)

We were promised 4D graphics and told the xbox 360 was really the xbox 1.5 by Sony 2 years ago and here we are now and all multiplatform games look and play the same or better on the 360. The 360 has GoW which has won just about every technology award since it was released.

As the Unreal engine has been licenced by just about every developer I think if 'graphics' are your thing the first multiplatform game running on this will tell us a great deal.

Personally I think it's all about games and Mass Effect, Bioshock, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Fallout 3, Elveon, Two Worlds, Eternal Sonata, Shivering Isles, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and Fable 2 (you see a rpg theme here!

) have dictated my gaming console of choice this year, next year who knows.

Demon · 26 Mar 2007 at 19:14

smcshaw said:
We were promised 4D graphics and told the xbox 360 was really the xbox 1.5 by Sony 2 years ago and here we are now and all multiplatform games look and play the same or better on the 360. The 360 has GoW which has won just about every technology award since it was released.

As the Unreal engine has been licenced by just about every developer I think if 'graphics' are your thing the first multiplatform game running on this will tell us a great deal.

Personally I think it's all about games and Mass Effect, Bioshock, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Fallout 3, Elveon, Two Worlds, Eternal Sonata, Shivering Isles, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and Fable 2 (you see a rpg theme here! ) have dictated my gaming console of choice this year, next year who knows.

I was surprised to find that developers where sort of slating the Unreal engine because it isn't actually that sympathetic to the 360's hardware..
For example, it doesn't use tiling to give free 4XMSAA etc... and a few other technical bits and pieces that would definitely improve it..

A good sign we can expect more GoW quality games as a minimum, and first party titles will really blow our socks off..

The PS3 is getting the Unreal Engine as well, so expect a lot of third party titles to look damn good as well, and as we know, first party developers will be doing magic with the PS3 as well..

Good times ahead..

Tommy B · 26 Mar 2007 at 19:19

The PS3's memory is vastly superior in terms of speed.

The fact the CPU and the GPU have their own dedicated memory also enhances performance.

tomanders91 · 26 Mar 2007 at 20:12

So basicly, there both pretty similar and are both very powerfull and over the years should see some fantasitc looking games coming from both.

Tommy B · 26 Mar 2007 at 23:11

The 360 should have seen some amazing titles by now. It has been over a year since it came out.

I reckon it'll be at least a year before any mind blowing PS3 titles come out.

Demon · 26 Mar 2007 at 23:27

Tommy B said:
The 360 should have seen some amazing titles by now. It has been over a year since it came out.

I reckon it'll be at least a year before any mind blowing PS3 titles come out.

It's not that simple... PS3 games development started very shortly after the 360 games where being started.. part of the delay of the PS3 was waiting for blu-ray components to be produced..

Motorstorm/RfoM where both started well before E3 2005.. these where developed at the same time as Gears of War was being developed over the same amount of time.. and Gears of War is a 3rd party title, yet more then favourable compares...

msmalls74 · 26 Mar 2007 at 23:33

Demon said:
It's not that simple... PS3 games development started very shortly after the 360 games where being started.. part of the delay of the PS3 was waiting for blu-ray components to be produced..

Motorstorm/RfoM where both started well before E3 2005.. these where developed at the same time as Gears of War was being developed over the same amount of time.. and Gears of War is a 3rd party title, yet more then favourable compares...

To be honest i think the strength of gears is the new unreal engine, UT3 looks better in my opinion.

Streeteh · 26 Mar 2007 at 23:39

If devlopment time is being compared:

The U3 engine has been in devlopment for god knows how long now, hence a perfected and efficient engine that GOW bought into. As far as i know, resistance is on its own engine that has been developed in a fraction of the time the U3 engine has been.

Both consoles will be good in thier own way, it is impossible to draw anything that even resembles a conclusion about which console is better this early in thier lifespans. I still play my PS2 and thats so old i've realised the plastic is beginning to fade from black to a dark grey.