• 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.

FRIDAYTON MK II: 5.5 million bears and salmon create unholy allliance to sack SONY HQ

S

Spongebob

Banned
Famousmortimer I think you should mentioned what the dev told you about the PS4's OS footprint sooner because these past months people have treated the 7GB figure as fact.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Antiwhippy said:
Why?
Click to expand...
If you're right, then:

1. That's quite a lot of resources going into that sharing capability, which I think could be better used by being available directly to developers.
2. You can draw a line in the sand and say that X resources is plenty, but the more the merrier, and this is a downgrade from what we were previously led to believe. If 7GB RAM is made available at all times I'd guarantee it would eventually be used.

Its better if that reserved figure is purely hedging for the OS like famousmortimer's talking about, as that interpretation makes it more likely to see that reserved space reduced over time as devs seek to take advantage of it.
 
I

i-Lo

Member
Final Version:

lol_by_gifsandmore-d6f9zp8.gif


EDIT: Credit should also go to Sethos and Jiggles.
 
D

demosthenes

Member
Untalkative_Bunny said:
yup. I was pushing >3gigs of VRAM with that unoptimize POS skyrim after installing some mods.

If these next gen systems are going to be using 5 gigs for cpu+vram, well I guess there really is nothing cutting edge about these machines.

I mean 3gigs for TV-shit/apps for xbone, and 3gigs for dumbass game footage sharing + apps on PS4 all powered by a midrange laptop cpu...they made us wait for 8 years for this?

oh well, not cancelling my order, but definitely downgrading expectations. It is kinda pathetic when the most exciting system for for 2013 is the 3ds.
Click to expand...

They're building boxes for around $400/500 and you think there will be something cutting edge about them? Where have you been?
 
iNvid02

iNvid02

Member
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...

i think you cured my troll syndrome

thanks mortimer
 
D

dubq

Member
ChronotriggerJM said:
I definitely expect Sony to reserve a chunk of memory for OS features and what-not, but if the Vita OS is capable of being snappy and fluid with a footprint of 80MB of ram
Click to expand...

The Vita has a separate "app" for each OS feature (Friends, Trophies, hell, even System Settings is a separate "app") -- I would hardly call that snappy or fluid.
 
Shin

Shin

Banned
Oh right let's not forget that games within the first year or so probably won't be using anything near 5GB+ of memory, by that time Sony might free up more memory for game development.
 
O

Odrion

Banned
But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting video memory.
 
Z

Zatoichi's Cane

Member
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU

I can't believe anyone would cancel a pre-order based on this "news." Sometimes you feel like your talking to children with 0 impulse control LMAO
 
T

ThoughtsOfSpeaking

Banned
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...

All well and good, but my issue is that Day 1 dev will have the same pipeline as day 1000 dev. Once the consoles are out in the wild, games will be made to the lowest common denominator. Will someone like ND make a PS4 game with 6,7gb of ram? Perhaps. But this decision ensures that it will be the isolated few devs, not something everyone is working towards.

So my point still stands. If this is true, im out. With only price seperating the two consoles, i feel it prudent to sit and wait to see if the value if either can be increased beyond what is currently offered. PS360 are nowhere near dead. Ill wait.
 
C

Curufinwe

Member
dubq said:
The Vita has a separate "app" for each OS feature (Friends, Trophies, hell, even System Settings is a separate "app") -- I would hardly call that snappy or fluid.
Click to expand...

I find it very snappy and fluid. I can keep the Trophy app open while I play a game and swap back and forth in a second.
 
M

Minigo

Member
NullPointer said:
If you're right, then:

1. That's quite a lot of resources going into that sharing capability, which I think could be better used by being available directly to developers.
2. You can draw a line in the sand and say that X resources is plenty, but the more the merrier, and this is a downgrade from what we were previously led to believe. If 7GB RAM is made available at all times I'd guarantee it would eventually be used.
Click to expand...

maybe there will be more RAM available for when that time comes, why give it to developers now if they won't use it?
 
K

kevm3

Member
CookedChocobo said:
lol why is this a big deal and a 50 page thread?

People assuming things without thinking again...4.5gb or even 5.5gb of Ram seems to be quite enough itself.

DIDN'T YOU SMART FOLKS COMPARE IT TO THE PS3 RAM? IT'S STILL A MAJOR UPGRADE.
Click to expand...

It's enough now, but what about years down the line when developers want to use more? Adding 4GB of GDDR5 supposedly at the behest of a developer, but then blocking off 88% of that for the OS doesn't sound very smart to me. With the One, at least there is a justifiable reason given its multimedia functionality, kinect integration, and running of 3 operating systems. There is no reason for Sony to be blocking off 3.5.
 
N

Neuromancer

Member
Curufinwe said:
It's baffling why he keeps making easily disprovable claims when they are totally unnecessary to support his argument. He think DF is credible and we should believe them, fine.

But why try and bolster that argument by falsely claiming that DF knew about the 8 GB of RAM first when two minutes of googling find this from Edge on February 1st:


http://www.edge-online.com/news/playstation-4-revealed/2/

And this from DF on February 9th.


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-spec-analysis-durango-vs-orbis
Click to expand...
Easy. Eurogamer heard about it first, passed the info along to Edge to see if they'd run with it, then tried to discredit Edge by disagreeing with them. That's games journalism psych warfare101.
 
W

WinFonda

Member
Yeah, there's no way that is a permanent footprint. I expect them to free up resources over time, gives the hardware and software room for growth.

End of the day, it's still 8GB GDDR5 vs 8GB DDR3. It's not a hard choice.
 
cyberheater

cyberheater

PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
famousmortimer said:
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread because people are foaming at the mouth and not thinking.... but here I am, which makes me an idiot.


First off, I know all you guys want are hard numbers and I don't have them. But I do know the philosophies in place currently. If you would like to use your brain and think critically about things... keep reading. If you want to get into a 5>4.5 OMG IM CANCELLING MY PREORDER conversation - this thread won't help you, in either direction.


I was told by a couple of Devs in the lead up to E3 that the OS footprint was "bigger than expected" but not a single one of them complained about it. No one is in danger of running out of ram. As some people have mentioned in this thread - games like the The Last of Us are happening with 512mb of ram. Launch titles, of all things, are not going to be pushing the hardware in any sort of way... and that includes ram.

So why is the ram footprint bigger than expected? It's fairly simple - Sony is hedging their bets. They were absolutely caught with their pants down with their OS this gen. Not having the memory overhead to do things like Party Chat gave Microsoft a huge advantage when it came to online gaming, which is obviously a growing sector. So much like $399 as a target price was a reaction to $599 being a disaster... "big OS footprint" is a reaction to "small OS footprint" being a disaster.

But the thing that I'm hearing and I believe there was even a line dedicated to this in the eurogamer article is that these numbers aren't set in stone. The fact of the matter is that high end PC games use around 3gb of ram and use higher res textures (art tends to take up the largest chunks of ram) than the ps4/x1 do. The idea that launch games need 7gb of ram is absolutely ludicrous. 4gbs is fine. Anything more, at this point, is overkill. It won't be overkill forever... but it's overkill for now.

So Sony gets to sit on this chunk of ram, be in 1gb or 3gb - again, I don't know the numbers. I don't know if eurogamer is right (I do know at E3 that some thought more ram would be freed up when the final dev kits shipped... but I don't know anyone working with a final dev kit). But Sony is coming at this from a position of power. They don't need the ram currently so they get to take a wait and see approach before saying "ok, devs, you guys get this." The systems will launch and they will look at what people are doing with their own OS, they will see what features people are asking for, they will see if microsoft or Nintendo (or even steam) come out with some surprise feature that catches fire - and if it does they will have the memory there to be able to do it also. If it doesn't that chunk of ram gets freed up for developers.


This thread is looking at this entire thing like the endgame is the day it launches. That's day one, guys. This is a long term strategic move and, imo, a smart one. They are putting themselves in a position to be able to adapt... something they couldn't do with the ps3. I know as gamers all we want to hear is higher numbers. But find me one developer that thinks the ram available to them on either system isn't enough (and this goes for the x1 as well guys... all this 5gb hurr hurrr stuff is fanboyish nonsense that you can go through my post history and see I never took part in once).


I feel like this post is far to philosophical for this thread of LARGE NUMBER > SMALL NUMBER, but hopefully this info is useful to some of you. Sony have created a nimble system and this is part of that philosophy.
Click to expand...

This all sounds great until you remember that Sony have been lauding the fact that they have 8Gb of super fast memory and their machine is targeted as a games machine whereas the Xbox One is a multimedia device.
So the the clear implication is that a huge chuck of that amazing memory is going to be used for game developers to make stunning games that couldn't be possible on Xbox One.

If this memory rumour is true then they have lied to us.
 
T

TheLegendary

Member
Proelite said:
Xbox One has close to 1 gig set aside that's to be used for future proofing. Pure OS is 2 gig, hypervisor is a miniscule amount. I expect PS4 to have the same amount if not more set aside for future proofing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you for the confirmation.

I have no idea why famousmortimer's post is being used to assume that Sony's extra memory reservation is any different than what's always been done.

It's a sugar coated way to explain the exact same thing that the Xbox One got reamed for.
 
W

Wynnebeck

Banned
BlazingDarkness said:
Pretty much my problem with this.
Cerny and Co should be criticised for not being clearer about the RAM pool. It's misdirection.
Click to expand...

LOL What!? What does the RAM pool have anything to do with the general populace buying a PS4? I'm not saying I'm liking this rumor but saying, "OMG Sony lied to us! Misdirection!" when Sony hasn't said anything at all from the start about RAM allocations is plain stupidity.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Minigo said:
maybe there will be more RAM available for when that time comes, why give it to developers now if they won't use it?
Click to expand...
If its a truly flexible reserve that can be reduced over time and made available to devs I'm completely fine with it.

Not freaking out here, but nor do I think that going from what we thought was 7GB to 4.5-5.5GB is meaningless either.
 
D

dubq

Member
Curufinwe said:
I find it very snappy and fluid. I can keep the Trophy app open while I play a game and swap back and forth in a second.
Click to expand...

Once it's open - fine. But I don't like the fact that you have to "start" each one separately. I guess in the end, it's a handheld, so what are you going to do? But if it were that way on a console? Brutal.
 
C

ChronotriggerJM

Member
dubq said:
The Vita has a separate "app" for each OS feature (Friends, Trophies, hell, even System Settings is a separate "app") -- I would hardly call that snappy or fluid.
Click to expand...

Oh I'd agree, but I think you can leave most of that stuff open and be on your merry way. I don't think it affects your gameplay in the slightest. Stupidly designed sure, but still snappy and fluid.
 
F

famousmortimer

Banned
shinobi602 said:
This is also what I'm hearing. Sony have future proofed some of the available RAM for future OS operations. It isn't "bloat" like some are worried about.

I'm being told some of these numbers are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...


I am hearing the numbers are wrong also... but no one has given me any other numbers so I'm just going based off of eurogamer being right - even though I don't believe they are.


I also haven't talked to a single person who thinks that the ram available currently is not ever going to rise. 100% believe the number will rise but that Sony is being conservative currently so they don't get burned and because no one needs that level of ram currently. I have 16gb of ram in my PC but that doesn't mean that when I play The Witcher 2 that 15gbs of it goes into the ram. That's not how this works - even though most of this thread seems to think this way.

Though, J. Blow (that's his rapper name) saying that The Witness uses 5gb hints that 4.5gb number is, in fact, wrong.


They did something similar with the PSP as well.
 
Erebus

Erebus

Member
1st Course said:
Multitasking probably.

There are no reason why would a console use more than 1 gigs for system ram but I imagine that would not be enough for multitasking. Windows 7 (64-bit) + game + video running in the background can use almost 4/5 gigs of system ram.
Click to expand...
I see
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom