PS3 only 256 RAM

Discussion in 'Console Games' started by MacBH928, Nov 19, 2012.

  1. macrumors 65816

    MacBH928

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    #1
    Can any one explain to me how can the ps3 with such low RAM memory put on such excellent graphics?

    On the other hand the 360 has DOUBLE that RAM but it does not seem to have better graphics over the ps3? I might be wrong, but I believe the ps3 pumps out better graphics?

    I know RAM is not what makes graphics , but I believe it is vital for loading stuff like textures?

    And how come when we buy the PC version of the game it will says that it will need 2GB ram as minimum requirements? thats 8x!!!

    I know that with the PC you need RAM for the OS and other stuff, while on the console it is dedicated. None the less, its still so much of a difference.

    how does the ps3 do so much with soo little?
     
  2. macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    上海 (Shanghai)
    #2
    The PS3 uses 25-50GB Bluray media, so the textures aren't as heavily compressed like the 360 which uses 4.7-8.5GB DVD media.

    Anyways consoles are purpose built computers. There isn't much on there. The OS only needs to run games (and other light stuff like stream music).

    PC games require a lot of memory because the OS needs memory, not to mention the other stuff you have open like your browser or maybe you even have Photoshop running.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Miharu

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    PS3 has 256 MB of RAM and 256 MB of video memory for graphics, whereas Xbox 360 has 512 MB shared for both. So they basically have the same amount of memory. Anyway, games for PS3 and 360 run in a low resolution, hardly any games actually run in native full HD resolution even though a lot of games are scaled for it. For example, Dark Souls looks amazing but it's only 1024x720 resolution which is then stretched to your TV. If you were to play really close to your TV you will notice the jaggies, when on a PC game you sit very close to your monitor and the graphics are much sharper.
     
  4. MRU
    macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    God 7 years of 360 / 6 years of PS3 and we are still getting threads like this !!!!





    The PS3 and 360 rarely run in true HD and you need to look at the last 5 years of PS3 v 360 graphics posts and comparisons.

    Head over to www.eurogamer.net and check out Digital Foundry or www.thelensoftruth.com

    You will find the 360 generally has an advantage graphically on all multi platform games and still continues to do so (with the odd exception) even with recent releases like assassins creed 3 and COD : Black Ops.

    But however games solely built for PS3 often look better than some games exclusively on 360. But the differences are marginal at best and now we're coming to the twilight of both these consoles it really makes Jack **** difference at the end of the day.

    As for the PC it requires more ram because it has the overhead of running a heavy on resources Operating System. Also 2GB is a minimum requirement (where for actual smooth gameplay and decent resolution you need double and quadruple that at least).

    On a basic run of the mill PC with Windows 7 and antivirus software installed. With 2 GB of ram, if you monitored the actual activity you would find that te OS and the Anti-Virus software would use upto 1.5GB of that ram, leaving only 512mb of system ram for the software.

    If you were also running integrated graphics, you wold find that PC would struggle to turn out the same graphics as either of the consoles.

    However the PC generally has an advantage if it has a dedicated GPU as these have 512-1gb of memory as standard, and in fancy killer GPU cases up to 2-3GB on their own (and that's excluding SLI / Crossfire setups)


    The Wii U has 2 GB of Ram compared to the 512mb in the PS3 and 360 but consensus puts it at around the same power overall.

    The PS3 & 360 were for the time ahead of the pack in regards to multi-core cpu's and before they came standard in PC's. This has really helped them sustain over the last 7 years. By the time the next Xbox is out it will be 8 years since 360 launch.

    They predict the next batch of hardware will last longer again meaning were looking at possibly the 10 year gap between console revision, and this is why the next 360 & PS3 will be noticeably more powerful than the new Wii U.

    I imagine contrary to the others the Wii U will last half that time, possibly 5 years and then we will see a revised more powerful incarnation.

    But as powerful as these new consoles will be next year ( they will match some of the best and expensive PC rigs out right now for a 1/4 of the price ) it is because they have to stand up-to a decade of advances in hardware whilst they are static.

    Give it 4-5 years in and PC hardware top of the line will be greatly advanced, midrange systems and cheaper gpu's will be able to match the consoles and a few years more further so twilight of these consoles then the top PC will be way ahead again of the pack, and the consoles will be equivalent to a basic PC.

    It's why even at $500-600 the next Xbox and Playstation will be still sold at a loss for the first few years.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    blesscheese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Central CA
    #5
    Agreed...I couldn't have put it better myself!

    ...and people are still complaining!

    To the OP--> if you find a game you like, play it, and don't worry about which system has what specs, just enjoy the game!
     
  6. macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Darkplace Hospital
    #6
    Um no the PS 3 has 40gb discs not 256mb
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 65816

    MacBH928

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    #7

    I was looking for the science behind it, not who has better graphics thread.

    I think it is very impressive that we can see such graphics with 256 RAM.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Scrub175

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Location:
    Jensen Beach FL
    #8
    Thought the ps3 had 256 system and 256 video with the balance of system not used going to video. The OS footprint was so large upon release that very little was used for video and in game xmb wasn't able to be supported. Reductions in the required reserved amounts for the OS freed up system ram to be used for in game xmb and shared video ram.

    The problem isn't the lack of ram. The problem was with developers not fully embracing the 6 spu's (synergistic processing units, with one installed spare for a total of 7) to perform some of the workload of the undersized ram portions. The cell in concert with the spu's were to really drive graphics to the toy story benchmark, but the developers of multi platform games usually didn't make the ps3 the lead design platform or take the time to develop software that fully utilized the power that was afforded to them. It was easier and industry standard to simple build around the allotment of ram. Hence the popularity of developing for the Xbox as it was designed to be an easier transition for pc developers to make a game work with the 360 hardware. This was the genesis of the Xbox or directX box. Allowing pc game developers shorter development time for existing pc game over to the Xbox.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    \-V-/

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    #9
    He's referring to RAM... not the storage space Blu-ray discs can hold... which is over 50 GB on the PS3 discs, not 40.
     
  10. MRU
    macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #10
    No PS3 each memory is allocated / designated for system or for GPU. They are in sense mutually exclusive. System ram can't use up excess GPU ram and vice versa, as neither is shared.

    The 360 has 512 shared so it can dynamically allocate between system & GPU. It also hugely benefited from the 10mb edram which gives the GPU a boost in performance allowing AA with little extra overhead or running tad higher res than some multi platform games.

    The Wii U now follows this but has bumped edram to 32mb ....
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Scrub175

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Location:
    Jensen Beach FL
    #11
    You are correct. The push to reduce system side ram was to implement in game xmb not to share with video. There are also 8 spes with one on standby.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    blesscheese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Central CA
    #12
    My knowledge of the "science" behind these things is limited to my "fanboi" days of the Sega Genesis & Super Nintendo...

    What you have to realize (described elsewhere) is that consoles are highly optimized machines, with only one purpose in mind--throwing graphics up on a screen. With very little overhead (i.e., no need to support any other function), and optimized programming libraries for just this purpose, they are able to do it much cheaper and with fewer resources than a computer.

    Going back two decades (plus), before the era of custom-made chips (makes it harder to compare!), the Genesis (released in 1989) had a 68000 CPU--essentially a 5 year old computer chip at the time, and the Super Nntendo had a 65816 CPU, again, a 5+ year old chip. Yet, even in the mid-90's, Sega wasn't able to release Sonic the Hedgehog on the PC, because of performance issues.

    MacRumorUser above has a great description of the more recent hardware. Again, with custom chips and companies keeping their exact specs secret, it is harder to compare now than it used to be.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 65816

    MacBH928

    Joined:
    May 17, 2008
    #13
    Well this is no longer true because consoles today can :
    -Play Movies
    -Run Linux(ps3)
    -chat online
    -browse the net
    -run apps(netflix, live streams)
    -connect to database(psn/xbl)

    this was true when a SNES will not do anything unless you insert a cartridge into them . Now consoles are like a PC
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #14
    3 words:

    highly optimised code
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    e²Studios

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    #15
    Consoles are nothing like PCs, Linux ran poorly on a PS3 for a reason.

    Most everyone else in this thread has the right idea though.
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    adder7712

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Location:
    Anywhere
    #16
    Essentially this. Devs can properly optimise their code on consoles due to limited hardware configuration options.

    On PC, you have PCs with high-end, mid-end, low-end graphics cards, 4GB of RAM, 8GB of RAM, dual, quad-core CPUs etc.
     
  17. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #17
    Actually, part of the reason was that it was only able to run on part of the hardware under the hypervisor that it had to run under.

    IIRC, the SP (? its been a while) units in the Cell CPU were unavailable, along with a bunch of other PS3 hardware.

    Linux was essentially only able to use a small subset of the available computing power of the PS3.
     
  18. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #18
    hasnt sony disabled the ability to run linux on the ps3?
     
  19. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #19
    Yes, in new versions of the firmware, otherOS is disabled unless you root the machine.
     

Share This Page