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?
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.
