360 Memory Vs PS3 Memory

[HFS+]

What is a better setup for developers?
The xbox 360 memory setup of 512MB shared bewteen the CPU+GPU

or the PS3s memory set up of
256MB for the CPU and 256MB for the GPU?

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

I don't know anything about it personally but it seems that I hear more complaints about the memory on the PS3.

When the RAM is shared the GPU and the CPU can share the RAM in any percentage they want.

CPU%/GPU%

100%/0%
60%/40%
50%/50%
10%/90%

It doesn't matter because the RAM is shared, and it provides a bit of flexibility.

Of course it may not work like this at all and I am just guessing using bad information. I'm not a developer or even a programmer.

All of this is assuming that the GPU and the CPU can access the RAM at the same rate and that by going to shared RAM that the transfer speeds do not go down.

 

[RavenSEAL]

That depends on the developer to be honest; BethSoft complains about the small amount of RAM on the PS3, yet none of the first party developers that know how to work the system do.

In other words, they need to stop making shitty ports from the 360.

 

[Sonikku]

The 360 tends to be better for developers due to it's smaller learning curve. But if developers can get past the PS3's high learning curve and spend more time developing each game there is no reason they can't make a game look about as good as on the Xbox.

 

[lamedude]

PS3 doesn't force devs to make the frambuffer fit into 10MBs or use tiling so it has more games with >720P res. RSX can use Cell's XDR but Cell reads RSX's GDDR at 16MB/s so it only has ~224MBs of main memory (not quite sure how huch OS uses today) and I think a swap file is an option since every PS3 has HDD.

 

[Fox5]

That depends on the developer to be honest; BethSoft complains about the small amount of RAM on the PS3, yet none of the first party developers that know how to work the system do.

In other words, they need to stop making shitty ports from the 360.

1st party devs won't say anything bad about their console of choice....they're paid by the console maker.

PS3's inferior in memory total and in GPU. PS3 is a 256MB system with a 256MB graphics card, the OS apparently takes up more memory than the 360's OS, and the 360 also has a small amount of embedded dram (~10MB) for its gpu, pushing its total a little higher and giving it a very fast frame buffer (in addition to having a more powerful and flexible gpu).
However, the Cell processor on the PS3 is a pretty big advantage for it, but I don't think most devs use it well. Especially for cross platform ports. And since most games are cross platform, they're designed around the limitations of both systems, although the 360 advantages are easier to take advantage of (as most cross platform games have higher framerates and texture resolution on the 360), while designing a game for the Cell processor would require a redesign that would make it unable to run on the 360. Similarly, a game that really does take advantage of the 360's better memory arrangement would be hard to put on the ps3 without really stripping it down.

 

[Todd33]

and the 360 also has a small amount of embedded dram (~10MB) for its gpu, pushing its total a little higher

That's not how it works, it is not adding to the total, it is a buffer. That 10MB is a small amount, you cannot fit a 720P with 2xAA image into it without tiling, which devs don't want to mess with.

 

[Jules]

That depends on the developer to be honest; BethSoft complains about the small amount of RAM on the PS3, yet none of the first party developers that know how to work the system do.

In other words, they need to stop making shitty ports from the 360.

Pretty sure first party developers are not gonna talk bad about the ps3 since they work for them

 

[RavenSEAL]

Pretty sure first party developers are not gonna talk bad about the ps3 since they work for them

But my point is that you can see the results.

Hell, even naughty dog came out and said the PS3 wasn't "friendly".