• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How can the PS3 do so well with so little RAM?

T

Theshawty

Member
Can anyone explain to me how the PS3 can manage so well as it does with such a little amount of RAM? (256MB for the GPU and 256MB for the GPU and Cell to share)

I understand that the XRAM in the PS3 has the same clock speed as the Cell processor (3.2 Ghz, right), which outperforms any PC RAM today, but is that all?

If it's so fast, how come games like Skyrim lag so much on the PS3? I am probably mixing a lot of stuff up, so a little clarification would be nice.

Oh, please try to keep it moderately simple. I don't natively speak English.
 
The entire system architecture is designed around high bus bandwidth and constant streaming of tiny data packets rather than caching large data stores.
 
The same reason any console can do as well as it does with so little resources when compared to a full PC.

No/little overhead to run the OS. Its taking everything it has and dedicating it (more or less) to just doing the one function of playing that game.

Source: Pulled it out of my ass but it's what I figure is the case.
 
lokiju said:
The same reason any console can do as well as it does with so little resources when compared to a full PC.

No/little overhead to run the OS. Its taking everything it has and dedicating it (more or less) to just doing the one function of playing that game.

Source: Pulled it out of my ass but it's what I figure is the case.
Click to expand...

Yup optimization is what it basically boils down to it. That with extremely low resolution is what helps it keeps games looking decent.
 
The speed of memory generally isn't a huge factor for performance, but they get by with so little capacity with careful optimization. Every ps3 has the exact same specs, so they know what to rely on, and can carefully craft the game around those limitations.
 
It seems developers aren't taking the cell processor structure as seriously as they damn well should.

I play on my 40 inch 1080p TV and the games look decent enough. I wouldn't want them to be in full HD as they would probably only play in like 15fps anyways.
 
The PS3 and the 360 have the same amount of memory. The 360 has 512mb to work with which can by dynamically adjusted between GPU and CPU. The PS3 uses a more traditional architecture with hard wired limits of 256mb and 256mb for each.

So why does Skyrim lag on the PS3? Well, it boils down to optimization and the Xbox version is better optimized. However, Bethesda's games are known for having performance issues across all platforms. It's a little better since they ditched the Gamebryo engine but still a factor. Even on PC weird issues can crop up, especially on multi-GPU systems.
 
BD2003 mostly hit it. Studios can optimize for a single configuration. This just isn't possible in PC gaming so many games are bloated with stuff the console version just doesn't have to worry about. A slimmer set of code pages that have to be loaded into memory is a more optimized experience. Combine this with driver optimization (imagine you only have to support ONE driver instead of the various PC drivers).
 
50MBs out of 512 isn't little OS overhead in my book. MinWin uses less than that.
Theshawty said:
I understand that the XRAM in the PS3 has the same clock speed as the Cell processor (3.2 Ghz, right), which outperforms any PC RAM today, but is that all?
Click to expand...
PS3's XDRAM is only a 64bit (same as a single channel of DDR) so its as fast as dual channel DDR3-1600.
 
I bought Skyrim when I bought my PS3, alongside with a bunch of other games. Skyrim set me back like 70 bucks and it lags massively now as the save game has grown a few megs in size.

I am really disappointed in how Skyrim plays, and I am disappointed in myself for buying this console when it's like 6 years old. I should've gone with a gaming computer...
 
As some have already said, they cheat. Not in the dirty sort of way, but in optimizations. The deficiencies don't really show up in many games with small, tightly corregraphed game worlds/levels such as many FPS games have because they are able to use cheats, such as extreme mip mapping and abusive blur effects (or as I like to call it, low res textures on demand). Once you step into open world games where levels are large and lots of textures need to be handled at one time, the memory limitations become apparent.

Motion blur is my biggest hatred. Everyone talks about how good Killzone 2 looked at release, but the motion blur was ridiculous. Sure it might be considered a good effect by some, but its also used in order to keep frames up, as you move texture resolution dropped into the basement and then came back up when you stopped.
 
Last edited:
lokiju said:
The same reason any console can do as well as it does with so little resources when compared to a full PC.

No/little overhead to run the OS. Its taking everything it has and dedicating it (more or less) to just doing the one function of playing that game.

Source: Pulled it out of my ass but it's what I figure is the case.
Click to expand...

I agree with this user. Must be because it's not running much else. Rarely do you see any apps on a PC using that much RAM.

And i like his source lol
 
BD2003 said:
The speed of memory generally isn't a huge factor for performance, but they get by with so little capacity with careful optimization. Every ps3 has the exact same specs, so they know what to rely on, and can carefully craft the game around those limitations.
Click to expand...

What?! The bandwidth of GPU is vastly important, unless you mean something else by "speed" you are very wrong. The sole reason the 360 has 10MB of eDRAM is to compensate for its slow DRAM.

The PS3 and the 360 both have 512MB of RAM, but the 360 has shared memory and eDRAM while the PS3 uses split memory like a PC (256MB system + 256MB video).

Skyrim is a special case. The developers wanted this persistent world which has to track every object in the world all the time, which is why performance gets worse as the player interacts with it. Bethesda basically made poor design decisions.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess the PS3 beats my craptop, tho. That cursed thing has got 4gb RAM at 533mhz clock speed *shrug*

And probably a cpu that get's left in the dust by a dual core pentium.. (AMD athlon 2 P360)
 
I wish Skyrim could play well without the stuttering issues of a growing gamesave, because my laptop can barely handle skyrim. I mean, it's got a decent gpu (my laptop) my the cpu is bottlenecking it and it's got 4gb ram clocked at 533 Mhz.
 
Todd33 said:
What?! The bandwidth of GPU is vastly important, unless you mean something else by "speed" you are very wrong. The sole reason the 360 has 10MB of eDRAM is to compensate for its slow DRAM.

The PS3 and the 360 both have 512MB of RAM, but the 360 has shared memory and eDRAM while the PS3 uses split memory like a PC (256MB system + 256MB video).
Click to expand...

I'm talking just about system memory, not the super fast frame buffer/edram, which is only 10mb. That alone only accounts for a small part of why consoles are more efficient. Memory bandwidth generally isn't the bottleneck, it's the GPU and CPU. You can increase memory speed tenfold, and it won't make a huge difference if the GPU or CPU can't keep up, as PC gamers have known for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top