How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[galego]

That 8GB is not dedicated. It has to share it with the CPU doing network functions, background stuff for the OS, all the apps and stuff loaded, the game that is loaded up etc.

Who knows how much will really be left for the GPU. I'll take 2-6GB Dedicated over 8GB shared if I don't know what will be using it and how much.

Agree, but to be fair the original poster whom I was replying did not consider such issues and I avoided them also for simplifying the discussion.

About the amount of memory used for games, Epic chooses a PC with 16 GB of RAM and 2 GB VRAM for the comparison (elemental demo) with the PS4.

16 GB = 2 GB x 8

This agrees with the maximum compression ratio 8:1 that they use in unreal engines

http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/TextureSupportAndSettings.html#Compressed Texture Memory Requirements

I believe we can take 16+2 GB as a kind of baseline, at least for some of their future games.

It seems reasonable that some future PS4 games will increase the use of VRAM to something as 4-6GB. If engines continue using the same compression ratios for textures, then future gaming PCs would have lots and lots of RAM!!!

 

[Rakehellion]

and? that does not make the 7850 level of graphics some magical gpu that can utilize 8gb of ram. wait until games come out and this thread will be looked back on as a joke. that will be especially true in a few years when what little technical advantage the ps4 has at launch will likely be surpassed on even mobile devices.

Any GPU can utilize 8GB of RAM. Do you know what video memory is used for?

 

[toyota]

Any GPU can utilize 8GB of RAM. Do you know what video memory is used for?

thats great but I am talking about actually being able to do something with it as for as performance. would a gtx680 with 8gb of vram do anymore for gaming than the 2gb model in single gpu use? NO

 

[Rakehellion]

That 8GB is not dedicated. It has to share it with the CPU doing network functions, background stuff for the OS, all the apps and stuff loaded, the game that is loaded up etc.

Who knows how much will really be left for the GPU. I'll take 2-6GB Dedicated over 8GB shared if I don't know what will be using it and how much.

Shared memory is unequivocally a good thing. There are no down sides at all. Period. And as for "what's left" after handling CPU tasks, it's whatever the programmer allows. The PS4 isn't some sentient being that tells game developers where they can use their memory all of a sudden.

 

[Carfax83]

I agree with pretty much everything here.

For example, Far Cry 3 Ultra on PC still looks like a PS3/Xbox 360 console game, just with much higher-res shader fx added on. It still more or less looks the same, and more importantly, things like draw distance, LOD, draw-in/pop-in still suffer due to the engine design and sub optimal use of DX11 .

I highlighted the important distinction and made an addition of my own in italics. Even the incomparable brute power of a high end PC is no match for bad or inefficient engine design...

I think it's important to note that although certain people in this thread have been extolling the virtues of consoles by bringing up how much faster they are due to being able to code directly to metal, console games are STILL replete with object pop in.

However, in well optimized DX11 (games that use DX11 exclusively) PC games like BF3 or Crysis 3, there is no LOD or object pop in due to DX11 enhancements; even at much higher levels of detail than the console versions.

So basically, I'm suspicious of anyone that claims the PC is hampered by having to deal with additional overhead like DX and drivers.

That may have been true before DX11, but not anymore.

 

[galego]

Can you link to something that isn't coming from the horses mouth?

Love it though, 10x the power, 10x the overhead, evidently todays GPU's only provide 360 level IQ according to this AMD PR spinbit.

I'm glad that's enough for you, but I'm going to need something that is on this side of reality.

Carmack (Id Software) talks about 10x overhead, Lottes (Nvidia) talks about 10x overhead, Huddy (AMD) talks about 10x overhead...

 

[Rakehellion]

would a gtx680 with 8gb of vram do anymore for gaming than the 2gb model in single gpu use? NO

Crysis 3 can top 2GB easily.

And there aren't many games out that requires more than 2GB because only a tiny percentage of gamers have that much. Just like there's no game out that requires a GTX 780 with 4GB VRAM, because they don't exist.

 

[toyota]

Crysis 3 can top 2GB easily.

And there aren't many games out that requires more than 2GB because only a tiny percentage of gamers have that much. Just like there's no game out that requires a GTX 780 with 4GB VRAM, because they don't exist.

and? the gpus are NOT strong enough to run at settings that NEED that much vram.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Shared memory is unequivocally a good thing. There are no down sides at all. Period. And as for "what's left" after handling CPU tasks, it's whatever the programmer allows. The PS4 isn't some sentient being that tells game developers where they can use their memory all of a sudden.

The OS uses x amount, the loaded game uses x amount, the network stuff uses x amount, all the background tasks use x amount. Then there is Y left.

That is how it works.

Carmack (Id Software) talks about 10x overhead, Lottes (Nvidia) talks about 10x overhead, Huddy (AMD) talks about 10x overhead...

...and no links still eh?

and? the gpus are NOT strong enough to run at settings that NEED that much vram.

Sure they are.

People are playing Crysis 3 with three monitors and such.

 

[Rakehellion]

and? the gpus are NOT strong enough to run at settings that NEED that much vram.

What the hell does GPU "strength" have to do with resource storage? You could quadruple the texture resolution of any game out there and a midrange GPU could run it. What requires a fast GPU is shader complexity, not texture and mesh resolution.

 

[Cerb]

and? that does not make the 7850 level of graphics some magical gpu that can utilize 8gb of ram. wait until games come out and this thread will be looked back on as a joke. that will be especially true in a few years when what little technical advantage the ps4 has at launch will likely be surpassed on even mobile devices.

x86 IGP, maybe, if future cheap DRAM gets fast enough per pin, within the PS4's lifespan, before the PS5. Mobile still has a very long way to go, though, and will take much longer. So much of the low power, and performance per Watt, is predicated on starving the chips for memory. Only the latest and greatest, FI, at finally getting 64-bits worth of slow DDR3. Then, it's going to take a lot of shrinks, possibly more than are economically feasible, to get the CPU+GPU down enough in power. It will happen, not doubt, but not that quickly.

 

[Rakehellion]

The OS uses x amount, the loaded game uses x amount, the network stuff uses x amount, all the background tasks use x amount. Then there is Y left.

And the developer is 100% in control over all of these numbers, just like they've always been.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Carmack (Id Software) talks about 10x overhead, Lottes (Nvidia) talks about 10x overhead, Huddy (AMD) talks about 10x overhead...

So we just went full circle back to draw calls... Did you catch that?

 

[cmdrdredd]

And the developer is 100% in control over all of these numbers, just like they've always been.

The developer cannot control the OS, network functions(PSN etc that is always going to run), and background stuff that happens when the game is running. Those are always going to be there. So...yeah.

The only thing the dev can control is what their game asks for based on the baseline availability. I can pretty much guarantee we won't ever see games using more than 2-3GB anyway. That's due to 1080p (or lower) resolution. PC games at 1080p even running 8x MSAA don't cross 2GB very often if at all.

 

[Rakehellion]

The developer cannot control the OS, network functions(PSN etc that is always going to run), and background stuff that happens when the game is running. Those are always going to be there. So...yeah.

Those will measure in the megabytes, not gigabytes. Every modern game requires an operating system. It's a moot point.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Those will measure in the megabytes, not gigabytes. Every modern game requires an operating system. It's a moot point.

You think so eh? I'm glad you have a crystal ball and can predict everything and think the PS4 will take over the world and crap...

sheesh

What IS moot is even considering a PS4 is "better" than a PC. When a PC is ever evolving, it's 100% impossible.

 

[toyota]

The OS uses x amount, the loaded game uses x amount, the network stuff uses x amount, all the background tasks use x amount. Then there is Y left.

That is how it works.



...and no links still eh?



Sure they are.

People are playing Crysis 3 with three monitors and such.

lol they are not playing with a single card on max settings on 3 monitors. every time we have the silly debate I have to say SINGLE card over and over and over.

 

[cmdrdredd]

lol they are not playing with a single card on max settings on 3 monitors. every time we have the silly debate I have to say SINGLE card over and over and over.

GTX Titan buddy. It can do it, and playable. Maybe not 60fps, maybe it dips real low but it can be playable. Or hell GTX 690 is a "single card"

 

[toyota]

What the hell does GPU "strength" have to do with resource storage? You could quadruple the texture resolution of any game out there and a midrange GPU could run it. What requires a fast GPU is shader complexity, not texture and mesh resolution.

are you that clueless to think they are not related? so using your logic a gtx650 with 4gb of vram can play at better settings than a gtx680 with 2gb?

 

[Rakehellion]

You think so eh? I'm glad you have a crystal ball and can predict everything and think the PS4 will take over the world and crap...

What are you suggesting? That Sony would allow "network functions" to suck up 2GB of memory? 7GB?

What IS moot is even considering a PS4 is "better" than a PC.

I'm pretty sure no one's said that.

 

[Rakehellion]

are you that clueless to think they are not related? so using your logic a gtx650 with 4gb of vram can play at better settings than a gtx680 with 2gb?

If by "better settings" you mean higher mesh and texture resolution because I know you didn't completely ignore my comment about shader complexity.

 

[cmdrdredd]

What are you suggesting? That Sony would allow "network functions" to suck up 2GB of memory? 7GB? Stop being a ****wit.



I'm pretty sure no one's said that.

oh...now it's name calling and cursing. Way to go.

Seriously, you know zero about how the system will function same as me. I do know with 100% certainty that the GPU is not going to get 8GB to work with all to itself.

Also yeah, people said that. Read the thread title and maybe the rest of the thread while you're at it.

 

[3DVagabond]

and? the gpus are NOT strong enough to run at settings that NEED that much vram.

Come on Toyota. It's all about how they've balanced the game for the available hardware. The only way to get typical games today to use more than 2GB of VRAM is to push resolution and/or AA to ultra high levels. That's because the game designers realize that a game requiring more than 2GB of VRAM at say 1080p and 4xmsaa is going to run into hardware limitations most of the time. PS4 will not have that 2GB design limitation. New cards are apparently going to double in available VRAM soon too. Devs will be pressured by hardware companies to push VRAM levels up to increase the demand for new hardware.

 

[Rakehellion]

GTX Titan buddy. It can do it, and playable. Maybe not 60fps, maybe it dips real low but it can be playable. Or hell GTX 690 is a "single card"

Chicken and egg problem.

No game requires 8GB of VRAM yet because it doesn't exist.
No game requires PCIe 32x because it doesn't exist.

As soon as these features become ubiquitous, developers will use them.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Come on Toyota. It's all about how they've balanced the game for the available hardware. The only way to get typical games today to use more than 2GB of VRAM is to push resolution and/or AA to ultra high levels. That's because the game designers realize that a game requiring more than 2GB of VRAM at say 1080p and 4xmsaa is going to run into hardware limitations most of the time. PS4 will not have that 2GB design limitation. New cards are apparently going to double in available VRAM soon too. Devs will be pressured by hardware companies to push VRAM levels up to increase the demand for new hardware.

What I'd like to see is games to use ray tracing and super high polygon counts for the characters and models. In time that might happen and the whole idea of pushing resolution won't be such a big deal. You could render in 1080p but using 2-3x the polygon count and the game will look tons better immediately. Hardware limited of course. I don't even know if it could be done in real time yet.

Chicken and egg problem.

No game requires 8GB of VRAM yet because it doesn't exist.
No game requires PCIe 32x because it doesn't exist.

As soon as these features become ubiquitous, developers will use them.

As far as I'm aware no game requires PCIe even. You could run on AGP and still load the game.