The Official PS4 Thread

[cmdrdredd]

Why would these consoles need anywhere near that much RAM reserved for OS use? Windows doesn't even use that much memory, well unless you have prefetch enabled.

How do we go from some fraction of 512mb total shared memory to the OS ballooning to 25x that amount? So Facebook, Twitter, and Google can have real time updates on how much health we have left?

I'd consider anything over 512mb to be unreasonable. My laptop is currently using less than 1.4gb running Windows 7, Firefox, and Skype.

Real time network usage, movie sharing, play while installing etc. All of this can hog memory but really I have no idea.

 

[blurredvision]

Why would these consoles need anywhere near that much RAM reserved for OS use? Windows doesn't even use that much memory, well unless you have prefetch enabled.

Both consoles are wanting to provide instant switching between game/app/tv/whatever plus always-on recording plus cross-game/app chat, etc. I won't even pretend to know how much RAM is needed for that.

 

[KaOTiK]

Why would these consoles need anywhere near that much RAM reserved for OS use? Windows doesn't even use that much memory, well unless you have prefetch enabled.

How do we go from some fraction of 512mb total shared memory to the OS ballooning to 25x that amount? So Facebook, Twitter, and Google can have real time updates on how much health we have left?

I'd consider anything over 512mb to be unreasonable. My laptop is currently using less than 1.4gb running Windows 7, Firefox, and Skype.

They want multi tasking to be seamless and instant. I agree I think it is a bit crazy how much of a systems resources are now being held back for the OS for so many other things.

 

[I4AT]

If they're planning on sacrificing 2-3gb of RAM globally for this streaming/DVR nonsense that's an absolutely retarded decision. People that take that stuff seriously aren't going to be shelving their HD-PVR's for this, or choosing to cut/edit videos on their console instead of their Windows machines. And they'll continue to stream with justin.tv so they can make their $5/month or whatever.

It can still be included with a Sony toolkit so developers have the option of implementing it on a game by game basis, rather than limiting every game ever to 5gb of RAM for something that's gonna end up being a gimmicky, rarely used feature. They'll be wishing they had access to that extra RAM in the later years of the console's lifecycle.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't believe so, but I could be wrong. It's always been speculation. For those freaking out about this (especially over at NeoGAF, if they aren't all just trolling), I'm not sure how they think they were going to get game sharing/recording, fast switching, play during install, etc. Those features aren't "free".

After the whole 15 minute recording thing, I've been wondering if they were going to store the data on the HDD or on a ramdisk.

 

[purbeast0]

After the whole 15 minute recording thing, I've been wondering if they were going to store the data on the HDD or on a ramdisk.

that is a very good point. saving it to RAM actually makes more sense if you think about it. the hdd would CONSTANTLY be churning 100% of the time you are gaming if it wrote to the HDD. i mean it's doable but if it was writing to the ramdisk instead for obvious performance reasons, that could totally be plausible in this situation.

 

[Aikouka]

that is a very good point. saving it to RAM actually makes more sense if you think about it. the hdd would CONSTANTLY be churning 100% of the time you are gaming if it wrote to the HDD. i mean it's doable but if it was writing to the ramdisk instead for obvious performance reasons, that could totally be plausible in this situation.

There was one counter-point that came to mind... how would constantly writing to memory affect the bandwidth? It probably isn't terribly strenuous on it, but it is a constant hit on a memory system that has to feed a CPU and a GPU. Depending on the effect, I would consider giving the video encoder chip a smaller, segregated memory pool (some cheap, LP-DDR3 would be fine) and only pull the data from its buffer when you need it.

 

[Childs]

that is a very good point. saving it to RAM actually makes more sense if you think about it. the hdd would CONSTANTLY be churning 100% of the time you are gaming if it wrote to the HDD. i mean it's doable but if it was writing to the ramdisk instead for obvious performance reasons, that could totally be plausible in this situation.

PS4 will have a dedicated H.264 hardware encoder, and writing realtime h.264 to a hard drive would only require around 2.5MB/s* or so, at a 20Mbps data rate. 2.3GB* of storage required for the 15 min, so this would probably be too much for caching in RAM, but writing to the hard drive wouldnt impact I/O that much.

The problem would seem to the bit rate, because while 20Mbps is decent for video sharing sites like youtube, uploading a 2.3GB file would take some time with most consumers asymmetrical broadband plans. Dropping it down to around 5Mbps for 720p (562MB* file) would probably be good enough. But then uploading that smaller file would still impact your connection, just not as long.

It doesn't seem that practical, unless you can save the moment, then upload a queue of clips later. I guess they could always cap the upload speed so that it doesn't impact your in game performance, but it seems like more work than its worth. Not just on Sony's part, but Ustream will have to be able to handle millions of people uploading clips 24/7.

*PS, don't double check my math...its for illustration purposes only. I'm sure its close enough.

 

[Aikouka]

When I was thinking about using RAM, my thought was on your average video encode. For example, most scene videos are about 1.2GB at 720p for about 42 minutes. 1080p is 2.25x larger than 720p, so the resulting file size would be 2.7 with linear scaling (it's not really linear, it should be smaller). If you then take that from a 15/42 factor to scale the length down, you get about 1GB. Although, I would guess that the PS4 and X1 will probably store slightly more than the announced times which lets them keep a slightly overlapped buffer.

 

[Childs]

When I was thinking about using RAM, my thought was on your average video encode. For example, most scene videos are about 1.2GB at 720p for about 42 minutes. 1080p is 2.25x larger than 720p, so the resulting file size would be 2.7 with linear scaling (it's not really linear, it should be smaller). If you then take that from a 15/42 factor to scale the length down, you get about 1GB. Although, I would guess that the PS4 and X1 will probably store slightly more than the announced times which lets them keep a slightly overlapped buffer.

Scene releases are probably using VBR, and I dont think you can do VBR via hardware. At least not the kind of hardware solution that would be in a console. Usually real time capture would be done using CBR, because you cant calculate the optimal bit rate usage without seeing all of the content first. They can shrink the file size by simply lowering the bit rate. It really just has to be good enough, and compared to most videos on sites like twitch or ustream, the bar is pretty low.

 

[smackababy]

So, PS4 going to allow for 2,000 friends on your PSN list.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I read that yesterday but can't help but wonder what kind of person will have 2,000 real friends to add? I guess it could turn out like Facebook where people just request everyone.

I know my list will provably always remain small.

 

[purbeast0]

that's almost as stupid a bulletpoint as x1's "unlimited" friends list.

 

[dagamer34]

When I was thinking about using RAM, my thought was on your average video encode. For example, most scene videos are about 1.2GB at 720p for about 42 minutes. 1080p is 2.25x larger than 720p, so the resulting file size would be 2.7 with linear scaling (it's not really linear, it should be smaller). If you then take that from a 15/42 factor to scale the length down, you get about 1GB. Although, I would guess that the PS4 and X1 will probably store slightly more than the announced times which lets them keep a slightly overlapped buffer.

Even on a good upload connection (relatively speaking) at 10Mbps, a 1GB file would take over 13 minutes to complete, and that's assuming you're willing or able to saturate that pipe.

 

[blurredvision]

that's almost as stupid a bulletpoint as x1's "unlimited" friends list.

The only reason it's really being pointed out is because lots of people hated the 100 limit on the 360 (PS3 was the same I think).

 

[Midwayman]

I read that yesterday but can't help but wonder what kind of person will have 2,000 real friends to add? I guess it could turn out like Facebook where people just request everyone.

I know my list will provably always remain small.

I hope they integrate the FB friend list into it (sure they will). It'd be nice to see all my friends that I don't really specifically know their gaming habits.

 

[Anubis]

Even on a good upload connection (relatively speaking) at 10Mbps, a 1GB file would take over 13 minutes to complete, and that's assuming you're willing or able to saturate that pipe.

10Mbps would be more than "good" it would be flat out amazing as most of the US is limited to something under 2Mbps for a upload speed

 

[smackababy]

10Mbps would be more than "good" it would be flat out amazing as most of the US is limited to something under 2Mbps for a upload speed

I have 10Mbps upload. Only around 30 download though. =( Used to have around 75 down / 10 up with Charter, but moved to a new state so I don't get that anymore.

 

[Childs]

Even on a good upload connection (relatively speaking) at 10Mbps, a 1GB file would take over 13 minutes to complete, and that's assuming you're willing or able to saturate that pipe.

Yeah, I have a 50/10 Comcast connection, and just uploading a 400MB video to Youtube still takes awhile.

 

[apac]

As an xbox 360 owner, one of the best features is playing split-screen halo multiplayer with my gf's son. I'm pretty convinced to get a PS4 over an XB1 (for all the same reasons everyone else has) but I'm having trouble identifying games that would fill this need. What PS3/PS4 games allow you to play online with split screen?

The only one I've seen is Diablo 3 and sports games. We definitely like shooters best, though. Battlefield 4 seems unlikely to have split screen, but that would be fantastic. Any ideas?

 

[zerocool84]

As an xbox 360 owner, one of the best features is playing split-screen halo multiplayer with my gf's son. I'm pretty convinced to get a PS4 over an XB1 (for all the same reasons everyone else has) but I'm having trouble identifying games that would fill this need. What PS3/PS4 games allow you to play online with split screen?

The only one I've seen is Diablo 3 and sports games. We definitely like shooters best, though. Battlefield 4 seems unlikely to have split screen, but that would be fantastic. Any ideas?

I'm going to assume any FPS shooter that comes out is going to have multiplayer split screen but who knows and we won't know until it gets closer to launch.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Killzone has splitscreen co-op but no online that way.

 

[Anubis]

As an xbox 360 owner, one of the best features is playing split-screen halo multiplayer with my gf's son. I'm pretty convinced to get a PS4 over an XB1 (for all the same reasons everyone else has) but I'm having trouble identifying games that would fill this need. What PS3/PS4 games allow you to play online with split screen?

The only one I've seen is Diablo 3 and sports games. We definitely like shooters best, though. Battlefield 4 seems unlikely to have split screen, but that would be fantastic. Any ideas?

the modern warfare games should support that, they did on the PS3.

the only FPS i know of that does not do spit screen is BF3

 

[Silver Prime]

Any one know the complete line up?

 

[purbeast0]

complete line up for what?