The Sony PS3 thread (apparently *still* obnoxious!)

benedictw · Post by **benedictw** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:23 am 0

PS3 has a fixed memory partition - 256Mb for progs and 256Mb for graphics. 360 has a program set partition - you want 300Mb for your prog? Thats fine.

Tuur · Post by **Tuur** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:32 am 0

Yup. And to be honest Denis says there's probably more power in the PS3...

By the way, it'll probably mean more MB's for graphics.

teamonkey · Post by **teamonkey** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:44 am 0

benedictw wrote:PS3 has a fixed memory partition - 256Mb for progs and 256Mb for graphics. 360 has a program set partition - you want 300Mb for your prog? Thats fine.

That's not quite the same as "half the RAM" though. You could say that the PS3 has infinitely more VRAM than the 360.

The 360 is quite a balanced beast, whereas the PS3 is very CPU heavy over its other components.

mightyzim · Post by **mightyzim** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:47 am 0

Anders wrote:Sony is the Empire, Ken Kutaragi is the Emperor, Phil Harrison is Darth Vader, and the PS3 is the Death Star in portable form. It will destroy worlds.

Nintendo are the Rebels, zooming around space in their old held-together-with-spit-and-gum hardware, feeling smug about themselves.

That leaves Microsoft, but I'm out of ideas here. The Jar-Jars of the gaming universe?

Bothan spies?

Post by **Snakey** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:55 am 0

teamonkey wrote:That's not quite the same as "half the RAM" though.

Yes it is.

Do you add the amount of VRAM on your Video card when someone asks how much RAM your PC has got?

Munky · Post by **Munky** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:02 pm 0

mightyzim wrote:
Anders wrote:Sony is the Empire, Ken Kutaragi is the Emperor, Phil Harrison is Darth Vader, and the PS3 is the Death Star in portable form. It will destroy worlds.

Nintendo are the Rebels, zooming around space in their old held-together-with-spit-and-gum hardware, feeling smug about themselves.

That leaves Microsoft, but I'm out of ideas here. The Jar-Jars of the gaming universe?
Bothan spies?

Jawas?

Scavenging bits of other people's technology and selling it as their own.

And buying an XBox 360 is a bit like buying a red R2 unit.

teamonkey · Post by **teamonkey** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:44 pm 0

Snakey wrote:Do you add the amount of VRAM on your Video card when someone asks how much RAM your PC has got?

No, 'cos the PC is a completely different animal. Any serious gamer wouldn't consider having a graphics card that shares system RAM, for example, but the 360 has a different architecture. On the PS3 the CPU and the GPU both have access to system RAM and VRAM - it's not the same as on a PC video card. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's just a logical divide, but it's not the same situation as having a 256MB PC with a 256MB graphics card, not by a long shot.

zip accident · Post by **zip accident** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:50 pm 0

teamonkey wrote:

VRAM

You mean the actual old style double bussed stuff that could be written to from one bus while it was being read on the other?

Kemper_Boyd · Post by **Kemper_Boyd** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:01 pm 0

Snakey wrote:No, you broke it. All PS3 games will run at 120Hz, all the time. It's the most powerful machine on the planet.

In 2008 a Cell based system will be the most powerful machine on the planet.

teamonkey · Post by **teamonkey** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:02 pm 0

zip accident wrote:You mean the actual old style double bussed stuff that could be written to from one bus while it was being read on the other?

No, as a generic term for dedicated memory on the video card.

aureole · Post by **aureole** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:03 pm 0

Just played a few demos in Yodabashi store in Toyko. Had Devil May Cry and Gran Turismo demos on it. Colour me sadly underimpressed. Admittedly both games I played are types that just don't do much for me. Saying that, there wasn't a sniff of difference between these games and the equivalents on the X360. Some nice stuff going on, but on this evidence they'll be graphically very close. I'm really keen to see some games I want to play on it - my impression was that it might be a bit more robust in terms of framerate and a bit more fluid.

Controller is as light as the old PS1 controllers used to be - odd, but not a problem.

MDY · Post by **MDY** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:08 pm 0

teamonkey wrote:
benedictw wrote:PS3 has a fixed memory partition - 256Mb for progs and 256Mb for graphics. 360 has a program set partition - you want 300Mb for your prog? Thats fine.
That's not quite the same as "half the RAM" though. You could say that the PS3 has infinitely more VRAM than the 360.

The 360 is quite a balanced beast, whereas the PS3 is very CPU heavy over its other components.

I think he was also referring to the fact that the PS3's OS also takes up a ~significantly~ bigger chunk of available memory than the 360's does.

A few articles a couple of months back said it was taking up:

- 64mb of the 256mb of available XDR memory off the Cell CPU
- 32mb of the 256mb of available GDDR3 memory off the RSX chip
- 1 SPE of 7 constantly reserved for the OS
- 1 SPE of 7 able to be "taken" by the OS at a moments notice (games have to give it up if requested)

So effectively it has 192 and 224mb available.
I don't know if this is (or was) accurate however.
But several developers have mentioned the 360 has more RAM available as IIRC the 360 OS overhead is only either 8 or 16mb total and as mentioned before, you can allocate the rest of the (500-ish mb) RAM as you wish.

Kronos · Post by **Kronos** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:24 pm 0

teamonkey wrote:
Snakey wrote:Do you add the amount of VRAM on your Video card when someone asks how much RAM your PC has got?
No, 'cos the PC is a completely different animal. Any serious gamer wouldn't consider having a graphics card that shares system RAM, for example, but the 360 has a different architecture. On the PS3 the CPU and the GPU both have access to system RAM and VRAM - it's not the same as on a PC video card. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's just a logical divide, but it's not the same situation as having a 256MB PC with a 256MB graphics card, not by a long shot.

So is it like chip ram/fast ram divide on the old amigas then?

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:34 pm 0

When I first read about the PS3, I was certain it would be a big success. But now, with the DS more or less bending the PSP over a chair, the UMD format being a flop and HD-DVD seemingly being the superior format, more and more chinks are showing in their armour and the PS3 is no longer the certain success it seemed to be a few years ago.

Sony should really heed these warning signs.

Kronos · Post by **Kronos** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:00 pm 0

Nintendo has, and for the forseable future will have IMO, the lions share of the handheld market though. I didn't really expect the PSP to outsell the DS because of the name badge on both consoles. Years of selling Gameboys has given them a certain kudos IMHO. More suitable games helped them too (although I only want one for Nintendogs really and see what happens)

Nintendo=Built a machine to run the next level of handheld games they wanted.

Sony=Shrunk a PS2 into a handheld and hoped for fun games to appear.

Do you see?

YakYak

The Sony PS3 thread (apparently still obnoxious!)