Topic: Ps3 Not As Much Available Memory As Xbox360? (Read 276 times)

throwingks · « **on:** October 07, 2006, 06:05:00 AM »

From maxconsole.net

QUOTE

Taken from Games Radar, from Edge magazine:

QUOTE

"Further to the Edge comments this month about how much better Call Of Duty 3 looks on 360 in comparison to the PS3 version, I noticed this in GamesTM this month On Rainbow Six Vegas.....

'' .....a chat with the Ubisoft development team shed a little light on he matter."All I'm able to say is that we're looking to ship on PS3 as well but we're not having specific content.....we're developing with 360 as our main development platform and porting to PS3 means that there's less memory available for us to use, but we're trying to minimise any drop in quality"..Such comments sugget that the gap in performance between Playstation3 and Xbox 360 is nowhere near as powerful as some would like us to believe and that the console may even be less able than Microsoft's..."

They also go on to say that only the 360 version will feature the face mapping technolgy and that their are no plans for PS3/PSP linkage or to use the sixaxis tilt technology."

As Sony stated many times, it isn't the power that makes the console. Wait that was last Gen. This Gen. it is the power. Wait.

...Just give us some good games.

Foe-hammer · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2006, 03:12:00 PM »

Good find.

Would you mind providing a direct link to the article, because i cannot find it.

Deftech · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2006, 03:31:00 PM »

Foe:

http://www.maxconsol...ws&newsid=10742

took some digging, Please post direct links from now on(per the Staffs rules I believe).

This is not news to most. With the unified architecture of the 360, it allows the devs to use it as needed depending on the game being developed at the time.

m_hael · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2006, 03:44:00 PM »

there is also the fact that both sony & MS take "some" of the 512MB totals for themselves. This is for use on things like the GUIDE, camera drivers, downloads etc...

what you guys don't know yet is how much each (Sony & MS) takes... and its not the same by a LONG LONG way.

Deftech · « **Reply #4 on:** October 07, 2006, 04:16:00 PM »

QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 7 2006, 05:51 PM)

there is also the fact that both sony & MS take "some" of the 512MB totals for themselves. This is for use on things like the GUIDE, camera drivers, downloads etc...

what you guys don't know yet is how much each (Sony & MS) takes... and its not the same by a LONG LONG way.

Surely you can give us a ballpark figure. How would such info be damaging if told publibly?

Ok, I know you cant say, Im just trying to make you tell us

I feel dirty now.

redwolf · « **Reply #5 on:** October 07, 2006, 04:43:00 PM »

QUOTE(Deftech @ Oct 7 2006, 11:23 PM)

Surely you can give us a ballpark figure. How would such info be damaging if told publibly?

Ok, I know you cant say, Im just trying to make you tell us

I feel dirty now.

not sure about xbox 360...but the PS3 would be few kilobytes...1 meg the max

anyways... i thought PS3 had 512mb (256x256). as long as games runs smooth with v-sync. they should manage the memory where ever. PS2 only had like 48mb (or was it 32mb) with no graphic processor.

Deftech · « **Reply #6 on:** October 07, 2006, 05:16:00 PM »

They can only manage what they are given, where as if a dev needs more than 256 for the graphics side of things, they can use it as needed with the 360. Being Given a choice is always better dont ya think?

ps2 has the emotion engine, it doesnt need any stinking gpu, its capable of launching iraqi missles for poops sake!

Mr Invader · « **Reply #7 on:** October 07, 2006, 05:35:00 PM »

QUOTE(m_hael @ Oct 7 2006, 04:51 PM)

there is also the fact that both sony & MS take "some" of the 512MB totals for themselves. This is for use on things like the GUIDE, camera drivers, downloads etc...

what you guys don't know yet is how much each (Sony & MS) takes... and its not the same by a LONG LONG way.

i would think that xbox 360 would be more efficient when it comes to features that take up memory (guide, camera drivers, downloads, etc.) just because of the fact that microsoft is more knowledge about software and has learned how to make more effiicient applications (such as the ones on windows XP) that take up less memory to run. thats the way i see it

throwingks · « **Reply #8 on:** October 07, 2006, 06:04:00 PM »

QUOTE(Deftech @ Oct 7 2006, 05:38 PM)

http://www.maxconsol...ws&newsid=10742

took some digging, Please post direct links from now on(per the Staffs rules I believe).

Yes that is the correct link. I apologize for not providing it earlier. I figured it was only a reference to another link anyway.

Info was from this thread:
http://www.beyond3d....ad.php?p=846648
post #84 (page #4 for me)

QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Oct 7 2006, 07:42 PM)

i would think that xbox 360 would be more efficient when it comes to features that take up memory (guide, camera drivers, downloads, etc.) just because of the fact that microsoft is more knowledge about software and has learned how to make more effiicient applications (such as the ones on windows XP) that take up less memory to run. thats the way i see it

Yeah XP isn't a hog.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #9 on:** October 07, 2006, 09:12:00 PM »

QUOTE(redwolf @ Oct 7 2006, 06:50 PM)

not sure about xbox 360...but the PS3 would be few kilobytes...1 meg the max

anyways... i thought PS3 had 512mb (256x256). as long as games runs smooth with v-sync. they should manage the memory where ever. PS2 only had like 48mb (or was it 32mb) with no graphic processor.

There was an article over on anantech (I think) a while back where they broke down the memory footprint and the processor % used on each of the cores by the 360 guide... I can't find it right now but it has been published and I remember being incredibly surprised when I saw how small it was.

I remember it because before the 360's release I was skeptical about the guide and the always on dashboard due to it potentially reducing performance ability, my worries were put to rest after reading that article.

I've never heard any comments about the PS3 dashboard's memory and processor footprint. If you know of one please let me know I'd be interested in reading up.

As for the RAM I'm curious if they're running out on the video side or on the general processing side. Considering it's shared on the 360 they might be running into limits because they need more of one then the other.

incognegro · « **Reply #10 on:** October 07, 2006, 10:29:00 PM »

yes twisted I read about that too.

M_chael, I also read earlier this year sony was talking to devs about the dash be on at all times simlar to the 360. I remember them mentioning that it would take a little more than 30mb of ram at all times to keep it running in the background. How accurate is this? I dont want any specific info, just an idea.

Deftech · « **Reply #11 on:** October 07, 2006, 10:34:00 PM »

Make fun of XP all ya want, the point stands that it requires far less than other OS's theyve released, and when it comes to software apps, MS has the upper hand on Sony when it comes to knowledge and efficiency(even if they do have a ways to go to make one that runs up to everyones standards).

throwingks · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2006, 05:29:00 AM »

Which OS in particular are you referring to?

Win XP Pro
http://www.microsoft...ng/sysreqs.mspx
233mhz | 300mhz recommended
64mb | 128 recommended
1.5Gb

Win Server 2003
http://www.microsoft...qs/default.mspx
133mhz | 550 recommended
128 | 256 recommended
1.25 - 2Gb

Windows 2000
http://www.microsoft...uation/sysreqs/
133mhz
64mb
2Gb

Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.or...hap=2#doc_chap1
i486 | i686 recommended
64mb for i486 install | 128 for 1686 install
1.5Gb

Mac OS X
http://www.apple.com...quirements.html
PowerPC G3 | G5 recommended
256mb
3.0Gb | 4.0Gb recommended

Windows Vista
http://www.microsoft...e/vistarpc.mspx
800mhz 32-bit | 1Ghz 64-bit recommended
512mb | 1Gb recommended with a 128mb video card
40Gb

Microsoft is not known for their efficiency. They are known for their marketing and ease of use. Ease of use does not equate low system requirements. If anything, WinXP is known as bloatware. In fact a lot of overclockers prefer Win 2000 because it performs better than WinXP. Don't get me wrong. I prefer WinXP to anything else. I have it on all of my computers except 2 that still run Win98SE and a very old laptop that run Win3.11. It is my OS of choice. But, it takes up more resources than it should. On fresh installs I spend a day disabling everything like indexing, theming, and so on. At it's core it does run very efficient though.

twistedsymphony · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2006, 07:38:00 AM »

QUOTE(throwingks @ Oct 7 2006, 08:11 PM)

Yeah XP isn't a hog.

Reguardless of their system recomendations... Checking how much RAM XP is using on my laptop right now it's only about 18MB

Those recomendations leave room for you to run the OS AND whatever apps you'd launch from that OS... it doesn't mean it will take up all of it.

throwingks · « **Reply #14 on:** October 08, 2006, 07:55:00 AM »

Right now my explorer.exe is taking up 36,884K and all my svchost.exe are over 35,000K. That is 70Mb right there. I know more files are needed than just that.

In their defence, right now Firefox alone is over 100Mb

Edit: Explorer after a reboot was at 25Mb. And, Firefox was at 41Mb.

Did I just threadcrap my own thread? I wonder why the Xbox360 isnt labelled based on WinCE like the Dreamcast was?

Author Topic: Ps3 Not As Much Available Memory As Xbox360? (Read 276 times)