Originally Posted by mushroomboy Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When you talk about how current gen consoles are slow to load games, then use processors like a Core 2 Duo as your example of "fast loading"..... That's all I gotta say on that. We are also talking about a completely different style of programming. Either way, way to compare a Core 2 Duo as being fast at loading to the Xenon and whatever the PS3 was. NO DUR it would be "instant" in comparison with ported games. Herp Derp, dur dur, my thumb bends is that news?
As for shaders, you lumped it in with textures and said more ram would help. Not really, since shaders don't use much ram. The biggest problem with shaders, was the complexity can't be close to what it is today (or even back then, pc hardware was already better upon release). Even if you had more ram, that doesn't mean the current gen consoles can handle the shaders that well.  I forgot to ad, the other problem with shaders is how many the current gen can handle. Current GPUs have what we call a shader clock. You know, that implies it has a unit to process shaders alone. Older tech had similar, they can only handle so many shaders. So you ran into another issue, how to handle those limitations and still get what you want. No amount of throwing ram at the console with that hardware helps this. Consoles will forever be bound by limitations all around, they will always be old and slower than what the "modern" pc can do. It's life.
Now to the Crysis 3 comment. That was to point out that you don't need that much ram. This isn't statically allocated memory buddy, we've moved on. It's called dynamically allocated memory. One of the things you can do with that is make it strict or not. Meaning, you can have a program allocate memory and not close it out if more is available. Until the program runs out of memory space. Some times that's hard coded in, as with Skyrim and it's ram crash bug (It had that? I think?). If not, I know GTA IV had a limit too. If you enable the switch to allocate more memory you ran into a memory leak or some glitch. Streets would go all funky and stuff, due to poor programming.
This dynamic ram thing is why you'll see games play for a whole level and really jump ram after loading a new level. Because it doesn't care to release that memory from the pool, as it doesn't have too. Then if you go back and re-load the game at that exact level it "jumped", the use won't be as high. Because you just started the game up and it hadn't allocated that previous level. (edit: Games tend to be better at this, you'll really notice it in poorly programmed applications/games more. Browsers come to mind, they are terrible at managing memory and tend to increase constantly)
Ugh, learn programming before you argue this crap. Seriously, or learn some of the basics. Games don't require so much ram, it just makes it easier to let them have that ram. Because then you don't have to wait for cleanup. One of the things the current gen consoles have to do every level, making loading even longer. Especially now that games have graphical menu bs. I hate that, it's a waste of time and resources because that has to be taken care of during the loading process. It wastes my time.
As for your rant on 5 years. This was my PC 5 years ago, no really it is. The only thing that happened, I went from 2GB ram to 8GB ram. When? Oh yeah, 6 months ago. That's right, I played Crysis 1, 2, Metro 2033, some amazing titles on 2GB ram sharing that with Win Vista. Meaning I had about 1.5GB system memory in pool for programs to use.
Wanna know what stopped me, and I know your rant wasn't quoted at me.but.... What stopped me wasn't playing games, I could play games fine on 2GB system memory today. I wanted to compile software, something that actually uses 8GB of ram at a time. That's the only thing I've found today that pushes memory boundaries. Compiling code. Games? Peh, if it doesn't have the memory it will re-allocate the ram so it does. Sure, loading times kinda increased. The biggest increase that I've ever seen today was going from an IDE hard drive 5 years back (when I built this rig) to going SATA. I haven't seen a change in loading times from going to 2GB to 8GB. With the exception of going from an 8800GT to a GTX460 bout 5 years ago. (edit2: I lied, I also got a HD7950 but that was like 3 months ago and really isn't much better than my GTX460 for the resolutions I run)
So I really thing your entire rants on this are crap. Your points aren't really that big considering a console is programmed drastically differently. And they can get away with it because they know exactly what they are programming.
 Last thing to consider. The PC "equals" of the video aspect of the current gen consoles were released with as much memory as the console itself. A 7800/7900 and X1900/X1950 XT was released with 512MB ram. The same amount as both consoles. This time this isn't the case. As well as the ram jump per console is still 16x more than last gen. Maffs? 8GB/512MB=16, or 8192/512=16, so it's still a huge ram boost from last gen. I think you said a 10x increase somewhere? Yeah, that math is a bit off.
I'm saying that between my Core 2 Duo and Core i5, I haven't noticed a difference in loading times...Just in game performance apart from heavily modded Minecraft which is highly inefficient and java based, both things I severely doubt we'll see in next gen console games, unless you also think a Core i5 at 4.5Ghz is slow? And even if it doesn't apply to Xenon and Cell, it will apply to both types of Jaguar APU...And a Core 2 Duo at 2.6Ghz isn't really much faster than the 360s CPU at least, they both were designed around the same time and the 360s has an extra core among other things.
No, I said shaders are commonly the limit alongside RAM...Are you even reading my posts or skimming them? First you missed that, now you've missed that I was also comparing my Core i5 to the 360 in terms of loading time. (And pointing out that my Core 2 Duo wasn't any slower in loading times than it)
The fact is, we're stuck at 720p/640p on the current generation consoles most of the time because there's not enough RAM to really go to 1080p without sacrificing gameplay and texture size and because the actual GPUs can't handle it, I'm not sure where you're getting that I said more RAM = better shaders...I've said more RAM = better graphics (From larger textures) along with better loading times, better gameplay due to less time being spent hammering the game down to fit in limited memory.
Consoles are always limited compared to PC by their nature, I've never denied that...But saying it's fine to limit them more? That's what I'm taking issue with, they can dynamically load in and nearly always do but you're still using today's games as an example...Remember when the PS3 and 360 came out? For the first few years apart from being in HD, the games actual graphics weren't much better than what was on the PS2 because typically games were ported to/from it still, then once games started taking advantage of the 360 and PS3s hardware the typical RAM usage of a game jumped from 300MB-600MB or so to being able to eat up 2GB if it's there virtually in a year...And once again, have you been reading my points? I've been saying most of the improvement from extra RAM comes from developers having to spend much less time getting the game to fit in the RAM of a console (One of the biggest limitations on consoles today) and you've just agreed with me, why are we even arguing then?
I have never said games require that much RAM, my argument this entire time has been that they will offer an improved experience from having more RAM
whether it be through better load times, or more time to work on important things due to not having to optimize as heavily in all areas, RAM capacity being one of the cheapest bottlenecks to overcome is where MS and Sony could easily put more resources and see an improved experience for gamers as a result. I went from 2GB to 4GB a few years back and noticed a difference, so I guess it depends on what games you play...and once again, todays games vs tomorrows games, do you really think that as physics and AI get better they won't use more memory? Let alone texture size increases alone...Remember, the PS4 at least has hUMA which is the big thing for HSA meaning CPU speed won't be as much of a limitation as people seem to think.
I was using the number provided in this thread, although if we want to get technical it's less on all fronts due to how much usable RAM there actually is. (iirc the 360 reserves 50MB or so for its OS) I'd have used those numbers if I could have found a reliable usable amount for the PS2.
Originally Posted by Durquavian
Granted I enjoy the banter between you 2, it is enlightening to a degree, I really wish you guys could use spoilers instead of the quote aka: copy/paste thing where we get to see the long winded responses again and again. Other than that keep up the good work.
Actually, the 360 does use straight SATA
Originally Posted by cdoublejj
Originally Posted by Brutuz
5400rpm for both as far as I can tell. (I'm not taking apart my 360s HDD to check this)
And yes, I know that...Yet the 360 still loads games vastly slower from the HDD than my PC.
well yeah talking about a 360 there are some differences in that case that should definitely be considered but ,either way thats apples to oranges since it doesn't straight employ sata like the PS3 and PS4. but, there here thread about the ps4.
. The slim consoles HDD literally are just a normal HDD in a case
, that's why people get so annoyed about Xbox 360 Hard Drive prices because for the price of a 320GB (Well, what it used to cost anyway) you could have bought a new 500GB HDD that would physically fit perfectly and the only thing stopping that from working was MS' code.
Originally Posted by Carniflex
But if both are smart they can do so much more with million dollar than with 512 dollars. And they are, that's the point, as dumb ones do not make it to the point to have access to these resources in the first place.
Exactly, more RAM only benefits us.