XboX 3 !

[RaidrX]

We know the PS4 is scheduled for 2016. X360 will not go 13 years. There will be a 3rd XboX before the PS4 comes about. I also mentioned the 4th XboX will be better than the PS4. But forget that ... I said PS4 will be better than XboX3 right ?

Wait wait wait wait wait... we "know" this? Who is "we" and how do they "know" this? I've never heard anything about a PS4 yet. Not to mention thats 8 fucking years off. If anything too, that will get pushed back. So if M$ keeps up on the schedule they are rolling with now, the xbox3 will be out, and coming up to its decline when the PS4 is getting released, not to mention the Xbox4 will also be very close to launch. That is if we assume M$ keeps up with the roughly 5 year console cycle. And since youre so into speculating you should be fine with that. And in that case there is absolutely no point in comparing the PS4 with the Xbox 3 because they technically wouldn't be the same generation and since its so fucking obvious that next gen consoles will be better than the last, then the ps4 will obviously be better. And what we should really be talking about is how the PS4 compares to the XB4 since this is a discussion about superior hardware, so comparing a newer system to and older one just really wouldn't make much sense.

However, I highly doubt sony will put there console off 8 years if the xbox 3 comes out in 2010 or 2011 (again speculating w/ the ~5 year cycle). Unless there is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed power in the PS3, i doubt it will last another 8 years and be able to compete with the xbox3. And since the xbox3 will be the "next gen" of consoles, it will blow the PS3 out of the water since next gen = better. And you can't argue that because we have no idea what the specs of the xbox3 will be, and since we established next gen=better it should be a no brainer that xbox3>ps3. Also i highly doubt sony will let M$ run wild for 5-6 years (2010-2016 when we apparently know the ps4 will be launched) effectively giving M$ a monopoly on the gaming industry w/ its superior hardware. And then after that five years sony will be left having to compete heavily with the xbox 4 when it has its simultaneous release with the PS4 (along with the obvious launch titles of Halo 7: Chief reborn and Gears of War: Dom Chronicles exclusive to the xbox). And since, as you put it:

I also mentioned the 4th XboX will be better than the PS4.

M$ will effectively put Sony out of business after having the 5 year monopoly and then having the superior console, leading them to dominate the industry (because by then, people should be tired of mario and link), and you will be left to shed tears in the corner about how your PS3 had better ram than the 360 and how it never should have turned out like this.

Again though, this is all speculation since we really have no idea what could happen 3, 5, 8 years down the line.

 

[CmdrFly]

Xbox360 - 512MB GDDR3 RAM @700Mhz (Over all bandwidth 22GB)

PS3 - 256MB XDR RAM @3.2 GHz (Over all bandwidth 50GB)

The PS3 has more than double the memory than Xbox360.

This is completely contradictory. You are saying 256 > 512. Memory bandwidth, sure the PS3 has over double. Memory, in and of itself - no. It's these miniscule errors that transform your discussions into these pissing contests where each post takes 10 seconds of scrolling to skip.

Your thinking of terms of Static RAM. Like DDR, XDR is Dynamic and non static, faster has a lot to do with it.

Dynamic, static, XDR, take your pick - none of these will be able to store a 512mb texture in 256mb of physical RAM. If the controller so decides to break that texture into two 256mb chunks, then so be it - it's still not fitting a 512mb file in 256mb, it's adding overhead for deconstruction and reconstruction to emulate 512mb of RAM. Square box, circle hole. I'm not sure if 256mb or larger textures/models exist today but the principle remains.

Dynamic RAM is an active passage between the RAM chip and the Processor.

This I just can't comprehend. DRAM differs from SRAM in the method it retains data, plain and simple. Both DRAM and SRAM have direct "active" pipes to the CPU; this has been a fundamental architecture design for several generations.

 

[Anttaru]

Wait wait wait wait wait... we "know" this? Who is "we" and how do they "know" this?

When the PS3 was released in late 2006, Sony stated how it'll be in service for 10 years before the next console is released.

I've never heard anything about a PS4 yet. Not to mention thats 8 fucking years off. If anything too, that will get pushed back. So if M$ keeps up on the schedule they are rolling with now, the xbox3 will be out, and coming up to its decline when the PS4 is getting released, not to mention the Xbox4 will also be very close to launch.

It's unlikely Microsoft will release 2 systems within the 8 years. X360 is still getting stronger, but unlikely to go 13 years straight.

That is if we assume M$ keeps up with the roughly 5 year console cycle. And since youre so into speculating you should be fine with that. And in that case there is absolutely no point in comparing the PS4 with the Xbox 3 because they technically wouldn't be the same generation and since its so fucking obvious that next gen consoles will be better than the last, then the ps4 will obviously be better.

I never compared either of the yet to be made systems. I already mentioned they will be offset in release dates, and i mentioned the Xbox3 will be released before the PS4. Why repeat what i said ?

And what we should really be talking about is how the PS4 compares to the XB4 since this is a discussion about superior hardware, so comparing a newer system to and older one just really wouldn't make much sense.

I already stated the X4 will be more advanced than the PS4. Xbox3 is more predictable than PS4 and XboX4, but if you want go ahead and take a stab at it, as opposed to blaming me for not making it an absolute highlight, what can i say ? Make an XboX4 thread and see how believable it'll be.

However, I highly doubt sony will put there console off 8 years if the xbox 3 comes out in 2010 or 2011 (again speculating w/ the ~5 year cycle).

PS3 has 8 more years to go according to what Sony said about it's 10 year lifespan. When Xbox3 is released is unknown at this point, but again. It's unlikely to be released after the PS4. As i said before, and as your saying now.

Unless there is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed power in the PS3, i doubt it will last another 8 years and be able to compete with the xbox3.

There is a ridiculous amount of unharnessed power in the PS3. By the end of it's lifespan we'll see greater titles than we're looking forward to now. Xbox3 will be more advanced as i stated in the OP, and I'm forced to repeat over and over again.

And since the xbox3 will be the "next gen" of consoles, it will blow the PS3 out of the water since next gen = better.

Technologically yes. As it's always been historically.

And you can't argue that because we have no idea what the specs of the xbox3 will be, and since we established next gen=better it should be a no brainer that xbox3>ps3. Also i highly doubt sony will let M$ run wild for 5-6 years (2010-2016 when we apparently know the ps4 will be launched) effectively giving M$ a monopoly on the gaming industry w/ its superior hardware.

It's a known fact that superior hardware doesn't mean it'll dominate in sales and population. We've already known this long before the days of the Wii.

When i said the Xbox 3 will be going against the PS3, that is in terms of what it has to face when it's released. The PS3 will be more established, developers will be able to develop games that run off of PS3 a lot easier by then as well. Being more PS3's throughout the population, developers will also find releasing games on the PS3 to be more profitable. Like the PS3, the XboX3 will have a rocky start. I also stated upon it's success, the XboX3 will either cripple the PS4's launch, or cripple it permanently.

And then after that five years sony will be left having to compete heavily with the xbox 4 when it has its simultaneous release with the PS4 (along with the obvious launch titles of Halo 7: Chief reborn and Gears of War: Dom Chronicles exclusive to the xbox). And since, as you put it:

Check this out.

Mindy Mount, the awesomely named chief financial officer for Microsoft's entertainment division, is certainly very keen for the Xbox 360 to have a longer lifespan than its predecessor, which, as you may remember, Microsoft dropped like a steaming hot potato immediately after the Xbox 360 launch in late 2005.

PlayStation 2 meanwhile continues to sell, with a new model on the way in 2008 – the console’s eighth year on the market.

Mindy Mount pays a rare homage to Sony this week, telling a BMO Capital Markets conference on interactive entertainment:

"Look at the PS2; they've gone long-time and seem to have pretty good legs on what they are doing…If we were able to do that, as a CFO I think that's great, because every year you draw it out you increase profitability."

Because of what goes into these consoles and what comes out of it. It's bound to have a longer life span.

M$ will effectively put Sony out of business after having the 5 year monopoly and then having the superior console, leading them to dominate the industry (because by then, people should be tired of mario and link), and you will be left to shed tears in the corner about how your PS3 had better ram than the 360 and how it never should have turned out like this.

What 5 year Monopoly ? 2010 - 2014 ?

When it comes to business, Sony is ahead of Microsoft in the console market. Sony has more over all game sales. Only including the PS3 isn't too sharp, considering Sony's success with Playstation brand and past and present game sales. Microsoft can't put Sony out of business so easily. In a business sense, Microsoft isn't even close to surpassing Sony in the video game industry.

Again though, this is all speculation since we really have no idea what could happen 3, 5, 8 years down the line.

But Raidr. We do have clues. We have several clues. Read what the officials are saying, and look at what happened in recent and long term history. The video game industry is an excellent representation of how history unfolds.

Most of what you just wrote to me is the same thing i wrote. The Xbox3 will be released before the PS4 and it will be more powerful.

The 5 year lifespan for horsepower gaming consoles is non existent. XboX360 has yet to reach it's prime, and there will be more years of gaming for the X360 consumer than you think.

 

[RaidrX]

Point of my post went RIGHT over your head...

 

[Anttaru]

This is completely contradictory. You are saying 256 > 512. Memory bandwidth, sure the PS3 has over double. Memory, in and of itself - no. It's these miniscule errors that transform your discussions into these pissing contests where each post takes 10 seconds of scrolling to skip.

Here's what RAMBUS says...

The Cell BE employs an architectural strategy of extremely high-bandwidth access to main memory in lieu of large on-chip memory cache. The XDR memory controller interface (XIO) on the Cell BE is 72 bits-wide and is capable of operating at 3.2Ghz data rates providing 25.6 GB/s of total memory bandwidth. Four 512Mb XDR DRAM devices provide for 256MB of high-performance main memory for the Cell BE.

Dynamic, static, XDR, take your pick - none of these will be able to store a 512mb texture in 256mb of physical RAM. If the controller so decides to break that texture into two 256mb chunks, then so be it - it's still not fitting a 512mb file in 256mb, it's adding overhead for deconstruction and reconstruction to emulate 512mb of RAM. Square box, circle hole. I'm not sure if 256mb or larger textures/models exist today but the principle remains.

It's Dynamic. A single 512MB texture ? No such thing has ever been implemented in gaming ever ! That alone will cause the system to crash. Combines all the textures can be of that magnitude and beyond, but it'll never be displayed at the same time. As for the principle itself. It's for computers that are many years into the future, and that's if there is ever a requirement for textures to be that large. Granted it's possible to make a targa file that large. If i were to include a texture that large, I'm sure i'd have to implement one of the same scaling but dithered, then when i'm going to complete the rendering, i'd apply the 512MB without making it visible for hardware to prevent issues, shut down the 3D software, then render it out using the command prompt.

This I just can't comprehend. DRAM differs from SRAM in the method it retains data, plain and simple. Both DRAM and SRAM have direct "active" pipes to the CPU; this has been a fundamental architecture design for several generations.

I already said XDR is the new stuff. If you want to see it with an explanation check this out, it's very different than traditional solutions.

http://www.rambus.com/us/products/xdr_xdr2/pres/

 

[Anttaru]

Point of my post went RIGHT over your head...

You're a good guy Raidr. But be more literal.

 

[Tagrineth]

OK, Anttaru, you've just lost this one. Sorry.

Dynamic RAM vs. Static RAM: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question452.htm

Your computer probably uses both static RAM and dynamic RAM at the same time, but it uses them for different reasons because of the cost difference between the two types. If you understand how dynamic RAM and static RAM chips work inside, it is easy to see why the cost difference is there, and you can also understand the names.

Dynamic RAM is the most common type of memory in use today. Inside a dynamic RAM chip, each memory cell holds one bit of information and is made up of two parts: a transistor and a capacitor. These are, of course, extremely small transistors and capacitors so that millions of them can fit on a single memory chip. The capacitor holds the bit of information -- a 0 or a 1 (see How Bits and Bytes Work for information on bits). The transistor acts as a switch that lets the control circuitry on the memory chip read the capacitor or change its state.

A capacitor is like a small bucket that is able to store electrons. To store a 1 in the memory cell, the bucket is filled with electrons. To store a 0, it is emptied. The problem with the capacitor's bucket is that it has a leak. In a matter of a few milliseconds a full bucket becomes empty. Therefore, for dynamic memory to work, either the CPU or the memory controller has to come along and recharge all of the capacitors holding a 1 before they discharge. To do this, the memory controller reads the memory and then writes it right back. This refresh operation happens automatically thousands of times per second.

This refresh operation is where dynamic RAM gets its name. Dynamic RAM has to be dynamically refreshed all of the time or it forgets what it is holding. The downside of all of this refreshing is that it takes time and slows down the memory.

Static RAM uses a completely different technology. In static RAM, a form of flip-flop holds each bit of memory (see How Boolean Gates Work for detail on flip-flops). A flip-flop for a memory cell takes 4 or 6 transistors along with some wiring, but never has to be refreshed. This makes static RAM significantly faster than dynamic RAM. However, because it has more parts, a static memory cell takes a lot more space on a chip than a dynamic memory cell. Therefore you get less memory per chip, and that makes static RAM a lot more expensive.

So static RAM is fast and expensive, and dynamic RAM is less expensive and slower. Therefore static RAM is used to create the CPU's speed-sensitive cache, while dynamic RAM forms the larger system RAM space.

HELLO ANTTARU, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SPEAK OF MEMORY.

Static RAM vs. Dynamic RAM doesn't mean that static ram sits there doing nothing. it just refers to how the data is stored, and EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, static RAM is faster and better than dynamic RAM, the problem being that static RAM is massive and very expensive.


also

The Cell BE employs an architectural strategy of extremely high-bandwidth access to main memory in lieu of large on-chip memory cache. The XDR memory controller interface (XIO) on the Cell BE is 72 bits-wide and is capable of operating at 3.2Ghz data rates providing 25.6 GB/s of total memory bandwidth. Four 512Mb XDR DRAM devices provide for 256MB of high-performance main memory for the Cell BE.

What the fuck does this say about capacity? It's 256MB. "Four 512Mb" <- notice the lower case b? That's 512 megaBITs, which comes out to 64MB (megaBYTEs - there are 8 bits in 1 byte).

Four 512 megabit (64 megabyte) devices means a total memory pool of... 2048 megabits... or 256 megabytes of data.

In other words, YES, 360 has MORE physical memory available, period. It is also, by your own admission,

Generally speaking though, for GAMES, the 360's larger unified memory pool with faster random access will be better. On average.

That's true. But it doesn't have fast Random access in comparison. XDR is also non embedded. If X360's DDR was faster, you'll experience more latency.

Of course, you don't understand the whole latency problem either way because XDR is higher latency becuase of Rambus's technology and the way the memory is designed and accessed, not simply because it's faster. For reference, Rambus memory is all serial in nature - there may be multiple channels for the XDR, one for each chip, but a single Rambus memory controller is a serial path, whereas SDRAM is very parallel in nature. THAT is what causes high latency in a Rambus architecture.

Which is also why I keep referring back to Rambus. But of course you didn't know any of that.



Anyway tl;dr anttaru you're a fuckin idiot and again have argued out of your ass with absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand, and I've just proved you conclusively wrong. Give it the fuck up for once. Even someone who doesn't care about the consoles involved (cmdrfly) noted your enormous error in technical understanding.

I'm done with you for now. At least until you start spewing even worse bullshit at some point in the future, my point is made and for this one, you've lost. That simple.

 

[Bajaratt]

Mindy Mount pays a rare homage to Sony this week, telling a BMO Capital Markets conference on interactive entertainment:

"Look at the PS2; they've gone long-time and seem to have pretty good legs on what they are doing…If we were able to do that, as a CFO I think that's great, because every year you draw it out you increase profitability."[/b]

Because of what goes into these consoles and what comes out of it. It's bound to have a longer life span.

That's a great spin for their competitor; although another perspective on it is that the reason the PS2 is still going strong is the lack of a need to actually make the upgrade to the PS3. PS2 support probably would have been cut just as fast as the Xbox and the Gamecube if the PS3 was actually widely adopted right after it's launch. It was sold out at launch because it was new, and then it just collected dust on store shelves because there was only one game worth playing for a long time.

 

[CmdrFly]

Here's what RAMBUS says...

[cut the hooplah out]

Four 512Mb XDR DRAM devices provide for 256MB of high-performance main memory for the Cell BE.

That doesn't answer anything. 256 is not greater than 512, and 4x512 does not equal 256. The PS3 has 256mb of CPU RAM which is less than Xbox's 512; that's all I argued and I see no correlation between that and your reply.

It's Dynamic. A single 512MB texture ? No such thing has ever been implemented in gaming ever ! That alone will cause the system to crash. Combines all the textures can be of that magnitude and beyond, but it'll never be displayed at the same time. As for the principle itself. It's for computers that are many years into the future, and that's if there is ever a requirement for textures to be that large.

Again, the principle remains. A 512 square will not fit in a 256 circle. Feasible or not, pre-existing or not: the. principle. remains. I used a 512mb texture as an example; replace "texture" with any applicable word and TPFR.

I already said XDR is the new stuff. If you want to see it with an explanation check this out, it's very different than traditional solutions.

XDR wasn't the topic.

Dynamic RAM is an active passage between the RAM chip and the Processor.

You were comparing SRAM and DRAM as if they were apples and oranges, instead of granny smiths to fujis.

Is English your first language? Last time we butted heads, I just gave up because of your side-stepping evasions and inability to answer directly. A language barrier would explain much.

 

[Anttaru]

That doesn't answer anything. 256 is not greater than 512, and 4x512 does not equal 256. The PS3 has 256mb of CPU RAM which is less than Xbox's 512; that's all I argued and I see no correlation between that and your reply.

Never said 256MB RAM was greater than 512MB, what I've been saying is faster is better for gaming.

In terms of memory between the X360 and the PS3. Lets take a look.

Xbox360 - 512MB GDDR3 @700Mhz (shared)
Shared between the GPU and the CPU. The X360's hardware will never have it's own RAM. It's bound to sharing it. The 512MB GDDR3 is divided as needed between Xenon and the Xenos in the X360. Lets not forget some of that shared RAM is running the dashboard in the background, with the option to listen to music while playing games. Sure developers can distribute the RAM as they wish, but not all of it as some of it is dedicated to the dashboard, and it's reserves that allow X360 to run other apps while playing games.

PS3 - 256MB XDR RAM @3.2 Ghz Main (Seriously. Memory at 3.2 Ghz. Who does that and gets away with it ?)
-256MB GDDR3 VRAM (Shared)

SPE's can donate RAM to one another or to RSX. 256MB MB for the Cell is overkill might i add. RSX can receive more RAM upon request from the Cell. At max, the PS3 has more memory than XboX360, it's high Bandwidth XDR is what makes it happen nice and quick.

Again, the principle remains. A 512 square will not fit in a 256 circle. Feasible or not, pre-existing or not: the. principle. remains. I used a 512mb texture as an example; replace "texture" with any applicable word and TPFR.

Just say file. It's funny you're even trying to tell me this. It's like you can't hear what i'm saying.
Due to architectural differences. I still say PS3's has better memory. It's a matter of speed because we're looking at graphics. Dedicated RAM rules in gaming, and more can be done on the PS3.

XDR wasn't the topic.

No the topic was in regards to memory between PS3 and XboX360

You were comparing SRAM and DRAM as if they were apples and oranges, instead of granny smiths to fujis.

No

Is English your first language? Last time we butted heads, I just gave up because of your side-stepping evasions and inability to answer directly. A language barrier would explain much.

Untrue. As you now say we butted head, then you referred to it as friendly debate. You also stated this type of friendly debate is rare in QCDN.

The entire ordeal was me responding to you're questions and eventually we ended up talking about things we already know. Then it turned into more questions and any conversation i threw into the mix, was instantly ridiculed and questioned by you.

Without mentioning any names, I've been approached and asked, how do i tolerate such treatment. Being questioned, ignored then ridiculed, meanwhile we're overlooking basic computer hardware.

As far as Language barrier goes, when i mentioned Dual Mother boards, you played dumb and said they don't exist, but Dual socket mother boards do. Same difference.

The nature of you was very unfriendly, and it was I who became tired and gave up on you.

If you can't recognize what I'm saying, then you can go see for yourself. Saying you got tired and gave up, is a cheap excuse. How it ended is very clear.

http://www.qcdn.org/ffxi/showthread.php?t=37517&highlight

 

[Tagrineth]

Hello anttaru, you skipped my post that proved you conclusively clueless! Uh oh! I think it's a passive admission that he's an idiot.

edit: Fly, don't even bother. He has no clue what he's talking about and he's Anttard so he won't listen either way.

 

[Anttaru]

That's a great spin for their competitor; although another perspective on it is that the reason the PS2 is still going strong is the lack of a need to actually make the upgrade to the PS3.

There was a lack of need to upgrade back then, but it's a good thing they did at the same time.

PS2 support probably would have been cut just as fast as the Xbox and the Gamecube if the PS3 was actually widely adopted right after it's launch. It was sold out at launch because it was new, and then it just collected dust on store shelves because there was only one game worth playing for a long time.

Yeah i got a launch PS2 and i remember bringing back Orphan cause i found it to be boring. I got Armored Core instead. I've heard they are releasing the PSP Ratchet & Clank for the PS2 very soon.

I think it would still be kicking even in that case, PS2 was quite the goldmine, to just give up on it would be like sacrificing a fair amount of money. 120,000,000 units. Still they sell and i remember hearing how they are making a 2008 model PS2. How many people actually play PS2 now is not really talked about, I'm sure people that still use their PS2 is up in the millions though.

 

[Anttaru]

Very hasty Tagrineth, I'm working my way upward in this thread. I wanted to eat bath too.

OK, Anttaru, you've just lost this one. Sorry.

Your computer probably uses both static RAM and dynamic RAM at the same time, but it uses them for different reasons because of the cost difference between the two types. If you understand how dynamic RAM and static RAM chips work inside, it is easy to see why the cost difference is there, and you can also understand the names.

Dynamic RAM is the most common type of memory in use today. Inside a dynamic RAM chip, each memory cell holds one bit of information and is made up of two parts: a transistor and a capacitor. These are, of course, extremely small transistors and capacitors so that millions of them can fit on a single memory chip. The capacitor holds the bit of information -- a 0 or a 1 (see How Bits and Bytes Work for information on bits). The transistor acts as a switch that lets the control circuitry on the memory chip read the capacitor or change its state.

A capacitor is like a small bucket that is able to store electrons. To store a 1 in the memory cell, the bucket is filled with electrons. To store a 0, it is emptied. The problem with the capacitor's bucket is that it has a leak. In a matter of a few milliseconds a full bucket becomes empty. Therefore, for dynamic memory to work, either the CPU or the memory controller has to come along and recharge all of the capacitors holding a 1 before they discharge. To do this, the memory controller reads the memory and then writes it right back. This refresh operation happens automatically thousands of times per second.

This refresh operation is where dynamic RAM gets its name. Dynamic RAM has to be dynamically refreshed all of the time or it forgets what it is holding. The downside of all of this refreshing is that it takes time and slows down the memory.

Static RAM uses a completely different technology. In static RAM, a form of flip-flop holds each bit of memory (see How Boolean Gates Work for detail on flip-flops). A flip-flop for a memory cell takes 4 or 6 transistors along with some wiring, but never has to be refreshed. This makes static RAM significantly faster than dynamic RAM. However, because it has more parts, a static memory cell takes a lot more space on a chip than a dynamic memory cell. Therefore you get less memory per chip, and that makes static RAM a lot more expensive.

So static RAM is fast and expensive, and dynamic RAM is less expensive and slower. Therefore static RAM is used to create the CPU's speed-sensitive cache, while dynamic RAM forms the larger system RAM spac

HELLO ANTTARU, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SPEAK OF MEMORY.

Static RAM vs. Dynamic RAM doesn't mean that static ram sits there doing nothing. it just refers to how the data is stored, and EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, static RAM is faster and better than dynamic RAM, the problem being that static RAM is massive and very expensive.

I highlighted the "However". The part you failed to highlight.

Like i said Static RAM is is not good for gaming. Games have things to do, having massive and expensive files taking more and MORE memory would mean more attributes that makes the game will need to be crunched down. Which is undesirable. Dynamic is better for gaming more can be done and it is more efficient. Never said anything about it being faster.

What the fuck does this say about capacity? It's 256MB. "Four 512Mb" <- notice the lower case b? That's 512 megaBITs, which comes out to 64MB (megaBYTEs - there are 8 bits in 1 byte).

Notice i never said 4 512Mb RAM chips add anything more to it's 256MB performance coming out of the XDR. Of coarse not. Your just too excited to teach me something, I can hear you puffing away like a mad man like you usually do.

Four 512 megabit (64 megabyte) devices means a total memory pool of... 2048 megabits... or 256 megabytes of data.

That's what I've been saying the XDR in the PS3 is putting out. So calm down bitch.

In other words, YES, 360 has MORE physical memory available, period. It is also, by your own admission,[/quot]

It's slower and it's shared. Again nothing compared to a more dedicated set up for gaming.

Of course, you don't understand the whole latency problem either way because XDR is higher latency becuase of Rambus's technology and the way the memory is designed and accessed, not simply because it's faster. For reference, Rambus memory is all serial in nature - there may be multiple channels for the XDR, one for each chip, but a single Rambus memory controller is a serial path, whereas SDRAM is very parallel in nature. THAT is what causes high latency in a Rambus architecture.

You're full of shit. You need to learn about Micro threading, which IS part of the XDR architecture. It efficiently utilizes the same power except it takes data for 4 separate channels. It's said to be 4X faster than traditional DRAM.

You should also know the faster the RAM the more latency. SDRAM would choke a lot more than XDR at 3.2 Ghz

Which is also why I keep referring back to Rambus. But of course you didn't know any of that.

You keep referring to RAMBUS cause you're the type plays the blame game. You include the worse with the best, assuming all their products have no solution to their predecessors. XDR outperforms all other RAM up to date, but you're too busy dwelling on RAMBUS's products of the past that suffered from bad latency. So you say RAMBUS and not what item.

Anyway tl;dr anttaru you're a fuckin idiot and again have argued out of your ass with absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand, and I've just proved you conclusively wrong.

No. You made up shit. show me where is said Static RAM is slower. You can't. I said Dynamic RAM is better for gaming, and if you learn, you'll know it's true. So Tl;dr Tagrineth, it seems like you're wishes to beat me has lead you to putting words in my other yet again.

Give it the fuck up for once. Even someone who doesn't care about the consoles involved (cmdrfly) noted your enormous error in technical understanding.

Cmdrfly thinks I'm trying to fit an elephants cock in a chipmunks ass. Like you he doesn't note that I'm speaking in terms of memory speed plus the unshared nature of this XDR set up. I focus on the XDR cause the 256MB performance is very much in reserve for the rest of the system.

There is no error in saying the PS3 has more memory than the X360's shared memory. I explained why its so.

I'm done with you for now. At least until you start spewing even worse bullshit at some point in the future, my point is made and for this one, you've lost. That simple.

As usual you make shit up, wishing i said this and that, and come back to me with information i never argued against to begin with, that doesn't even support your own wishes. You should remain silent.

 

[Tagrineth]

speaking in terms of memory speed

no, you WERE speaking in terms of amount. You're changing your argument quite plainly. Allow me to quote you -

Let's start from the beginning, except I'll be the first to compare memory between PS3 and X360.

Xbox360 - 512MB GDDR3 RAM @700Mhz (Over all bandwidth 22GB)

PS3 - 256MB XDR RAM @3.2 GHz (Over all bandwidth 50GB)

The PS3 has more than double the memory than Xbox360.

Let's start from the beginning, except I'll be the first to compare memory between PS3 and X360.

Xbox360 - 512MB GDDR3 RAM @700Mhz (Over all bandwidth 22GB)

PS3 - 256MB XDR RAM @3.2 GHz (Over all bandwidth 50GB)

The PS3 has more than double the memory than Xbox360.

QED

also going to quote you again

Your thinking of terms of Static RAM. Like DDR, XDR is Dynamic and non static, faster has a lot to do with it.

Wrong

Again Your thinking static RAM that holds data (Not good for gaming), so your full of shit. Dynamic RAM is an active passage between the RAM chip and the Processor. Although memory storage is optional it's not very interactive.

Dynamic RAM = "active passage . . ." it's the same fucking interface, WRONG


Now go fuck yourself cause I'm done arguing with you this time, I really am. You don't listen to WORDS and you adjust your arguments as you see fit to avoid being proved wrong. I just did it and you again dodged the issues and made shit up so... yeah.

You win arguments by annoying the living fucking shit out of your opponent, not by using facts.

 

[Anttaru]

Now go fuck yourself cause I'm done arguing with you this time, I really am. You don't listen to WORDS and you adjust your arguments as you see fit to avoid being proved wrong. I just did it and you again dodged the issues and made shit up so... yeah.

You win arguments by annoying the living fucking shit out of your opponent, not by using facts.

Between XboX360 and PS3. PS3 has more memory.

Aside from being bale to handle graphics and sound, The Cell B.E. is also memory coherent. Each SPE on the Cell B.E. can store memory. This should be a conventional CPU.

 

[Tagrineth]

Ignorance is bliss, right Anttard?

Oh wait, don't bother answering that.

 

[Anglis]

You win arguments by annoying the living fucking shit out of your opponent, not by using facts.

Now that is just funny!

 

[Alyada]

I'm still wondering what kind of argument we're having about a console that doesn't exist.

 

[Bajaratt]

I'm still wondering what kind of argument we're having about a console that doesn't exist.

Anttaru's trying to teach us how 256MB of RAM is more than 512MB of RAM.

 

[Anttaru]

Anttaru's trying to teach us how 256MB of RAM is more than 512MB of RAM.

I was focusing on what the 256MB XDR RAM is doing. PS3 has more RAM than just that throughout the system. 512MB all together not including the cells SPE's. The Cell processor can produce any task at the cost of maximum performance.