PS3’s RAM and RSX explained
There has been a lot of talk about the Playstation 3’s Random Access Memory (RAM) vs Xbox 360’s RAM, saying that the 360 has more RAM to work with etc. Here’s an article to explain the situation of its RAM.
Just so you know that the PS3 has 512MB of RAM (256 for video and 256 for system). The Cell chip has 256MB of completely sharable RAM, the GPU has 256MB of dedicated RAM. Now the key here is what type of RAM it is.
The Playstation 3 has 256mb of GDDR3 at 700mhz and 256Mb of XDR at 3.2ghz. So what exactly is XDR ram? Here are some of the highlights:
- XDR makes PS3 super effiecient
- XDR aids in faster cache mapping, both direct and indirect
- XDR ram works by a pointer to pointer technology and needs very small buswidth for execution
- XDR is not just faster than GDDR3 but it is much more efficient
- XDR RAM works by breaking down data into several packets which prevents data loss and exceptions
The Rambus XDR™ memory architecture is a total memory system solution that achieves an order of magnitude higher performance than today’s standard memories while utilizing the fewest ICs. Perfect for compute and consumer electronics applications
The PS3 has two times as much cache at 2x the speed, making it way faster for direct/indirect mapping. Not only that but it has 512k of L1 cache + 1.7m of L2 cache for the 7 spes. The PS3’s GPU, RSX was made to work with the Cell processor, it is not some GPU they took and slotted in. It is made to be compatible with the Cell.
More RAM does not mean a faster system it means more data can be stored in a fast access area. Games don’t always need 512mb of RAM.
The RSX can freely use as much of the 512MB total RAM that the PS3 has because the Cell doesn’t need much RAM because its fast enough. And the fact that the PS3 has XDR means that it has faster access to data files.
A lot of people are saying that the RSX only has 256mb of RAM, whereas the 360’s GPU has 512MB of RAM. To make it sound a bit simpler, here’s the real deal. The PS3 has it’s RAM in two separate parts, 256MB for the RSX and 256MB that can be used be either the Cell or RSX.
Similar Posts
- Why PS3 games install
- Features Firmware 2.5 needs
- Life with a keypad
- 7200rpm vs 5400rpm hard drive
- RE5: No shooting while running
Loading ...
oh and for ps3 fanboys: seriously, stop saying “ps3 hasnt been used to full potential, just wait another __ and blah will happen”
its really old, find something new to say.
The thing is, the coding issue is true, and PS3 games WILL get better over time. It happened with the PS2, and is happening again with the PS3.
While devs do get the best out of the 360 from the start, that also means that there’s little room for improvement as time passes.
A number of devs – and independent ones, not those owned by Sony – have said that they feel they can get a lot more out of the system as the learn new tricks.
Since most games on PS3 are already comparable to the 360, including major titles like CoD4 and GTA IV, we can expect much bigger things in the future. Despite what Jack Tretton claimed at this E3, over time as devs get more out of PS3, we really will see titles which quite literally can’t be done anywhere else.
I hope I won’t sound like a fanboy…
Both consoles have big advantages and disadvantages… That’s why I decided not to buy a console yet and waited to titles like Devil may Cry 4, Mass Effect and Gears of War to come on the PC. And they look even better on PC and run faster and have less loading time (And yes, I played Xbox AND PC version with a friend who has an xbox)
But now I came to the decision to buy a PS3, even thoug I want to play some Xbox exclusive titles like GOW2 and Mass Effect 2. But they come out on the PC sooner or later anyway. M$ only makes time exclusive contracts (Newest example might be Eternal Sonata that i want to play on the PS3 so hard) The games that would never be released on the PC (like JRPGs) mostly get on the PS3 later. And most titles come out on both consoles either way… The only thing is, that not all Japanese titles come out for PC and Xbox, but for the PS3… And that’s my main reason for a PS3. Plus the PS1 and PS2 always had the longer life span and always had the better games (Mostly because of the JRPGs).
And of course the PS3 is newer and has the better hardware, Blue Ray Drive, all the new standarts, full HD and so on.
I don’t say the Xbox would be a bad console or something.. Not at all. When I saw first games on it years ago, I was stunned by the next gen graphics… But it just isn’t the standart today anymore and game developers like Epic brake down themselves with producing games for an old console. Games might look far better today on a PC and on a PS3 too, if they weren’t produced for Xbox in the first place.
Do you not think you might be taking this all a bit seriously? I have a PS3 and an Xbox360 and both are awesome! One has flaws the other doesn’t and the same vice versa! So get over your console inferiority issues and get a life!
funniest thing. i have a friend who’s an xbox maniac, and always brags about how “superior” his xbox is to my ps3, and how better the graphics were, and all that crap. Yesterday, he came over to chill and i was playing MGS4. i think he literally $hit his pants. he was begging to let him play. i didn’t do the “haha what now B|tch” thing cause i think he got the point. man e3 got me hyped up. MAG, Killzoe 2, Resistance 2, PS home, etc… are the xbox fans sweating yet?
oh and btw the xenos has an advantage in anti-aliasing and Z sample rates because of the daughter die, but other than that, the RSX’s specs in other areas like FLOPS, Vertices, dots, triangles, shader ops, etc… the RSX is better, especially FLOPs and shader ops. plus i’m sure the cell is powerful enough help out the RSX a little, at least.
oh and if anyone is doubtful of my comparison on the above paragraph, do a xenos and RSX specs search on wikipedia.
Wow a lot of you people have no idea what your talking about. read up on beyond3d a bit and learn something. 360 and PS3 both have the same amount of ram, EXCEPT, 36- has a bit more cause PS3’s OS requires a bit more. PS3 OS footprint gets reduce with each new SDK though. Eventually it will only require 32mb just like 360. but 360 does have about 20-32mb of ram available to it for games, sometimes this can cause problems and difficulties when porting, even though its such a minimal amount. I’m not going to go into half of the other garbage in this thread, like all the BS specs and numbers that arnt real at all when it actually comes down to actual game performance.
hey tim
actually, i think that the ps3 also requires only 32mb of system ram.
do a wkipedia search on ps3 hardware. it says “as of firmware update 2.01, 32mb of XDR memory is reserved for the ps3’s xcross mediabar interface.”
PS3 is weak, like clock radio speakers
MGS4 and uncharted have superior graphics to any 360 game, and MGS4 and uncharted use barely 33% of the ps3’s power. X360 has good games but the ps3 will catch up on time.
Unfortunately, the only way the true superior gaming console will be revealed is by the developers.
If the developers continue to make the on both consoles “identical” you will never know which console is better.
We HAVE to wait for the developers to see which game console is better. Developers are NOT going to come out and say “oh, this console is better than the other” because it will angry consumsers and sony/ms. Which will in turn hurt their bottom line, which they will never agree to.
Some smaller developing houses have to come out say that the PS3 is better because:
1.) they can put more things on the screen than the Xbox
Ghostbusters
2.) they can put higher resolution textures due to the space fo the bluray drive
Rage
Unfortunately, the larger developing houses that carry alot of weight (EA, 2K, etc) will never say such a thing because they will loose $$$$$$.
The only thing developers will say that since the Xbox came out first, they know it better BUT that they are learning the PS3 and games should be “identical”.
The PS3 WILL Last 10 years if not longer. Look at the PS2. It is still going strong. If the developers only get better with time, imaging what they can do with the PS3 in a few more years. Unfortunately, the Xbox’s future is looking grim as the space of the media is starting to affect games (RAGE).
P.S. I own a PS3. The best games for the PS3 are those in which the developers have taken the time to learn and work with the PS3.
Oh my.. I had a few shits and giggles here XD
Didn’t read too many comments but:
~ Of course MS responded to the RRoDs.. Shit.. if that many consoles broke done, who wouldn’t respond to save their ass?
Now the PS3… Look how many have broken down.. Nono, here is a better one:
I have 2 PS3, both show ZERO signs of even the slighest malfunctions. (Of course theres the odd freezing, but every console does that.)
My cuz has 1 X360, he had to get it fixed… 3 times over
Now, look at the PS3’s Epic Failurez rate and then look at X360’s.. The PS3 doesn’t have much of a list for broken down machines
~ There is no way to see which console is superior, you can go straight down to specs, but some dumbass comes around and tries to backfire it(Not just X360 fanboys, PS3 ones aswell).
I think, the only way to know, is to put them side by side, and then play the exact same game. Even then who knows?
I am a happy PS3 owner. I plan to stay that way, if I were to get a X360, it would be to play with my cuz… but I don’t plan on spending $200+ to get it fixxed when it breaks.
KC out.
email me back if u know were that xdr ram goes to. the cell pros. or the rsx
To the dude who thinks ME looks better than MGS4, you’re an idiot. ME’s framerate drops for a coupel of seconds everytime there’s more than like 6-7 people on the screen and there’s so much texture pop in. Also the fact that MGS4 has none of that and generally looks better. Just saying, because you’re clearly and xbot who has no idea what he’s talking about.
I have to admit, MGS4 is nothing short of a work of art graphically. Mass effect whilst good is no where near as solid (no pun intended) as MGS4 is.
Some early ported games on the PS3 we absolutley awful, i factor this to a couple of things, publishers putting the squeeze on devs to rush the ports before theyd had enough lab time ironing out the code for the PS3. And the general unfamiliarty with the hardware. Overtime as more and more code snippets are made available to the developers to make their code “efficient” on the architecture we’ll see better quality visually, the PS3 is catching up now for sure
@Tahiri
LOL! I forgot all about this topic. Never mind, although many months have passed, I’ll respond anyway.
I called you ignorant, and I’m sorry to say it again but, you are.
So let’s cover the areas I challenged you on….
You said “You moron! I gave specs for how fast 360s drive reads for BOTH single and dual layered discs. The spec for single layered discs is faster than bluray the spec for dual layered discs is SLOWER! You were a complete idiot in insulting me without even reading my post.”
The 360’s DVD drive was the fastest DVD available to MS at the time, which on the PC would be rated as a 16x DVD drive!!! Such drives on the PC are rated by their single-layered disc performance, but since NO 360 GAMES are released on sl drives, only the dl performance is relevent.
Yes dual-layered performance is less than single-layer, but on a good 16x PC DVD drive it’s 12x for dl, and on lower performing drives (i.e. cheaper), it’s 10x or even as low as 8x for dl performance. The 360 uses a DVD drive with 12x dual-layered performance, i.e. what would be a very good 16x DVD drive on the PC.
Two such drives in use on the 360 is the Hitachi GDR-3120L and the ToshibaSamsung TS-H943.
You can even buy these drives to replace the drive in the 360, or use it with your PC, and as you will see, the maximum speed (i.e. the speed for single-layered discs) is 16x!!!
http://www.priceground.com/111-15842.html
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/205883661/DVD_Drive_for_XBOX.html
http://vpgames.com/p-1130-hitachi-gdr-3120l-replacement-dvd-disc-drive-for-xbox-360.aspx
Go look it up yourself if you’re still in denial. So please cut the nonsense of trying to play down the 360’s DVD drive performance. It IS 12x for dual-layered discs, hence 12x for ALL 360 games. Therefore, as stated by devs already, the 360’s DVD drive is faster than the PS3’s Blu-ray drive.
That is why the load times for multiformat 360/PS3 games running from disc alone are better on the 360. Only with the use of the HDD to install data does the PS3 match or better the 360’s load times. Those are the facts.
“No I don’t. There are not current specs on how much the OS takes. At last update, PS3s OS only takes 16 MB more.”
Really? Please do what I did and back that statement up with a link. In otherwords, either put up or shut up.
And you deny the RSX being based upon NVidia’s G71 processor, saying “No it’s not. That’s just a rumor perpetrated by ignorant little fantrolls.”
*Sigh* Here’s a slide from one of Sony’s PS3 presentations;
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060329/3dps309.jpg
To see where that comes from and more, go to the following link;
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20060329/3dps3.htm
As you can see, Sony (yes, SONY) says RSX is based upon NV47, which to those who follow NVidia will know that NV47 is the old name for NVidia’s G70 (look it up if you’re not convinced), which was modified and improved to produce the G71 for the PC and RSX for the PS3. Hence as I said, is exactly what NVidia did when they produced the GPU for the XBox.
So Tahiri, you were saying? Or do you believe Sony themselves are also ignorant little fantrolls for saying that? Hmmmmm.
@Tahiri
You wrote: “RSX is more powerful than Xenos in every single spec”
No, RSX only appears more powerful to the ‘armchair experts’ who don’t understand technology and therefore don’t understand the specs, whereas game developers (you know, the people who DO understand the technology they’re USING) do NOT say RSX is more powerful. Fact.
Search online for multi-format devs (i.e. those with experience of BOTH consoles) and you’ll find devs who say both GPUs are about the same in terms of power. Search online and you’ll find some multi format devs who say the 360’s GPU (Xenos) has a slight edge over RSX. However what you will not find is a multi format dev saying RSX is more powerful than Xenos. Fact.
Going back to the DVD vs Blu-ray performance. I had a good laugh at that cut-n-paste answer of yours, especially since the original source was referring to a 12x DVD drive from Hitachi which is not used in the 360, a drive which is only 12x for single-layered discs, not dual-layered like the 360’s DVD drives (which are 16x for sl, as mentioned in my post above).
Here’s where your info originated from and was later spread by fanboy lemmings online;
http://ccgi.mgillespie.plus.com/ps3/index.php?title=Drive_Speeds
Notice the ‘Sources’ at the bottom of that page, where the Hitachi drive in question is the Hitachi GD-7500;
http://www.hitachi.us/supportingdocs/support/manuals/gd7500,0.pdf
This drive is not used in the 360, and yet it’s the specs of that drive being used as your so-called specs for the 360’s DVD drive, which besides being completely wrong also shows that the person responsible is unaware that dual-layer performance of DVD drives varies amongst those rated with the same single-layer performance, all depending on the quality of the drive. He assumes they are ALL the same. Tsk tsk tsk.
So next time, before calling someone a moron, please get your facts right and TRY to understand the technology first, or at least look for the truth yourself instead of mindlessly repeating ignorant techno babble from people online just because they say what you WANT to believe.
tahlir older brother 360 Gpu got maxxed as far as loading time you are right how about visuals ,audio that what i though and as far as ram access ps3 all day even with os the cell has sram makes thim abit faster google it in short answer the article is right dvb9 has limits get over it