Gears of war impossible on PS3

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-10-30 10:09am

Since Epic is working with the PS3 hardware and the Xbox 360 hardware could Gears of War ever work on the Playstation 3? “256 MB of RAM makes a huge difference. There is no way we could ever do Gears of War on 256, we had trouble fitting everything on 512MB. We pushed the 360 to the limits.” Another member from Epic’s team chimed in with the fact that there are currently more Playstation 3 programmers than Xbox 360 programmers. “It (the PS3) is in our future. We always had plans for the Playstation 3 and an engine already runs on it.”

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-10-30 03:14pm

I'm sorry WHAT? The PS3 has only 256mb of RAM - despite it being retardedly overdeveloped in every other category.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-10-30 03:18pm

weemadando wrote:I'm sorry WHAT? The PS3 has only 256mb of RAM - despite it being retardedly overdeveloped in every other category.

No, the PS3 also has 512MB, but it's split with 256MB being XDR and 256 being normal VRAM. You can technicly use both to store data, but being on seperate buses, that'd be fucking stupid from any prespective I know off.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-10-30 05:21pm

So does the 360 have separate Vram like a good little computer?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2006-10-30 05:56pm

InnocentBystander wrote:So does the 360 have separate Vram like a good little computer?

No, 360 has shared memory.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-10-31 12:05am

Praxis wrote:
InnocentBystander wrote:So does the 360 have separate Vram like a good little computer?
No, 360 has shared memory.

But as far as I know, it's shared in the same physical fashion. Therfor getting around the nasty timing issues trying to spread data over both RAM segments will bring on the PS3.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-10-31 04:12am

InnocentBystander wrote:So does the 360 have separate Vram like a good little computer?

For consoles, its actually possible that a shared RAM implementation is better. As long as fast RAM is used, it gives you more flexibility (this is, of course, assuming that you aren't starving the system with too little RAM in the first place).

Even on the desktop, we're likely to see stuff like AMD's socket GPUs that use the main RAM relatively soon, not counting existing (crap) integrated implementations . The only reason we aren't likely to see a shared ram solution in top end cards is that often the fastest RAM is used for VRAM, while computer solutions transition slower.