XMB more memory than Dashboard? And Home question!

[vahdyx]

I started writing and then I realized it got long, so I split it up with a summarized version and the detailed story verson, read what you want.

Summary

Does the XMB use more memory than dashboard, and if so how. I thought the xmb was more basic than the dashboard in its current state. different pictures in each blade, sounds from various different events, friends online new messages etc. And will the new avatar system increase memory consumption?

Home, is it gonna replace the XMB? I hope so, because launching a game like qore to do XMB functions seems pointless and stupid. Highly doubt i'd use it for any xmb functions. Probably just to play with.

Original Pointlessly long story version


So I watched a video with a developer talking about his new game and bitching about how the PS3 sucks and Xbox 360 suck, but Xbox is easier to make games because it has more memory available, and the PS3 will look better because of disc space and it's unfortunate that the xbox is limited like that etc.yadda yadda.

Needless to say me being a console and a ps3 fanboy it did sting a bit, but one thing he said stuck out in my mind as a lie. Of course I'm not sure, but it didn't seem right.

XMB uses more memory than the Xbox Dashboard. I didn't think that was true seeing how the XMB is basic icons and text and the dashboard is colorful and full of pictures and different pictures in each blade and with the addition of avatars I would assume that's just taking more available memory. Am I right?

Someone explain to me how XMB takes more memory than dashboard.

Also, Home!

It's obviously not gonna replace xmb if they're bitching about memory with xmb, i can only imagine home taking way more. So I would assume home will work like qore!

You launch home and it does what you want from within the download of home.

To me that sucks, I don't want to go into a program to do what I can with an xmb. I'll go in home to play around, but I'd hardly go into home to launch a game or go into home to look at trophies etc. That's just a long extra step to get to something.

Now if home replaced the XMB (if possible) and you can quickly do things with start button or something, that'll be fantastic. Other wise it's just a downloadable game to me with extra functionality.

[DustoMan]

I believe Home will be a separate app. The XMB will still be there. Also FWIW, devs have complained about how much memory the XMB and other backend system resources the PS3 takes up. Just as an example, custom soundtracks in Burnout Paradise weren't possible until Criterion got a new dev kit build and PS3 system update that freed up some memory for them to use for it.

The only thing I know about the Dashboard is that it's code is really small... something like 16-32MB. How that is in relation to the XMB, I have no idea. EDIT: Oh and that one of the three CPU cores is dedicated to the Dashboard and the 360 Guide.

[crazzeto]

It can be a fallacy to judge memory usage based on graphical "pretty"...

[vahdyx]

Originally Posted by crazzeto

It can be a fallacy to judge memory usage based on graphical "pretty"...

what?

over my head

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by DustoMan

I believe Home will be a separate app. The XMB will still be there. Also FWIW, devs have complained about how much memory the XMB and other backend system resources the PS3 takes up. Just as an example, custom soundtracks in Burnout Paradise weren't possible until Criterion got a new dev kit build and PS3 system update that freed up some memory for them to use for it.

The only thing I know about the Dashboard is that it's code is really small... something like 16-32MB. How that is in relation to the XMB, I have no idea. EDIT: Oh and that one of the three CPU cores is dedicated to the Dashboard and the 360 Guide.

1) 360's OS is far more memory efficient than PS3's. The 360 only reserves 32MB of ram for the OS. John Carmack was quoted as saying:

"one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3"

See my sig for the full interview.

2) 360's OS is *WAY* more CPU efficient than PS3's. The 360's OS only reserves 3% of ONE core for the OS. That means 100% of 2 full cores goes to games, and 97% of the third core goes to games.

On PS3, much more then 6% of the PPE is reserved, and a full SPE is reserved for the PS3's OS. That's 17% of the PS3's cell SPE performance.

"Home" does not replace the XMB. It will coexist with it, as they serve different purposes.

As for why 360's OS is far more efficient, it's primarily simply because MS is a software company first and foremost, and they know how to make trim software that's feature rich. MS is simply better than Sony in engineering software. Similary, Sony better with hardware manufacturing, and would never have made the error MS made when they encountered the RRoD issues.

[vahdyx]

I still don't get how icons and a no sound OS uses more memory than a flashy ads left and right, 4 different picture, noise making os.

Major kudos to microsoft. I'm impressed, still do you think avatars will increase the memory usage?

*edit*

Oh, maybe it's the moving background that sony uses?

[Indy_aka_Rex]

Originally Posted by vahdyx

I still don't get how icons and a no sound OS uses more memory than a flashy ads left and right, 4 different picture, noise making os.

Major kudos to microsoft. I'm impressed, still do you think avatars will increase the memory usage?

*edit*

Oh, maybe it's the moving background that sony uses?

You want to know WHY the blades use less memory than the XMB? Because in order for the UI to run seamlessly/smooth, you'd require more memory in order to run it proper. The blades are locked at 32mb to conserve total memory for games, however they run slow.

Not to mention, the XMB renders at 1920x1080, I believe the blades (and the new UI) render at 1280x720, or less.

The footprint of the XMB might be greater, but it runs better than the blades.

[Reverend Blu]

Originally Posted by Darkfalz

1) 360's OS is far more memory efficient than PS3's. The 360 only reserves 32MB of ram for the OS. John Carmack was quoted as saying:

"one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3"

See my sig for the full interview.

2) 360's OS is *WAY* more CPU efficient than PS3's. The 360's OS only reserves 3% of ONE core for the OS. That means 100% of 2 full cores goes to games, and 97% of the third core goes to games.

On PS3, roughly more then 3% of the PPE is reserved, and a full SPE is reserved for the PS3's OS. That's 17% of the PS3's cell SPE performance.

"Home" does not replace the XMB. It will coexist with it, as they serve different purposes.

As for why 360's OS is far more efficient, it's primarily simply because MS is a software company first and foremost, and they know how to make trim software that's feature rich. MS is simply better than Sony in engineering software. Similary, Sony better with hardware manufacturing, and would never have made the error MS made when they encountered the RRoD issues.

No.

Only a few mb more efficient does NOT equal "way more" and its 6% and NOT 3% like you falsely stated and its total memory and not based on a single core.


http://ozymandias.com/archive/2007/0...es-on-PS3.aspx

<Pete's Mail>

* Can you remind me what CPU/Memory reservation we have on the 360 – and is this public? I think 32MB is memory, don’t remember CPU.

Xbox 360 reserves 32 MB for the system. The remaining 480 MB (94%) is completely available for games to use how they wish. The 32MB of system memory is used for the kernel, device drivers and the Xbox 360 Guide,

[vahdyx]

Originally Posted by Indy_aka_Rex

You want to know WHY the blades use less memory than the XMB? Because in order for the UI to run seamlessly/smooth, you'd require more memory in order to run it proper. The blades are locked at 32mb to conserve total memory for games, however they run slow.

Not to mention, the XMB renders at 1920x1080, I believe the blades (and the new UI) render at 1280x720, or less.

The footprint of the XMB might be greater, but it runs better than the blades.

I do agree with you, XMB does look nicer than dashboard imo, but one thing I have to disagree with you about is looking at trophies, what's up with the circle loading times. totally not smooth geez.

I do know xbox has the circle loading time for stuff too so no excuses there.

[Indy_aka_Rex]

Originally Posted by vahdyx

I do agree with you, XMB does look nicer than dashboard imo, but one thing I have to disagree with you about is looking at trophies, what's up with the circle loading times. totally not smooth geez.

I do know xbox has the circle loading time for stuff too so no excuses there.

That doesn't have anything to do with the OS, it's the PS3 communicating with the PSN (if looking at someone else's list) or looking for the data on your hard drive (if looking at your own).

EDIT: Likewise with the 360.

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by Reverend Blu

No.

Only a few mb more efficient does NOT equal "way more" and its 6% and NOT 3% like you falsely stated and its total memory and not based on a single core.


http://ozymandias.com/archive/2007/0...es-on-PS3.aspx

<Pete's Mail>

* Can you remind me what CPU/Memory reservation we have on the 360 – and is this public? I think 32MB is memory, don’t remember CPU.

Xbox 360 reserves 32 MB for the system. The remaining 480 MB (94%) is completely available for games to use how they wish. The 32MB of system memory is used for the kernel, device drivers and the Xbox 360 Guide,

No. 360's OS is *WAY* more efficient in every way.

While you're right about the CPU usage, (it's late here, and I switched the values it's 3% of TWO cores, not one core - thanks for noticing) - the memory difference is substantial, and the CPU usage difference is substantial.

From your own link:

"Sony’s numbers are massive in comparison."

Of course, your link is very old so Sony's numbers (on the memory usage side) have decreased, but as John Carmack said:

"one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3"

If John Carmack, debatably the single best 3d graphics engine developer in the world, says PS3's system stuff "sucks up a lot more resources" and PS3's memory is "MUCH more painful" - well, I think his opinion and assessment is more accurate than yours.

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by vahdyx

Major kudos to microsoft. I'm impressed, still do you think avatars will increase the memory usage?

MS cannot increase the memory footprint. If they do, it would break every legacy title.

...so no, the Avatars will not increase the memory footprint allocated for the 360's OS.

[Reverend Blu]

Originally Posted by Darkfalz

No. 360's OS is *WAY* more efficient in every way.

While you're right about the CPU usage, (it's late here, and I switched the values it's 3% of TWO cores, not one core - thanks for noticing) - the memory difference is substantial, and the CPU usage difference is substantial.

From your own link:

"Sony’s numbers are massive in comparison."

Of course, your link is very old so Sony's numbers (on the memory usage side) have decreased, but as John Carmack said:

"one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3"

If John Carmack, debatably the single best 3d graphics engine developer in the world, says PS3's system stuff "sucks up a lot more resources" and PS3's memory is "MUCH more painful" - well, I think his opinion and assessment is more accurate than yours.

You said "way more" as in what? gigabytes more? a few hundred megabytes more?

Nope.

Its a few MB more but NOT "way more"= fail.

Darkfalz its no longer the early nineties and todays computer chips have more than a few MB for cpu memory.


http://www.innerbits.com/blog/2007/0...ory-footprint/
Currently, as of SDK 1.60, the PS3 operating system takes up 52 MB of main memory and 32 MB of graphics memory (84 MB total). As a comparison, the Xbox 360 still only uses 32 MB of shared memory for all its system utilities.

[Indy_aka_Rex]

Originally Posted by Reverend Blu

You said "way more" as in what? gigabytes more? a few hundred megabytes more?

Nope.

Its a few MB more but NOT "way more"= fail.

Darkfalz its no longer the early nineties and todays computer chips have more than a few MB for cpu memory.


http://www.innerbits.com/blog/2007/0...ory-footprint/
Currently, as of SDK 1.60, the PS3 operating system takes up 52 MB of main memory and 32 MB of graphics memory (84 MB total). As a comparison, the Xbox 360 still only uses 32 MB of shared memory for all its system utilities.

As much as I hate to agree wi th Darkie sometimes, that's A LOT of memory to take up, Rev. And the hyperbolic "way more", kinda does apply. You're talking 32mb of SHARED RAM, vs. 84MB of total RAM for the PS3.

We're talking 480 vs. 428mb between the 360 and PS3... that extra 52mb of RAM could help out.

[Darkfalz]

Originally Posted by Reverend Blu

You said "way more" as in what? gigabytes more? a few hundred megabytes more?

Nope.

Its a few MB more but NOT "way more"= fail.

Darkfalz its no longer the early nineties and todays computer chips have more than a few MB for cpu memory.


http://www.innerbits.com/blog/2007/0...ory-footprint/
Currently, as of SDK 1.60, the PS3 operating system takes up 52 MB of main memory and 32 MB of graphics memory (84 MB total). As a comparison, the Xbox 360 still only uses 32 MB of shared memory for all its system utilities.

We're not arguing that the 360's OS is superior in efficiency, as you and I both acknowledge that 360's OS is more efficient in memory usage and in CPU usage.

...and we agree, because it's a fact.

...if you want to argue about whether or not it's *way* more efficient or not, well, that's more a subjective matter... so let's see what one of the greatest devs of our time says:

"one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3"

He says "a lot more resources"... take it as you will.