Is 128 Megs Enough ?

[Clad]

Hello

I was wondering if 128megs would be enough for the Pandora. I mean, sure, it's twice as much as the GP2X, and the GP2X bottleneck was more it's processing power than it's memory, and it would probably be enough to emulate even the dreamcast (in term of ram consumption, I of course realise that the CPU would never be able to handle that, with the dreamcast main CPU being 200+ Mhz). Plus, 128 megs is already more than the Wii have (even counting the vram !), and half the ram the PS3 have.

However, while 128megs is huge by console standards, IBM-class computers have historically been way more memory consuming. For instance, you'll never ever be able to make a port of a PS3 game running as well as on the PS3 on a system that have 256 megs of ram. I'm not sure Oblivion, that run pretty well on the PS3, would even start with 256megs without using swap (I assume the pandora won't have swap). And I'm pretty sure you couldn't port Zelda OoT on a computer that has 4megs of ram.

And I'm not even speaking of the OS footprint. On my laptop, which is running Debian 4 w/ XFCE, one of the least memory consuming X11 environnement, the memory load is around 60/70 megs after a clean boot on the empty desktop. Sure, that could be optimised on a fixed and standard hardware such as the pandora but still, at best an usable X11 environnement (which will be necessary to run linux games) would take around 40 megs, one third of the total memory !

The pandora being more, in term of architecture, a computer than a video game console, wouldn't the lack of more ram limit the port of PC games ? Take Oolite, a nice little OpenGL Elite remake. Min hw spec ? 256 megs. Take Age of decadence, a nice fallout-like RPG with simple 3D graphics both the CPU and GPU of the pandora can handle (low poly, no shaders or anything, it's really basic 1998-standards 3D for a game that never intended to be graphically impressive), min HW spec ? 512 megs.

As long as you only want to emulate, and get specifically made things for the Pandora (both being very nice, and actually would be enough to make one want the Pandora, granted), 128 megs is good enough, sure. But if you want the Pandora to be able to run current multi-platform homebrew titles, the lack of more memory could be a problem. You can't expect every major homebrew project to optimise the game specifically for the Pandora, most of them won't bother putting that much effort for such a limited market.

 

[Orkie]

Sure, that could be optimised on a fixed and standard hardware such as the pandora but still, at best an usable X11 environnement (which will be necessary to run linux games) would take around 10 megs!

 

[bnolsen]

However, while 128megs is huge by console standards, IBM-class computers have historically been way more memory consuming. For instance, you'll never ever be able to make a port of a PS3 game running as well as on the PS3 on a system that have 256 megs of ram. I'm not sure Oblivion, that run pretty well on the PS3, would even start with 256megs without using swap (I assume the pandora won't have swap). And I'm pretty sure you couldn't port Zelda OoT on a computer that has 4megs of ram.

As long as you only want to emulate, and get specifically made things for the Pandora (both being very nice, and actually would be enough to make one want the Pandora, granted), 128 megs is good enough, sure. But if you want the Pandora to be able to run current multi-platform homebrew titles, the lack of more memory could be a problem. You can't expect every major homebrew project to optimise the game specifically for the Pandora, most of them won't bother putting that much effort for such a limited market.

In contrast windowmaker runs ~4MB on my work machine @1680x1050. Run 4 desktops full of rxvt's for software development and the whole environment is still under 30MB (512 saveline buffers). Add firefox to that and well...now it's over 600MB. Craptastic coding if you ask me.

PC games have had the luxury of using sloppy Microsoft APIs and very sloppy coding where all the game manufacturers have to do is change a number of the back of their box.

With some minimal care the 128MB in pandora should be sufficient.

Some other comparisons:

ps2: 32MB ram (?)
gamecube: 24MB ram
xbox: 64MB ram -- how much more PC like can you get?

I wouldn't say those machines games looked like trash. The pandora's horsepower may well exceed all 3 systems and it has 2x as much memory as the maximally configured system of the last generation.

 

[Exophase]

Requiring a lot of RAM just because PC programs are bloated is too much. I don't know if I trust these min specs, I doubt that they always go around and test that, they probably just pick a number that feels safe.

 

[sephiroth111]

not to mention that a standard X11 distro is hampered by unnecessary drivers that are loaded, and are generally configured to support the 'lowest common denominator' of hardware. meaning that something running NanoX [1] verses a full build of X11 would be almost incomparable speed wise.

XFCE is a DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT, not a WINDOW MANAGER. using hackedbox (a stripped blackbox) for example would reduce the footprint far more [2] than running a full suite of software that really isn't needed for a game/PDA console


[1] an X11 build trimmed for the NDS and it's 8mb of ram

[2] I think hackedbox runs in a ~4mb window, dont hold me to that though, it's been a LONG time since i've had to worry about speed and memory requirements.

 

[Julius]

Besides... seems like Ti is making the OMAP chipset only with 128mb at the max... so there isn't really a point in argueing.

 

[icurafu]

Besides... seems like Ti is making the OMAP chipset only with 128mb at the max... so there isn't really a point in argueing.

Good point. And probably the most important. When the pandora was created, the design team didn't have full control over the design of the board. We should respect that.

In terms of the 128MB, it only feels low because the CPU is a multitude times more powerful. If 625MHz is the default clock, it is atleast 7 times more powerful to be conservative. And the GPU leaves the GP2X's behind in the dust. With that, the RAM is only twice. While 64MB was an awesome ammount in the GP2X, it will become a new challenge for devs, particually when porting games that used to run on the PC.

Memory consumption on 3D games can be greatly reduced by shrinking and compressing textures. I'm sure many more tricks will come out to allow for some amazing 3d Gaming to fit on only 128MB memory. For instance, look at all the consoles. 64MB on the xbox, 48mb on the gamecube and the PSP has 68MB/36MB. For a console, the comparison is easy. The Pandora has much more memory than normal.

 

[PokeParadox]

Another thing to take into consideration is that consoles are optimised for the task of playing games. The BUS the RAM everything is geared towards getting a gameplaying.
A PC is a general purpose machine and such is not as efficient (although can look more impressive) at running games.

One thing to also note about the Pandora specifically is that we are talking about a smaller screen, textures won't have to be such a high resolution to look good on the screen, you can probably get away with using less polys on 3D models also. That being said, I really do see 128MB as being perfectly adequate for the Pandora.

 

[Prophet]

As said, there really was no choice anyway, so in one respect this issue is moot.

But look at it this way - every system has bottlenecks. But compared to other handheld platforms, Pandora will probably have fewer bottlenecks. Every new piece of hardware is an evolutionary step along the way - there will never be a "perfect" hardware. You have to look at what's improved, rather than what's lacking. Pandora certainly appears to be a step forward. Hopefully it goes into production soon and turns out as good as it seems to be from the specs.

And as always - software will matter most, hardware is only a conduit.

Let's just hope the controls are good - I'm so sick of bad controls on handhelds. My DS Lite's dpad can barely do diagonals, and my PSP's dpad is pretty painful to use. Please Pandora team - get the damn dpad (and all the controls for that matter) right!

 

[javaJake]

Another thing to take into consideration is that consoles are optimised for the task of playing games. The BUS the RAM everything is geared towards getting a gameplaying.
A PC is a general purpose machine and such is not as efficient (although can look more impressive) at running games.

Which is another sign that the developer team was not thinking of this as a UMPC. As I and others have said, this is a gaming machine first and foremost.

The keyboard is probably only there because it adds so much functionality to the Pandora's PC side (and adds a lot to the gaming side, from what I hear) that it is worth the effort and price, if it is much anyways, in the end. (Speculation, not fact, by the way.)

 

[quasist]

The more device cost's than more profit seller has. That is the enigmas of the 'feed the craig' project.

 

[bnolsen]

Let's just hope the controls are good - I'm so sick of bad controls on handhelds. My DS Lite's dpad can barely do diagonals, and my PSP's dpad is pretty painful to use. Please Pandora team - get the damn dpad (and all the controls for that matter) right!

Agree entirely. My DS Phat has a horrid d-pad, I won't play any action 3D games (ie DQM: Joker) because it's so bad.

The PSP's analog isn't that bad, I haven't played any PSP games that use the dpad for anything more than menu controls. The PSP gets a 'D' for control placement leading to hand cramps. I put some after market grips on it to make it tolerable.

Oof might be a good design question might be about providing "mount points" on the pandora case for these type of aftermarket mods.

From what I can see the pandora does something the gp2x never did: provides hardware & controls that are clearly superior to any other handheld currently out there.

 

[Magnulus]

The more device cost's than more profit seller has. That is the enigmas of the 'feed the craig' project.

That sure doesn't work so well for other gadgets! I worked in a photo store, and the most expensive cameras we had were the ones we earned NOTHING on. Literally. We would rather sell cheap-arse cameras than SLRs because we actually made money off them without the extra sales.

Basically, the higher the production price, the lower the percentages for the seller... Not to mention the fewer sales. Perhaps not for manufacturers, but resellers are screwed, especially with hot products.

 

[Squidge]

Good job Craig is a 1st tier seller then rather than a reseller then

It is true though, I know of some stuff that the company I work for sells for £99, and some stuff they sell for £500. They make far more profit on the £99 item than the £500 item. I think it comes down to something like what the public are willing to pay.

 

[Magnulus]

The will to pay as well as the market for the specific product or type of product. For example, we took a loss on the Canon digital SLRs because there was huge demand for them and all stores had them, so there was a completely destructive price war for those cameras which meant we HAD to sell at LEAST two pieces of accessories to even make a profit. Of course, the moment people start buying accessories, they go "Well, now that I've given you so much money, you have to give me something for free!!!" at which point I usually just laughed and wiped a tear of mirth from my face. Not in a mean-spirited manner, of course! ^_^

The annoying thing is that a lot of the time, the devices in question are already so expensive they could easily have sold just as much with a livable price tag, but stores (both retail and online) have a tendency for destructive price wars...

Anyway, I'm being all kinds of off topic here.

 

[Squidge]

Yeah, of course it's much better when your selling something that no one else around you is selling. Good profits can be made from "made to order" products, as no one else has them, so people can't determine whether or not you are expensive or cheap.