Rumor: PS4 to have more horsepower than next Xbox, will have less RAM

The rumors about the next generation game consoles from Sony and Microsoft continue to pop up on the Internet. A few days ago, one report suggested that we would hear official announcements sometime in March for the next gen platforms. Now, another Internet website claims to have some hardware performance info on the consoles.

VG247.com reports, via unnamed sources who talked to certain people last week at CES 2013, state that the next version of the Playstation has a run capability of 1.84 teraflops. The same report claims that Microsoft's next Xbox will only generate 1.23 teraflops.

However, in terms of memory, games on the next Xbox, which is referred to by its code name Durango, will have a lot more memory to work with. The story claims that it will have a total of 8 GB of RAM, with 3 GB made for the console's operating system and the rest for playing games. The same report says that the next Playstation, code named Orbis, will have just 4 GB of RAM, with 1 GB reserved for running its OS.

Both consoles will also be able to run Blu-Ray discs that will have a storage capacity of 100 GB, which should be plenty of space for a lot of high resolution art textures.

Source: VG247.com | Image via Future

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia slashes another 1000 jobs in Finland

Next Story

Microsoft hiring for secret Windows Phone technology project

87 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

For gaming on pc, ram speed does nothing, it's fast enough. I mean 8gb is 36$ at consumer level price imagine Sony and Microsoft level. I have 16gb now and it just for the lowlz :-)

These are still rumors and even if solid, doesn't mean they will be anything like what we will see shipping. Especially RAM amounts or RAM speed is a bit silly to get caught up in debating.

Remember back to the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

We knew the Xbox 360 was going to be PowerPC based and Microsoft was using paired G5 Macs for development until the final CPU and GPU were produced. However, we had no idea how 'fast' the Xbox 360 CPU was going to be other than the rumors of it being a 3ghz tri-core. It turned out to include the hyperthreading-like technology that allows it to process 6 threads, acting more like a six core CPU, and this was not expected even from developers leading into the Spring E3 announcements. (Heck people to this day don't realize it is a bit more beefy than just a tri-core PowerPC.)

The Xbox 360 GPU was another area that changed and wasn't until the first shipping units at E3 were seen, let alone it was new GPU model that took developers and even ATI over year after the GPU was introduced to 'understand' what it was doing, how it worked with NT and the 'upcoming' WDDM/WDM technologies introduced in Vista that the Xbox 360 uses. It was a game changer that was 'unknown' even to developers at this time of the year when the Xbox 360 shipped in the Fall.


The PS3 was going to use the Cell for Graphics, then an in house combination for graphics, and Sony was unable to get close to the estimated performance of the Xbox 360, so at the last minute took a deal from NVidia, which is why the PS3 has an older GPU design that is a bit slower, but virtually identical to the Geforce 7900.


So if anyone 'really' knows what will be 'shipping' I would be surprised, because at this time in 2005, even the Xbox developers had NO idea how much CPU power they would have or how much GPU power they would have, nor even how the shared RAM GPU virtualization technologies designed by Microsoft would work out. (Which was successful and is what every GPU sold in the last 5 years is based on.)

oh you know sony... when the price of parts becomes cheaper they will continue to update the ps4 with several hardware revisions to increase ram and drive space and add other little goodies.
Still I thought SONY had said this just 2 years ago :
"oh don't count on the ps4 for a while to come, the ps2 sold for 10 years before the ps3 was released and we expect the same from the ps3"
Sony's hardware will always be better then the XBox because Microsoft wants to be cheap about it to target a younger audience and Sony uses top of the line parts and they don't care if they don't make a profit from the consoles for several years. Hopefully they won't take a hit with each PS4 they sell for the first few years like they did with the PS3
I'm sure the regular retail will be like $600 for the extreme loaded PS4 with a lower end at $350
Would also be nice to see a virtual console for backward compatibility with ps1,ps2, & ps3

I doubt the ps4's 3gbs ram will be a problem seeing as far cry 3 which was just released uses less than 700mb ram.

forums.videocardz.com/topic/266-far-cry-3-performance-test-update-104/

I know a few game devs and they hate not having enough RAM, they have to play the borrow game. Caching textures left right and centre and doing some really clever programming just to get the machine to do what they need it to.

So from those devs point of view.

PS4 =
Xbox 720 =

Intel learnt CPU horse power does not make the game run faster on its own.

So, as all of you probably know, Sony is trying to push UltraViolet as a way to watch movies stored in the cloud and they will give you a free voucher for the same movie in the cloud as the one you buy on BRD. They are making it sound like they just invented a new format. What the heck???? Can anyone explain to me why I would care to have it on BluRay when I can buy it on my Xbox and then download it to my Windows 8 PC, Surface RT, etc... Now if it also worked the other way around, where you could buy and watch it online then get a voucher so you can go pick-up a free Blu-Ray at the store, that would make me thing twice...

It will be the same story as the last gen -

PS4 - good specs on paper, extremely hard to develop/optimize for, poor dev tools and support from Sony

720 - good specs, awesome dev tools, 3rd party engine support, easy to port pc games, the choice for developers who then port to other platforms from Xbox

Sony will once again hype their specs which will only be used by a few exclusive titles. Multi platform games will continue to look and run better on Xbox.

Goldfire86 said,

Sony does more than just video game consoles...


Yeah, but they're doing worse on that other stuff than on consoles.

Not even Windows Vista uses up 3GB, so this sounds very suspect. For an OS to use up 3GB, you'd have to have a lot of useless stuff running.

helios01 said,
Not even Windows Vista uses up 3GB, so this sounds very suspect. For an OS to use up 3GB, you'd have to have a lot of useless stuff running.

Its just dedicated for non-game use. Could be running all sorts of things in the background.

To bad teraflops are meanignless in measuring actual performance. Teraflops only say how good the hardware is at doing flops.

So the PS3 is rumoured to have a smaller amount of faster ram than the 720. Well correct me of I'm wrong, but memory speed has never been a bottleneck on consoles as far as I'm aware. So to me, more memory seems like it would be better than faster memory.

I'll be interested to see if either uses close to off-the-shelf parts. The big problems (especially on PS3) was the odd architecture devs had to deal with during this generation.

LightEco said,
I'll be interested to see if either uses close to off-the-shelf parts. The big problems (especially on PS3) was the odd architecture devs had to deal with during this generation.

If they use hardware that's too close to a PC, it won't be long before they find their exclusive titles running on a PC.

LightEco said,
I'll be interested to see if either uses close to off-the-shelf parts. The big problems (especially on PS3) was the odd architecture devs had to deal with during this generation.

The architecture wasn't that unusual or hard; Sony failed to provide an optimized OS or development environment to take advantage of any hardware 'gains'. This along with the fallback to an outdated GPU design is what shutdown any performance edge the PS3 could of had, and also killed any graphical advantages.

There are a few that always complained that the PS3 CPU was hard to design for because of the six core design and getting good parallel/async performance. This is where Sony's inexperience with threading and using OSS projects as the basis of their OS and development tools failed them and the developers.

No matter what people think of Microsoft, they are well known for their compiler technologies and development tools. Even today, the Microsoft compilers for Intel are faster than the compilers designed by Intel and create more secure code.

Also to note about the complexity of threading and multi-core programming. The Xbox's CPU is a tri-core CPU that Microsoft modified to incorporate a 'Hyperthread-like' technology. So even though most people only see it as a tri-core and having to deal with 3 concurrent threads, it actually can process 6 threads concurrently, and the NT OS and modified DirectX technologies are highly optimized for threading. Even developers that don't deal well with multi-threaded coding were able to get extra performance out of the Xbox just from the advances in Microsoft compiler technologies used in the development kits.

(The Xbox also was the first computing platform to use the new GPU model that we all take for granted today, with agnostic and universal shader with onboard DMA passing to speed up RAM virtualization and BUS transfers. This is where the basis of the whole video model Microsoft added to Windows in Vista came from and is still an important part of Windows 7/8, and even why WP7/WP8 has fast graphics even on lower end hardware.)

Chugworth said,

If they use hardware that's too close to a PC, it won't be long before they find their exclusive titles running on a PC.

100% would never happen as they'd lose consoles sales from doing that. They obviously aren't going to cripple their hardware division unless they plan to scrap it completely (if they wanted to just become a publisher of games for example).

its not about gaming anymore,its about services. Both of these consoles will have pretty much the same games,and comparable performance. Really,one might one up the other with specs, but it isn't going to make such a big difference.

Same with the ps3 and xbox360. I actually own both,because they each offer different services. Xbox has live,and I like their video streaming apps. PS3 has blueray and their media support is second to none. It goes well with my Sony TV.

None of these devices will suck,and I will buy both on day one because they will each be unique and I will not punish myself because of some fanboyism.

vcfan said,
its not about gaming anymore,its about services. Both of these consoles will have pretty much the same games,and comparable performance. Really,one might one up the other with specs, but it isn't going to make such a big difference.

Same with the ps3 and xbox360. I actually own both,because they each offer different services. Xbox has live,and I like their video streaming apps. PS3 has blueray and their media support is second to none. It goes well with my Sony TV.

None of these devices will suck,and I will buy both on day one because they will each be unique and I will not punish myself because of some fanboyism.

Did anyone mention this thread was not for grownups? Ah ah, let the boys have fun. How goes your Wii-U btw ?

well given how much more powerful the PS3 was than the xbox and how that didn't matter one bit in actual games, essentially they are both about the same.

they both use the same GPU so the difference may simply be because the PS3 also has an APU from AMD. however because the API is so much slower than the GPU, you will not get the benefits of symmetrical crossfire. Meaning that the PS3 just like its predecessor will have a lot of "potential" which is too difficult or impractical to put into actual game benefits.

OTOH 4K gaming will demand a lot of textures and the low memory on the PS4 will ensure its game look washed out compared to the Xbox superior RAM allocation.

I'll definitely be interested to see what actually gets announced here. I know that developers made a very big deal with the 360 that the increase in RAM was very beneficial to them, but that's a heck of a jump there if true...

We had better root for both to succeed. If only one ends up winning, we'll lose in the end. I'm hoping Steambox and others make it as well...

Microsoft has one huge advantage over Sony. Microsoft can make awesome software, Sony on the other hand pretty much sucks. So even if the PS4 is a bit faster than the next XBOX, I prefer to have a kick-ass user experience rather than a mediocre one on the PS4. I currently own both Xbox360 and PS3, and I can tell you that the PS3 is unplugged and collecting dust.

And btw, I don't know for sure but there's no reason the next XBOX would not be able to run Windows 8 apps from the Windows App Store. That would be cool !!!

NocturnalAlloy said,
Microsoft has one huge advantage over Sony. Microsoft can make awesome software, Sony on the other hand pretty much sucks. So even if the PS4 is a bit faster than the next XBOX, I prefer to have a kick-ass user experience rather than a mediocre one on the PS4. I currently own both Xbox360 and PS3, and I can tell you that the PS3 is unplugged and collecting dust.

And btw, I don't know for sure but there's no reason the next XBOX would not be able to run Windows 8 apps from the Windows App Store. That would be cool !!!


MS can make awesome software, but they can also make terrible software. Just look at the Win8 apps that are barely functional compared even to their WP8 equivalents! For me my next console will be defined by the exclusives. To date there are just 2-3 Xbox games that have interested me, while there have been 10+ for the PS3. OS, power, RAM, multi-platform differences are all irrelevant to me. Give me some great and varied exclusives MS!

Fourjays said,

MS can make awesome software, but they can also make terrible software. Just look at the Win8 apps that are barely functional compared even to their WP8 equivalents! For me my next console will be defined by the exclusives. To date there are just 2-3 Xbox games that have interested me, while there have been 10+ for the PS3. OS, power, RAM, multi-platform differences are all irrelevant to me. Give me some great and varied exclusives MS!

I agree, we need more exclusives, but gaming aside the Xbox has a much better OS compared to other consoles, and it's Living room Entertainment aspect is very polished. IE with SmartGlass on the Xbox 360 compared to the crap you find on the PS3 just rocks. And the Kinect compared to the PS Move is no contest, Kinect is a much superior product. Kinect 2 with it's higher resolution will be able to pick-up better video and movements, making interaction with games, entertainment services and apps a killer experience.

But yes, the core apps in W8 are a bit on the basic flavor but I think that will change. I'll give MS the benefit of the doubt that they had plenty on their plate for the launch of Windows 8 and therefore could not afford (time wise) to spend too many cycles on some of the apps. Some are better than others, take the mail app for example, I much prefer Outlook but I'm getting used to the Mail app, it does what I need 99% of the time, and the other 1% (like reorganizing folders) I can do via Office 365, OWA or Outlook.com. Maybe they will ship a new rash of apps with "Project Windows Blue" in the summer/fall timeframe.

Maybe I sound a tad positive about what Microsoft does and can do, but that's only because I create and write software for a living, so I know how hard and painful it can be to create great apps, not to mention Operating Systems. And when they really put some effort behind something, they can normally do some pretty impressive stuff.

from what i can assume is that the ps3 will be mostly game centric while the nextbox more livingroom pc with kinect .

PS3 has more power than the 360 too, but has yet to produce a superior experience. Plus the Xbox Live ecosystem wins. Therefore Xbox wins. Yay!

I really believe, that they should NOT ship them, pre-built with HDD/SSDs and leave that option to the buyer.
Many as myself have already 1 or 2 HDDs from previous systems or maybe we would like to put a 1TB drive in there (and not settle for 100-300-500GB).
This would cut the costs for both Sony and the end-users, maybe like $50 less!

You mean like the Xbox 360 Core model that didn't come with a drive? I just hope MS don't make the drives proprietary this time. I'd like to be able to insert a regular 2.5" drive, perhaps even an SSD when the prices finally come down.

All speculation i bet it will change at some point as more new reliable info comes to light.

It does not matter anyway, the new Xbox will pwn the ps4 due to its integration with Windows 8 PC's, Windows 8 Tablets and Windows Phones. I can see them all playing a big part in its success my only hope is they don't do some dumb pay per month crap.

The new Xbox will likely have more hit titles as-well making it a winner for me. Whatever happens the graphics and game-play feel will be very close enough that you most likely wont notice. You go for what gives you more and has the better games. With my windows 8 devices the Xbox has it in a nut shell its a no brainer.

I call bs on the whole teraflop numbers. This gen the 360 and ps3 fell very close as far as overall power goes and while the cell cpu did have a small advantage that really didn't translate into much of a difference on the screen. If anything the only clear advantage was the bluray media that allowed for a few games to fill in with 1080p video while the 360 had to go with 720p due to space.

I once again expect the two systems to come very close in terms of overall power with one or the other having a slight advantage but nothing as big as the above.

Also, if a system has an SSD cache which read/write speeds up to 500MB/sec, actual RAM isn't going to be that much of a concern, especially if games have some kind of install. Current games have to hit the optical drive at some point to read data, which is dog slow in comparison.

TheLegendOfMart said,
In this case they can, the CPUs are very similar this time around, its all down to the power of the GPU which can be measured in teraflops.

Or maybe they should wait and see what system has the exclusive games they'd prefer?

For those that don't care about exclusives and just want to know which is the best machine to get to play the next version of CoD, at the very basic level they can look at teraflops and make a better informed decision.

I've already decided I want the PS4 purely for the next gen Uncharted & Gran Turismo.

TheLegendOfMart said,
The difference this time round is that both consoles will have near identical AMD CPUs, not like 360/PS3 that had wildly different CPUs.

The configuration of CPUs was different in the 360 and PS3, but the actual PowerPC core was largely the same. Though programming both was still slightly different because of the PS3's SPUs. Developers are pretty thankful the PS4 won't have any of that complexity this time around.

dagamer34 said,

The configuration of CPUs was different in the 360 and PS3, but the actual PowerPC core was largely the same. Though programming both was still slightly different because of the PS3's SPUs. Developers are pretty thankful the PS4 won't have any of that complexity this time around.


The architecture was similar yes but the configuration was wildly different.

Well those are some interesting rumours. I'm surprised that box don't have 8gb as ram is very cheap and will get cheaper, smaller and use less power as the console's life expectancy goes on. That is unless they are using ddr4 memory or some other type of unique memory. DDR4 would be cheaper in the long term for the console but in the short term it would be very expensive if it would even be available by october for console creators.

Its nice to see both consoles supporting 100gb bluray discs though, would have been annoying if some games ended up being 2 disc games.

Specs alone won't tell this story. I bought a PS3 based on "specs" when it was introduced and was hugely disappointed by jaggies on almost every game, found it very distracting. All I know is that they both be better than my current PC running a single Nvidia 6600 or I'm not interested in either. Building a new console that uses the same hardware for years had better at least be on par with this year's hardware.

In comparison to the next Xbox, then yeah if rumors are true. One of the reasons PS games look more dull is because of lower res textures because of less usable RAM. It was the same with PS2 compared to Dreamcast. While Sonys machines always seem to have more theoretical performance, when it actually comes down to it, the games generally look better on the competing system.

thatguyandrew1992 said,

The 360 doesn't have more ram

Says the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. The Xbox has 512 and the PS3 has 256

PmRd said,

Says the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. The Xbox has 512 and the PS3 has 256

Xbox has 512MB of unified memory, PS3 has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of graphics RAM.

So you could both be right or wrong.

PmRd said,

Says the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. The Xbox has 512 and the PS3 has 256


Could say the same about you, Xbox has a Unified pool of ram that it shares between CPU and GPU.

PS3 has set amount of ram 256Mb each for CPU and GPU, the GPU can dip into the CPU pool of ram.

Technically the 360 doesn't have 512Mb of ram it can use for the OS.

TheLegendOfMart said,
If the rumours are right the PS4 will have GDDR5 which is incredibly fast ram, compared to Nextbox DDR3, making the small amount of it moot.

Would make sense but I would rather have more slower ram vs less faster ram.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Could say the same about you, Xbox has a Unified pool of ram that it shares between CPU and GPU.

And that unified system was one of the smartest things ms did last generation. It let their slower hardware keep up with the ps3.

jagowar said,

Would make sense but I would rather have more slower ram vs less faster ram.

And that unified system was one of the smartest things ms did last generation. It let their slower hardware keep up with the ps3.


Having significantly faster ram makes having less of it moot as it can fill and dump information faster than the larger pool.

dagamer34 said,

Xbox has 512MB of unified memory, PS3 has 256MB of system RAM and 256MB of graphics RAM.

So you could both be right or wrong.

I'm still right, because I'm talking about system ram. Wether it can share some of it with the GPU still means it has more ram than the PS3. What Sony did with the memory in the PS3 was pretty dumb.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Having significantly faster ram makes having less of it moot as it can fill and dump information faster than the larger pool.

From where? the Blu-ray drive? That reads at a few megabytes per second?

You know, RAM size and speed aren't interchangeable in terms of performance. Faster RAM will not help you if you NEED more space to store textures. More RAM will not help you if you NEED faster changes.

You can't simply say faster is better than more, or vice versa. It doesn't work that simply.

PmRd said,

Says the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. The Xbox has 512 and the PS3 has 256


The PS3 RAM is clocked ALLOT faster then the XBOX's ram. It runs at 3ghz mate. (especially for its time this was superb)

TheLegendOfMart said,

Having significantly faster ram makes having less of it moot as it can fill and dump information faster than the larger pool.

You're confusing CPU vs RAM.

RAM is designed to be filled and held. For example. imagine you're loading a document. Yes, having faster RAM will assist - to a small degree - in loading the document more quickly, but once loaded it stays resident in memory until no longer needed. Using that analogy, faster RAM is not as helpful in loading larger documents except at the initial load time.

There are all kinds of tricks here. Personally I'm of the opinion that more RAM is always better. It's not like these systems will be using flash memory for storage (MAYBE hybrid disks), so there will always be a requirement to load data and prefer for it to be resident rather than go back to storage.

jagowar said,
Would make sense but I would rather have more slower ram vs less faster ram.

You wouldn't, not at all. This is why graphics cards do not use DDR3.

TheLegendOfMart said,
If the rumours are right the PS4 will have GDDR5 which is incredibly fast ram, compared to Nextbox DDR3, making the small amount of it moot.

So while the PS4, while have ME2 style texture popping all over, but it's really fast so you almost won't notice, the 360 will have all of it in memory.

how is that moot ?

mram said,

You're confusing CPU vs RAM.

RAM is designed to be filled and held. For example. imagine you're loading a document. Yes, having faster RAM will assist - to a small degree - in loading the document more quickly, but once loaded it stays resident in memory until no longer needed. Using that analogy, faster RAM is not as helpful in loading larger documents except at the initial load time.

There are all kinds of tricks here. Personally I'm of the opinion that more RAM is always better. It's not like these systems will be using flash memory for storage (MAYBE hybrid disks), so there will always be a requirement to load data and prefer for it to be resident rather than go back to storage.

The data in the RAM memory still has to be read by the CPU in order to do something meaningful with it. It's not like data sitting in RAM on it's own will magically do something. So no, what you are saying is not correct, even after the initial load from storage (bluray/hdd) to RAM it still matters how fast the data can be transferred from memory to CPU registers. That speed is dependant on several things, of which RAM read speed is one factor.

XerXis said,

The data in the RAM memory still has to be read by the CPU in order to do something meaningful with it. It's not like data sitting in RAM on it's own will magically do something. So no, what you are saying is not correct, even after the initial load from storage (bluray/hdd) to RAM it still matters how fast the data can be transferred from memory to CPU registers. That speed is dependant on several things, of which RAM read speed is one factor.

You're missing the point.

Without more RAM, systems must pull data from storage (usually spindles and disk). In games with lots of resources, that means more loading. In game development, that means smaller maps, smaller resource pool. You can only have so much resident (in RAM) at a time. CPU doesn't hold anything, and the RAM doesn't DO anything, except provide a faster interface to the CPU potentially.

And the difference between slow memory and fast memory isn't nearly the VAST GULF of time between RAM speeds and spindle speeds.

So that 5gb available for XBoxNew games is a vast difference between the 3gb available for PS4 games. That's a map that is potentially 2x larger. More RAM = more flexibility in resources. Less ram with faster speeds only equals snappier access. And only potentially, it's not an absolute.

Hell, none of this is an absolute, as architecturally speaking this could be something we have no basis for reference.

TheLegendOfMart said,

Having significantly faster ram makes having less of it moot as it can fill and dump information faster than the larger pool.

I'm sure that's correct, but given how Sony will probably design the console (bottlenecked) that fast RAM will have a hard time being utilized to its fullest potential. The only console Sony did a good job designing was the original Playstation. Even still, I 'd still take 8GB or GDDR3 over 4GB of GDDR5 on a PC.

PmRd said,
Splitting the memory in half was a stupid ****ing idea by Sony and the customers are paying for it

This is an ignorant statement.

The shared memory approach Microsoft used has plenty of issues of it's own; specifically performance is impacted because there's a shared pipeline. It wasn't a "stupid" idea to use a dedicated resources approach. They simply had different priorities in mind.

The real problem is that 512MB of total system RAM is not enough for modern games and both consoles are lacking. It was more reasonable 7-8 years ago, but they were lacking even then.

Good thing rams is pretty cheap. But if you would Microsoft, don't do such a good job of locking the thing down, we want some soft mods.