|
Pemalite said:
Mostly correct.
RAM does no form of accelleration or processing, it's sole purpose is to store/cache data so that the processors that do the processing can retreive the data faster.
You can have 87347Ghz of GDDR98 Ram on a 2048bit bus, but if the processors are only Xbox 360 class, then that bandwidth goes completely to waste, converesly, if the memory isn't fast enough to keep up, then the processors idle and thus do nothing, thus you need a "balance".
As for OEM built PC's, Microsoft *really* has no say in what specifications are listed, that's completely up to the OEM's, the main issue is Intel invests billions of dollars in advertising it's processors, so it's easier for consumers to identify with a Core i7 processor than it is for a consumer to identify with a Radeon R9 290X with 4Gb GDDR5 and thus by extension OEM's advertise their systems to suit to shift more units on the back of Intels advertising.
Personally, I have 64Gb of Ram, Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz and four Radeon R9 290's all under water.
For gaming, the 64Gb of ram is useless, my system would NOT be any slower in gaming-only scenario's if I had only a pitifull 8Gb of Ram, I would probably only notice a little more swapfile usage if I had only 4Gb in very demanding games like Battlefield 4. (With that in mind my Core 2 system handles Battlefield 4 with only 3Gb of ram with high-settings, which is PS4 equivalent, OS probably takes 1Gb.)
|
All the CPU and RAM in the worl won't help if the shaders are overworked. That's what I meant.
I never said that MS is responsible for these "gaming PCs". Just that they are helping to keep the average consumer dumb.
