| KreshnikHalili said: @vivster your assumption that upcoming games won´t fill 4GB of VRAM is false. my voxel-global illumination renderer alone is memory-limited by itself to give an example. actually anything with voxels behind will get memory-limited pretty fast. if you don´t know what a voxel is - it is like a 3D pixel. while pixels consume O(N²) memory, voxels consume O(N³) memory - so that you know where the limitation comes from. however this issue the GTX 970 has won´t effect real-world performance that dramatically anyway i assume. |
My point wasn't that no game will reach it. My point was that it's the exception rather than the norm. Voxels are a great examples for this because barely any game uses them in a sufficient manner to fill up the RAM. It's easy to fill up the RAM, and it's just as easy to disable features to reduce RAM consumption. For example ultra texture quality that is barely an improvement but doubles consumption. See Shadow of Mordor.
The more important point was the one you also acknowledged; that RAM size and bandwidth limitations are not as big of a factor as OP likes it to be.
By the time that voxels and high quality textures become more prevalent we will have 512bit memory interfaces and at least 6gb RAM as a standard for performance gaming rigs. Now and in the future the biggest bottlenecks will be in the chip and not the RAM.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
