Pemalite said:
Chrkeller said:
Fair point. Getting 87 gb down to 64 gb via lowering resolution and using DLSS.. yeah, seems possible, yeah? Yeah, I fully intend, moving countries at the moment, giving Indiana a play this winter. I want to demo path tracing just to see it. Likely I will want to target 90 fps for most of my play, but will certainly check out the various graphical settings. edit I am digital only so it doesn't impact me, but I feel bad for physical people, key cards are just stupid. I don't see the advantage over digital. |
Resolution and DLSS doesn't change install file sizes at all.
sc94597 said:
The Switch 2's unified memory is as fast as (actually slightly faster than some of) the 2050's VRAM (at least in docked mode, moderately slower in handheld mode.) So for all intents and purposes it is VRAM. Just VRAM that the CPU also might use, if it needs to. You don't need to consider "system ram" in the case of the Switch 2 because both the GPU and CPU have full access to the 9 GB of resources that aren't dedicated to the OS, and can dynamically utilize it. There really isn't a step where you need to move or copy data from system memory (aka PCI-E copy) to the VRAM for consoles in the same way as PC. In the case of these RTX 2050 laptops, if the 4GB of dedicated VRAM is exhausted then there has to be a data pipeline from the even slower (in RTX 2050's case usually half to 2/3rds as slow) system memory. This increases latency in most cases, and these 9th Generation Games are bandwidth hungry/latency sensitive if anything else. Modern API's like Direct X12 and Vulkan try to mitigate these issues, but none have fully resolved it and developers don't always implement these mitigations. Now this isn't to say the Switch 2 can solve all memory capacity issues. Obviously having 16GB of System Ram + 4GB of VRAM might be advantageous compared to Switch 2's 12GB of unified memory (with 3GB allocated for the OS), but in modern 9th Generation titles VRAM capacity can be an independent bottleneck from overall memory capacity and it really has been showing to be this generation. If you have a VRAM bottleneck it doesn't matter if you bought 128GB of system ram, you'll still have a VRAM bottleneck. |
I would argue the benefits of a 2050 having more than 4GB of vram is extremely limited... Remember, data can be streamed into VRAM over time as well.
The Switch 2 is definitely a memory starved environment though, it cannot use all it's memory as VRAM... However like the 2050, there comes a point where it's usage of more memory for VRAM is just pointless.
The Switch 2 would have been better served having a full fat 16GB of total memory for the duration of this entire generation... The Series S having only 8GB available to developers (That's 1GB less than the Switch 2) has been one of that consoles biggest bottlenecks, so they both share the same pain point in that regard.
|
Thank Perma. That was what I thought. And it makes sense.
I do agree 12 gb is low moving, especially when projecting out 2 to 4 years.
