Forums - Gaming Discussion - Let's talk about Specs

You like Specs?

I love Specs! 16 40.00%
 
I kinda like Specs. 13 32.50%
 
Specs are for nerds! 2 5.00%
 
I don't care either way, ... 9 22.50%
 
Total:40
CGI-Quality said:
BraLoD said:
I still can't believe both stuck with those RAMs.
MS got fast and slow mixed, Sony got unified average. Both only 16Gb.
This seriously sucks.

Nah. It'll be fine. Just wait for the games. As for the RAM..... I tried to tell y'all :P

Still, you will find that it will be plenty.

It reeks of bottleneck for me.

Sure it won't be now, but in the long run.

I'm very disappointed.



Around the Network
BraLoD said:
CGI-Quality said:

Nah. It'll be fine. Just wait for the games. As for the RAM..... I tried to tell y'all :P

Still, you will find that it will be plenty.

It reeks of bottleneck for me.

Sure it won't be now, but in the long run.

I'm very disappointed.

Reeks of bottleneck? The speed at which data transfers from read to memory is incredibly fast. RAM can be filled in two seconds. TWO SECONDS!

It gets unloaded, then loaded again in two seconds. Wrap your head around that! O_o




Hynad said:
BraLoD said:

It reeks of bottleneck for me.

Sure it won't be now, but in the long run.

I'm very disappointed.

Reeks of bottleneck? The speed at which data transfers from read to memory is incredibly fast. RAM can be filled in two seconds. TWO SECONDS!

It gets unloaded, then loaded again in two seconds. Wrap your head around that! O_o

What good does that do when frames render in 16 ms. Wrap your head around that, it takes 120 frames to fill the RAM. One hundred and twenty!!!

Compromises will have to be made. 1080p SDR to 4K HDR is 8x increase in memory. Ray tracing is a memory hungry process. Procedural generation is a memory hungry process. Living/changing environments, very memory hungry. Persistent worlds (all changes stay) very memory hungry. More variation in assets and textures, need more memory. Megatexures, need a lot of memory. Longer draw distance, bigger fov, need more memory. Memory is one thing you can never have too much off and the one thing you can't upgrade during the gen. (Well you can, but it's pointless cause parity needs to be maintained)

The SSD can help, but it's still at least 50 times slower than memory, with compression.

It's enough to get what we're used to in 4K and HDR. But I wouldn't expect any revolutionary new dynamic worlds etc.



SvennoJ said:
Hynad said:

Reeks of bottleneck? The speed at which data transfers from read to memory is incredibly fast. RAM can be filled in two seconds. TWO SECONDS!

It gets unloaded, then loaded again in two seconds. Wrap your head around that! O_o

What good does that do when frames render in 16 ms. Wrap your head around that, it takes 120 frames to fill the RAM. One hundred and twenty!!!

Compromises will have to be made. 1080p SDR to 4K HDR is 8x increase in memory. Ray tracing is a memory hungry process. Procedural generation is a memory hungry process. Living/changing environments, very memory hungry. Persistent worlds (all changes stay) very memory hungry. More variation in assets and textures, need more memory. Megatexures, need a lot of memory. Longer draw distance, bigger fov, need more memory. Memory is one thing you can never have too much off and the one thing you can't upgrade during the gen. (Well you can, but it's pointless cause parity needs to be maintained)

The SSD can help, but it's still at least 50 times slower than memory, with compression.

It's enough to get what we're used to in 4K and HDR. But I wouldn't expect any revolutionary new dynamic worlds etc.

You’re talking about the frame buffer. You don’t need to fill and empty the RAM for every frame. A lot of data can remain there and be used for different frame.




BraLoD said:
CGI-Quality said:

Nah. It'll be fine. Just wait for the games. As for the RAM..... I tried to tell y'all :P

Still, you will find that it will be plenty.

It reeks of bottleneck for me.

Sure it won't be now, but in the long run.

I'm very disappointed.

Unless you’re being sarcastic, nope.



                                                                                                             

Around the Network
vivster said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

But what about $700 GPU that bumps your PC up to 30% stronger than consoles and lasts two years before being crushed on price to power by a new series of cards? 

Price/performance is not something we do here in #pcmasterrace.

Probably for the same reasons MS no longer talks about liftime sales of XB1. :P



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

CGI-Quality said:
BraLoD said:

It reeks of bottleneck for me.

Sure it won't be now, but in the long run.

I'm very disappointed.

Unless you’re being sarcastic, nope.

You probably have some experience with this. How much does ray tracing affect memory needs? Google wasn't very helpful, only one game that recommended 12GB up from 8GB with RTX on.

I also wonder what will happen with game sizes. Now loading is much faster, even though ray tracing can help reduce pre baked lighting maps, it's also much faster to load in pre baked stuff to help out. Pre baked stuff can still look better in static scenes than the likely limited amount of ray tracing next gen consoles can do. A combination probably even better.



I really liked the ability to boot a game in 1 sec and how that speed to fill the RAM will change game development.
Also really liked MS way of 4 games being able to instantly resume plus the "always playing the best version of the game".



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

SvennoJ said:
CGI-Quality said:

Unless you’re being sarcastic, nope.

You probably have some experience with this. How much does ray tracing affect memory needs? Google wasn't very helpful, only one game that recommended 12GB up from 8GB with RTX on.

I also wonder what will happen with game sizes. Now loading is much faster, even though ray tracing can help reduce pre baked lighting maps, it's also much faster to load in pre baked stuff to help out. Pre baked stuff can still look better in static scenes than the likely limited amount of ray tracing next gen consoles can do. A combination probably even better.

Your memory will kick into high gear depending on what's going on (very much like what you'd expect with VRAM in cases like HBAO+ or advanced volumetric lighting). I noticed this especially with Metro: Exodus, particularly in scenes that took place indoors and implemented various strands of raytracing - light/shadow). Or, even better, play Control. :P 

What will help both the Series X and PS5 is the ability to load the data much faster (all things in working order, the PS5 will be the victor in these cases), because they won't be bogged down with memory constraints + a slower storage medium (as was the case with both the PS4 and Xbox One). They will leverage their available memory and take advantage of the SSD to ensure not only the maximum visual quality, but keep framerates consistent throughout (be it 30 or 60fps — and this is where the Xbox Series X will take commanding leads).



                                                                                                             

Pemalite said:
Conina said:

Okay, let's talk specs.

I was wondering at first why Mark Cerny said that 825 GB are the "most natural size" for a 12-channel interface, although 825 does not divide very well by 12.

But gigabyte and terabyte are based on the decimal system (1 terabyte = 10^12 bytes = 1,000,000,000,000 bytes) and not on the binary system like RAM (1 tebibyte = 2^40 bytes = 1,099,511,627,776 bytes).

And 825 gigabytes = 768 gibibytes (or to be exact 768 gibibytes are 824.633720832 gigabytes, rounded up to 825 GB).

768 Gibibyte divided by 12 lines = exactly 64 gibibyte per channel.

You are reading to much into it.

There is likely some NAND reserved as spare area for various tasks to maintain performance that isn't accounted for.

alexxonne said:

Assuming my cheap calculations. If the PS5 GPU would had 42 CU or clocked at 2,670mhz, it could have achieved 12TFlops similar to Xbox series X. If the PS5 GPU were to have 52 CU as Xbox series X then it would have 14.82 Tflops. By contrast if XBox series X GPU were to be clocked similar to the PS5 GPU 2.23Ghz (2,283.5 Mhz ), then it would had 14.44 Tflops. What do you thinks guys?

The announced specs only makes sense if they are targeting a $400 price range. Perfectly for 4K gaming at 60fps, but not more than that. Also I'm sad they didn't talk about BC features for ps3/ps2/ps1.

Could the ps5 gpu be having several disabled CU and holding them until release? Is not unprecedented or unheard of.
In addition Cerny talked about using a GPU CU as a processing unit for audio. So...either games will use 35 CU or the PS5 GPU has more than 36 CU to be used.

I think you have placed far to much emphasis on flops rather than capabilities.

BraLoD said:
I still can't believe both stuck with those RAMs.
MS got fast and slow mixed, Sony got unified average. Both only 16Gb.
This seriously sucks.

Me and CGI called it years ago.

Our original predictions were... 16GB of Ram... Yet we still had people thinking 128GB or more. Was pretty funny at the time!

JRPGfan said:

ram was used to "store" data you needed quick access too, you couldnt affoard to wait on your slow mechanical hard drive to get.

Ram is still used to "store" data that is needed for quick access... Because we still cannot afford to wait on a slow SSD for data.

Ram is 500GB/s or more. SSD's are 1/10th of that.

JRPGfan said:

Thats no longer a issue, with how quick (esp sony's) SSD is.
This drastically reduces the amount of actual ram needed, when you run games.

It's still an issue, it's just much less of an issue.
You are right it should reduce the need for more RAM, but it doesn't remove the need for it entirely.

We will be RAM starved this generation, especially later on in the console cycle.

JRPGfan said:


It might even effect sizes of games, where they might have duplicates of data,
thats mixed in with differnt parts, so they "could" be loaded like this into ram.
Stuff like that will be gone with next gen.

They didn't duplicate data on a mechanical disk, that occurred with optical disks due to their much lower seek times.

JRPGfan said:


These SSD are almost like virtual ram in themselves, you just go directly to the SSD to load stuff, isntead of first loading it into your ram.

^ atleast I think thats what cerny was saying.

Not really. It's just "Virtual Memory". - Which is a technology that has existed for the last 30 years in various forms. Fuck. Even the Original Xbox used it!




Small correction, Cerny confirmed some data on the Spider-Man was duplicated over 100 times on the HDD. They were very splicit that game size would be reduced with the SDD solution.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994