When 32GB becomes the standard it's also when 32GB of RAM is stupid cheap.When the day comes that 32 GB of RAM is the standard, I'm out.
When 32GB becomes the standard it's also when 32GB of RAM is stupid cheap.When the day comes that 32 GB of RAM is the standard, I'm out.
You can get 16 GB DDR4 3200 mhz memory for like $60 these days.
In my experience multiplatform games at ultra/very high settings use up to 13gb of ddr4 at the high-end (BF5)
But most hover around 9-10gb usage.
To be honest I can't remember the last time a game that used less than 8gb.
The transfer from system ram to vram is one of the biggest bottle necks. More VRAM is actually preferable to more system ram. If you have the money to spend, buy a card with a lot of VRAM first.
I would have thought getting the data from the hard drive to RAM would be the bigger bottleneck. Is faster DDR5 the only way to alleviate that bottleneck in the near future?
You cant really compare console vs pc ram. GTA 5 ran on 256mb system ram+256mb vram on xbox360/PS3.When people have 16 GB of system ram, they still have more ram than console owners. Consoles don't split ram between system and graphics core, that 16 gb is both system ram AND VRAM. PC GPUs typically have between 6 and 11 gb of VRAM separately these days. If you have 16 GB of system ram, and like a 1080ti, you have 27 GB of ram total, which will last you very long.
Now, splitting ram like this has perks and draw backs. The main perk is you naturally have more ram, the draw back is the obvious bottle neck between transfering from system ram to vram, and thus your CPU can't inspect or affect VRAM elements like textures, compiled shader binaries, etc. All things considered, if everything were equal in amount, I would actually say a unified memory structure is inherently superior, but given that PCs will have much more total ram than consoles, it becomes harder to say definitively. I would bet 16 gb system ram will be enough for the entirety of next generation.
That said, I have 128 GB of ram in my latest build, lol, so I'm good.
You cant really compare console vs pc ram. GTA 5 ran on 256mb system ram+256mb vram on xbox360/ps3
Nvidia is stingy though. Sure, a 1080ti has 11GB, but a more capable 2080s only has 8. RAM offered doesn't scale with the raw capability of hardware.Today, 11 GB of VRAM isn't too uncommon, a $500 1080ti can hit that
Nvidia is stingy though. Sure, a 1080ti has 11GB, but a more capable 2080s only has 8.
ofc, but you're not paying high end mainstream 500usd prices for that.
ofc, but you're not paying high end mainstream 500usd prices for that.
That's my point, 11 GB isn't exactly common. It's stuck at the high end.And when the 1080ti was new, you weren't paying $500 for it either. That was the price the 1080 OC was.
That's my point, 11 GB isn't exactly common. It's stuck at the high end.
I think read speed of my NVMe drive is 3,5GB/s, saturating PCIE3.No. VRAM has a bandwidth of multiple terabytes per second. Even the fastest NVMEs have a bandwidth of merely several hundred GB/s, and on a PC, there is a huge bottle neck between sending data from system ram to VRAM.
The amount of RAM is more important for streaming data in a ring buffer than speed of transfer. Consoles get a slight boost because there is no transfer penalty due to a unified memory structure.
Yup, it's basically a bad buying decision to buy more RAM right now if you have at least 16GB of RAM. Same with NVMe SSDs if you already have one at least 500GB.Honestly it won't be recommended until ddr6 is a thing and we don't even have ddr5 released yet.
So yeah if you're doing a build now just stick with 16gb and save yourself $80.
When the day comes that 32 GB of RAM is the standard, I'm out.
128GB of ram? Damn.When people have 16 GB of system ram, they still have more ram than console owners. Consoles don't split ram between system and graphics core, that 16 gb is both system ram AND VRAM. PC GPUs typically have between 6 and 11 gb of VRAM separately these days. If you have 16 GB of system ram, and like a 1080ti, you have 27 GB of ram total, which will last you very long.
Now, splitting ram like this has perks and draw backs. The main perk is you naturally have more ram, the draw back is the obvious bottle neck between transfering from system ram to vram, and thus your CPU can't inspect or affect VRAM elements like textures, compiled shader binaries, etc. All things considered, if everything were equal in amount, I would actually say a unified memory structure is inherently superior, but given that PCs will have much more total ram than consoles, it becomes harder to say definitively. I would bet 16 gb system ram will be enough for the entirety of next generation.
That said, I have 128 GB of ram in my latest build, lol, so I'm good.
Super easy, just pop it in.
Do you think PCs will eventually have a unified memory pool? What would it take for that to happen?When people have 16 GB of system ram, they still have more ram than console owners. Consoles don't split ram between system and graphics core, that 16 gb is both system ram AND VRAM. PC GPUs typically have between 6 and 11 gb of VRAM separately these days. If you have 16 GB of system ram, and like a 1080ti, you have 27 GB of ram total, which will last you very long.
Now, splitting ram like this has perks and draw backs. The main perk is you naturally have more ram, the draw back is the obvious bottle neck between transfering from system ram to vram, and thus your CPU can't inspect or affect VRAM elements like textures, compiled shader binaries, etc. All things considered, if everything were equal in amount, I would actually say a unified memory structure is inherently superior, but given that PCs will have much more total ram than consoles, it becomes harder to say definitively. I would bet 16 gb system ram will be enough for the entirety of next generation.
That said, I have 128 GB of ram in my latest build, lol, so I'm good.
Do you think PCs will eventually have a unified memory pool? What would it take for that to happen?