Originally Posted by Brutuz
Regardless of how well Windows is written and how efficient it actually is, he would know a tonne about the internals of PCs and how they're used...Are you really trying to say that more RAM wouldn't show any
benefit at all? Even if developers don't make use of the extra RAM to code more features in, or put larger textures, etc it'd still improve loading times drastically...You do the first load, fill the RAM with common textures and swap out stuff that's not needed, why do you think a PC still
loads way faster than a console even when both are running similar HDDs? The initial loading still takes a bit of time but once you have most of the required stuff in the RAM it's a hell of a lot faster, that's why loading times started out alright and then just got longer and longer as the CD/DVD/BR based consoles aged...This happened with the PS1, the PS2 and now the PS3.
You're basing your entire argument off of what todays games use
, I'm pointing out that even 5 years ago what games used was nothing compared to what they use today and that the trend has been happening for years...Do you really think we won't have another leap in what PCs do in games when the new consoles come out? Do you really
think the rules that apply today for what makes a good gaming PC will apply in 5 years? What worked 5 years ago doesn't fully apply now...5 years ago you could easily get away with a single core CPU, today a single core limits even games like Starcraft 2. 5 years ago games would run fine with 2GB system RAM, nowadays they'll run noticeably better on 4GB. How many times do I have to point that stuff out? I've provided proof that RAM and vRAM usage is still increasing and has jumped every console generation yet you're sitting here telling me that it's enough based off of what is essentially a bunch of ports from consoles that run 512MB of RAM...Notice how a lot of the games that use more RAM are ones where the developer has spent extra time on the PC version? And I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the 32bit program 2GB (3GB if you have LAA enabled on it) limit...The reason why RAM usage is slowly increasing is because there's no point in making a PC game with tonnes of bells and whistles when the consoles would have to be turned down so far that it'd practically be a different game, and typically the PC exclusive games are made by companies that either don't want to spend the money on pushing graphics, etc (ie. EA and The Sims/Simcity) or companies that just plain aren't big enough to spend the time coding these features. (eg. Ironclad and Sins of a Solar Empire, CD Projekt and The Witcher series)
I've provided proof that 1) the typical memory usage of games increases over time, even if it is slower than the GPU requirements, 2) Despite being a larger total increase overall we still ended up being limited by RAM this generation and finally that 3) games can also make use of more RAM when it's offered, you've just kept saying "Look at todays games
, they run fine and only use xGB of RAM!" over and over as though what applies now also applies in 5 years let alone the 8 that the current generation consoles have lasted, I'd also wager that the PS4 and Xbox One will have even longer lifespans than the PS3 and 360 have. Will there be other bottlenecks? Yes, no doubt the GPU will be eventually, but the RAM will most certainly be a limitation by the time the consoles reach 4 years old too, mark my words. (I don't know why people are going on about the CPU for, look at the type of game on PC that doesn't have a GPU bottleneck: either poorly optimized like Skyrim or an RTS which aren't typically ported to console)
I was also talking about the console versions of Skyrim, not the PC version...It's well known Bethesda spends more time optimizing the console versions because they know PC users will make unofficial patches
and tweak the game themselves
to make it run faster regardless, if you don't believe me try to run Skyrim on a PC with similar specifications to a console at similar visual quality, it won't run anywhere nearly as well. I did point out that it was a bug in the game that caused it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was running out of memory that caused the symptom of starting to get insanely low FPS when you had a large save.
Says the man who argues loading times for a console are slow because of ram, sidestepping the fact that the majority of those games still load everything off the DVD. A device that is notorious for slower read speeds than a hard drive (BR isn't that much better either, compared to a HDD install).
Keep it coming mate, keep it coming. And textures =/= much into loading time. Many games use streaming textures, which means? Oh, they live stream as needed. MANY games do that, bravo again for showing some real nice knowledge on how this works.
You've failed to mention that one of the major improvements we've had, is how the kernel handles memory and hardware. Since XP, the NT kernel has moved in leaps and bounds. There is another reason why the PC experience is much smoother.
But you know, what do I know about these things. Couldn't be that these new processors that support more ram also have increased in memory efficiency? Hmm, DDR to DDR2 and then to DDR3? Man, nope can't be that one either.
I'll agree this will hinder things a bit, just saying that it won't be the biggest problem we face with the consoles that's all. Not in a long shot. You just want to make this ram thing out to be some terrible massacre. Oh woe is this, it'll starve and suffer our PC games because I'm a nerdy PC gamer! Grow up, the xbox didn't keep PC games from using 2GB of ram when it was limited to 1/4 that size. So why should this issue limit PC games from using 2-6GB system (NOT VRAM) in the next upcoming years?
I've never said they can't make use of it, I just said typically they don't use that much. I'll now add that we don't require that either, it's a freaking console. You can either suffer loading times or get a PC version of the game. I don't care how long it loads, that's not my problem as a PC gamer.
Also provided poor proof of anything. I've provided proof of games that people enjoy, consider up to date amazing on the PC, while still using a small memory footprint. And frankly, there wouldn't be much more memory to add even if they did push things that much more. Because we were already limited in other ares, on the PC.
What do you want, tessellation on every object, displacement mapping, with a gazillion polys? ERRRR WRONG. We already made this last gen GPU and CPUs cry oil, without making crazy sized worlds like Skyrim. What on earth do you think would happen if we had Crysis 3 graphics on Skyrim? You want a playable game right? No seriously, because I'm starting to think you don't. We are currently limited in the PC in other areas, because programming for multi-threading sucks donkey. Till then, we can shower our towers with ram. Start gluing it on your case, just in case!
Seriously, for a person who's on this board a lot and probably reads every benchmark. It's been very apparent now for a while that our biggest limiting factor for PC gaming isn't exactly RAM issues. Most of it is either optimization, because frankly it sucks. Or it's developers won't push those boundaries. Then we do get those developers who push those boundaries, Crysis 3 comes out like a beautiful down stairs mixup of a game slash demo. Crushes machines left and right, what's that? It uses less than 1.5GB system memory and 2GB of VRAM. Interesting, interesting indeed.Edited by mushroomboy - 7/29/13 at 5:21pm