Bojji
Member
They weren't able to double PS5 power in 4 years (PS4 pro did that in 3). I doubt they will be able to double pro power in next 3 or 4 years (that's 33TF), let alone go to 50TF...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let's face it: GPU manufacturers have hit the wall and things are only going to get worse from here.
- Thread starter Corporal.Hicks
- Start date
They weren't able to double PS5 power in 4 years (PS4 pro did that in 3). I doubt they will be able to double pro power in next 3 or 4 years (that's 33TF), let alone go to 50TF...
Schmendrick
Member
The only real wall we've hit are Nvidia's profit margin desires.
Last edited:
Shifty1897
Member
I expected this to be a low effort thread but you made some good points and I found your post very interesting and insightful. Great job OP!
People want their cake and to eat it too. There is just no money in spending all this time on maximising hardware usage and amazing graphics for it to flop like The Order 1886. The AAA games market has contracted and there are people who often even gun for its demise by not appreciating any of it. Then they turn around and say that the leaps aren't big enough. The way that the industry has tried to deal with this decline and increased risk/cost but still see those leaps is to make development cheaper by offloading the burden on to the hardware and middleware. UE5, AI and RT are the main drivers of that now.
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Why do that when you can just troll?
The odds of a $500 PS6 in 2028 are almost nil. $600 is more likely. Same price as the PS5 7 years later? I doubt it. Maybe if they have a cheaper DE and a disc version…even still, the DE could be $600 and the disc version $700.
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
PS4, masterfully designed. A tablet CPU with a 5400 RPM HDD over a USB 2.0 interface. Then you got the PS4 Pro, a massively unbalanced system.
They did what they could with the budget and resources they had, but calling those systems masterfully designed is comical.
DoubleClutch
Gold Member
The Order 1886 was good but I never want to see that 21:9 bullshit and call it 1080p.
DoubleClutch
Gold Member
None of this is a problem for me. The development has to catch up to the tech. Sure, we have better geometry, textures, shinier surfaces, but gameplay hasn’t evolved the way I expected it to.
Half Life 2 came out in 2004 and had the Gravity Gun and using physics to solve puzzles, battle enemies, and navigate the environment. Fast forward two decades, and there hasn’t been much evolution in that front. No amount of raster is going to fix that.
Give me Bloodborne 2 at the current level of graphics and I’ll be happy as can be.
Half Life 2 came out in 2004 and had the Gravity Gun and using physics to solve puzzles, battle enemies, and navigate the environment. Fast forward two decades, and there hasn’t been much evolution in that front. No amount of raster is going to fix that.
Give me Bloodborne 2 at the current level of graphics and I’ll be happy as can be.
Hudo
Member
Exactly. I would love to see the "power" of modern consoles and PC tech be applied to actual advances in AI and gameplay (systems). Good graphics are boring.
Last edited:
Thebonehead
Gold Member
Oh it's the edgy neo account that's jealous of people spending money again
You know it's ironic because...
ricardo_sousa11
Member
You're missing the point, Nvidia has the monopoly on GPUs 88% of PC users use an Nvidia GPU.
They are rising the prices because they can.
As for improvements, game developers have gone lazy and do not optimize the games, specially after UE5. The true enemy is lazyness and lack of creativity, not lack of power.
They are rising the prices because they can.
As for improvements, game developers have gone lazy and do not optimize the games, specially after UE5. The true enemy is lazyness and lack of creativity, not lack of power.
Last edited:
Corporal.Hicks
Member
It's not always the case. I downloaded texture pack for W40K Space Marine 2 that required around 18GB VRAM, and that's real VRAM usage, not even allocation. Some people have had problems on 16GB VRAM cards because performance tanked with this texture pack, or the game stuttered, but on my PC the game still ran smoothly, because PCIe transfer was fast enough.
This test shows how drastically fast PCIe can improve performance in VRAM-limited situations.
What's funny, 4GB card on PCIe4 slot was faster in some cases than 8GB model on PCIe3 (both minimum and average fps)
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
This is precisely what I’m talking about. You can have all the VRAM in the world, but bandwidth will always be the bottleneck.It's not always the case. I downloaded texture pack for W40K Space Marine 2 that required around 18GB VRAM, and that's real VRAM usage, not even allocation. Some people had problems on 16GB VRAM cards because performance tanked with this texture pack, or the game stuttered, but on my PC the game still run smoothly, because PCIe transfer was fast enough.
This test shows how drastically fast PCIe can improve performance in VRAM-limited situations.
What's funny, 4GB card on PCIe4 slot was faster in some cases than 8GB model on PCIe3 (both minimum and average fps)
Last edited:
hinch7
Member
Getting a 8GB card in 2025 is a terrible idea though. Games are getting more and more heavy on memory.It's not always the case. I downloaded texture pack for W40K Space Marine 2 that required around 18GB VRAM, and that's real VRAM usage, not even allocation. Some people had problems on 16GB VRAM cards because performance tanked with this texture pack, or the game stuttered, but on my PC the game still run smoothly, because PCIe transfer was fast enough.
This test shows how drastically fast PCIe can improve performance in VRAM-limited situations.
What's funny, 4GB card on PCIe4 slot was faster in some cases than 8GB model on PCIe3 (both minimum and average fps)
One of the reasons why there is/was so much hype for the B580. Once you run out of VRAM buffer, your performance tanks and frametimes becomes a mess.
Last edited:
Pedro Motta
Gold Member
This is where the future is. All the rest is a waste of time.
Bojji
Member
It's not always the case. I downloaded texture pack for W40K Space Marine 2 that required around 18GB VRAM, and that's real VRAM usage, not even allocation. Some people had problems on 16GB VRAM cards because performance tanked with this texture pack, or the game stuttered, but on my PC the game still run smoothly, because PCIe transfer was fast enough.
This test shows how drastically fast PCIe can improve performance in VRAM-limited situations.
What's funny, 4GB card on PCIe4 slot was faster in some cases than 8GB model on PCIe3 (both minimum and average fps)
It's not true at all. This FC example is some anomaly.
Reality looks like this:
ResilientBanana
Member
Very high and ultra settings with ray tracing on? The 4060 is a low-end card, why would anyone do this? These cards are getting stellar fps with all those features enabled, what’s the complaint here?It's not true at all. This FC example is some anomaly.
Reality looks like this:
Secondly, the 50 series will be on PCIe 5 where as the 40 series is on PCIe 4. The 50 series will have double the bandwidth thus verifying further what I said.
Lastly, the console versions of these games don’t run at very high - ultra settings and have even less VRAM available to them and rely on AMD’s version of DLSS and other types of checkerboard rendering.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
It's 4060ti...
Newer games are chugging 8GB cards even not on highest settings. But you can keep denying reality.
It also shows what happens when card goes out of vram, it's not similar to FC at all, isn't it? You have exactly the same GPU but one with more memory performs better.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
What does might mean?
Bojji
Member
Yeah, but it's very unrealistic might.
ResilientBanana
Member
Stop setting the game to very high and ultra at a tier where it’s not acceptable. The textures alone will fill the VRAM. You shouldn’t be using 4K assets at 1080p. The low-tier GPU isn’t tuned for that.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Fuck me...
It's very realistic when you have enough vram. Ratchet runs in 60fps with VH RT on 16GB card.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
Makes sense. The extra $100 goes a long way in that regard. Pay budget prices, get budget performance.
Last edited:
bender
What time is it?
51% of 50 TF isn't very unrealistic unless you got lost with the comparison to Real® Cheese.
Bojji
Member
Both 4060 and 4060ti shouldn't have 8GB in the first place. 10GB minimum for 4060 and 12GB for 4060ti.
8GB is entry level memory amount for cards like xx50 series.
But nvidia is gonna nvidia...
ResilientBanana
Member
The 4060 is entry level though.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
You said that once "game goes out of vram and spills into system RAM you are fucked", and my exampe showed that's not always the case.It's not true at all. This FC example is some anomaly.
Reality looks like this:
"Not always the case" means there will be still games, where even fast PCIe will be not enough to fix performance in VRAM limited situation. RT games are especially sensitive to memory bandwidth, and can close to desktop as soon you run out or VRAM (especially RE4Remake). Techspot tested games without RT, and PCIe4 bandwidth was enough to improve performance across every single raster game they tested, although in most games card with more VRAM was still faster.
I'm not saying that fast PCIe slot can save GPUs with low amount of VRAM, but it certainly can help in some cases. That's why some people with 16GB VRAM cards has problems in W40K Space Marine 2 with 100GB texture pack, while I have no problems on my card despite having the same 16GB VRAM. Faster PCIe clearly made a difference in my case.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
For some reason they didn't make 4050 (yet), but 4060 shouldn't have less memory than 3060. It should AT LEAST have that 10GB.
You said that once "game goes out of vram and spills into system RAM you are fucked", and my exampe showed that's not always the case.
"Not always the case" means there will be still games, where even fast PCIe will be not enough to fix performance in VRAM limited situation. RT games are especially sensitive to memory bandwidth, and can close to desktop as soon you run out or VRAM (especially RE4Remake). Techsport tested games without RT, and PCIe4 bandwidth was enough to improve performance across every single raster game they tested, although in most games card with more VRAM was still faster.
I'm not saying that fast PCIe slot can save GPUs with low amount of VRAM, but it certainly can help in some cases. That's why some people with 16GB VRAM cards has problems in W40K Space Marine 2 with 100GB texture pack, while I have no problems on my card despite having the same 16GB VRAM. Faster PCIe clearly made a difference in my case.
Fast PCIE might help somewhat with performance loss but it's not the solution.
You have to kill texture quality/resolution or change GPU to one with more memory.
ResilientBanana
Member
I don’t disagree with you.
asdasdasdbb
Member
Bojji
Member
Those cards should have been designed with right vram amounts.
Nvidia was super lazy with 4060/ti.
hinch7
Member
160-bit is possible but Nvidia isn't going to do that.
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
they don't "have to" do shit. They will either:
Stagnate graphics (which is already happening to some extent)
Go GAAS since that's a genre which is not as reliant on good visuals to sell
or
Just not give a fuck. framegen & dlss will clean up the unoptimized mess
The mediocre devs are keeping their jobs.
asdasdasdbb
Member
The 6 and 7 chips really should be OEM only. But I guess they don't want to abandon sub-$500 just yet.
Xdrive05
Member
The Daniel Owen tests above clearly show that 8GB is the limitation EVEN at 1080p. It's dispositive. Even the 4060ti runs way better with the 16GB version, EVEN at 1080p in some new games. 1% lows tell the story too.
Push things up to 1440p with DLSS and frame gen, and you need even more VRAM. 8GB can forget about it.
4060ti 16GB plays Indiana Jones very well at 1440p Balanced with Full RT if you use frame generation and a controller (yes, the FG input lag is bad with mouse look, but fine on controller). And it uses 14.5GB of VRAM to do that. The 8GB version of the exact same card won't even give you the Full RT option in the damn menu.
Push things up to 1440p with DLSS and frame gen, and you need even more VRAM. 8GB can forget about it.
4060ti 16GB plays Indiana Jones very well at 1440p Balanced with Full RT if you use frame generation and a controller (yes, the FG input lag is bad with mouse look, but fine on controller). And it uses 14.5GB of VRAM to do that. The 8GB version of the exact same card won't even give you the Full RT option in the damn menu.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll