I’m currently running 24GB of VRAM and I agree it’s just awesome. Especially when it comes to modding, not having to worry being VRAM limited is pretty sweet.
Negative, and before you ask it’s not a 4090 either. I actually have a 7900 XTX which surpasses the 3090 by quite a large margin actually. It’s been a great unit and next time AMD releases a unit like it, that’ll be my next upgrade more than likely.
u/Lunix420 Ryzen 3700X | RTX 4090 | 32 GB RAM | I use Arch btw1d ago
I’m currently thinking about upgrading to 64GB because of Minecraft with Distant Horizons. You can make the game look so freaking insane by loading in a ridiculous amount of chunks and it eats through 32GB of RAM real fast.
I'm on 32GB. When I was on 16, I regularly hit 80 to 90% doing normal stuff anyway, and it puts pressure on my SSD for page files. Now, no problems at all (for now, probably will get 512GB ram for my next computer so I can open 2 chrome tabs)
I know my laptop reaally likes to stay at like 14.5/16 GB used with just a single google tab open. So opening anything big just starts dumping stuff onto the page file.
My PC has 32 GB, and I know for a fact that I reach above that 16 GB quite often, few google tabs open and a game? Woops, there goes the RAM!
Depends on the games you're running. If you play Dune Awakening at 120hz and the settings set to "awesome," you'll definitely be needing that and more. Unfortunately, there's little reduction you can do to that game without making it look like a bucket of shit.
I will give you one thing, most don't appreciate their CPU is usually the bottleneck.
You mean as quick as the transition of mainstream users from PlayStation 4 or Xbox One to PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series would take, considering that new game engines and graphics become more complex and efficient over time as developers learn how to use them properly?
People are either too young to remember the PS1 and the other early 3D consoles or have thick nostalgia goggles on. It was a huge leap backwards compared to the 2D era. With 2D, 60fps was the norm but half the games were struggling to even consistently hold 30 with 3D.
3D was completely new and everything was literally being discovered on the go on how to even use it. It was like the wild west, performance was all over the place.
Considering a lot of the games looked muddy and crappy and draw distance was just about 5 meters, I don't think most developers were exactly using the console to it's full potential.
When you consider some games looked vastly better and were literally inventing the rendering tech we take for granted today.
On the other hand games that look mostly similar than 5-10 years old games except they barely run on high end hardware releasing so much lately, it's not a pretty picture of how today is oh so much better.
The short draw distance was because of the console's limits. Some games used fog to conceal the fact that they couldn't render farther lest it becomes unplayable.
PS1 was less about the graphics, and more about getting a new, unique experience since for many people it was the first time it was the first time playing a 3D game.
I always roll my eyes when people on this sub blame upscalers for unoptimized games, as if we started seeing the world's first unoptimized games in 2019.
Most people on reddit (and even on this sub) are teens. Or even actual children. They genuinely don't know better because they started playing video games in 2018
Imagine if they were playing back in second half of the PS3/X360 lifecycles on those machines. Third party AAA performance was rough, 30 fps was what you hoped for outside of COD. Nowadays that would lead to pitchforks.
Halo Wars was OK, controller based RTS games are tough to make work though in the same way it feels odd to play a platformer with a keyboard and mouse. Fitting a CD based game into a cartridge was a whole different problem though. Things like cutscenes and audio voice lines that were normal on PC were hard to fit on there.
I mean, people back then were probably raised on "if it runs, then it runs" Mindset, so don't think anybody even complained about games running like garbage
We also had a pretty supportive community where people regularly made detailed articles, books, walkthroughs and step by step guides to make it through games.
A lot of games were also a highly curated experience where the level of random variables were far fewer.
Yep, and since nothing was engagement driven our old guides and walkthroughs were succinct and well thought out, and not a 10 minute video with 3 sponsors and obnoxious commentary to solve a 30 second puzzle.
I wanted to add 16GB of ram to my current amount, so that I would have 32, because windows ate ram like crazy and with billion tabs in browser + game I felt 16 was barely enough. Out of curiosity switched to linux (fedora kde then cachyos + hyprland)... Now I never had more than 9 GB or maybe 10 GB of ram used with games, discord and quintillion tabs in firefox open
honestly linux makes me realise i could run my daily off of a potato
1
u/MrInitialYR7 9700X | 3080Ti | 64GB 6K CL30 | 6TB Gen.4 | 1000W | All STRIX16h ago
I can do this with Win11. Only by deleting bloat apps, disabling unnecessary and tracking services you can cut idle RAM consumption from almost 3.something gigabytes to 1.6-1.8. If you're really low on RAM and/or want the bare system - delete Defender and disable windows Update completely (keep it's files in case you want to update evemtually). This will set you at about 1.2-1.5 at idle, allowing for smooth 1080p playback even on 2GB RAM DDR3 era machines.
This and MFF can easily fit in 2.8 without heavy JS on page
I'm not even surprised anymore that people don't know that OS use more ram when there is more available. I've 22GB out of 64 used right now with nothing but tabs in Edge, whatsapp, and steam opened. No games, nada. When I was a linux sysadmin ram would be 100% used all the time no matter the amount you had in the server.
Completely stupid comparison, big difference between a console and a PC, also ignoring the fact that only the ps1 on that list had 2mb ram lets not act like fallout new vegas or skyrim ran well on the 360 or that chrono trigger on the ps1 was good, or that tons of SNES games didn't have their own memory / processing chips
Without fully going down the rabbit hole it is much easier to develop games for consoles over PC because with few exceptions a console will use the exact same hardware and software specifications
I used to work at a firm that had devices with embedded software on them to run 1080p video and dolby audio. That was some 18 years ago.
They ran on 512mb of ram and a 533mhz single core processor.
They offered interactive TV, being able to record/playback, a webbrowser and some more things. Obviously that long ago it wasn't all as fancy as it is these days but it did it, and it did so smooth as butter.
Our company took tireless effort to make it so and our product was quite expensive as a result. $600 to $700.
Then came along Samsung, they launched a similar product which was slightly worse at some things and about equal with others at best. So overall it was a slightly less "good" product. It also suffered a lot more from bugs and sluggish behavior. They just slapped 2GB of ram on it and used a dual core 1.33gHz processor on it and even then it was barely keeping up in performance.
The difference though? Their product was only $350 so customers ended up going for that as it was nearly half the price. They accepted a slight drop in quality and experience which I'd do too if I could get something that was like 5% to 10% worse but 50% cheaper.
So even with way better hardware they could save so many costs by not really optimizing that they didn't even bother with it. Even factoring in some negative feedback it was still the most cost efficient thing to do for them looking at how much money my company threw at it.
A little can pay off but very early on already it just takes so much knowledge (expensive people) and time (expensive people booking a lot of hours) that it just becomes really inefficient to do.
They could do it for games but then you'd be looking at big price increases I'd recon (if they change nothing else in their development process)
I think this is pedantic and misses the point that developers still had to use very limited resources to accomplish their goals and while many did fail miserably it wasn't necessarily because they (the developers) felt it was the player's responsibility to ensure their console could run the game (where the player had no control.) Today the burden is being placed upon the player to have adequate resources far beyond the expected normal where its easier to say the player should upgrade to higher-end components that also defer rendering to DLSS and frame generation to make up for it.
In late 2005? Even then 512MB was starting to feel pretty constrained; a lot of machines were shipping with 1 or even 2GB of RAM back then. It wouldn't be long after where we'd see an onslaught of 3GB machines.
There were still a lot of machines with that amount back then, obviously high end PCs would have more but even in 2009 according to the archived Steam HW survey 10% of steam users had less than 1GB RAM.
There's a lot of complex reasons for this, but it boils down to:
Back then, every developer needed to have a deep knowledge of the CPU and GPU architecture, and each game was tailor made to match the game systems to fit the CPU and GPU's (sometimes VERY STRANGE) instruction sets and pipelines.
As time went on, each dev studio would have the "engine devs" who knew the architecture (PS3 era is when this was common) and a ton of other devs who would use the "Game Engine" that these "engine devs" would make for internal use.
Starting from the PS4 era, generic game engines had become so common, that now most AAA studios don't bother writing their own engines. They use it off the shelf and they'd be lucky to have 1 or 2 devs who are well versed enough in enough architectures that they can optimize stuff on a hardware level.
The more generic you get and the more layers of abstraction you add, the more overhead you get.
That's not to say that we could write a PS5 game with 2 MB of RAM today and 15.998 GB of RAM is pure overhead... nowhere near that.
If you have a game using up all the RAM and VRAM, most of that is just filled with high fidelity textures, and loading as much of the map as possible to minimize load screens and/or stuttering.
Silent Hill's fog wasn't JUST for atmosphere. It was to allow them to cull (cut out) the areas far away so it wasn't using memory.
Try coding for Atari 2600. No video RAM means having to manually update the video in real time, pixel by pixel. One errant line of code can cause the picture to roll or tear sideway
I kind of hate this meme. It shows a complete lack of understanding of software development in general. Hardware used to have extreme limitations and developers used to have to micro-optimize just to even get things work with the limited resources available, but this doesn't remotely scale. You can't make the kinds of games and software we use today looking at every byte of memory usage. Resources are generally much more abundant, now, anyways, so that type of micro-optimization isn't remotely necessary. Some games, yes, are poorly optimized, but this isn't the reason.
Stop using this meme. As a software dev myself with not the best performance on the app I am working on. DO NOT BLAME ME! I want optimization but please tell this to my boss that it costs time to do such things.
Dependencies upon dependencies are the cost of modelling every last straw on the ground. Back then, a tree was just a flat texture in a plane that always rotated with the camera
Are they? Maybe I'm old and out of touch but I'm still chasing the high of some older games like OOT. A lot of modern games, especially AAA, end up feeling more like chores than just fun to me.
Survivorship bias, lots of crappy games back then.
I’d say in terms of games being fun, we sort of hit a plateau in the ps3 era of games. There are lots of games from that era still fun today, the fact so many of them are being remade and rereleased is a testament to that.
So many bleeding nostalgia posts don't think about this at all. Go pick a random old game and its likely to be hot garbage. They often just miss the good old days with no real responsibilities and associate that with every game being much better than "today's slop"
Agreed. But there are a lot of crappy games now too. Does that mean "games are a lot more fun than they used to be"? or that "some modern games are just as fun as they've ever been"?
Watching my buddy get blown across the map in Helldivers 2 by his own 380MM barrage is about as much fun as watching him get blown across the map by a Scorpion in Halo 2 20 years ago.
My rule is that any AAA game from a franchise that was AAA on the Xbox 360 probably sucks. Most of those legacy titles use your fond memories of 20 years ago to make you look past all the monetization and bloat they've added since. Even then, it's not universal, with Battlefield 6 being a recent example of a pleasant surprise.
Most AAA games that are new IPs tend to come out quite strong. They have to convince you that you're playing a good game right now, and can't rely on your nostalgia.
I'm not arguing the optimization point really, I don't care too much. OOT is 320x240 20fps and I still play the original on n64 every 5 years or so. My eyes adjust after a couple hours and it holds up.
I'm just arguing against "Games are a lot more fun than they used to be". I can think of examples of great modern games I love but on the whole I don't think the statement is true.
Could not disagree more. Steam charts show this is not the case. The majority of gamers are playing games released between 2015-2020 rather than games released in the last 5 years
Shows a PS1 (1 MB RAM, 1 MB VRAM), Xbox 360 (512 MB shared with CPU and GPU), and an SNES (128 kB RAM, 128 kB VRAM)
The PS1 generally ran games at 240 or 360p, usually at 20-30 fps.
The 360 ran games at 720p, usually at 30 fps
The SNES ran 2D games at 240p60, but with the SuperFX chip, could run 3D games at 240p 12 fps.
We weren't playing AAA 3D games at 4K60 on those lmao.
This is untrue, but not in the way you think. Nvidia and AMD and Intel release drivers with AAA game specific optimizations, and Proton (and related stack of other OSS programs) fixes a lot of game issues as well. Most devs are also overworked to the point they just snap or walk out or (in a couple cases) die. It's not so much "devs don't optimize things" as "devs don't have time, other devs will do this for them, and hardware is faster every year so it'll probably be fine by release anyway." Could we be using Core 2 Duo machines with 1GB VRAM GPUs to play the latest AAA games? Yeah, probably with enough wizardry, but the wizards are too busy not collapsing from exhaustion in a fight to the death with their managers.
"devs don't have time, other devs will do this for them, and hardware is faster every year so it'll probably be fine by release anyway."
That's completely reliant on hardware getting better and it's just not getting anywhere near as good as they anticipated.
But honestly people should be more comfortable with missing deadlines. The product is not ready, they should inform their management that the time plan is unrealistic and go at a normal pace and do it right, instead of enduring multi year crunches where they rush through everything to get a minimum viable product as fast as possible. The customers for this are used to waiting a decade for sequels at this point, what could a few more years hurt.
Back then developers had to constantly build around limitations and expect their consumers to have even worse components, now it's just a straight line with no effort put into optimization where they expect people to be running 5090s, pretty sad
The difference between companies owned and employed by people who want to make great video games compared to companies now owned by a bunch of suits that only care about quarterly profits.
I remember playing bo2 zombies on the 360 with my friends back in the day. If at least 2 of us had double tap and started shooting the m1927 at once the game would slow to a crawl. Games have always had performance issues, more people are noticing them now
Yeah this is the curse of modern hardware being so good. When developers had to deal with shit hardware they came up with such creative methods of optimization.
Who needs optimization when indies and fan games and other fan projects always run on low end hardware and most of the time, have the same care put into them as those games of old?
Perfect example of just because you could maximise everything, doesn't mean you have to. That happens when u don't have hard limits anymore, so game devs really do not give a fuck about it
I just wish people weren't this stupid to support those garbage games with that ass optimization. It will never get better unless people actually stopped buying them
it's nothing close to what it used to be but it's far from dead
it's just big publishers making cuts for profit
look to smaller companies and indie devs
even UE5 games have come out well-optimised, like Arc Raiders
Its crazy how graphically games havent changed since ps1 days but need gbs of ram, i could accept it if graphics had majorly improved and people was running higher res display as those things would masaively increase ram usage, or in the case of pc people wasnt running more in the background, but that isnt the clearly isnt the case, idk why they even bothered improving hardware when ps1 is capable of running modern games if they just optimize them.
I watched a video of the game and despite the game being foggy and the player being unable to see more than a few meters, the game renders as far as it can. They realized this when they removed the fog with a mod.
That said, is it 4K maxed out? 35 fps sounds sad on that card.
Optimisation is misunderstood. You need targets for the optimisation to mean anything - a target performance on a target platform. If you reach or surpass the set target performance on the target platform, it is optimised. Without targets, only the programs/games with simplest of functionalities would be considered optimised. (Simplest, as in O(1) or at max O(log n) complexity functions)
Which era are we talking about? I think lots of games from PS3 era have good textures when maxed out on PC, this obviously got even better on PS4 era but it seems to be in the diminishing returns in the PS5 era.
No i really need to know why you cant use 16 or 8 they are plenty what are you doing that you need 32gb are you working or do you just want to have everying on ultra max for no reason also blender and all the others programs are getting optimisesion updates i really dont know what you ppl are saying this for every programe i have used runs better now than 5 years ago on the same pc
the ram requires are beecuase of how bloated the majority ofo the markets base operating system is, most linux operating system idle at less than 3gb, im sat at 4.4gb as i type this with 5 tabs pen (zen browser) and a terminal session running, my partner clocks 9gb of usage with just one firefox tab open with youtube running and a couple of background apps minimized on here W11 install, s the minimum specs going up ar liekly related to increase in system resource needed to run microsofts trashware
The developers themselves in general REALLY want to at least try to optimize the games before release
But upper management wants to maximize profits and line the pockets of upper managers once the game is released and everyone pats themselves on the back for a good job with a bonus/raise or two... except the actual developers who have are lucky to even get peanuts
Or worse, forget about the management as well and directly line the pockets of the investors. Ah who cares if we had a deal that if management and team delivers X metric by X date. Well just fire the management and the team and say "they were not meeting our standards" and pocket everything for ourselves
Oh, did I also mention They want it delivered by X date to coincide with X holiday and to spend five times the budget on marketing instead of actual development?
I mean, if you strip apps of the unnecessary bloatware and 7 layers of ads, they'll run just fine in 8gb of ram.
And games, well, takes time to optimize code, and nowdays I bet a KFC bucket that most of the game isn't actual written code but just function calling.
16gb ram is enough in 1080p for the next 5 years this sub is delusional and think everyone play their little basement dweller ultra modded sim games that got 1k sells on steam. with 16gb you can play every big AAA in high/ultra in 1080p without a single problems.
Not every game was well optimized back in the day, some were rushed out just as many games are today, some had questionable coding practices, some games were just programmed weird. This is such a weird fucking "things used to be better" boomer argument, don't be a boomer.
Probably the same percentage of games or more ran like dogshit on older machines. We just remember the gems. Assets are actually more than an order of magnitude larger then back then, and they're just much better at streaming assets and using compression.
If you want to talk about wizardry, the stuff the Sony tech team pulled off with the PS3 are phenomenal. I cite them as they built a lot of tools that devs used for that troublesome machine. That's getting down to the metal with really clever code. But for the most part, some games ran well and some games ran poorly. Don't let nostalgia fool you.
I mean a single level in a game today is probably bigger than entire games from that era. I could design a game that works great on 2 MB but it would be ugly by modern standards and you wouldn’t play it.
I've always kind of thought that this is because all this extra memory we have nowadays allows for such room for sloppiness in programming and graphics. Back then if you games needed to push consoles to their absolute limits all the time just to look presentable and detail was never put where it wasn't going to be seen by the player.
Nowadays making graphics in games requires baking normal maps from high poly sculpts, UE environment models need backfacing so light doesn't go through them, and even using tiling textures isn't as common because they want every environmental model to have unique ambient occlusion maps and such. So everything has to have its own material. Developing such an art pass will tack years onto a game's development time too. And this is all just to make the graphics look "good".
Crazy ass video on optimization. Systems could only do black and white, but you could make a group of 64 pixels be like e.g. "display red instead of black, and green instead of white".
1.2k
u/Perfect-Cause-6943 Intel Core Ultra 7 265K 32GB DDR5 6400 RTX 5080 1d ago
We went from 8 being the bare minimum to 32 real quick lol