add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

My take on future gaming. Just my opinion

XiKuma
  • 55 months ago

The more i read, the more i watch, the more i wonder. VRAM may possibly be the new aspect to pay attention to for future gaming. Seems 4gb may start to be a minimum requirement. VRAM has taken a hard hit with the newest released games at 4k, plus with the possibility of VR taking off, and more games eating up more resources. Also taking into account the new consoles rocking 8gb of VRAM and AMD releasing 8gb cards. In my opinion i think its a def foreshadowing of things to come. What do you guys think? 4gb - 8gb the new go to requirements and finally a window to the age old future proof question?

Comments

  • 55 months ago
  • 3 points

Min requirement 4GB of VRAM? Maybe if it's some luxury title that just wants to cut out say 70% of its possible players to focus on the "elite gamers" out there...

Steam HW Survey (SHWS) (not a full representation of PC gamers, but probably the best look into it) says that 512MB, 1024MB & 2047MB VRAM make up ~10%, ~33%, ~23% of the hardware used; excluding "other" and summing up all values below 3GB VRAM, we get ~77%. Even if we assume a 10% variation due to gamers who don't use Steam and the variability of the survey, that's a low of ~70%.
Now, my economics is a tad rusty, but considering games are "high-volume-low-profit-per-unit" goods, cutting out 70% of your possible user base is either going to drive up your price per unit and exclude more people, or you'll lose money and have to make it up somewhere else, like micro-transactions or in-game ads/product placement/tie-ins (buy 100 Zaibatsu Pharmaceuticals products and get a new OP weapon!).

As for 4K taking a lot of VRAM... How many people game at 4K? Using the SHWS HD, & Full HD (1366 x 768 & 1920 x 1080) make up ~27% & ~34% of the primary screen sizes respectively. 3840 x 2160 gets a whopping 0.07%. 4K is still pretty darn new in the scheme of things, and isn't gaining traction that fast considering that a majority of content is still being produced in Full HD and requirements to play it (both in video card demand for games and bandwidth for TV/Video streaming) are pretty high.

Same thing with VR. Is it cool? Sure. Is it going to go the way of 3DTV, Smell-o-vision and all of those "the next evolution in entertainment!" items? Maybe. If content plays out like 3D stuff, where the only thing taking advantage of the technology is to make it look like you're throwing stuff at people, it's going to get out that it's not worth it because there's no content. There's also the immersion aspect; having depth is great and all, but if I stick my hand out to touch some steel, I don't want to feel my couch. To me, the current "VR" headsets are just a portion of the proper VR experience, the visual and auditory aspect. There's also the other senses that need to have their inputs changed, and I'm not seeing much of that outside of VR pods such as those used in aviation, but those are usually limited to movement as well.

As for the consoles, they have 8GB of RAM split into 3GB for system/game, 5GB for VRAM (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28eighth_generation%29#Comparison ). Doesn't seem that high when you split it up according to use, does it?

As for AMD's 8GB cards, they already had 8GB versions of the 290X series ( https://pcpartpicker.com/parts/video-card/#r=8192&c=146 ), so it doesn't really seem like a major move on their part. The point to those, from my perspective, is not that they have 8GB of VRAM, but that they have more than their previous standard of 4GB, so when the demand for VRAM goes to say 4.1GB, it doesn't hold the card back.

And, to round it out, future proofing... To me, that means to look ahead several years, theorize what you're demands will be, and then build something compatible with that now with the goal of upgrading certain parts (CPU, video card) when you need it. Buying a PSU that can't handle a PCIe power connection because you don't need it now is going to cost you when you want a video card. Going for a case with severe video card length requirements isn't going to be great if all the new cards are beyond that and the only option has quite the price premium. Going for the best chip on a "dead" socket won't help when you need more processing power and have no possible/realistic upgrades.

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Well i get what your saying. As for me i got a pc to max seings out. 4kk is is gaining speed and dropping in price, yes from a marketing stand point they won't shut the majority out. But if they come out with something really sweet that requires more muscle that only pc can offer i want to be ready, or why the hell did i build a gaming pc if im just going to play 1080p on high settings. Shadow of Mordor breaks 3gb, and thats a last gen game. I remember when people said micro transactions wouldn't happen or subscriptions. They know people will pay money for what they want. Everything has a shelf life. People can't use their ps3 to play ps4 games, its not going to happen overnight. But it is possible to experience the master race and all it's glory it may require more VRAM. At least for the guys that want the best visuals. Great info though, it was just an opinion though. We are due for some new stuff to come out, that may take advantage of more hardware muscle. Guess we will find out.

  • 55 months ago
  • 2 points

why the hell did i build a gaming pc if im just going to play 1080p on high settings

Well, biggest reason I can think of is modding. Not the "I'm going to hack the game and ruin it for people" sort of modding, but the "Now the GTA V protagonists are wearing kilts! And shooting cats!". Not to mention being able to play older games, have free multiplayer (in most cases; current consoles seem to require paid subscriptions)... And of course, the biggest reason: you now have a good PC! You can do loads of different sorts of work with that now, from programming to data analysis...

Shadow of Mordor breaks 3gb, and thats a last gen game.

I thought it demanded more? Anyway, there are always outliers like that; some company doesn't figure out how to use compression on their data or they go overboard with the graphics...

We are due for some new stuff to come out, that may take advantage of more hardware muscle

If it's a PC exclusive, sure. A cross-platform game is going to be held back, both due to the console limitations as well as by having multiple staff groups needed for the different developments.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Sony actually said developers will have access to 6gb of vram and that there will be titles coming out that utilize that. Even with my R9 390s 8gb of vram, running a single card it doesn't have the horse power to hit it , so it seems CF would be the way to go. Either way it basically boils down to console games being sketchy ports and hell have they ever not been? Time will tell amnd pc seems to always find a way. Least Xbox is screwed lol

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

17 days? ...

The 390 should have a much more powerful GPU than the consoles, so taking your statement "Even with my R9 390s 8gb of vram, running a single card it doesn't have the horse power to hit it", I would have to think that the extra VRAM is not going to be used for better quality graphics, but for loading graphics before they are needed to reduce the load on the CPU/GPU. Could be way off on that though.

And not all console ports are bad, such as these examples (covers all ports, not just console to PC): http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PolishedPort

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Im waiting on my google VR cardboard, sounds silly but if you haven't looked into it seems exciting to me to be able to try out VR for free. Im pretty positive devs are going to make better use of vram. At one point 1gb was good enough. The game world is bout to shed it's skin. Let's hope it's for the better. We just need to destroy micro transaction, that's a common threat to all gamers, whether it be pc, console, or mobile.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Micro transactions are here to stay. Mobile games dominate the market with sales because of micro transactions and too many people use them for companies to just get rid of them.

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

Sad but true

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Game use to be on CD, DVD, DL DVD, Blu-Ray disk.
Games use to be a 700MB install
Games are up to 50GB install

As games get bigger and moving to 4K and then 5K resolution, AMD and Nvidia will keep up with the times.

Which means, a video card more than 12GB? One day soon :)

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

"Soon" is such a relative term...

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

ok, tomorrow

  • 55 months ago
  • 2 points

Can't. I'm busy tomorrow.

Wait, what were we talking about, hahaha

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Also taking into account the new consoles rocking 8gb of VRAM

You mean 5GB due to the OS reversing around 3GB on both consoles and that is if the stuff uses zero of ram and it all goes to video so its realistically is most likely around 1GB to 2GB of most and not to mention how the consoles are going to be holding us back until the new ones come due to how weak they are and it will repeat all over again and statistically not many people have 4GB cards.

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Pretty much this!

Consoles are still the main driving force in gaming right now and they are not even full 1080 yet. So I don't see 4K really being mainstream any time soon.

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Not to mention a 4K display is still out of the common consumer's price range.

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

I'm blown away by graphics on my £100 1080p monitor with a GTX 970. There really is no need to blow so much money on a 4K rig unless you are stupidly rich IMO.

  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Agreed! That's what I was trying to explain here

  • 54 months ago
  • 1 point

From doing alot of reading it appears developers will be able to access most of the vram. 6gb vram games are coming for the console no doubt. It's potentially devastating for pc gamers who want the best on ported games. The real problem seems to be for me that even with my R9 390 having 8gbs of vram, running a single card doesn't have the horsepower to even utilize it. Running CF is probably the only way to get there. Idk man, as much as most don't want to believe it ive read alot about this. Either way it's not like console ports have ever been top notch anyway, so looks like the trend might continue. Time will tell. Im sure if it is a problem it will be fixed somehow through optimizatio.,

[comment deleted by staff]
  • 55 months ago
  • 1 point

Best response thank you. So getting the r9 390 8gb may not have been a stupid bet over the gtx 970 for same price? Performance really is back and forth between the two but i went with more VRAM out of my not wanting buyers remorse paranoia. Im still keeping my fingers crossed improved drivers will come out for the 390 also.

[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube