Having only a yes and no option seems too limiting. My answers would be, "Yes for 99% of games, but there will be one or two before that point where 10 GB is a limiting factor."
How much of a deal that is probably depends on the game. I don't think it will be a major issue unless someone keeps the card for 5+ years and at that point people are likely running lower settings anyhow.
Even with consoles moving to 16 GB of memory now it's still going to take a while before games use that as a baseline.
Xbox will have 10 GB fast dedicated for GPU. Games get to use 13,5 GB max and rest is for OS and other background stuff. 10 GB will probably be fine for quite some time.Having only a yes and no option seems too limiting. My answers would be, "Yes for 99% of games, but there will be one or two before that point where 10 GB is a limiting factor."
How much of a deal that is probably depends on the game. I don't think it will be a major issue unless someone keeps the card for 5+ years and at that point people are likely running lower settings anyhow.
Even with consoles moving to 16 GB of memory now it's still going to take a while before games use that as a baseline.
I said "No" because I believe that in 3 years, we'll have console ports that leverage most, if not all, of the console's available RAM (~10-13 GB), and knowing how PCs are less optimized than consoles, those games will require more VRAM than they do on consoles.
The future of video games is to compress as much of the game assets as possible, and then stream in the compressed data as fast as realistically possible, ideally in real-time right before it's needed if possible. Any data that needs to arrive faster than real-time will need to be moved onto RAM ahead of when it's actually needed, and given how PCs don't have dedicated compression and decompression hardware, I think there will be likely that console-to-PC ports take up a larger memory footprint than they do on consoles. In other words, games that are not designed to leverage SSDs and just-in-time streaming of assets will need to have more assets stored in RAM at any given time if they are to maintain the same asset quality of games that do leverage JIT streaming.
I wonder how games will manage then if you don't have a GPU or SSD capable of supporting JIT streaming. Will certain settings, e.g. high res textures, be simply blocked off to you if the game detects you don't have a system capable of streaming in the assets fast enough without bogging down the game? I suppose the alternative is that you get texture pop but that can be alleviated by simply having more RAM, if I'm not mistaken, which goes against the idea of needing less RAM moving foward.We know Ampere will support Microsoft DirectStorage, which is supposedly the JIT streaming tech in the Xbox Series X. I will be very disappointed in AMD if they don't include the same tech in RDNA2.
I wonder how games will manage then if you don't have a GPU or SSD capable of supporting JIT streaming. Will certain settings, e.g. high res textures, be simply blocked off to you if the game detects you don't have a system capable of streaming in the assets fast enough without bogging down the game? I suppose the alternative is that you get texture pop but that can be alleviated by simply having more RAM, if I'm not mistaken, which goes against the idea of needing less RAM moving foward.
Exactly. That API works when you have hardware that meets a performance baseline. Is the game going to run a storage benchmark on the assets before it lets you flip that on? I mean, flipping that on when you have all your games on rust drive is likely to have very little impact.
Even SATA SSDs are unlikely to have the raw throughput that games built around this API/Console storage subsystems are expecting. To get similar performance, you'll need a solid SSD (read, anyway) on a PCIe interface for huge burst transfers with low latency.
That makes the amount of normal gamer PCs that could really leverage this technology as likely laughably low.
I bought a 2TB NVME because I was tired of having an sata connections at all in my rig, but I think it is much more fashionable right now for a NVME boot drive backed by one or more larger and cheaper sata SSD drives.
Practically speaking, most computers can really only have one NVME drive at full bandwidth atm?
I don't have details on how the DirectStorage stuff works, but they might be able to leverage multiple tiers of storage including system RAM, an SSD cache, and the actual storage (SSD or HDD) that the game is installed to, all of which will be compressed until it gets to the GPU. This way you would have uncompressed assets needed right now on the GPU's VRAM, compressed assets that might be needed very soon on system RAM, compressed assets that might be needed soonish on an SSD cache drive, and the rest on of it compressed on spinning rust. Done right, PCs with 16+ GB of system RAM in addition to 8+ GB of VRAM might have a significant advantage over consoles that have less (V)RAM, but maybe faster storage.
Why NVMe?
NVMe devices are not only extremely high bandwidth SSD based devices, but they also have hardware data access pipes called NVMe queues which are particularly suited to gaming workloads. To get data off the drive, an OS submits a request to the drive and data is delivered to the app via these queues. An NVMe device can have multiple queues and each queue can contain many requests at a time. This is a perfect match to the parallel and batched nature of modern gaming workloads. The DirectStorage programming model essentially gives developers direct control over that highly optimized hardware.
Gonna say no. I can tell MS flight sim 2020 is making my 1080ti chug. I've seen some other games like resident evil 2 and call of duty use up my vram pretty quickly if I want to turn up the settings like I used to.
I would prefer more especially for 4k but I currently game in 3440x1440 and in VR sometimes too.
The Nvidia guy in the reddit AMA said it wasn't NVME exclusive, which is nice.I didn't read the whole thing, but I think it's NVMe only?
![]()
DirectStorage is coming to PC - DirectX Developer Blog
Earlier this year, Microsoft showed the world how the Xbox Series X, with its portfolio of technology innovations, will introduce a new era of no-compromise gameplay. Alongside the actual console announcements, we unveiled the Xbox Velocity Architecture, a key part of how the Xbox Series X will...devblogs.microsoft.com
I'd assume Nvidia's will just piggy back on Microsofts.
We also ran a cross-check with the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, and flying over a dense London resulted in full graphics memory usage close to 11GB.
The Nvidia guy in the reddit AMA said it wasn't NVME exclusive, which is nice.
Yeah, I might actually have misunderstood that. The storage might need to be PCIe connected, which doesn't necessarily preclude SATA SSDs, but it might not be as simple.I'd wait for review of it before I'd trust the Nvidia guy. Sure it might somewhat work, but NVMe might be way faster?
![]()
Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020): PC graphics performance benchmark review (Page 4)
Are you ready to take a short flight with us? We look at one of the most anticipated games of 2020, Microsoft Flight Simulator, in a PC graphics performance and PC gamer way. We'll test the game on t...www.guru3d.com
IMO no.
So for at least 1 game, it appears the new 8 and 10GB cards are obsolete right out of the gate. I'm wondering if the game is just "caching" instead of requiring that framebuffer amount.