I'll make it clear then. I was just talking about the fact that on PC these features are solved by force, but this requires a more powerful GPU or more CPU cores or more RAM so that it works with the same efficiency as on the console with fixed function hardware.
Did you actually read my post? Again, how is Sampler feedback on PC being "solved by force" when it is an inbuilt feature of the GPU exactly like it is in the consoles? It's literally
exactly the same, there is no difference here at all.
And GPU decompression does not appreciably require "a more powerful GPU or more CPU cores or more RAM". As I stated in my previous post, it'll run perfectly fine on GPU's much slower than those in the consoles and the majority of it's use should be when the GPU shader cores are idle or utilising their spare capacity as the shader cores are not used 100% for 100% of the frame time. I'll grant it uses a staging buffer in VRAM so you will lose a very small amount if video memory to this solution, but nothing significant (around 1/64th) of a typical 8GB GPU.
How would it be free for players on PC? After all, they have to buy their PC assembled from components sold at a much higher price.
It's free because if you're a PC gamer you already have a GPU to play PC games on. You then get the new GPU decompression tech at no extra cost - hence that specific function is free.
Of course you have to buy the GPU in the first place but that's not what you were arguing. It's a given that PC hardware is more expensive than consoles at a given performance point for the reasons I've already stated in earlier posts. But you are arguing there is an extra cost to the PC gamer to enable specific features like sampler feedback and GPU decompression.
Which is flat out wrong.
And one more thing. In today's world, since console and PC games are being developed together, this significantly limits the actual usability of consoles in terms of graphic quality. It is known that a game can only be released if it runs acceptably on all hardware. If it were the case that they would only develop for consoles first, and only later bring the games to PC, then what I was talking about would be even more obvious. If all the features of the Xbox Series or PS5 had been used in 2021, what percentage of the PCs on the market at that time would have been able to run these features at a sufficiently good speed...
This is complete rubbish. Are you not familiar with how scaling works on PC's? Games simply scale down to slower hardware and scale up to more capable hardware. If a feature is truly a must have with no fall back option then you simply set the recommended specs accordingly. i.e. like Returnal has done requiring the gamer to have either 32GB RAM or an SSD, or how Metro Exodus Enhanced edition requires an RT capable GPU.
In terms of how many PC's could "run these features", how about you give us a specific example of a "feature that PC's can't run" and we can get into details? If you're talking about fast IO then reducing settings to accommodate slower IO or reduce memory requirements is absolutely trivial.
If you're talking about some specific DX12U feature like Sampler feedback then the steam hardware survey tells us it's roughly 30-35% of the market which with a total PC gamer base of 200m (
according to Nvidia as of 2 years ago) would equate to 60-70m PC's. I believe Sony recently announced they'd sold 30m PS5's.
I will not applaud the effect that, according to some, it is normal to buy new hardware every two years by paying more and more to the hardware manufacturers if you want to see better graphics...
To really take advantage of the capabilities and possibilities of a fixed hardware is what would be really appropriate.
How is upgrading ever 2 years a requirement to see better graphics in the PC space? Are not the same games that get better graphics over the course of a console generation also released on the PC? Spoiler: they are.
Upgrading is a choice and will allow you to exceed the graphical improvement curve seen on the consoles should you wish thanks to the scalability of PC games.
I don't know if next generation of consoles will need more memory because of data structure like BVH but for assets I think 16 Gb is enough. Maybe 20 to 24 GB will be useful because of the data structure needed for rendering.
Geometry is another problem and I don't think without virtual geometry this will be a problem too for LOD 0 at least. virtual geometry is only part of the advantage of UE 5 the micro polygon compute rasterizer and all the stuff around LOD are great too.
I'm not in the PC vs console squabble race. Just commenting on how iterative consoles are dumb af imo
