PC system impacts from tech like UE5? [Storage, RAM] *spawn*

[goonergaz]

or you invest more in ram ? you can do 32gigs of ddr 4 3200 for about $150 sometimes less if you wait for a good sale. You'd have double the total system ram of the complete ram count in next gen systems. So would that coupled with a pci-e 3 ssd or even sata ssd be enough to compete with the faster console ssds ? I mean pci-e 3 nvme drives at 1tb can be as low as $115. We don't know how unreal engine 5 will scale on pc. We also have a thread on this in the pc side.

I can’t see how double the ram will help the slower SSD I/O - consider that games are bigger than 32gb and the speed of PS5 SSD means any assets can be loaded on the fly, PC will still have to manage assets in your scenario so I would have thought something like R&C or almost instant fast travel would not be possible (well, certainly slower).

I would imagine you’d need more ram personally

 

[Ronaldo8]

or you invest more in ram ? you can do 32gigs of ddr 4 3200 for about $150 sometimes less if you wait for a good sale. You'd have double the total system ram of the complete ram count in next gen systems. So would that coupled with a pci-e 3 ssd or even sata ssd be enough to compete with the faster console ssds ? I mean pci-e 3 nvme drives at 1tb can be as low as $115. We don't know how unreal engine 5 will scale on pc. We also have a thread on this in the pc side.

32GB of system memory with 8GB of video graphics card being used as high bandwidth cache is more than enough. No SSD can compete with such a set-up now or in the forseeable future. Games don't cycle through GB amount of data per seconds but I/O can get bursty in fast travel/teleport, a situation that can be handled by the aforementioned HBCC set-up.

 

[BRiT]

I can’t see how double the ram will help the slower SSD I/O - consider that games are bigger than 32gb and the speed of PS5 SSD means any assets can be loaded on the fly, PC will still have to manage assets in your scenario so I would have thought something like R&C or almost instant fast travel would not be possible (well, certainly slower).

I would imagine you’d need more ram personally

We've already seen that's possible on PC, look at Star Citizen which showed off the instant fast travel before even the Unreal Engine 5 demo and before R&C.

 

[PSman1700]

32GB of system memory with 8GB of video graphics card being used as high bandwidth cache is more than enough.

I'd rather have that, and a fast SSD, or even a optane setup. An SSD still can't ever compete with DRAM, not in speed nor latency, only Optane comes 'close'.
IMO, the PC seems a very nice platform to have, you'd have the best version of every multiplat game, and exclusives from both ms and sony (the best versions at that too), all on one platform. No need to replace the whole system either halfway trough, a component upgrade will most likely suffice.

 

[eastmen]

I can’t see how double the ram will help the slower SSD I/O - consider that games are bigger than 32gb and the speed of PS5 SSD means any assets can be loaded on the fly, PC will still have to manage assets in your scenario so I would have thought something like R&C or almost instant fast travel would not be possible (well, certainly slower).

I would imagine you’d need more ram personally

Lets say windows and your other programs take 8 gigs of ram. Your left with 24gigs of ram. I believe on the xsx the os and everything is 3gigs ? So your left with 13 gigs. On the pc you also have graphics ram. Lets say 8 gigs of graphics ram. On the console you have to take your graphics ram from your main ram. If your dedicating 8 gigs to frame buffer and textures like you have dedicated to the graphics card on the windows machine your left with 4 gigs for all other data that you need. On the PC you have 24 gigs of high speed ddr 4. On the console you have to stream more from the ssd.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

..

We've already seen that's possible on PC, look at Star Citizen which showed off the instant fast travel before even the Unreal Engine 5 demo and before R&C.

I can't wait for PC games memory requirements to start listing 32Gb or 64Gb. It'll give the PCMR crowd something to strive for!

Of course the elite PCMR will have 128Gb. Damn 32Gb RAM PC peasants

 

[goonergaz]

We've already seen that's possible on PC, look at Star Citizen which showed off the instant fast travel before even the Unreal Engine 5 demo and before R&C.

not quite the same is it? Your pointed towards a planet and hyper jump to that planet. Could you instantly hyper jump to any planet?

 

[BRiT]

not quite the same is it?

It is the same.

 

[PSman1700]

It is the same.

DF even has a video on it, how much an SSD improves in that game.

 

[goonergaz]

It is the same.

So you can instantly travel to any planet?

I can’t find a suitable example, all I’ve ever seen is some instantly jumping to something in front of them, this means the system has time to load the assets into RAM - unless I’m misunderstanding how the tech works.

We know that devs are excited by this tech and what it brings to the table, I just don’t think double the RAM would negate what the consoles are doing.

 

[manux]

So you can instantly travel to any planet?

I can’t find a suitable example, all I’ve ever seen is some instantly jumping to something in front of them, this means the system has time to load the assets into RAM - unless I’m misunderstanding how the tech works.

We know that devs are excited by this tech and what it brings to the table, I just don’t think double the RAM would negate what the consoles are doing.

Issue with more ram is that the data has to be loaded into ram before using it. This either leads to load time or pop in when asset is used for first time. From developer POV it adds extra complexity versus just being able to stream with reliable speed. Another issue is that based on steam statistics very few people actually have more than 16GB ram.

I have no idea why people are resisting the idea of making decent ssd baseline. There is just no downside in forcing people to upgrade to ssd. It doesn't need to be hyper fast, any old nvme ssd is likely plenty fast. And the ssd speed should be scaled with asset detail/resolution. Those folks who buy 1k$ gpu's to run 4k with max details surely can afford a bit faster pcie4 nvme ssd and those who play at 1080p probably survive with any ssd.

Software side in pc side is likely solved thanks to microsoft investment to direct storage. It's in microsofts interest to make xbox and pc comparable from io pov.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Issue with more ram is that the data has to be loaded into ram before using it. This either leads to load time or pop in when asset is used for first time.

True, but you could load as much as you need now and then in the background begin to load all the data most immediately needed into RAM. The issue will remain the size of many modern games which in terms of their assets, will not fit into 32Gb or even 64Gb of RAM so you're potentially still running up against loading times at points.

I mean look a Red Dead Redemption 2 - 150Gb. Ignoring the RAM used by Windows the game you run you could squeeze about 70% of the install into RAM but then you fast travel to the further point away which isn't in RAM and BAM! Loading screen.

 

[pjbliverpool]

His console killer build missed at least case, os licence and controller. It's even more difficult than he made it to be.

It also missed the fact that it's comparing unreleased technology with currently available technology. It would have made much more sense to speculate on the price of upcoming technology and compare that to the upcoming consoles. The PC will still come in far more expensive of course but at least the comparison would have made sense.

This, i don't get all these 'console killer' builds. Both have components that aren't available yet, to unknown prices and performance metrics. Aside from the CPU then. Things get expensive if you want console killer SSD performance though. You'd have to go Optane.

I'm not sure Optane is what you need as it has lower sustained bandwidth at the moment than PCIe4 NVMe drives. By the time the consoles launch we should see drives featuring the next gen Phison controllers so something along the lines of the E16 (5GB/s) should be faster than XSX (depending on what DirectStorage brings to the table) without being as expensive as todays top end solutions.

I can’t see how double the ram will help the slower SSD I/O - consider that games are bigger than 32gb and the speed of PS5 SSD means any assets can be loaded on the fly, PC will still have to manage assets in your scenario so I would have thought something like R&C or almost instant fast travel would not be possible (well, certainly slower).

Because 32GB RAM coupled with 8GB VRAM in a HBCC like configuration gives you 36GB of usable graphics memory or around 22.5GB extra over and above what the next gen consoles offer. That's 22.5GB that the consoles would be swapping in and out VRAM from the SSD, sucking up bandwidth that the PC would never have to go near the SSD for. So the result is that a PC with lots of RAM needs to access the SSD much less frequently and thus can produce a similar result with less bandwidth. Bare in mind that 36GB is likely to be around 1/3rd of your entire game content so aside from initial loads and fast travel you're IO requirements aren't likely to be that massive.

 

[manux]

It also missed the fact that it's comparing unreleased technology with currently available technology. It would have made much more sense to speculate on the price of upcoming technology and compare that to the upcoming consoles. The PC will still come in far more expensive of course but at least the comparison would have made sense.

He talked about future hw and noted the comparison is not fair. His argument was that he can only go by what we have today and this would have to be revised later. His thinking was that what does it cost today to buy a console killer.

 

[pjbliverpool]

He talked about future hw and noted the comparison is not fair. His argument was that he can only go by what we have today and this would have to be revised later. His thinking was that what does it cost today to buy a console killer.

Fair enough, I didn't actually watch it. I would have used previous generations as a guide post though. It's safe to assume an RTX 3070 or equivalent RDNA2 GPU will be faster than the next gen consoles so we could use the price of an RTX 2070 at launch as a proxy. And with the CPU we could look at how the launch of the Ryzen 3000 series impacted the price of the Ryzen 2700X when it launched assuming something similar will happen when the Ryzen 4000 series launches.

 

[goonergaz]

Because 32GB RAM coupled with 8GB VRAM in a HBCC like configuration gives you 36GB of usable graphics memory or around 22.5GB extra over and above what the next gen consoles offer. That's 22.5GB that the consoles would be swapping in and out VRAM from the SSD, sucking up bandwidth that the PC would never have to go near the SSD for. So the result is that a PC with lots of RAM needs to access the SSD much less frequently and thus can produce a similar result with less bandwidth. Bare in mind that 36GB is likely to be around 1/3rd of your entire game content so aside from initial loads and fast travel you're IO requirements aren't likely to be that massive.

But b/w is b/w however you use it right? So it’s not less b/w in the PC scenario (again unless I’m misunderstanding how tech works).

Consoles only need 16gb because SSD compensates and isn’t the console setup is currently superior to what PC can currently offer?

As stated games will only get bigger so that’s a smaller and smaller % of the game in RAM and that’s why having the whole game on SSD with ultra fast IO is the better solution...unless you up the RAM each time.

 

[BRiT]

Consoles only need 16gb because SSD compensates and isn’t the console setup is currently superior to what PC can currently offer?

Most likely not. Not when the consoles are actually available to buy or shortly thereafter the PCs will move ahead.

It remains to be seen how consoles and widely PC systems handle thermal throttling of NVMEs. Bandwidth wise there are already PC systems with PCI-Express 4.0 available. Then it's a matter of the high-speed NVME's being available and cooled properly. After that, you have some aspects like decompression and sending of data to the GPU to consider.

 

[PSman1700]

SSD doesn’t replace dram (in both b/w and latency, far from it. Neither does it replace graphics processing units.
A pc could have both a fast SSD, gobs of dedicated b/w for gpu and system ram.

 

[iroboto]

I can’t see how double the ram will help the slower SSD I/O - consider that games are bigger than 32gb and the speed of PS5 SSD means any assets can be loaded on the fly, PC will still have to manage assets in your scenario so I would have thought something like R&C or almost instant fast travel would not be possible (well, certainly slower).

I would imagine you’d need more ram personally

Hmm imo, They address different things. SSD supports a high I/O rate which enables you to have access to a large catalog of assets. It’s solves the problem of immediacy. If you have really slow I/O your buffering is larger, and the larger it is the more data you need to buffer in random locations. A lot of it wasted. However SSD doesn’t let you render more on screen at once. As you’re limited to 16GB of space. Once filled the I/O must stream textures out to put textures in.

Having more VRAM let’s you actually render more on screen at once. Because you can have more in VRAM. But if you have slow I/O you’ll need to ultimately use some of that spade for buffering depending on how slow that I/O is.

All in All, having super fast I/O coupled with a huge amount of VRAM would net some gnarly results in asset fidelity.

 

[chris1515]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1284339847184838656

https://twitter.com/x/status/1284562990830718977

A principal engineer at Warner Bros gaming