I'd say that my 8GB is barely enough to cover the full range of stuff I end up using my computer for. Check your memory usage in the task manager next time you've got everything open, you'll be shocked.
I run on 8 GB of RAM. I am yet to see it filled. Closest i got was over 6 GB and ironically there was no game running at that time too. Games in the future may need it, granted. currently im yet to see a game that gobbles more than 4 GB (except moded grand strategy games where mods consist larger part of the game than game itself).
Steven Bogos said:
Just opened up my memory usage on my PC and it's hovering around 4gb - just from the OS, browsing the internet, and listening to music. So... 4GB of passive memory usage plus 4 GB of games... bam, you're already at 8 GB. And you say some games are already using 6 GB?
Thats not how it works though. Your OS likes to keep stuff in memory for fast acess when there is a lot of free memory available. If you were to take your memory used by programs and summed that you would get actual commited memory. the rest is just "we used it at some point so wre nto deleting it in case we need it again". once a game launches your 4 GB OS gobble goes down to 0.5gb and that 3.5 gb gets taken over by the game.
also if your music player and browser eats 4 GB you may want to check for problems. ive never seen my Firefox reach 1 GB and my music player is ~20mb (granted i use Foobar2000 because i like clean costumizable interface).
Sgt. Sykes said:
It's the same problem as the low-end graphics card with a ridiculous amount of RAM. Until recently I had a card with 512 MB RAM w which was just fine for everything in 1920*1080 but struggled in 2560*1440. Now I have a 2GB card (I had to switch, it wasn't by choice really) which often struggles even in 1920*1080.
I'd even say that the amount of RAM is usually the least of concern.
your talking about Video Ram (VRAM) which does have huge swings in terms of resolution. the regular RAM does not effect resolution displays, but rather is a templorar memory for the PC. you know like when you are asked to remember a number that you will need later you keep it in your thought till you need it, and after you use it you "forget it". thats templorar memory. RAM is used for templorar memory. It calculates enemy AI paths and actions, but once you close the game it "forgets it".
Geez guys, 50% +change of Steam users have 4GB or less RAM (and a good 1GB of that gets wasted on Windows). Let our computers play these things please, not everyone wants to spend stacks of money on shinier pixels
or you can just play on medium settings and it will be fine? or you know buy more ram? RAM is one of the cheapest parts of your PC. you can pick up 8 GB for 20 dollars.
and yes, you can upgrade laptops. its harder to disassemble them and not all parts are changeable, but RAM certainly is.
and then I start recording, and instantly everything hits the ceiling. The new consoles have a recording function, I bet it has a similar jump.
when your recording your recorder has to capture the video in real time - doubling the load, keep it in RAM long enough to encode it (your CPU hits the ceiling here) and then write it to disc (HDD cries out in pain). recording actually may take more resources than the game itself.
And consoles apperently are recording all the time and purging the info thats older than 30 secs, what with "always possible 30 second share" and isntant achievement replay....
actually, that could explain why a half-decent console GPU is performing so badly.
this is illogical. existence of motion blur is abnormal. It should read: No Motion blur - normal.
Rex Dark said:
Remember when 640k was enough for anyone?
no. It never was.
This again? Haven't these guys ever heard of procedural content? You know, make some functions, feed them parameters, and have them make content using just tens of kilobytes of memory, rather than hundreds of megabytes.
high precision complex procedural input of textures takes tens of kilobytes? please show how it may revolutionize the market!
Are Xbone and PS4 games 32-bit or 64-bit?
Because going by PC, Crytek has dropped 64-bit support. Crysis 1 and Warhead had a 64-bit executable, but Crysis 2 and 3 are 32-bit only. This means they can only address about 3GB of RAM, no matter how much you have installed.
Crysis 1 was PC game, so it supported 64 bit.
Crysis 2 and 3 was a multiplayform game and previuos consoles only knew 32 bit so they only developed that (and plenty more things were dropped).
New consoles can run 64 bit applications, which may finally bring games into supporting 64 bits properly. Its running standard 86x PC architecture, which supports both 64 and 32 bits.
Just keep in mind that most devs were pulling 720p 30fps out of the PS3s 256MB of RAM.
erm, no, no they werent. Most games were upscaling to 720p. And PS3 had 512 mb of shared ram, new consoles also use shared ram.
Also RAM does far more than resolution or framerate.
The trend currently goes - nothing improved.
You can't really compare the PC (with bloated Windows and lots of extra software) to consoles which are dedicated to playing games first and foremost. Also since the games made for it are optimised better than PC games the requirements aren't as high.
To be frank Crytek want PC level power on consoles which is stupid. Consoles have never and will never surpass a PC on hardware power...
That may have been true in the past. not anymore. consoles are now dedicated to TV, sports, more TV and maybe a little bit of games. Also they are NOT optimized better than PC this generation, because the architecture is identical and anything optimized for console will also transfer to PC version.
Its not stupid. It was a standard at the beginning of each generation all the time except this generation. This release is the odd man out. In fact when Xbox 360 launched it has surpassed high end PCs of that time, PS3 even more so.
GTA5, Skyrim and FC3 look great on the 360.
you can speak all you want about gameplay enjoyment and comfort, but when it comes to looks 360 is fucking awful
GTA5 looks worse than games on PC looked 4 years ago......
and if developers have done just fine with only 256 mbs of ram for 8 years and counting, then i'm pretty sure they can do a lot with the huge chunk of memory they have now.
but thats the thing. developers werent doing fine. they were cutting out your game content to fit in that ram and complaining about it for over 5 years now.