Should Next-Gen Consoles Invest Heavily In More RAM?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- ► Watch the FULL Video: • DF Direct Weekly #162:...
► Support us on Patreon! bit.ly/3jEGjvx
► Digital Foundry UA-cam: / digitalfoundry
► Digital Foundry Merch: store.digitalfoundry.net
► Digital Foundry at Eurogamer: eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry
► Follow on X/Twitter: / digitalfoundry
Crazy how gta 5 and the original last of us ran on a 256 mb console gpu and today's games require 50 times the amount of ram while only managing to look twice better
its cause developers are lazey and dont optimize there games
@@xAUSTIN316x it's not usually lazy, they're constrained by time/budget.
Are you repeating that nonsense, the resolutions sucked and so did the fps. Also it requires extensive and time consuming work to get a game run on low memory even some compromises.
@@mitchjames9350If we're talking PS3 then it was bad, the 360 had more of a chance with 512mb. The PS4 and Xbox One's Ram pool was overkill, but the game still struggled a little at times due to the CPUs not being good in either console
GTA 5 on the ps5 doesn't even come close to looking twice as good as the ps3 version
What they need is a lot more cache, that's where the current-gen systems fall short. A chiplet design that allows them a decent sized L3 cache would make a huge difference. Actual RAM sizes only really need to be 24-32GB for next-gen.
Agreed
And fast SSD. What ruined MegaTextures was the slow hard drives and solid state storage at the time.
You know what doesnt fall short? A pc. Consoles are dead, exclusivity is gone.
if they don't drop Series S asap when next-gen is out, the new RAM won't help much..
@@vitordelima Well luckily they saw the need for a fast efficient SSD on Cerny's team for the PS5 and came up with a blazing fast SSD with RAW speeds of 5.5 gb/second and even stated with optimizations and compressions for video games they could push these speeds faster on PS5's SSD capabilities with up to 17 gb/second I believe Cerny stated. Xbox has a very competent SSD as well so I think we'll definitely get even more improvements with that for next-generation. But definitely they need double the ram that they have now at 16gb so hopefully 32gb with v-cache capabilities! :D
Game industry just needs to give shareholders the middle finger and stop worrying about what makes them happy and more what’s gonna work in the long run.
they own the company my dude and fund the games. Equity holders with voting rights are essentially the company.
Focus should be on maximizing AI compute. This would allow rendering techniques that reduce hardware utilization across the board.
I think I'm at that age where next generation I'm going to switch to a PC. With all the extra tech coming out every year or so it quickly makes the consoles obsolete. I'd rather just upgrade a part every year or so than have a box that can kinda run new features but with big drawbacks.
Every platform has a cost. On PC you'll lose the simple plug and play and have to deal with multiple game launchers, annoying windows software updates, DRMs, poor ports etc. You gain something and lose something.
It's like a pick your poison situation.
@@The_Ninja_Chin yeah, true but every big exclusive Sony/ Xbox game will be going to PC the way that developers need to make profit with the growing expense to develop and I'd love to learn about building PC rigs
@@erikalvarez4516 oh for sure go for it! Building a PC is a fun and rewarding experience. Also, really nice GPUs as of recently, like the AMD RX7900 GRE (excellent performance per watt) or Intel arc a770 (best value GPU).
Pc is fun, the assumed issues with it soon become interesting talking points.
If you factor in having 10 online stores to buy games, you'll easily save 10/20 £/USD per game.
Once you factor in not having to pay to play online if you buy a game per month, you can be saving 35£/usd per month, which over a year or two makes the cost difference hurt less when you buy a pc.
Typical PC gamer elitist attitude who cares? It’s not about the console specs it’s about the games and I’m glad I switched to Nintendo because specks have never really mattered to me. It’s been all about the gameplay and Nintendo is the only one that truly understands that and that’s why I will stick with Nintendo moving forward, Nintendo is the only one that has a sustainable business model both Sony Microsoft and PC battery out in the spec Wars Nintendo is the only one I’ve been sensible.
I think next gen consoles should go big on games, more games, better games, not necessarily longer games but better overall.
Ps2 era was the best time to be gamer !!
@@Ben256MB Ps3 era was easily better, you had more great games like MGS4 and halo 3 plus the entire backlog of the gen before.
Next Gen should and is not about consoles anymore.
It's about games, no matter what hardware. Should be possible to play all PS titles on PC (now it's about 80+%?). When Game Pass launched it was not about consoles anymore. That's why even Sony invests heavily in other platforms.
I'm sure the next gen will have more memory and it should of course.
I think my favourite thing this gen that I don't hear people talk about much is Quick Resume on Xbox. Being able to have multiple games on the go and launch them and have them resume like I just paused it really is awesome.
ppl don't talk about it much bc they are using PS5's and not Xbox's 😅🤣
Ps5 does the same. There is a setting right below the game called resume, and the game starts within 5 seconds to 10 seconds, depending on the game.
@@GForceIntelit's not the same thing
Weren't the ps4 and Xbox One supposed to have this as well? That might be why it's not talked about
@@GForceIntel not at all, what ps5 resume does is load the game without messing with the menu. It is still cold booting the game. The closest thing ps5/4 has is to put the game in rest mode. Then next time you boot the console you will resume to where ever you played. Xbox resume does the same thing for multiple games that you can switch back and forth. So you no longer need to find a save point to switch game or turn off console again.
The bandwidth is at the point where devs can use NVMe an additional RAM-like pool if only reading via Direct Storage
I think devs should start to make what we have now! They demand more and more but lot of games runs and look like dogwater. Sometimes i feel on 7th gen we had more better looking games than now
If all ps3 games could get a 60fps patch, I would instantly 'upgrade' to a ps3 from my ps5. Ps5 with all it's specs is pure horseshit based on the quality of games being released nowadays.
All this is good, of course, but first of all, learn how to optimize your games, a bunch of modern games that consume a lot of resources and look like games of the last generation, the problem is not in hardware.
I have a limited exposure but I would disagree with that on console. I know some console ports are FSR-heavy, and some ports are missing features you should be able to run (ie. ue5 games with lumen turned off.) But very few of the console ports are unplayably bad or stuttery, especially given that 30 fps console games (esp. later-gen) are a norm. How many truly terrible PS5 ports are there? The proportion seems really low compared to the optimization flops coming to PC.
Developers abandoned using low level api this generation. Nobody codes to the metal anymore.
true
It’s a lot harder than you make it seem, games nowadays do a lot of really complex calculations and there’s so many different moving pieces. Engine team probably doesn’t get enough time either to dig deep and make those optimizations. They have to make something that’s good enough and move on
32gb I think is enough for the next gen. Consoles share memory with the GPU different from PCs with a dedicated GPU and they like to separe a portion to the system.
The system memory doesn't take too much VRAM, usually just around 2gb. I can see next gen doing fine with 24GB of VRAM
32+ something dedicated for OS, Upsacler… .
Yes indeed as well as a lot more cache. Essentially just offer different tiers of "console" which is will basically become pre-built mid to very high spec.
But then it'll hold back games just like series s. We need a 500 dollar console and a 2000 dollar console
Yeah that’s now how it works. Series S doesn’t affect series X “performance “
@@xcrack6364no but it wastes dev time
Next gen needs a lot of memory and bandwidth which Infinite Cache can do also 3D V Cache for the cpu.
Amd fanboy?
@@Name-tn3md how by pointing out infinity cache and 3D V cache would be vital for next gen.
am i weird for not feeling excited at all about the future of gaming. its all just better graphics. i think somebody needs to finally take that big leap in vr and make it on par and superior to the regualr console/pc experience
And physics engines, alternative rendering methods, different methods of user input, ... all of them were abandoned.
We might need more memory if realtime if on device AI is going to work, like imaging having an 4~8GB optimized LLM model running all the time in the background that handles some scripting/branching dialogue/procedural voice generation/animation blending...
No. Make a balanced system.
I'm honestly just going to stick with my series x for a long time. Butnwhen I eventually upgrade. I still want it to be a good system.
More memory mattered less this generation because of the introduction of SSDs into consoles… However, now that SSDs are the standard, next generation will prioritize or memory again
No i don't think they will go beyond 20gb VRAM on consoles. It's too expensive, they'll implement good compression just like kraken but way more efficient that it will make the lack of memory not a serious problem. With gen 5 SSDs that sometimes exceed even 12gb/s(24gb/s with good compressed file)out in the market it will be easy to fill and empty the memory fast.
Some people just come up with the stupidest comments and questions. It is obvious newer consoles will have more memory, but 40 or 60 gbs of RAM on a console is not necessary or cost effective.
The newest games on the market are using 12gb of vram on 4k ultra and about 18 of system RAM. So 32 of unified memory is the bare minimum they should do in the next gen, but that is not ideal it should be at least 48
well, they should go with the ARM, Snapdragon goes crazy, add to it mobile GPU (laptops version) and they can make pretty strong machine, more speeds are no needed as these loading times are insane already and most of the time faster than on PC, add to it good amount of the ram for example 20gb and it's a beast
Why not include some type of expansion slot ? Like the good old N64 lol
Its about how much you can charge while including the bulk of the mainstream userbase. Everything else follows from that.
The thing is, it is *shared* memory, it is used for textures, OS and rendering the games all at the same time.
Currently, a triple A game on PC at 1440p max settings uses somewhere around 12 to 20 gb of RAM (Hogwarts Legacy) + 10 to 14 gb of VRAM, and we are in 2024! These next gen consoles will most likely be released in early 2029 and last until 2040. Between all R&D and hardware prices, memory is *NOT* the most expensive thing ever, but it can and *it WILL* bottleneck the system like crazy if there is not enough of it (in the console space, it will get in the way of developers trying to create and implement their vision of the game into an extremely limited system).
In my opinion, current consoles (or at the very least the upcoming PS5 Pro) should have had 32gb of total memory (but it wasn't this way...), and next gen consoles should have 64gb of total memory (but then again, I already know they won't).
The ps5 pro shouldn't be more than 50 dollars more expensive than the ps5 because it literally upgrades nothing besides the gpu. I salute anyone foolish enough to pay for a ps5 pro (that is if you're not trading in your ps5 though)
Comparing console memory budgets to PC memory budgets isn't really an apples to apples comparison since both platforms have different memory constraints. Consoles are able to more freely move data in and out of "VRAM" due to the fact that the memory pool is shared between the CPU and the GPU, which means that consoles are able to rely more heavily on streaming assets into "VRAM" on demand. PCs, on the other hand, are much more constrained when it comes to moving data in and out of VRAM since the graphics card is physically distant from the CPU and data takes measurably longer to arrive in VRAM, which means that PCs need to keep assets loaded in VRAM longer because unloading then loading them back into VRAM is much more expensive than it is on consoles. The end result is that PC games often end up using more VRAM than the console equivalents would, with a significant portion of that VRAM usage falling into the category of "this isn't being actively used right now but it can be used at any point in the near future and it's too expensive to load this back into VRAM, so it's kept loaded in VRAM to avoid having to pay the cost of loading it back in." The same behaviour happens with RAM, too, as the next stop behind VRAM when it comes to asset streaming is RAM: when an asset is unloaded from VRAM, it is moved into RAM so that it's faster to load back into VRAM later on.
EDIT: To be clear, I do think that a minor or moderate bump to console memory capacity could help, especially in games where one side is noticeably putting pressure on the other. I'm just saying that blindly using memory budgets of modern AAA PC games to state that next gen consoles need 64GBs of RAM isn't fair, since both platforms have very different memory constraints that affect how memory is used and how _much_ memory is used very differently between the two platforms.
This is a long way of saying developers can't make games harder to run than Hogwarts legacy for a couple of years.
If you need a 4080/rx7800xt or better to run your product, frankly you have an imaginary market to sell to.
@@lordspalse0062Yeah, I can tell you're one of those who saw the 10% cpu bump, ignored PSSR and RT improvements and think you're a genius because you won't buy it.
@@RandomGamingMoments925 LOL! Roasted him... x"D
Devs' should looking at Sampler Feedback Streaming !
Although VRAM size will need an increase (along with the memory bandwidth), they won't really require a massive amount more. 32GB should be more than sufficient for next gen. 24GB might even suffice, if it has high enough bandwidth (GDDR7, GDDR7x or even HBM3 maybe!!).
The real thing that does desperately need addressing more, is the dire amount of L3 Cache that's on current gen. And it doesn't really help with the cache being unified just like the VRAM (shared between the CPU & GPU). In a way it's just like APU's are on PC, which are also hamstrung by using unified RAM and cache. The next gen consoles really need a considerable bump up to their cache sizes (L1, L2 and L3). The 8Mb of "standard" unified L3 cache that's currently found on the PS5, is honestly pretty dire. It really needs to have at least around 192 to 256Mb of L3 Infinity Cache, come next gen.
BTW, for reference!! A typical comparable PC currently has a total of around 192Mb of onboard L3 cache (5600X3D = 96Mb of L3 V-Cache & RX 6700 = 96Mb of L3 Infinity Cache). Which is 24 times the amount than what's found on the PS5, plus it's over 3x faster.
Better and more onboard cache will help the next gen consoles far more, than increasing the amount of VRAM to ridiculous and unnecessary levels. And it'll be far cheaper to implement it, than a ton of extra VRAM will.
From a CPU perspective, it's already got buckets more memory bandwidth than a desktop part (about 46GB/s with decent DDR4), so adding the L3/L4 cache is yet another cache to manage.
Very well said. After decades of advances, consoles these days finally have enough RAM for most things and if the next gen only moves up to 24GB it'll still be good. But
1) they still remain incredibly bandwidth starved (especially on the GPU side) and they need to fix that more than anything else, and
2) if they want to have truly high ray tracing performance they _need_ a honkin' big GPU cache to keep the BVH in. Fortunately AMD has both Infinity Cache and 3D Cache tech available to take care of this problem. The console vendors just need to splurge to actually use them.
Your comment is more interesting than the entire digital foundry video
I agree that 24GB to 32GB of RAM will be more than enough for next-gen. But all the fancy CPU you talked about will only increase the price of the gaming console. Nobody wants to pay $750-$1200 for a PS6 or an Xbox-Whatever
+1 on cache. Often when a scene is CPU limited it’s really cache or memory bandwidth limited. Especially on the fairly wide Out Of Order jaguar cores which freeze the entire pipeline when they are memory stalled.
They should go big on Games
64gb? My beefy laptop isn’t even that packed lol. Keep wishing.
Looking at the size of resources games use today,they need to Increase everything
Just give us high end gaming consoles. We need the expensive ones. Those who want cheap ones can have a series s like option… but series x was NOT a powerful console.
it was powerful for 2020, it was somewhat equivalant in Raster to RTX 2080 or the just released 3060ti, but they could have pushed the clocks on CPU and GPU 20% or even 30% higher but that would need an improvement for power delivery, better cooling and power supply
@@NizarElZarif Hell yeah it was damn powerful for the 2020 standard and for 500. I don't know what these bitchass people are going on about
@@NizarElZarif I wouldn't call it powerful for 2020 even, it was just fine and also basically the same as the PS5.
I think the series S should have been the Series X, and the X should have been more powerful basically what the PS5 Pro is going to be spec wise, but I can see why Microsoft chose not to because Xbox consoles don't sell well as it is.
Playstation on the other hand I feel should make the PS5 Pro more powerful than what the leaks suggest, sure it will make it expensive but the vast majority of PS5 Pro buyers are more than happy to spend big to get big, going off last gens PS4 Pro console sales it only made up a tiny fraction of total PS4s sold, so casual and average gamers don't buy Pro consoles anyways its just people like us here.
People joked the PS4 Pro was the PS4.5 so the weaker PS5 Pro might be joked to be a PS5.2 or something like that lol but either way I'm still buying one, I've had a PS5 since launch day and any upgrades in performance will be welcomed to me, plus having a new console with warranty again and a fresh controller will be nice as my battery is starting to wear and I've got stick drift.
@@NizarElZarif I wouldn't call it powerful for 2020 even, it was just fine and also basically the same as the PS5.
I think the series S should have been the Series X, and the X should have been more powerful basically what the PS5 Pro is going to be spec wise, but I can see why Microsoft chose not to because Xbox consoles don't sell well as it is.
Playstation on the other hand I feel should make the PS5 Pro more powerful than what the leaks suggest, sure it will make it expensive but the vast majority of PS5 Pro buyers are more than happy to spend big to get big, going off last gens PS4 Pro console sales it only made up a tiny fraction of total PS4s sold, so casual and average gamers don't buy Pro consoles anyways its just people like us here.
People joked the PS4 Pro was the PS4.5 so the weaker PS5 Pro might be joked to be a PS5.2 or something like that lol but either way I'm still buying one, I've had a PS5 since launch day and any upgrades in performance will be welcomed to me, plus having a new console with warranty again and a fresh controller will be nice as my battery is starting to wear and I've got stick drift.
@@NizarElZarif These consoles are expected to last atleast 5 years and their life cycle is 10 more years after that so they need to overpower so they don't underperform later
Is the Series S related to power and price, a topic that comes to the fore when comparing other consoles to the PC, or is it only valid as long as it's convenient?
What's the point of looking for RT on SS, if in practice not even the higher consoles can afford it? It redensifies at lower resolution and with worse textures, which in the end are still related to the resolution and price.
You lower the effects and the LOD accordingly, because if it costs half the price of XSX and has a third of TF it is normal that it has to scale.
For the rest, we speak as if the quality of the others is more than sufficient, while this is not the case at all, as can be seen in cases like RE-4, and not even this one uses the visible maximum in texture quality.
You could say that, considering the pitiful resolution to which they go in many cases to reach 60fps, it would be better to increase this first of all, but no, there even if they go to 720p they are just a little softer.
It is clear that there is a virtual epicenter that must necessarily become a reference, above it little is needed (PC), below it is too little (XSS).
This way we can better understand when price and power become justifications for games that suffer.
Im pretty shure next gen consoles is gonna use memory with onboard compute.
They Need to focus on the CPU so 30fps can be in the past
This is what really matters. A lot of console gamers have no idea what that does, though.
Next gen should use 3D V Cache and Infinity Cache.
You dont get it. Game developers specifically target 30fps so that they can use all the power for visuals.
The PS5 and Series X CPU is not the reason why games are running at 30fps. The CPUs are basically Ryzen 7 3800X with a 6700 XT for the GPU portion of the APU. That's more than enough to get 60fps with High settings at 1440p on any game right now. The reason is just game optimization. The 3800X on PC is handling games better than the consoles are which is extremely funny since usually PC optimization is bad, but this gen we've been seen most games just being bad across the board.
@@mttrashcan-bg1ro console CPU is heavily underclocked 3800x with halved L3 cache. It's performance closer to r5 3600. But I still agree, that it should be enough for 60fps.
Playstation 6 and next Xbox pretty sure will use 24gb GDDR7. Or they will use 2 memory pool like PC. Vram and System ram. 16gb System ram (ddr5) and 16gb for Vram GDDR7 can be good on consoles.
Because 32gb GDDR7 will be expensive.
Segmented RAM is a thing of the past. And can be troublesome for programmers & manufacturers.
Mostly because it’s too inefficient (copying data from main RAM to VRAM), & because they’ve figured out a way to increase bandwidth & lower latency with a Unified Memory setup.
Nvidia has said themselves that better compression is the wave for RAM. This is due to the high prices of the stuff.
@@MrSamPhoenix They invested in technologies such as neural texture compression, but there are simpler ideas which could be used now in the current hardware.
@@vitordelima I hope they figure it out soon. Because have an extreme amount of RAM is too expensive for everyone.
@@MrSamPhoenix The Switch already uses one of the possible solutions for this (ASTC).
@@MrSamPhoenix
The copy between the 2 memories is not the rule, the first reason why it is shared on consoles is to save money, and the latency with GDDR just gets worse, as well as getting worse due to the shared BUS.
You also forget that the bandwidth on PC can be added, as well as being implicitly dedicated.
It seems clear to me that you speak by induction, by dint of hearing nonsense things born as an excuse on console, you've started to believe it...
A possible console aimed at absolute power without price limits could not have shared RAM.
Nvidia's opportunistic savings have nothing to do with the discussion on what is worth having and why.
Whatever they do, I never ever want to see any game on any platform with less than 60 fps!
It's nice knowing I have 24GB of vram and 32GB of system ram, but in reality those will never be fully utilized with what I do 😂
Just like Android phones who uses storage as (extra) "RAM". This will kill the storage extra fast.
Planned obsolesce on steroids.
I was surprised by that situation too once I got a new tablet once my old one cracked a bit at the seams, and this newer one had 12 gigs or so of ram but it needs to get some of the tablet's 128 gigs of memory to get to that benchmark. It was unexpected to say the least.
they need to make the consoles upgradable
Yeah, that would be a nightmare for everyone. At that point you should just get a PC. The general public would just get confused.
Yes. Memory allocation brings more performance to the table
It will cost you USD899 for the next gen consoles, if they come with like 32GB RAM.
Since they use unified RAM&VRAM that should be more expensive than mere RAM due to speed requirements. Also why we're only barely getting 16GB for most GPUs still. Very much doubt they'll include more than 32GB next generation considering even 1600$ GPUs don't have that yet. And that will be like half or two thirds reserved for GPU use so effectively much less as RAM while that's very cheap to have in a PC.
Why, do you think GGDR on consoles costs half as much?
Are you sure that GDDR costs much more than DDR?
Which is the economic base?
GDDR is not called that by chance, the G stands for graphics, and the frequency does not have the same value as DDR, given that the latencies are much higher, without considering that it should be measured considering the reserved channels. In the consumer context, 2 channels are enough, on the PS5 GPUs there are 8 and on the XSX 10, on the high-level GPUs 12, and they are all dedicated to them.
Don't consider that GDDR is much worse than DDR in many things, not just latency, it also lacks other features compared to classic DDR, because in the end GPUs need bandwidth more than anything else.
For the processor, GDDR is not suitable, it is no coincidence that it is not used even in areas where there are no price limits (I'm not just talking about consumers).
On consoles there are heavy compromises on the processor side, primarily due to the high latency, in addition to the sawed cache on the processor, in the specific 1/4 of what a comparable Ryzen 3700x has as a core.
The price is the first reason, the only advantage of having shared RAM is that in that way you save on things that with divided RAM would be replicated, so to not use it you would have to increase the RAM.
In everything else, shared RAM is a disadvantage, latencies further raised by the shared BUS, and bandwidth also shared, which in practice is never considered.
On PC the bandwidth is asynchronous and therefore summable, and the latencies are optimal, as is normal. It is no coincidence that in generic graphics engines we see that the PC is very good, it's a shame that there DF limits itself to talking about the compilation stutter, and only that...
They don't tell you everything, try to understand...
I don't care 1600$ GPU don't have 32GB. Game hardware industry need to move on. 32GB would be nice for PS6
Yes, but their cost-effective nature forces them to prioritise certain hardwares.
And RAM is not one of them.
24GB is more approachable 8 more than 16gb current gen and last gen was and 8gb difference too
32gb is not going big for the year 2026/2027, that should be the standard amount as that amount has been prevelant in PC gaming for literal years now even if its not necessary for most games, 24gb in the year 2026 isn't going to cut it for that generation unless they want to keep artificially handicapping and limiting the performance of their machines.
I am not sure I agree.
While for a PC 32GB is pretty standard, consoles run a much leaner OS, even Xbox OS with the hypervisor setup. I think Next gen consoles could work well with 24GB of RAM, especially if they opt for GDDR7. You figure the increased speed/bandwidth would benefit. I think that is enough without making the next gen consoles prohibitively expensive. 20-22GB of memory for games should be enough for 10th generation, even more so if we are getting updated
As Digital Foundry discussed, you need to fill the memory with something and 32GBs probably aren't necessary in a console environment even for next generation.
How about they actually use some of the RAM efficiency tech in the likes of the XBox consoles before we go brute forcing things in the next gen. I know Alex mentioned before there was issues implementing the likes of Sampler Feedback Streaming due to overheads, but that's the only time I've ever heard of such issues. It would be great if DF did some digging to find out why this tech is left unused, even by Xbox first party. Is this just a lowest common denominator problem?
I’m interested to see how powerful the next Xbox is going to be. I’m really hoping they move over to Nvidia chips like a platinum Xbox that at least has four times the power of the series X. I’d like to change/ leap and have software put out from Microsoft that lets AAA games maximize the new Xbox to develop a AAA title and under five years maybe like four at best
All of that costs… Nvidia is known for being the Prima-donna of chip designers. Microsoft had a ton of problems with the company back when the original Xbox was a thing. Sony even had some issues with the company, not to mention EVGA.
I think the real problem we have is development and console becoming more of low cost pc's. Developers are treating them as such and no longer fully utilizing or optimizing games anymore.
Theres devs that can and do but theyre becoming fever and fever.
They need faster, lower latency memory - not necessarily more.
They need both faster and more.
@@Dani-kq6qq I think budgetary constraints are a bigger constraint than technical limitations these days.
Fancy hardware requires a fancier wallet
Some ATI GPUs can use the system memory as a huge cache for the GPU and that was the biggest factor influencing its performance. Now imagine something that only has the system memory (AFAIK).
What gains can truly be made? Edit [RAM is on die for consoles. So not sure how that would work. Move it off die? Then architecture would change and latency would definitely increase.]
Ram is not on die for consoles.
HBM Memory?
@@deviouslaw oh correct. It’s the memory controllers not ram.
@@RomeoooGFHBM is very expensive compared to GDDR, and actually performs worse below ~750 GB/s, which is why it's only used in datacenter GPUs. AMD actually experimented with HBM for the RX Vega series, but went back to GDDR for those reasons.
256 bit bus and GDDR7 with 3GB modules = 24 GB.
Thats it.
No, it's not worth it. The improvement in games will be miniscule in comparison to the increase in cost. Cost that will be passed on to the consumer. Who is ready to go spend $700 on a console for a little more memory and no guarantee that devs will make use of it to make much of a difference, especially when they are maintaining parity with other consoles.
Let alone 70-80€ for a game
Yes!
Since console architecture is shared memory then the next generation of console should have at least 24GB of GDDR7 with 1TB/S bandwidth memory would be perfect.
Will buying xbox series x in the summer will be a good deal
I think this guys thoughts on VRAM is completely wrong, there’s plenty need for more than 16GB
"Muh more VRAM" was always an AMD cope
More ram works. I still use a 970 gtx but with X32 ram n all the other CPU stuff topped up with it really runs shit at a smooth 60 or more fps compared to 4k slow 30fps. Don't care how good the ps5 game looks, if it's 30fps I aint sold. Make better games not hardware is sometimes the answer
32gb vram gddr7 is enough
Next-gen console should invest in ARM
I was thinking the same thing for months now. That would allow both Sony and Microsoft, more freedom as to what they want to design into the CPU on the cheap. But they’ll want to keep compatibility with PS4, PS5, & PS5 Pro. So x86 is here to stay.
@@MrSamPhoenix There are CPUs capable of running both instructions sets almost natively, but they were abandoned.
@@vitordelima I hope they figure something out. I’d love to see a high powered 16-Core ARM CPU in one of these things. This would give developers more options as to what they’d want to do.
@@MrSamPhoenix I'm almost sure the consoles would become worse to develop, games are already terrible at parallelism and each individual core on its own would be slower. Also everything would have to be ported to ARM. Maybe the extra freedom in hardware design and lower costs would compensate all of this.
A full transition to Next-Gen consoles with 40 Gb of RAM would be disastrous for midrange hardware. That would kill 8 and 12Gb GPU's unless there's another Series S or something similar
It wouldn't be a problem, given that the quality of the effects and textures has always been scalable on PC.
If anything it would be an advantage for those with above average configurations, on PC they take a moment to adapt, and in the minimum requirements you still find the GTX-960 or 1060, so what are we talking about?
8gb already killed. 12gb almost, i think this year its gonna be over. Nowadays you need at least 16gb, 24 perfectly
Checkmate 🍎
should just make the ram upgradable.. same with the cpu and gpu
There already is. It's called a desktop...
I’d say at least 32gigs of ram or even 20 gigs. We have other software based technology such as ai upscalers constantly getting better, devs are getting more efficient with Ray tracing etc. etc. to where we can still get a generational leap in performance without necessarily having to have a generational leap in hardware. Software based solutions will be the way to go in the future, in order to keep costs down, and keep the absolute most out of whatever tech is being used.
I might just become A PC/Nintendo combo gamer next generation after the horrible decisions made this generation by PS and Xbox, they have to do a 180 next generation or I might leave the ship. I have a PS5 and other than ff7 rebirth I haven't played an exclusive game in it in a long time.
Yes ram and vram
We all know it’s going to be 32 GB of GDDR7 RAM next gen and that will be enough.
You overestimate Sony. We will be lucky to get 24gb let alone 32
@@lordspalse0062 24GB would be a big deception
24 gb of gddr7 and quadruple (min) the on package cache.
How much would something like cost?
32GB would be better, 24 is too stingy. Game hardware need to move on
I don't think the amount is as important if they keep pushing SSD bandwidth. It's sort of like the cartridge era of games where the game data can be screened very quickly, you just don't need as much system RAM. I'd be surprised at more than 24. GDDR pricey.
@@christophercasale7961 In the cartridge era the cartridges where on the memory bus and speeds were much lower for cpu's back then. Latency and especially bandwidth are king today. Both are orders of magnitude worse for ssd's (event he latest greatest gen5 drives) than for ram which in turn is orders below cache. If anything larger caches can reduce ram needs. Not that faster ssd's don't help.
@@yves1926dream more
After the shit show this gen, who seriously wants any console next gen? Absolutely pointless.
Agreed 💯 percent. I am also considering switching to PC gaming due to better variety and of course higher fps. This gen will be my last purchase of a console.
Console gaming with monopolistic stores is no longer an attractive proposition.
The extra cost of a gaming PC as compared to consoles can easily be recovered due to cheaper AAA games on PC.
@@syeddanishanwer very true. I do have a 4090 PC, but also all 3 consoles in the living room. PS5 is barely touched and Sony’s constant anti consumer behaviour this gen has sickened me to the point I’d never buy another PS. Microsoft have just taken a huge left turn with their new DEI hire who knows nothing about gaming. The switch is pretty much the only console I may consider again. But then you may as well just get a steam deck along with your PC then you can play every platforms games anyway. But yeh, for someone who’s had every major platform since the 8 bit computing days, nothing has soured me more on gaming than this gen.
They definitely should
So that they can use up to 24 GB for vram out of 32 total GB
(To generate screams about someone's allmighty ray traced, huangflation-faced 8gb 4060 (22 tflops, the only huang-approved measurement !!!!!!!) is screwed up by bad optimisation)
Yes.
Apple sells PCs with 8gb of RAM in 2024….
And people buy them, that's the worst
Wondering about the timing of these videos… Xbox/PlayStation 10th gen is WAY off, but Nintendo is starting 10th gen soon…🤔
In my opinion CPU is the biggest problem, always underpowered.
Next gen should be about games. Continuing trend chasing and gimmicks are eventually not going to work. I feel people are tired of multiplayer battleroyal shooters riddled with microtransactions and live services most companies are betting on. Not to mention the censorship and activism... Gaming feels so bland, immature, greedy and subversive.
More is always better. But it costs $$$ to add more and more RAM. Faster storage & I think about 24GB-32GB of RAM would’ve been perfect for the current gen consoles.
Wdym faster storage? The ps5 ssd was at the top end of ssds in 2020. Even then they had problems getting 1 tb of storage at launch
I saw one developer mention they could start using voxel cloud point rendering in conjunction with traditional polygon rendering if VRAM went to 32-64GB
@@2drealms196 that would very nice indeed.
@@urmomma2688 well, in some games it still takes around 15sec to load assets.
@@MrSamPhoenix And some games, which look at least as good if not better as the ones you have in mind , load in 3-5 seconds. That points towards an optimisation problem, not an ssd problem
Fundamentally? Fundamentally, there is a math. On PC you have VRAM, RAM for OS and RAM for the game. So 2-3GB for OS, 6GB for game and CPU based processing, 12 GB for GPU and AI related processing - so you need 20-24GB of RAM. That's a sweet spot. Can you make useful clips instead generic fillers?
no cfw no buy😆
Next generation consoles will likely have 24gbs of GDDR7 memory.
Memory capacity isn't really an issue. In theory, 16GB should be enough for consoles since they don't have to deal with the extra overhead that PC operating systems incur. I think faster memory bandwidth and larger caches would make a bigger difference, as well as the ever-improving speeds of SSDs.
The quantity is another thing, if you have to keep things in RAM of speed and cache you do very little with it.
You don't really do anything about the speed of the iSSD, I don't see why they should be useful if the one to be loaded into RAM will always be the same.
Are there any games that take more than 30 seconds to load for the first time on PS5, do you think they load in 150GB RAM?
Why does BG-3 take 3 times longer than PC to load on PS5?
The problem is the cost, otherwise it wouldn't take much to exploit the greater quantity available. You can keep more stuff stored even during the game, on PCs with more RAM it often loads sooner, or it takes a moment between one level and another.
Ps6 will have 24gb gddr7. Sony is highly predictable for their conservative approach to ram improvements in their gaming consoles.ps4 to ps4 pro had just 1gb ddr3 ram difference. Ps5 to ps5 pro will have no difference in terms of increase in amount of ram.
Sony May even surprise us by sticking with 16gb gddr7 for the ps6.
It will targeting 8k so no
ps3>ps vita>ps4>ps5>ps6 😆 luckly I dont have ps5😁
I want to say yes, but the reality is modern devs are "wasteful." Give them more and like goldfish the game will balloon without much to show for it.
From what i heard from you guys is that this generation is cpu bottlenecked. So we need more well put together devices were everything compliments one and other
24 gigs of ddr7 would be amazing.
You are lacking ambition
They should go big on actual NEXT GEN big games, and not on Indie titles.
Nvidia foundry trying to make excuses for Nvidias shittyness even in a console memory discussion. My god you guys sell out bad for just a few 4090s and a couple of interviews.
Next console generation needs to focus on not existing
So will we have a PS6 with 32GB RAM ? That would be still very nice. Optimizations techniques like procedural techniques often lead to poor image quality, if we want better graphics, we need more RAM
VRAM is not the issue, it's the CPU.
Current consoles have more VRAM than they know what to do with.
The consoles would have been FAR better off with a ~4.5 GHz CPU and 10-12 GB VRAM.
Then something like 1440p / 60 FPS would have been FAR more viable across the board. Seeing as these consoles aren't remotely 4K capable machines this would have made a lot more sense.
No, they need more vram for next gen consoles. If they only 10-12gb, than the gpu will only be able to use 6-8g of vram. Would you want a 6gb or even 8gb gpu in 2024? We see that is too little. No matter how powerful you gpu is, without enough vram you'll still have low quality textures.
They are 4k capable machines. Just not 4k 60 capable machines.
The thing about it is that consoles will always use reconstruction which makes sense given the distance and the fact that a tv will also do its own upscaling possibly AI upscaling soon (Sony has been ai upscaling forever, just not real time).
So they only need to render between 1080p and 1440p for a very detailed 4k image assuming your tv adds more detail.
There’s really no need for more ram or other things as long as 1080p and 1440p are viable. Then it’s a matter of upscaling and obviously PSSR and Xess are better than FSR but FSR 3.1 might be an improvement.
@@gothpunkboy89
30 FPS is not "4K capable" sorry. Especially 2024+
@@Dani-kq6qq
No, a far stronger CPU is what is required.
1440p and 120 fps all games and I'll never buy a pc....No one gives a shit about 4k 30fps torture lag disconnected game experiences
Next gen will have less but faster memory, GDDR7 pro.
PC games should make more use of 32GB ram. 32GB ram is not expensive.
16gb ram is more than enough for console gaming
RAM hater ?
Only AAA games require more vram/ram.
Not necessarily. You can have an indy game that needs much RAM
So many Xbox cry babies, no wonder Xbox never won any of the console wars. The more memory the better., it would be nice if the console was upgradeable this time around.
Pc geeks don’t represent us regular folk with a 9-5 and a life. Consoles SHOULD NOT be upgradable. plug and play, baby.
a fully upgradeble console would defeat the purpose of owning a console lmao. just go buy a pc at this point. such a braindead comment can only come from a sony fanboy.
Not completely dumb, if they made it semi modular and partly upgradable in design. Along with being such a breeze to upgrade, that even a simpleton could do it blindfolded.
Image, if just like the current XBox's SSD, they made easy for users to upgrade certain components, by just unplugging an old "module" and inserting a new one. For example, you could just unplug the existing GPU module that came with the console and upgrade it by plugging in a new GPU module into that socket (just like a cartridge). The console would then detect that a new module has been inserted at boot-up and automatically download any appropriate drivers or software for it, along with configure and test out the device. Simple, easy to do and no need to remove the case lid, fiddle about with screws, uncouple/couple cables and possibly tinker with the Bios, like with a PC.
Of course any modules would have to be made proprietary to that particular console, just like XBox's current SSD's. Which would also likey increase the costs. Plus, any modules would have to conform to the consoles power and thermal limitations. Also, any upgrade modules for that particular component (eg. GPU) would probably be limited to only 2 or 3 possible customisable options.
It's definitely plausible and should be currently possible to do, just like it is upgrading your GPU, SSD or RAM in a PC. Basically it would be using the same plug n play principals and mechanics as a PC, only without any of the hassle. I'm pretty sure it would also be viable to those console users who just want more from out of thier console, but want a simple and hassle free solution.
I guess an upgradable console would also negate any need for a mid gen refresh console, since the console manufacturer could simply just release a new series of up to date modules, for the existing console.
As for "might as well get a PC". Many people simply don't feel comfortable taking apart a PC in order to upgrade it. In-fact most PC owners buy pre-built PC's, simply to avoid it (600 million per year).
A PC will still be a PC and come with far more tailorable options for it. And the console will still be a console, in that it will still be a hassle free and easy to use gaming machine. It would just be slightly more flexible and less limited than current consoles are.
Do you really think that the general public, you know the people that make up the bulk of the millions of consoles sold, would want or understand upgradable consoles?
Upgradeable console would be great, only the poor are against it.
At least 40GB for the next gen should be enough.
Consoles will die, PC will be the only platform to play ❤
I hope it doesn't
Consoles are doing fine. Both Nintendo and Sony managed over 100m with their last systems. PS5 should do the same.
Never gunna happen. Theres millions of kids playing video games. What 12yr old would mess around with a PC? Get a grip
Honestly if this was 3 years ago when this generation just launched I would heavily disagree with you, but seeing the advances made to Linux gaming from Valve and their efforts with the Steam Deck, I think that the ease-of-use strength that consoles have isn’t really there anymore. Not only is the steam deck almost as user-friendly as a console, but it’s heavily customizable. I think that there’s still some work to do for us to get to the point that PCs can truly replace consoles, but we’re getting closer everyday
@@DMPLAYER1000they never will there will always be a demand for lower hardware