PS5 and Xbox series X Vram?

[Bruh1]

I was listening to the wan show recently and Linus pulled up an article about the PS5 and Xbox specs and it said 16 GB of GDDR6 ? Is it possible that these consoles will come with such an insane amount of Vram?

I mean if they are like 500$ or 600$, PC gpus are heavily overpriced , I believe you can never make a build with an 8 core cpu and a gpu with more than 8 gb of gddr6 with 600$ all new parts....

2080ti has 11 gb only and its 1200$ ?

Are next gen gpus that much better? with such amount of vram 4k gaming could actually become mainstream If im not wrong 

[Electronics Wizardy]

that 16gb is shared between the cpu and gpu, so its not all vram

 

 

[minibois]

Just now, Bruh1 said:

I was listening to the wan show recently and Linus pulled up an article about the PS5 and Xbox specs and it said 16 GB of GDDR6 ? Is it possible that these consoles will come with such an insane amount of Vram?

From what I have read, the PS5 will have 16GB of GDDR, but everyone mentions that as 'RAM'  and not specifically 'VRAM'. I assume the new Xbox is the same case.

They did this with the PS4/XB1 too, where they had fast memory; which was system memory and video memory at the same time.

So you can't exactly 1 to 1 compare the two, since it can't be fully/exclusively used as VRAM (as opposed to the 2080 Ti's VRAM that is).

 

But I am not going to judge the systems based on current specs, but rather on actual performance.

[dizmo]

It isn't even really the VRAM you need to look at with the new consoles, it's the storage solution. Apparently it beats anything available on PC at this time, and that's where you're going to see serious gains in performance.

[Bruh1]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

It isn't even really the VRAM you need to look at with the new consoles, it's the storage solution. Apparently it beats anything available on PC at this time, and that's where you're going to see serious gains in performance.

Honestly for storage solutions the difference  between a good ssd and a good nvme isn't that much in gaming  so even if consoles have insane storage solutions will it differ that much? 

Although there are some developpers trying to make texture streaming directly from the storage or something like that, I think it already happens but on a way lower scale.

[Bruh1]

1 hour ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

that 16gb is shared between the cpu and gpu, so its not all vram

 

 

I see, I did notice they didn't mention Ram capacity so I thought it's still unknown or something. 

[PlayStation 2]

Consoles have been moving away from dedicated pools of RAM for certain things for a while now. Blame the original Xbox and the GameCube for that. The PS5 and the Xbox Series X are almost certainly gonna have a shared pool of RAM for everything to work off.

[Bruh1]

1 hour ago, minibois said:

From what I have read, the PS5 will have 16GB of GDDR, but everyone mentions that as 'RAM'  and not specifically 'VRAM'. I assume the new Xbox is the same case.

They did this with the PS4/XB1 too, where they had fast memory; which was system memory and video memory at the same time.

So you can't exactly 1 to 1 compare the two, since it can't be fully/exclusively used as VRAM (as opposed to the 2080 Ti's VRAM that is).

 

But I am not going to judge the systems based on current specs, but rather on actual performance.

I see how it is. 

Yea it's true can't really judge now. But I recently built a gaming rig and man it did drain my bank quite a bit that's why I was curious about consoles reaching pc pc performance after all these years 

[Bruh1]

3 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Consoles have been moving away from dedicated pools of RAM for certain things for a while now. Blame the original Xbox and the GameCube for that. The PS5 and the Xbox Series X are almost certainly gonna have a shared pool of RAM for everything to work off.

Thing is, I saw a tech quickie video about the difference between gddr and ddr, and Linus basically said gddr is just too fast for normal computers we don't really need them for cpu tasks and that was like 2016? Not sure. 

So isn't it just a good idea at this point to just use gddr instead? 

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Bruh1 said:

Thing is, I saw a tech quickie video about the difference between gddr and ddr, and Linus basically said gddr is just too fast for normal computers we don't really need them for cpu tasks and that was like 2016? Not sure. 

So isn't it just a good idea at this point to just use gddr instead? 

When you're building dedicated hardware around a shared pool of RAM (especially for gaming), GDDR really doesn't hurt, especially as it's going to be used by the GPU.

[dizmo]

35 minutes ago, Bruh1 said:

Honestly for storage solutions the difference  between a good ssd and a good nvme isn't that much in gaming  so even if consoles have insane storage solutions will it differ that much? 

Although there are some developpers trying to make texture streaming directly from the storage or something like that, I think it already happens but on a way lower scale.

It's not just the load times, it's an integral part of the system. It's not used like a PC would, and there currently isn't anything on the PC side that will match it in speed.

[Ertman]

8 hours ago, Bruh1 said:

I see how it is. 

Yea it's true can't really judge now. But I recently built a gaming rig and man it did drain my bank quite a bit that's why I was curious about consoles reaching pc pc performance after all these years 

Consoles at launch have always been  at least a bit ahead of NEW PC builds in terms if value. This has been true even as consoles have become more like computers. However, PC makes up this gap within a year or two, and then you start seeing console price cuts. 
 

In recent decades, pc have always had the ability to outperform consoles at launch if you threw enough money at it.

 

this time around it looks like consoles will be hitting against higher end systems.

[LjjlijJ]

i thought the whole reason to go for console gaming is because we DON'T have to worry about specs? it's the game library that matters

 

jk

 

 

[Lord Vile]

On 5/18/2020 at 4:40 AM, Ertman said:

Consoles at launch have always been  at least a bit ahead of NEW PC builds in terms if value. This has been true even as consoles have become more like computers. However, PC makes up this gap within a year or two, and then you start seeing console price cuts. 
 

In recent decades, pc have always had the ability to outperform consoles at launch if you threw enough money at it.

 

this time around it looks like consoles will be hitting against higher end systems.

Idk the Xbox One X is still pretty hard to beat even with used hardware at £350 unless you’re going optiplex. 

[Ertman]

3 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

Idk the Xbox One X is still pretty hard to beat even with used hardware at £350 unless you’re going optiplex. 

I don't disagree. realistically, even the base models are hard to beat without going used. Thats one of the reasons for the price cuts on consoles over time (the OneX has dropped by £100) to keep them relevant choice for gaming. It helps that the costs decrease over time.

 

Its tough to get the whole package that beats the console for the price, even used, even the base model. If your willing to spend ~20% more (less than launch price) you can build a system that equals r outperforms a ONEX. However, going used is a bit of a different story, as you can build a system that  beats it for less. The CPU is pretty easy to beat, so getting a base system like the optiplex you mentioned is good way of going about it as it will give you a more powerful cpu and you will have all the other components you will need, but leaves you space in your budget for a gpu. There is caveats to this. Going used means you have to actually search for deals, take the risks associated with buying used parts, and you are still comparing used vs new.

 

Imagine if AMD released an APU with double or three times the gpu cores, that would have shaken up the market.

[Bruh1]

2 hours ago, Ertman said:

I don't disagree. realistically, even the base models are hard to beat without going used. Thats one of the reasons for the price cuts on consoles over time (the OneX has dropped by £100) to keep them relevant choice for gaming. It helps that the costs decrease over time.

 

Its tough to get the whole package that beats the console for the price, even used, even the base model. If your willing to spend ~20% more (less than launch price) you can build a system that equals r outperforms a ONEX. However, going used is a bit of a different story, as you can build a system that  beats it for less. The CPU is pretty easy to beat, so getting a base system like the optiplex you mentioned is good way of going about it as it will give you a more powerful cpu and you will have all the other components you will need, but leaves you space in your budget for a gpu. There is caveats to this. Going used means you have to actually search for deals, take the risks associated with buying used parts, and you are still comparing used vs new.

 

Imagine if AMD released an APU with double or three times the gpu cores, that would have shaken up the market.

I think that will be the future of gaming , when architectures shrink enough to put a powerful cpu and gpu on the same die to the point where its enough for gaming , it might happen soon , give it 4 5 years and we will be gaming with no gpus. that is if AMD or any other company decides to invest the time, money and effort onto this technology to make it way more powerful than it is right now.

[Lord Vile]

3 hours ago, Ertman said:

I don't disagree. realistically, even the base models are hard to beat without going used. Thats one of the reasons for the price cuts on consoles over time (the OneX has dropped by £100) to keep them relevant choice for gaming. It helps that the costs decrease over time.

 

Its tough to get the whole package that beats the console for the price, even used, even the base model. If your willing to spend ~20% more (less than launch price) you can build a system that equals r outperforms a ONEX. However, going used is a bit of a different story, as you can build a system that  beats it for less. The CPU is pretty easy to beat, so getting a base system like the optiplex you mentioned is good way of going about it as it will give you a more powerful cpu and you will have all the other components you will need, but leaves you space in your budget for a gpu. There is caveats to this. Going used means you have to actually search for deals, take the risks associated with buying used parts, and you are still comparing used vs new.

 

Imagine if AMD released an APU with double or three times the gpu cores, that would have shaken up the market.

It's not about beating components in a console though it's the who package. The CPU in the consoles is horrendous but can still run AA games even though an FX 8350 wouldn't be at this point.

[Ertman]

8 hours ago, Bruh1 said:

I think that will be the future of gaming , when architectures shrink enough to put a powerful cpu and gpu on the same die to the point where its enough for gaming , it might happen soon , give it 4 5 years and we will be gaming with no gpus. that is if AMD or any other company decides to invest the time, money and effort onto this technology to make it way more powerful than it is right now.

I don't know if it really needs to be on die, given how consoles work now, it seems likely its a legal agreement thing

7 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

It's not about beating components in a console though it's the who package. The CPU in the consoles is horrendous but can still run AA games even though an FX 8350 wouldn't be at this point.

I know, I thought it was obvious in my post, my bad.