I'm loathed to get into a semantics debate about what constitutes "next gen". I would rather ask; what would a console game on the PS5 made in 2021 have that CoD Cold War does not? Cold war uses all the latest technology including Ray Tracing and high resolution texture pack out the box. It's sufficiently demanding on the next gen consoles that they cannot run everything turned up, they have to have some form of compromise, so 120fps mode limits resolution to 1440p and turns off ray tracing. In RT mode you get RT effects on but 60FPS target. Both modes use dynamic resolution which renders as low as 1080p and upscales to a 4k output. The GPUs in the next gen console are significantly weaker than something like the 3080, they're much closer to a 2060.
No one plays games at 20fps, and that's precisely my point. When you turn up visual settings you increase demand on vRAM. If you take the latest games and you attempt to force them over 10GB of vRAM usage by setting all of your visual settings to max, you end up with unplayable frame rates, but you do not exceed 10GB of vRAM usage. What that demonstrates is that the bottleneck for these games is not with the vRAM, it's with the GPU. In any other configurations if you lower visual settings in order to get higher frame rates then you necessarily lower the demand on vRAM.
People keep speculating about the next gen killer console games but these consoles have essentially an RTX 2060 in them, they're slower than the current gen video cards on the PC by a decent margin. CoD Cold War has ray tracing already and it comes with base game size of 80GB with high res texture pack of 45GB and that's not exceeding vRAM.
COD is a good example if you talk to a 16 years old (as online only games typical target) nor is a graphic marvel as the engine is build for people who like to play the same crap over and over, if we think open world think MSFS, as size, or Cyberpunk as texture quality and size, as said previously and as I do when I develop myself if I want to pack 4k textures for small object because I, as developer, want to see quality in my work YOU user need Vram to store my lovely texture which I painted on my models, if I want to offer you details I use maps, including Normal, these take lot of lovely VRAM and offer you lots of details instead of flat looking textures.
You will see that when games for PS5 comes out your 10gb Vram will go down the drain in a millisecond in 4k and probably 1440p too, simply because stuff needs space, and you can have whatever tech if on screen has to be in vram, and there is little R&D there.... we already have:
- Occlusion Culling
- Deferred Rendering
To name two useful to keep textures at bay, yet what you see has to be in the Vram, so 10gb is yet another scam from Nvidia after they tried to scam consumers with 20xx and their outrageous prices which we all saw sold nothing and left the poor consumers with years of no titles to use them for the super premium paid over 10xx until a £500 console came out, embarrassing, now we will see plenty of RTX so once again console leads the way, 2060 equivalent or not there is ton of value there and the average console users funny enough isn't as gullible, consoles would never sell at 1k per piece.
The point is PC Gamers are getting more gullible by the day and sooner or later will kill the platform for gaming, how many people do you think will get a PC with overpriced parts compared instead of a 4k capable consoles? Pure simple basics economics, PCs aren't veblen goods really and the average parent isn't going to spend £700 for a single piece of hardware and going into the second hand market for 2060 (which is a joke of a card by the way) isn't something many would love to do, yet vram there is still too little.
Going back on topic, 10gb was just another attempt by Nvidia to double dip and sell you a 20gb version in less than a year, "Super", it is shocking to read adults writing nonsense saying "nvidia said so", how sad of a life one has to be to be gullible to a corporate? And not sure about GDDR6X but non X is about 15 quid a per gb.
Games will be even more unoptimized on Nvidia cards this gen, I shall keep this here and come back in a while
Surely they were not expecting AMD to hit them, nor anyone did probably, now they offer absolutely zero value they sell only because people are deceivable so easily that is kind of embarrassing.
It seems lots of people want these cards, just seems... as 20xx seemed like god know what then seen numbers they are probably one of Nvidia biggest failure as far as I remember (and that is the Commodore era), isn't just an nvidia problem, AMD seen the poor judgement of PC Gamers are making extra profit by charging only £50 less, and they have ZERO pedigree to do so, at least Nvidia has many series under their belt in the past years, AMD just said "*** them, they are dumb let's charge them as much as our competitor", would not be surprised if they used exact those words, to stay in topic at least they are giving you enough VRAM to last years and probably this time games will run better on their cards, FUTURE GAMES NOT GAMES THAT CAME OUT BEFORE.
I don't see Nvidia cards viable for 4k and barely for 1440p as my 1080ti in games like MSFS is saturated.
I see amd selling 6800 more as despite being a bit over a 3070 offers better performance and above all more Vram
The rest is overpriced garbage, from both AMD and NVIDIA that will sell maybe 200k unit which is nothing for a developer to optimize their games on, even 500k is nothing if put it next to millions of consoles sold with more Vram.
And we talk value vs performance as average, not costs vs other goods such an iPhone (which is a veblen good anyway)...
