• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

NVIDIA 4000 Series

I was thinking, i wonder if this whole VRAM thing is something to do with direct storage or rather the lack of it. As in on consoles the GPU is streaming assets from storage but on PCs without DS it's trying to load all those streaming asset into VRAM.

Have MS got round to sorting out direct storage, were the games tested with it enabled, do they even support it?
 
Murphy said:
I was thinking, i wonder if this whole VRAM thing is something to do with direct storage or rather the lack of it. As in on consoles the GPU is streaming assets from storage but on PCs without DS it's trying to load all those streaming asset into VRAM.

Have MS got round to sorting out direct storage, were the games tested with it enabled, do they even support it?
Click to expand...

Direct storage is flakey on PC. Developers aren't keen to support it because it tanks performance. In order to match the consoles, amd and Nvidia will need to start putting fixed function decompression units onto their GPUs And even then adoption will be slow because it will takes years to build a user base. This isn't a Microsoft problem, the problem is the way GPUs handle DirectStorage and currently it results in performance drops and no one is going yo accept their game running with better graphics because they can use direct storage instead of having more vram but their framerate goes down by 50% when direct storage is enabled


Users will expect that Direct Storage just "works", if you tell them it's going to kill your framerate they will say no thanks. Both AMD and Nvidia GPUs have "official support" for DirectStorage but it's a token affair - like a HDR400 monitor claiming it can do HDR, but it looks like crap. Our GPUs are not designed or capable of doing what consoles can do with DirectStorage
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
I was thinking, i wonder if this whole VRAM thing is something to do with direct storage or rather the lack of it. As in on consoles the GPU is streaming assets from storage but on PCs without DS it's trying to load all those streaming asset into VRAM.

Have MS got round to sorting out direct storage, were the games tested with it enabled, do they even support it?
Click to expand...

If you recall back on the ampere launch, jensen bigged it up. My guess is they could have used that as a tool to mitigate the low vram models, but they still need to revisit the cpu overheads on their drivers to get more performance back.
 
gpuerrilla said:
If you recall back on the ampere launch, jensen bigged it up. My guess is they could have used that as a tool to mitigate the low vram models, but they still need to revisit the cpu overheads on their drivers to get more performance back.
Click to expand...

On consoles you have dedicated silicon to handle it. The problem on PC there is a software and hardware penalty in doing it - if the dGPU has to handle it that means less resources for other things. It also needs PC gamers to have sufficiently fast SSDs,and platforms which can handle things such as PCI-E 4.0 and PCI-E 5.0 too.

Or Nvidia/AMD could add some extra VRAM to their dGPUs,after 7 years of near stagnation in increasing amounts.

From 2009 to 2016,mainstream dGPUs went from 512MB/1GB to 8GB of VRAM. High end ones went from 1.28GB/2GB to 11GB. So we should be having 16GB of VRAM at least at the lower end.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
On consoles you have dedicated silicon to handle it. The problem on PC there is a software and hardware penalty in doing it - if the dGPU has to handle it that means less resources for other things.
Click to expand...

Maybe jensen cant reuse the propped up AI sandbox that is gamer gpu's to shoehorn out the problem - he just needs to add maybe a gamer specific component to do this although - as per form, it will probably cost (and be proprietary). ;)
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
...amd and Nvidia will need to start putting fixed function decompression units onto their GPUs And even then adoption will be slow because it will takes years to build a user base.
Click to expand...
Haven't they already started doing that, i thought i read that they did but maybe I've misremembered.
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Or Nvidia/AMD could add some extra VRAM to their dGPUs,after 7 years of near stagnation in increasing amounts.
Click to expand...
True dat, however i wonder if no matter how much VRAM they put on their cards it won't be enough, it's why i asked about the streaming of assets and direct storage. If instead of trying to stream +10GB of assets from an SSD, basically treating it like a really slow buffer or extra slow VRAM. What if some ported games were still trying to use, or expecting, there to be 10GB of fast VRAM and +20GB (or whatever) of slower 'sudo' VRAM.

A bit like how the 8.5GB thing had a section of proper VRAM and a slower part but as far as the game was concerned it was all the same 9GB, or how SSDs have faster DRAM buffers or SLC caches.

e: That's not to say it isn't a problem, that more RAM shouldn't be put on cards, or that Direct storage shouldn't be sorted out. It's just one of those things that made me wonder why consoles seem to manage with some of these problem game perfectly fine but the ports are causing problems until they 'fix' something.
 
Last edited:
gpuerrilla said:
Maybe jensen cant reuse the propped up AI sandbox that is gamer gpu's to shoehorn out the problem - he just needs to add maybe a gamer specific component to do this although - as per form, it will probably cost (and be proprietary). ;)
Click to expand...

They are trying their best to copy Apple.

Murphy said:
True dat, however i wonder if no matter how much VRAM they put on their cards it won't be enough, it's why i asked about the streaming of assets and direct storage. If instead of trying to stream +10GB of assets from an SSD, basically treating it like a really slow buffer or extra slow VRAM. What if some ported games were still trying to use, or expecting, there to be 10GB of fast VRAM and +20GB (or whatever) of slower 'sudo' VRAM.

A bit like how the 8.5GB thing had a section of proper VRAM and a slower part but as far as the game was concerned it was all the same 9GB, or how SSDs have faster DRAM buffers or SLC caches.

e: That's not to say it isn't a problem, that more RAM shouldn't be put on cards, or that Direct storage shouldn't be sorted out. It's just one of those things that made me wonder why consoles seem to manage with some of these problem game perfectly fine but the ports are causing problems until they 'fix' something.
Click to expand...

There was nothing stopping MS,Nvidia,AMD and Intel working together to sort out the software side,but instead it seems companies rather would try and hobble each other. The reality is the PC companies are more concerned about shareholders than gamers. Between 2009 to 2016 we had mainstream VRAM quantities go up by 8X to 16X,ie,512MB/1GB to 6GB/8GB. High end went up 5.5X to 8.5X,ie,from 1.28GB/2GB to 11GB!

It's now 7 years later. So at the lower end,we should have been at 48GB for a GTX1060/RX480 equivalent by now and even more for the higher end. Instead we have at best gone up to 12GB,which is a 1.5X to 2X increase over the mainstream AMD/Nvidia cards. At the high end we went from 8GB/11GB to 24GB which is a 2.2X to 3X improvement.

So even going by the anaemic increases at the top end,even a mainstream dGPU should be at 12GB/16GB or perhaps more VRAM by now.

It's not the fault of console devs,if PC parts makers don't want to properly design their own overpriced dGPUs with enough VRAM.

They basically have cheaped out.
 
Last edited:
RTX4060TI 8GB:
videocardz.com

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti "AD106-350" GPU has been pictured - VideoCardz.com

The GPU for RTX 4060 Ti has now been pictured The AD106-350 is to power the upcoming RTX 4060 Ti graphics card. The battle for the mid-range segment is heating up. Both AMD and NVIDIA are set to launch a new graphics cards based on RDNA3 or Ada Lovelace architectures very soon, delivering the...
videocardz.com videocardz.com

NVIDIA RTX 4060 Ti is now visually confirmed to feature AD106-350 GPU, a cut-down variant featuring 4352 CUDA cores (full chip has 4608 cores). It will be combined with 8GB of GDDR6 memory across 128-bit memory bus, so undeniably a downgrade from RTX 3060 Ti, which had a 256-bit bus.

The card is also reportedly limited to PCIe Gen4x8, which is typically seen on low-end GPUs. This, combined with short memory bus, may have a negative impact on performance in high-fidelity gaming. Whether that’s really the case, we should find soon enough. NVIDIA is reportedly launching this card in May, but the date has not been confirmed yet.
Click to expand...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TNA
Doop! said:
Would it being PCIe Gen4 x8 have any performance issues on a Z370 motherboard that's only PCIe Gen3? I'm a bit out of touch how all that stuff works.
Click to expand...

It might be sadly. It's why I have said for months if you are upgrading to a new generation platform make sure you get a PCI-E 5.0 motherboard.

Just think what happens when the RTX6060/RX8600XT only has a PCI-E 5.0 8X interface in a few years,especially if they don't have enough VRAM?
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
It might be sadly. It's why I have said for months if you are upgrading to a new generation platform make sure you get a PCI-E 5.0 motherboard.

Just think what happens when the RTX6060/RX8600XT only has a PCI-E 5.0 8X interface in a few years,especially if they don't have enough VRAM?
Click to expand...
The problem is with these lower end cards is people who buy them often don't have the latest and greatest tech so that's a real bummer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom