i'm pretty sure 2 gb part is completely ignored by games
8 gb is for both cpu and gpu operations (ram+vram) so a most likely 5.5/3.5 allocation on 8 gb
i don't think 1.5-2 gb is enough for CPU, audio, game logic and physics data. it has to be 3-4 GB. i mean, it was 2.5-3 GB last gen. there has to be some improvements on that front to call these games "next gen". if the entire premise of nextgen games are only graphics wise, then its pretty sad.
xbox sx 10 gb+ 3.5 allocation makes sense. a full fat 10 gb for gpu operations and 3.5 gb for CPU data. ps5 is probably similar.
just because series s has divided memory, does not mean CPU data cannot be on the main block.
5.5 gb vram should be doable by devs at low resolution targets with lower textures (but the said textures must be carefully prepared and they should not look hideous). practically, series s will breath life into every 4-6 GB out there
irrelevant btw but steam deck also supports sampler feedback xd
I think you guys are not seeing the potentially serious issue of just 5.5 GB VRAM for Series S games (in typical usage cases) as the generation progresses, regardless of it using lower texture settings than Series X (which also, as the gen goes on, that difference will shrink as there aren't terribly many current-gen or crossgen games hitting native 4K resolutions as-is).
Go look at some of the lower-end RTX 30 GPUs if you want to see where even 8 GB VRAM can be causing some issues for games targeting 1440p resolution output targets with medium texture quality. 5.5 GB VRAM, even 6 GB VRAM, for Series S (if in fact the other 2 GB is for CPU & audio while the other 2 GB is for system O.S which I guess is possibly the case) is going to cause some issues even with SFS liberally applied.
Keep in mind, for various reasons they can't go TOO low on resolution targets, either. In the chance the next Switch has DLSS 2.0 or 3.0, even in limited capacity, that would give it an advantage over the base Series and PS5 systems in terms of image upscaling hardware. Do you really think MS wants to, or could weather, a marketing blunder where future Series S games are running at a lower resolution than Switch 2 titles simply to stretch use of 5.5 GB of VRAM?
I don't see it as nearly as much of a big deal as some users are trying to make it sound, don't forget that Sony was sending out its ICE developers to multiple publishers almost all the way across the PS3 generation as well.
And the series s isn't even a nightmare to developer for like a PS3 was.
Well very few systems are in that league of absolutely pain to develop for like PS3, I think only PS2, Sega Saturn and Atari Jaguar are among them. The difference between Series S and all of those systems, though, is that in terms of raw specs those other systems were more or less in line with their contemporaries.
Series S is notably less performant than Series X or PS5 when looking at raw specifications, and there are no amount of technologies it can use that will close that gap since Series X can use all of those same technologies, and PS5 has equivalents for the ones it doesn't exactly 1:1 have in common with those. Even if Series S is aiming for lower resolution targets, this could be a problem because fewer and fewer Series X & PS5 games will probably target native 4K as the generation proceeds and games get more technically taxing.
I guess that's a possibility. I just don't see why MS would reserve 2.5GB for OS/non-game use on XSX and then reserve nothing on XSS. Especially given the fact that the last gen systems reserved 3GB for OS/non-gaming usage. I can see maybe getting that reduced to 2.5/2GB since the CPU thread they have to work with is faster, but down to 700MB? That just doesn't seem right.
I would need to find the DF article again, but I'm fairly certain that they specifically stated that MS had reserved 2.5GB for the OS/Non-gaming usage on XSX with 13.5GB available to game developers (10GB GPU optimal and 3.5GB in the slower section). It just seems more realistic that the 2GB of ultra slow memory in the XSS is handling the OS/Non-gaming functions and developers have 8GB to work with for games (with no GPU optimal segmentation on this one). 8GB basically reserved for the little GPU would be odd with the much bigger GPU only having 10GB, while at the same time you've got a system with near identical CPU capabilities and have reduced CPU memory to next to nothing on the smaller box. And then there's the issue with the OS only using 700MB on one machine and over 2GB on the other, if MS could get the OS/Non-gaming stuff that streamlined they would do it on both and save the memory on the XSX. The OS is essentially the same on both, it's not like the XSS is missing features (other than reduced capture resolution).
I just think Techpowerup goofed on this one tbh. They do that sometimes.
Fair points, and it's likely GPU, CPU and audio share the 8 GB while the OS uses the other 2 GB.
However, if that creates situations where, say, you're getting 5.5 GB of physical memory or even 6 GB physical memory for GPU and the rest for CPU & audio data, even with SFS and the SSD I/O that creates some situations where in terms of physical memory footprint Series S isn't any more than the XBO and PS4. They can have somewhat less data pre-cached into that 8 GB due to the SSDs and SFS, but...
...also keep in mind these current-gen games are going to be more complex in terms of asset quality, physics models, AI etc. than 8th-gen games, on average. Those things won't stay fixed, they'll increase in size and complexity. SSD I/O bandwidth is just part of describing the efficiency of data loading & streaming, as the total latency in the chain from loading the data, checking it in, processing it, writing it to RAM and then the CPU/GPU/audio accessing from the RAM matters just as much if not more, as well as RAM bandwidth. A lot of those are areas where Series X (and PS5) are just going to constantly have the advantage in over Series S.
I am perfectly calm. I never indicated that there wasn't a RAM quantity difference. I am well aware. What hasn't been factored in is asset quality difference between the systems. While XSS has less memory it is also not going to be storing 4K texture data. SFS hasn't been used on Series consoles and that could mitigate some RAM issues. Until it is implemented stating RAM is preventing developer vision is premature. Many here talking about RAM refuse to acknowledge it is even an option available to devs.
Series X isn't going to be storing a lot of 4K texture data as the gen goes on, either, nor will PS5, as games will target native 4K less and less.
SFS will help, but it's not going to magically double or triple effective RAM capacity from 8 to 16 or 8 to 24. The systems have to do a lot more in a given frametime than just loading in data from storage to RAM, usually.
Again no one is saying that there's no difference between the two SKUs. My point is SFS hasn't been used at all so to declare the XSS is like the Switch or PS4 or whatever other silliness others have stated again shows the disingenunity behind the comments.
I think comparing it to Switch is going too far.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I have never categorized you the same way as the Sony fans coming here to get in free jabs on a platform they will never own. I explicitly stated that I wasn't talking about you.
Oh, whoops
. I read through that part too fast. Sorry for the misunderstanding :/