Are game requirements and VRAM usage a joke today?

[Apocalypsee]

That brings up the question: is the RT version so much better that it justifies needing a 4080, whereas the vanilla version runs on a decade-old 960?

If you asked me the answer will be no, I use the older version and play. It's faster and not jittery/stuttery even with RT disabled. RT is still in infancy it will take 2-3 more gens to be viable in any games. Truth be told even in CP2077 it doesn't seem that much difference with RT on only some shiny reflection and more accurate shadows, makes me feeling deja vu of what pixel and vertex shader did when it first comes out.

Just reading that Alan Wake II requirement made me sad, I need some sort of super/up sampling thingy to run modern game it seems, which somehow make my 1070 obsolete. Just looking at the current GPU market nothing interest me, new cards are too pricey maybe I just scour second hand market. There's a good priced RX 6800 with 16GB of VRAM that costs the same as RX 7600/RTX 4060

 

[Hyderz]

Everybody's either mad or sad about the Alan Wake 2 system requirements

Remedy shared the final PC requirements today, and they're pretty steep.

www.pcgamer.com

Mm steep

 

[Fizban]

There's really parts of every game you can point out and say WTF the best looking game from start to finish in my book in the sense that the assets are of a high quality at all time is the Last of US 2 and that is a PS4 game although I'm talking about the Pro version of the game.

Especially with open world games expecting that level of detail throughout on any current hardware is laughable most the games people might consider best looking ever all have visual issues/trade offs there isn't a single current generation game that does everything better but I hope games continue to improve.

The console game that struck me personally as being the most impressive is Horizon Forbidden West. Part of it might be that I got a new OLED TV right before I played it, but I just remember looking at it and being like, "Damn, this game is freaking gorgeous." when I first started playing it. I played it on PS5 though, not PS4, though from what I hear both versions of the game look incredible.

@PumpTheKin

more than 50% of gamers run 720/1080p on cards with 3/4gb vram, so for most even a 1060/6 would be an upgrade,
and one that works fine, as they play on existing hw with half the amount of vram,

This isn't the reality.
According to the latest steam hardware survey, around 61% of users are using 1080P displays, so that part checks out, but 720P is 0.23%, basically a non-existent audience for all intents and purposes. There are 81 people gaming at 1440P or some ultra-wide variant of it, for every person using a 720P display.

But the VRAM statement is just wrong.
26.84% of users have 4 GB or less VRAM. 8 GB VRAM is the most common amount in use, and 22.75% have more than 8 GB VRAM, while 31.11% have exactly 8 GB - so the majority (53.86%) have 8 or more GB of VRAM. For the vast majority of people, a 1060 would absolutely NOT be an upgrade.

RTX 3060 is the most commonly used GPU, and it's not even close, its usage more than doubles that of any other GPU once you account for Steam inexplicably separating the desktop and laptop variant of it on their list (while combining them for most other GPU's).

RTX 3060 is in use by 9.82% of all users, with the GTX 1650 in second place with 4.65%.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The console game that struck me personally as being the most impressive is Horizon Forbidden West. Part of it might be that I got a new OLED TV right before I played it, but I just remember looking at it and being like, "Damn, this game is freaking gorgeous." when I first started playing it. I played it on PS5 though, not PS4, though from what I hear both versions of the game look incredible.

Yeah, I struggled deciding which one was better and mentioned TLOU2 due to it having a more realistic visual style which is harder to pull off convincingly. Horizon is definitely more technically advanced and given it's open world definitely one of the best looking games up there with RDR2/CP2077.

 

[Waldorf]

@Fizban
because you assumed i used steam (not my benchmark) for numbers.
e.g. from about 50 friends/family as in ppl i know past saying hello, two are using steam,
i personally have never, but still game on pc, so are many others.
globally we have almost 2 billion players, how many are on steam?...

 

[Fizban]

I don't believe for a second that there are 2 billion PC gamers.

That'd be 1 in 4 people on the planet. Many of whom can't afford a PC of any variety, aren't old enough enough to use a computer, or do have a computer, but not with a dedicated GPU of any variety.

The only way the number even approaches that is if we're counting "Gamers" as anyone who has played solitaire, minesweeper, or candy crush on their PC, etc. If someone doesn't have a dedicated GPU, they don't have VRAM, at all, so they clearly don't count as people with 3-4 GB of VRAM.

Your 50 friends are also FAR less statistically significant than the number of users steam has. Steam's userbase of roughly 132 million monthly users is easily, the most statistically significant source of such info there is available to us.

 

[Belfaborac]

^ This. Personally, and statistically utterly insignificantly, I don't think I know a single gamer who *doesn't* use Steam. Either exclusively or alongside other delivery platforms.

 

[Vayra86]

Even if you think it's ugly, you surely agree that it's not 1-1.5 GB VRAM use ugly.

Or if you look at some games that use 10+ GB, they don't look 10 times better.

Diminishing returns. Its just like high FPS.

 

[gffermari]

Cities Skylines 2 reportedly runs with 7-12fps on an Intel Core i9 13900KS with AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX at 4K/High Settings (dsogaming.com)

 

[Belfaborac]

"But will it run Cities Skylines 2?"

 

[Frick]

Cities Skylines 2 reportedly runs with 7-12fps on an Intel Core i9 13900KS with AMD Radeon RX 7900XTX at 4K/High Settings (dsogaming.com)

Thankfully it's not a game that needs many FPS. I lock the first game to 30FPS because frankly it doesn't matter and it lowers power use.

 

[AusWolf]

Thankfully it's not a game that needs many FPS. I lock the first game to 30FPS because frankly it doesn't matter and it lowers power use.

Not to mention its performance can vary greatly depending on how big your city is, and how far you zoom out.

"It runs at X FPS" kind of blanket statements are nothing short of clickbait, imo.

 

[Flyordie]

Folks, as I am still part of that "8GB Club"... and am still playing current titles on this card..

I don't see the major issue yet. 1080p, high preset, upscaling turned off. GPU-Z reports my VRAM usage about 7-7.5GB with HBCC enabled on a 12GB segment. Still nets me about 40-45 FPS. (but note- this GPU is holding steady 1680-1700Mhz GPU clocks.. not the typical 1450-1500Mhz)

Honestly, the thing that limits me it seems is my CPU. lol. I need to just bite the bullet and buy a used 2950X.. or even a 2920X...

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

I don't believe for a second that there are 2 billion PC gamers.

That'd be 1 in 4 people on the planet. Many of whom can't afford a PC of any variety, aren't old enough enough to use a computer, or do have a computer, but not with a dedicated GPU of any variety.

The only way the number even approaches that is if we're counting "Gamers" as anyone who has played solitaire, minesweeper, or candy crush on their PC, etc. If someone doesn't have a dedicated GPU, they don't have VRAM, at all, so they clearly don't count as people with 3-4 GB of VRAM.

Your 50 friends are also FAR less statistically significant than the number of users steam has. Steam's userbase of roughly 132 million monthly users is easily, the most statistically significant source of such info there is available to us.

When you own the monoply to the exclusiviness to pc games on the market to its easy to manipulate statistic, in your favor.
Espeically when the other second highest owner of exclusive pc gamsa on pc gaming platform store only has 0.6% of exclusive games compared to Steam.

 

[Deleted member 234997]

Player statistics are boosted by the top played games with are mostly Esports which lots of competitive nerds use multiple alt accounts.

 

[Shihab]

That's why I think that texture quality and geometry is what gives the most detail, not lights. Focusing all resources on RT while textures (especially on skin) still look like it's 2015 is the wrong direction, imo.

Half those textures are there to work around the extremely limited lighting in realtime-rasterisation anyway. So yeah, lighting is important.

The only real issue with RT is the overhype marketing people keep doing.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

When you own the monoply to the exclusiviness to pc games on the market to its easy to manipulate statistic, in your favor.
Espeically when the other second highest owner of exclusive pc gamsa on pc gaming platform store only has 0.6% of exclusive games compared to Steam.

What statistic would they be manipulating, and to what purpose? As far as anyone outside of Valve knows, the SHWS is a) random sample and b) opt-in. That does mean there are two built-in biases: toward users who are active/online, and users who choose to respond. It'd take some statistical heavy lifting to determine how the intersection of those biases skews the results, but IMO that doesn't really matter. As has been said many, MANY times, the SHWS is the broadest dataset to which most of us have access. It's not great for snapshot data due to the nature of the sampling, but it can usefully highlight trends over time.

 

[iameatingjam]

I already miss the days when system requirements quoted actual rendered resolutions, not some upscaled mumbo jumbo. Like this:

Raster
RTX2060 / RX6600 - 720p on low with 30 fps
RTX3060 / RX6600XT - 835p on medium with 30 fps
RTX3070 / RX6700XT - 1080p on medium with 30 fps, or 540p with 60 fps
RTX4070 / RX7800XT - 1080p on high with 60 fps

RT/PT
RTX3070 / RX6800XT - 720p on medium + RT low with 30 fps
RTX4070 - 720p on medium + RT medium + PT with 60 fps
RTX4080 - 1080p on high + RT high + PT with 60 fps

I remember the days before that when there was no standards at all, just minimum and recommended. And minimum often meant the game would launch.

 

[Apocalypsee]

I remember the days before that when there was no standards at all, just minimum and recommended. And minimum often meant the game would launch.

Heck yeah, here's an example for Medal of Honor Allied Assault system requirement. The 'keyboard mouse' made me chuckle

Spoiler

MINIMUM CONFIGURATION

Windows XP, Windows Me, Windows 2000, Windows 98, or Windows 95 (Windows NT is not supported)
450 MHz Intel Pentium II or 500 MHz AMD Athlon processor
128 MB RAM
8x CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drive
1.2 GB free hard disk space plus space for saved games (additional space required for Windows swap-file and DirectX 8.0 installation)
16 MB OpenGL capable video card using an NVIDIA GeForce3, NVIDIA GeForce2, NVIDIA GeForce 256, NVIDIA Riva TNT2, NVIDIA Riva TNT, ATI Radeon, ATI Rage 128 Pro, ATI Rage 128, PowerVR3 Kyro II, or PowerVR Kyro chipset with OpenGL and DirectX 8.0 compatible driver
DirectX 8.0 compatible sound card
Keyboard
Mouse

RECOMMENDED

700 MHz or faster Intel Pentium III or AMD Athlon processor
32 MB or greater supported OpenGL capable video card with OpenGL and DirectX 8.0 compatible driver

 

[QuietBob]

I remember the days before that when there was no standards at all, just minimum and recommended. And minimum often meant the game would launch.

Yep, and before the "recommended" tier appeared, games were published with just a single set of basic system/hardware requirements.
In fact, in the old days many titles would only specify the compatible platform and disk size/capacity of the installation media:

 

[gffermari]

Honestly, the thing that limits me it seems is my CPU. lol. I need to just bite the bullet and buy a used 2950X.. or even a 2920X...

Do you really need a threadripper?
They suck at gaming because it's not their job.
And from the 3000 Ryzen era onwards, we have 16/32 CPUs, in case you want cores for some reason.

 

[AusWolf]

Do you really need a threadripper?
They suck at gaming because it's not their job.
And from the 3000 Ryzen era onwards, we have 16/32 CPUs, in case you want cores for some reason.

Agreed. A system swap for a 5800X3D would bring way more gaming performance.

 

[Flyordie]

Do you really need a threadripper?
They suck at gaming because it's not their job.
And from the 3000 Ryzen era onwards, we have 16/32 CPUs, in case you want cores for some reason.

Mostly, just the PCIe lanes. Running 3x NVMe drives, 2x SATA HDDs, 1 PCIe wireless card, all connected directly to the lanes coming off the CPU. Gaming isn't all I do on it. 2950X is $300 now anyway. 2920X is $200. So its worth the bump.

As for bumping to a new platform, X399 still does all I need it to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't need the most FPS. I built this system in 2017 with the intent for it to last 5-7 years at least. Don't like creating a bunch of e-waste. Only reason I am even still on the Vega64 is I keep hoping AMD will bring back a premium HBM card. Amazes me how well this Vega64 has done. HBCC has actually been useful and games like Starfield, actually recognize core latency on the CPUs and try and assign tasks efficiently.

 

[AusWolf]

Mostly, just the PCIe lanes. Running 3x NVMe drives, 2x SATA HDDs, 1 PCIe wireless card, all connected directly to the lanes coming off the CPU.

You can do that with a mainstream platform, too. With B650, you get 28 PCI-e lanes coming from the CPU (1x 16 for GPU, 2x 4 for NVME and x4 for the chipset), and several others from the chipset. My basic m-ATX MSi Pro board has an x4 slot that can easily fit an m.2 adapter, plus an x1 slot. It also comes with integrated wireless. You get even more with X670. If you need more than 16 CPU cores, though, fair enough.

 

[Belfaborac]

Yeah, 3x NVMe drives, 2x SATA HDDs and a PCIe wireless card isn't exactly pushing on the boundaries. I run 7 x M.2, 4 x SSD and two HDDs on an MSI X670e Carbon.