By: aaron spink (aaronspink.delete@this.notearthlink.net), April 24, 2013 11:01 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
anon (a.delete@this.b.d) on April 24, 2013 4:24 am wrote:
> Note that this is completely irrelevant, because no-one plays anything where the textures
> do not fit into the vram -- they are designed to fit, and if they do not, texture quality
> is cut until they do. Not doing so typically causes a 90%-ish frame rate drop.
>
This is primarily because of the significant drop off in performance of texturing via PCI-e. Attained on demand texturing performance over PCI-E has historically been beyond horrid with real world bandwidth in the low single digits.
Vendors are making changes to their hardware/software stacks for PCI-E data to increase performance significantly, primarily driven by the HPC markets. While this may not make PCI-E texturing viable for games, the next gen consoles and their associated memory architectures might make ultra large texture games more common place and therefore provide a quality advantage to a GT3e like design.
> Note that this is completely irrelevant, because no-one plays anything where the textures
> do not fit into the vram -- they are designed to fit, and if they do not, texture quality
> is cut until they do. Not doing so typically causes a 90%-ish frame rate drop.
>
This is primarily because of the significant drop off in performance of texturing via PCI-e. Attained on demand texturing performance over PCI-E has historically been beyond horrid with real world bandwidth in the low single digits.
Vendors are making changes to their hardware/software stacks for PCI-E data to increase performance significantly, primarily driven by the HPC markets. While this may not make PCI-E texturing viable for games, the next gen consoles and their associated memory architectures might make ultra large texture games more common place and therefore provide a quality advantage to a GT3e like design.
