I think if you are building a 4k rig, you might as well just get 64gb ram at this point for a bit of cushioning.

are you gonna benchmark this title @btarunr ?

Space LynxI think if you are building a 4k rig, you might as well just get 64gb ram at this point for a bit of cushioning.

Totally overkill but we don't know when 32gig won't be enough for gaming maybe in 30 years maybe in 5. And even then we are talking about a handful of games.

Yea sure Sony, 4K needs 5900X (12 core) and RTX4800, one of two things is happening here.

Either they are very bad at optimizing the game

OR

they do some hidden marketing to make it look like PS5 is super powerful at lower value compared to an expensive gaming PC

Direct out of Sony's playbook to keep their console relevant.

Before Sony paid Ubisoft to dumb down PC graphics in Watch dogs 2 so it would look like it was less difference between the PS4 and a gaming PC. This way PS4 would not look so bad and be more relevant in the gaming market.

Also Sony just now said that if Microsoft/Activision merger where to happen Microsoft would put bugs and dumb down graphic in future PlayStation version of COD/Warzone.

Sony should know since it is a play direct out of their own playbook, they did the same thing with Watch dogs 2 and maybe other games too, who knows.

Only the scammers thinks every one is out to scam them because that is what they would do them self's in the same situation.

GungarTotally overkill but we don't know when 32gig won't be enough for gaming maybe in 30 years maybe in 5. And even then we are talking about a handful of games.

Depends on OS side too. What will the next Windows require? Lot of other aspects besides what the game wants. We're in the 16GB territory now after spending awhile in 8GB land.

GungarTotally overkill but we don't know when 32gig won't be enough for gaming maybe in 30 years maybe in 5. And even then we are talking about a handful of games.

yeah but people who build 4k rigs are buying 4090's a lot of the time on thie site... why not spend an extra 100 on 32gigs more ram. meh.

fynxerYea sure Sony, 4K needs 5900X (12 core) and RTX4800, one of two things is happening here.

Either they are very bad at optimizing the game

OR

they want to make it look like PS5 is super powerful at lower value compared to an expensive gaming PC

some of us like gaming at the highest refresh rate possible. ps5 is not for us.

fynxerYea sure Sony, 4K needs 5900X (12 core) and RTX4800, one of two things is happening here.

Either they are very bad at optimizing the game

OR

they do some hidden marketing to make it look like PS5 is super powerful at lower value compared to an expensive gaming PC

Out of Sony's playbook to keep their console relevant. Before Sony paid Ubisoft to dumb down PC graphics in Watchdogs so there would be less difference between a gaming PC and the PS4.

Latter, and it's no marketing. The PS5 leaves most of the "PC toaster race" in the dust. PC gamers being elitist is quite an interesting trope, because in fact the large majority are the extreme opposite of that, they're actually cheap and resent change. Most PC gamers run ancient hardware and equally many insist on ancient, unpatched operating systems as well. Those of us who stick to the bleeding edge, suffer through things like Windows 11 (which is admittedly, buggy and misdirected) to play at ultra high resolutions are exceptionally few. I mean, Steam's top GPUs are still the GTX 1060, 1660 and 1650, with these three and their variants accounting for about a quarter of the entire install base.

The sheer amount of people that go on forums bawling their eyes out and endlessly whining that some games require an AVX capable processor is astounding... AVX is supported in almost every CPU (with the exception of Celeron and Pentium branded CPUs, and the AMD Phenom II, which has an architecture dated from 2007) since 2011. They do so to an extent that game developers often feel obliged to patch in order to service this segment.

If anything, they are being honest - it's high time things like mechanical HDDs, Windows 7, 16 GB RAM, etc. all disappeared from the PC gaming landscape. I will not complain about high system requirements, especially when we are already well within the "next-generation" already. I wonder if this game will support DirectStorage as Forspoken did?

NC37Depends on OS side too. What will the next Windows require? Lot of other aspects besides what the game wants. We're in the 16GB territory now after spending awhile in 8GB land.

Games have required more than 16 GB of RAM to run well and without stuttering for years now. This has only become more apparent now that games actually have a great degree of difficulty running on 8-16 GB systems because of higher quality assets, complex engines and the OS itself requiring more memory. It makes even worse that Windows memory management will do its absolute best to swap memory into the page file and never max out a system's RAM usage in order to prevent crashes, which leads to a lot of people mistakenly believe that they have enough RAM just because they see RAM usage at 12, 14 out of 16 GB... blissfully ignoring the commit charge level.

I have a strong conviction that gaming PCs should have 32 GB of RAM at a minimum in 2023, especially if you have a modern GPU with 12 or more GB of video memory.

Ok, so the minimum requirements of a game made in 2013 are this steep? And 100GB of space when the remastered for the PS4 was more or less 40GB installed?

Two oprions here:
- a mediocre port from an AAA dev.
- they remade from the ground UP the game engine with the latest tech inside.

We will see.


P.S. for AMd they list FRS used. So no native 4k ultra? isn't the 7900 xt on par with the 4080?

C1ff0Ok, so the minimum requirements of a game made in 2013 are this steep? And 100GB of space when the remastered for the PS4 was more or less 40GB installed?

This is not the original TLOU that came out on the PS3... it's essentially a remastered version of the PS5 remake.

I will hope it run in 8K resolution on RX 7900 XTX.

No matter how you look at it it feels like a VERY poor port to me. I'm curious about the benchmarks/tests but for a 2013 game requiring this hardware for 1440p/4k is a bit over the top.

Yes, just like apple is using the solemnly for a single usage optimized software to utilize hardware "better" than android ever could (too much variance in hw to truly optimize the base stack for everything) PS/Xbox can optimize games a lot better for a single hardware stack compared to a trillion different combination possibilities (cpu, ram, gpu, storage and even different mainboards have a profound impact on the final result) getting something to run well on HW that was released in the 10 years since the game was released should not look like this.

Of course for "ULTRA HD" which wasn't/isn't possible on the respective console I accept that it'll need more storage for higher quality textures (even though 40GB to 100GB, meaning 2.5x more storage is a bit excessive but we'll see how much better the textures will look on PC compared to PS to proof this was needed) and of course more CPU/GPU power as it cannot be as well optimized but all of this should be in some "normal" boundries and not 2.5x more storage and 10x more cpu/gpu requirements.



But again, I'll wait for the reviews and benchmarks if they deliver something that is worthy of those requirements and only judge once "we can see it for ourselves". So for now those requirements made me quite interested in what this port is going to be - a masterpiece or a total wackjob :D

Hyderzare you gonna benchmark this title @btarunr ?

@W1zzard does the benching

And yeah, this is a remastered PS5 remake, ported by the developers themselves not some third party studio. Hell, they're even supporting ultrawide 21:9 and 32:9 out of the box on PC.

I love my AMD Radeom RX 6600 XT or my Rx 5800 XT ... never knew they "made" something better than a 5700xt

Dr. DroLatter, and it's no marketing. The PS5 leaves most of the "PC toaster race" in the dust.

Games have required more than 16 GB of RAM to run well and without stuttering for years now.

that's some random craziness

Bomby569that's some random craziness

Thank you for proving my point. BTW, checked your specs: you already upgraded to a latest gen SSD and got 32 GB of RAM, both of which will ensure that you have a great experience and without either of these components, your computer would take a significant hit to the user experience that it can provide.. Which really makes me question why the resentment and unwillingness to admit that we have already entered a newer generation of hardware. Other than your CPU being slower than a PS5's, your PC roughly matches its performance.

The PS5 GPU is functionally equivalent to the Radeon RX 6700, both of them have 2304 shaders at roughly the same operating frequency:

www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480

ArcdarNo matter how you look at it it feels like a VERY poor port to me. I'm curious about the benchmarks/tests but for a 2013 game requiring this hardware for 1440p/4k is a bit over the top.

Again, this is not the same game that was released on the PlayStation 3, this "Part One" is a remake of that game that was designed from the ground up for the PS5. Dismissing it as a decade old PS3 game is not an argument done in good faith.

Dr. DroThank you for proving my point. BTW, checked your specs: you already upgraded to a latest gen SSD and got 32 GB of RAM. Which really makes me question why the resentment and unwillingness to admit that we have already entered a newer generation of hardware. Other than your CPU being slower than a PS5's, your PC roughly matches its performance.

Bruh do you have ANY source, outside of your arse, for "most games requiring more then 16GB of ram for good performance for a few years now"?

Dr. DroAgain, this is not the same game that was released on the PlayStation 3, this "Part One" is a remake of that game that was designed from the ground up for the PS5.

You mean the console that runs the equivelant of a 3600 and a 5700xt with only 16BG of RAM? Oh boy, real scary. Wait, if it only has 16GB of RAM, AND that is shared between CPU and GPU......

Dr. DroDismissing it as a decade old PS3 game is not an argument done in good faith.

Using the "good faith/bad faith" argument just makes it evidence to everyone you cant back up what you are saying, and that should have stayed in the dark bowels of reddit.

TheinsanegamerNBruh do you have ANY source, outside of your arse, for "most games requiring more then 16GB of ram for good performance for a few years now"?

You mean the console that runs the equivelant of a 3600 and a 5700xt with only 16BG of RAM? Oh boy, real scary. Wait, if it only has 16GB of RAM, AND that is shared between CPU and GPU......

Using the "good faith/bad faith" argument just makes it evidence to everyone you cant back up what you are saying, and that should have stayed in the dark bowels of reddit.

I edited my post above. The PS5 GPU is equivalent to a RX 6700, and the CPU is equivalent to a 3700X. These specs are higher than the Steam survey averages:

store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

As for games? I've experienced >16GB usages on all of the following: Red Dead Redemption 2, Horizon Zero Dawn, Fallout 76, Final Fantasy XV... I ran the Forspoken demo on my laptop with 5600H processor/16 GB of RAM/RTX 3050M and it basically died. Both RAM and VRAM, as well as the page file completely maxed. Lots of games will chug memory, and even then, the golden rule is that you cannot use more memory than what you currently have. The argument that the PS5 only has 16 GB of RAM and does what it does doesn't hold water, because consoles have custom, lower graphics presets, and custom tailored assets, as well. This is especially true in the case of the Xbox Series S.

This thing of "anything that needs more than 16 GB of RAM and a GTX 1660 is badly optimized" is only a mind block. You have 32 GB of RAM and a NVMe SSD on your PC, too. Take those out, and your PC will also take a nose dive in its performance. When was the last time a 16 GB kit was reviewed here on TPU? Most DDR5 kits come at 32 GB standard by now. SATA SSDs? Reviewers barely even bother. HDDs then... you usually find reviews of enterprise drives in specialized sites, and little else.

If this is an unpopular opinion of mine, it's one I'm willing to stand by. Respectfully, as always, I won't be fighting people over this.

Dr. DroThank you for proving my point. BTW, checked your specs: you already upgraded to a latest gen SSD and got 32 GB of RAM, both of which will ensure that you have a great experience and without either of these components, your computer would take a significant hit to the user experience that it can provide.. Which really makes me question why the resentment and unwillingness to admit that we have already entered a newer generation of hardware. Other than your CPU being slower than a PS5's, your PC roughly matches its performance.

The PS5 GPU is functionally equivalent to the Radeon RX 6700, both of them have 2304 shaders at roughly the same operating frequency:

www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480





Again, this is not the same game that was released on the PlayStation 3, this "Part One" is a remake of that game that was designed from the ground up for the PS5. Dismissing it as a decade old PS3 game is not an argument done in good faith.

i'm wondering how is the ram/vram situation on the PS5? any insights on that

Bomby569i'm wondering how is the ram/vram situation on the PS5? any insights on that

It's an unified 16 GB lump of GDDR6, which developers may use as they see fit (minus a small amount of memory reserved for the OS). The thing is that the operating system is much lighter than Windows, and game developers, targeting only one kind of hardware, have much greater leverage over the assets, which are often custom tailored for the hardware. They can also count on a Gen 4 NVMe SSD equivalent being installed, as this is the base storage's performance, and the console is programmed to reject Gen 3 NVMe drives. It's apples to oranges, really.

Dr. DroIt's apples to oranges, really.

finally something that makes sense.

I don't know about your OS but mine doesn't use that much RAM at all. And in my case is even worst because with 32Gb it tends to inflate the numbers. Btw i have 32GB but not because of gaming, the only game i've seen using more then 16GB is Anno 1800.

Bomby569finally something that makes sense.

I don't know about your OS but mine doesn't use that much RAM at all. And in my case is even worst because with 32Gb it tends to inflate the numbers. Btw i have 32GB but not because of gaming, the only game i've seen using more then 16GB is Anno 1800.

More games will, as long as you're playing at 4K. 1440p it will depend on the game, and at 1080p, you'll mostly be OK unless it's a very heavy game. Many engines will aggressive page memory to storage even when RAM is available, the Luminous engine loves to do this, for example. It's not an exact science, and not seeing the memory usage figures completely maxed out doesn't mean that it isn't in short supply, modern OSes have many ways to manage pressure, including compression. Thing is, all of these games we're talking about were designed with the PS4 and Xbox One's generation in mind. This is a PS5 game from the ground up, just like Forspoken, the Spider-Man remasters, etc.

Now that we are getting a lot more PS5 ports, I would really like to see a thorough review of memory usage with these new gen games, testing general performance and frame rate falloff with less memory installed and at differing page file sizes. No tech site has done this yet. Maybe something for W1zzard to do whenever he's got some time in between the usual hardware reviews.

Dr. DroThank you for proving my point. BTW, checked your specs: you already upgraded to a latest gen SSD and got 32 GB of RAM, both of which will ensure that you have a great experience and without either of these components, your computer would take a significant hit to the user experience that it can provide.. Which really makes me question why the resentment and unwillingness to admit that we have already entered a newer generation of hardware. Other than your CPU being slower than a PS5's, your PC roughly matches its performance.

The PS5 GPU is functionally equivalent to the Radeon RX 6700, both of them have 2304 shaders at roughly the same operating frequency:

www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-6700.c3716
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-5-gpu.c3480





Again, this is not the same game that was released on the PlayStation 3, this "Part One" is a remake of that game that was designed from the ground up for the PS5. Dismissing it as a decade old PS3 game is not an argument done in good faith.

First of all read my post - I'm excited to see how this will turn out. For now it IS a 2013 game portet to a new system. As they did the "from the ground up renew" process they did that with the knowledge that they're also going to release this on PC, meaning they should have done a decent job in porting the whole system.

Yes, also a "from the ground up rework" of a game is just a port to a new engine for a newer system and doesn't make my point invalid. No matter if you port something in the same environment to a new graphics-engine (see Mafia series remastered) or from a console to the PC or the other way around (see Horizon ZD or the Tomb-Raider series - the last three installments - as an example) it is a port that has to be done right.





And none of my arguments is invalid in that part. It needs a lot more performance than most of us would expect so we're curious how the graphics will look. It needs 2.5x the amount of space on our storage solution (40GB to ~100GB) so we're curious how good the textures will be and if those are done well and if it rectifies the additional space requirements or if it's just "poor to decent" textures in a very poor storage file which needs 2.5x more space than it should need if done correctly.

So tell me what of my comments is a "bad faith" comment? That I'm carefully optimistic about the game and it will have to prove that the storage and performance requirements are actually there for a good reason and it does look "so much better" than the 2013 version to actually proof that it's worth all the hustle and additional muscles needed to run the game?

GungarTotally overkill but we don't know when 32gig won't be enough for gaming maybe in 30 years maybe in 5. And even then we are talking about a handful of games.

Personally I just played safe when I got a 32GB kit in 2021. Still going with AM4 for a while so DDR4 is fine for me.

So if you have 7900XT you need FSR quality ? wow It's really stupid.....

GungarTotally overkill but we don't know when 32gig won't be enough for gaming maybe in 30 years maybe in 5. And even then we are talking about a handful of games.

Given how long 8gb and even 16gb was enough throw on top of speed of storage media being faster and faster. Don't see 64gb being needed for a long time.