• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox June GDK: More dev memory for Series S and more.

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
No need to spread misinformation.

"The much lower amount of memory and the split memory banks with drastically slower speeds will be a major issue."

He specifically complains about the split memory, which, as we know, doesn't apply to games.
On the Series X it does as it is a much bigger split.
 

clampzyn

Member
So series X has more ram available than the PS5, that’s theatrale surprise imo.
Yea but generally PS5's memory allocation speed is fixed while Series X 10gb is considered "optimal" then the remaining 3.5gb is "standard", but yea the 10gb on series x is faster than PS5 then the 3.5gb is around 25% slower over the PS5
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
No need to spread misinformation.

"The much lower amount of memory and the split memory banks with drastically slower speeds will be a major issue."

He specifically complains about the split memory, which, as we know, doesn't apply to games.
There is no misinformation. You're just quoting a different dev. I'm talking about Alex Gneiting principal engine programmer at id. you're talking about Billy Khan lead engine programmer at id. Both of which made their complaints about low RAM on the Series S.

The split memory quote is true even. You think it isn't used for games but it wouldn't make sense with the 10+6GB split memory banks on Series X. The OS doesn't use 6GBs and freed resources now are coming from the OS, but this is a different debate.
 
Last edited:
The split memory quote is true even. You think it isn't used for games but it wouldn't make sense with the 10+6GB split memory banks on Series X. The OS doesn't use 6GBs and freed resources now are coming from the OS, but this is a different debate.
Stick to the topic, which is the Series S. There is no split memory in the Series S for games, which means that id Software guy didn't know what he was talking about when he posted that tweet.
 

Three

Member
Stick to the topic, which is the Series S. There is no split memory in the Series S for games, which means that id Software guy didn't know what he was talking about when he posted that tweet.
"That id software guy" is the topic where clearly we are talking about different people.

If you want to get into that debate though I'm saying even Billy Khan is right regarding the split memory pool. He knew very well what he was talking about. There is split memory in the Series S just like the Series X. 8+2GB. So unless you think this "hundreds of megabytes" is limited to 500MB for the lifetime of the system there is going to be a split memory pool for games too. Developers are already developing with the split on Series X why do you think it's relevant or non-existent on Series S?

Alex Gneiting complained about low memory on Series S and supporting BVH raytracing. Billy Khan chimed in too and said these are the concerns. Doom Eternal on Series S had no raytracing but on XSS/PS5 it had it. Do you honestly believe the senior id engine programmer had no clue about the Series S or what he's talking about?
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
There is no misinformation. You're just quoting a different dev. I'm talking about Alex Gneiting principal engine programmer at id. you're talking about Billy Khan lead engine programmer at id. Both of which made their complaints about low RAM on the Series S.

The split memory quote is true even. You think it isn't used for games but it wouldn't make sense with the 10+6GB split memory banks on Series X. The OS doesn't use 6GBs and freed resources now are coming from the OS, but this is a different debate.
I thought the split memory didn't apply to the XSS. The ratio is different and I believe the full fast memory is usable on XSS for games where on the XSX both memory pools will be used for games.
 

Three

Member
I thought the split memory didn't apply to the XSS. The ratio is different and I believe the full fast memory is usable on XSS for games where on the XSX both memory pools will be used for games.
Only based on peoples assumptions that the OS occupies 2.5GB at all times and therefore the split doesn't apply to Series S because it will occupy the 2GB and eat into the 8GB. This isn't actually public or confirmed information though, just assumptions from people on forums.
 
Last edited:

sinnergy

Member
Only based on peoples assumptions that the OS occupies 2.5GB at all times and therefore the split doesn't apply to Series S because it will occupy the 2GB and eat into the 8GB. This isn't actually public or confirmed information though, just assumptions from people on forums.
Series s has 10 GB in total. I think 8 GB usable was a given, so maybe they have up to 8.5 now on series s with disabled not used features if the game doesn’t need these features. The real question is : If they reduced the OS footprint maybe they also reduced the OS for series X, freeing more memory up for that machine also.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Series s has 10 GB in total. If they reduced the OS footprint maybe they also reduced the OS for series X.
It's very likely. Don't see why, depending on the optimisation, it wouldn't apply to the XSX too. Unless it had specifically to do with lower resolution assets or something.
 
If you want to get into that debate though I'm saying even Billy Khan is right regarding the split memory pool. He knew very well what he was talking about. There is split memory in the Series S just like the Series X. 8+2GB. So unless you think this "hundreds of megabytes" is limited to 500MB for the lifetime of the system there is going to be a split memory pool for games too. Developers are already developing with the split on Series X why do you think it's relevant or non-existent on Series S?
Because on the Series S, only the 8 GB of fast memory are available for games. The slow memory is reserved for the OS.
 

Three

Member
Because on the Series S, only the 8 GB of fast memory are available for games. The slow memory is reserved for the OS.
If they had 8GB available before, so where did this "hundreds of megabytes" free memory implying more than 8GB for games now come from? Magic RAM?
It would have to be freed from the slower 2GB no? assuming all of the 2GB was reserved for the OS to begin with.
 
Last edited:

clampzyn

Member
Series s has 10 GB in total. I think 8 GB usable was a given, so maybe they have up to 8.5 now on series s with disabled not used features if the game doesn’t need these features. The real question is : If they reduced the OS footprint maybe they also reduced the OS for series X, freeing more memory up for that machine also.
I think that, correct me if I'm wrong, OS ram allocation isn't always 2.5gb on both series consoles its just that the OS can only pull 2.5gb maximum allocation thus if the a game needs, let's say on a game on Series X it needs 13.8gb Microsoft "can" allow the extra .3gb that comes from OS allocation if it's really needed but I think there will be a certain limit on how much allocation can be borrowed from the OS so it wouldn't crash when running a game that needs the extra memory to prevent performance hiccups.
 
If they had 8GB available before, so where did this "hundreds of megabytes" free memory implying more than 8GB for games now come from? Magic RAM?
It would have to be freed from the slower 2GB no? assuming all of it was reserved for the OS to begin with.
It's likely that, before the update, the OS reserved "hundreds of megabytes" of the fast 8 GB in case it needs it, so devs didn't have the full 8 GB available before. Now they do.

What we know for sure is that devs didn't have access to the slower ram because Xbox system architect Andrew Goosen always spoke about 8 GB and not 10 GB when talking about games.
 

Riky

Banned
It's likely that, before the update, the OS reserved "hundreds of megabytes" of the fast 8 GB in case it needs it, so devs didn't have the full 8 GB available before. Now they do.

What we know for sure is that devs didn't have access to the slower ram because Xbox system architect Andrew Goosen always spoke about 8 GB and not 10 GB when talking about games.

This makes the most sense looking at the motherboard layout and how the bandwith on that 2gb chip is so low. It seems they have freed up some of that 8gb specifically for the GPU.
 

Three

Member
It's likely that, before the update, the OS reserved "hundreds of megabytes" of the fast 8 GB in case it needs it, so devs didn't have the full 8 GB available before. Now they do.
Don't think that's the case but I see why you are going this route as it will confirm split memory. he specifically mentioned before launch

"so we feel good about the 8GB that we make available."

The 8GB was always available and it's pretty much the only time he mentioned 8GB.
 
Last edited:
Don't think that's the case but I see why you are going this route as it will confirm split memory. he specifically mentioned before launch

"so we feel good about the 8GB that we make available."

The 8GB was always available and it's pretty much the only time he mentioned 8GB.
"8 GB that we make available" means the other 2 GB weren't made available, which means there was no split memory for games 🤷‍♂️
 

Riky

Banned
"8 GB that we make available" means the other 2 GB weren't made available, which means there was no split memory for games 🤷‍♂️

Exactly.

It also doesn't make sense that they could make the Series S OS that much smaller than the Series X, they specifically stated about graphic memory allocations and the reserved 2gb simply doesn't have bandwith to be helpful in that situation.
I think you're spot on that they have freed up more of the faster 8GB for the GPU.
 

sinnergy

Member
It's likely that, before the update, the OS reserved "hundreds of megabytes" of the fast 8 GB in case it needs it, so devs didn't have the full 8 GB available before. Now they do.

What we know for sure is that devs didn't have access to the slower ram because Xbox system architect Andrew Goosen always spoke about 8 GB and not 10 GB when talking about games.
I read it like they had 8 from the start but now can have 8.5 . Or what 100s mean for MS.

Edit: ahh the series s also has split memory, maybe they freed up more of the slower ram for BVH, or indeed more of the 8 gb fast ram
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
"8 GB that we make available" means the other 2 GB weren't made available, which means there was no split memory for games 🤷‍♂️
Not even that is confirmation. The OS can reserve from both pools and 8GB. He doesn't specifically mention a pool and the OS can reserve from both especially for very responsive elements but I digress. Back to the point, if 8GB was available at launch what memory do you think is being freed now for games? Some of that slower pool no doubt confirming a split memory speed for games.
 
Last edited:
Not even that is confirmation. The OS can reserve from both pools and 8GB. He doesn't specifically mention a pool and the OS can reserve from both especially for very responsive elements but I digress. Back to the point, if 8GB was available at launch what memory do you think is being freed now for games? Some of that slower pool no doubt confirming a split memory speed for games.
The OS can reserve from both pools, games can't 🤷‍♂️
 

Three

Member
The OS can reserve from both pools, games can't 🤷‍♂️
How when 8GB were made available for games at launch and there is now news of more available? How can you now have more than 8GB without a split in a 8GB+2GB configuration?

Truth is that it's all virtualised and the 8GB available is referring to things that need the speed like the framebuffer and games have access to the slower ram too. You're just going hard based on the fact that you want to discredit the lead engine programmer at id to suggest he didn't know what he was talking about when he said there is a low RAM issue on Series S. Even though he released a game where Series S was missing exactly what he said he couldn't do due to the low RAM issue.
 

Riky

Banned
I read it like they had 8 from the start but now can have 8.5 . Or what 100s mean for MS.

Edit: ahh the series s also has split memory, maybe they freed up more of the slower ram for BVH, or indeed more of the 8 gb fast ram

Some of the 8gb would be needed for none GPU tasks, so either some of that is freed up or some of the slow OS 2gb is freed up for gaming non GPU tasks therefore giving more of the faster 8gb to the GPU.
Those are the only two scenarios that makes sense after what MS said at the launch of the console.
The 2gb for the OS is very slow and is even separated on the motherboard from the 8gb, then you have to think how they could make the OS requirement even smaller on Series S when it's already smaller than Series X but runs the same features at 1080p.

So the first scenario makes the most sense to me.
 
How when 8GB were made available for games at launch and there is now news of more available? How can you now have more than 8GB without a split in a 8GB+2GB configuration?

Truth is that it's all virtualised and the 8GB available is referring to things that need the speed like the framebuffer and games have access to the slower ram too. You're just going hard based on the fact that you want to discredit the lead engine programmer at id to suggest he didn't know what he was talking about when he said there is a low RAM issue on Series S. Even though he released a game where Series S was missing exactly what he said he couldn't do due to the low RAM issue.
Riky explained it well. This isn't about "low ram" btw, it's about split ram.

Also feel free to explain what you mean by "it's all virtualised". Consoles (so far) don't use virtual memory so what you said doesn't make much sense to me.
 
Last edited:

clampzyn

Member
Great to see more memory is available. Simple as that. Every bit counts in a console environment and being able to code to the limit. Really good to see the little beast getting better and better.
AMD products always "ages like fine wine" specially their drivers for their GPUs on PC. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Three

Member
Riky explained it well. This isn't about "low ram" btw, it's about split ram.
it was about low ram and the thread is about freeing up some ram, you made it about split ram when trying to suggest the id dev didn't know what he was talking about because he mentioned split ram when he said there is low RAM. I even said this is another debate but we went down that rabbit hole anyway.

If you're saying Riky explained it well then he explained split RAM even though he regulated the slower RAM to 'non-GPU game tasks' .
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
it was about low ram and the thread is about freeing up some ram, you made it about split ram when trying to suggest the id dev didn't know what he was talking about because he mentioned split ram when he said there is low RAM. I even said this is another debate but we went down that rabbit hole anyway.

If you're saying Riky explained it well then he explained split RAM even though he regulated the slower RAM to 'non-GPU game tasks' .

If handled correctly, and If MS did offer enough then I think split ram is a great option for these consoles.

10GB of super fast memory should be easily more than enough for a games console targeting DRS 4k with console settings and I would imagine 8GB is more than enough for 1080P - 1440P but I am no professional. So its all assumptions.
 

Three

Member
If handled correctly, and If MS did offer enough then I think split ram is a great option for these consoles.

10GB of super fast memory should be easily more than enough for a games console targeting DRS 4k with console settings and I would imagine 8GB is more than enough for 1080P - 1440P but I am no professional. So its all assumptions.
Split RAM is fine. There is nothing wrong with split RAM except the added complexity for devs and cost cutting for platform holders. The alternatives are a more expensive system or a system with lower RAM so why not split RAM. That's a good thing.

I don't see why when a veteran engine dev says the low RAM was giving them trouble and they release Doom Eternal with missing raytracing on Series S due to it they should be dismissed as ignorant because they mentioned it's also split RAM when it is though. 🤷‍♂️

Also feel free to explain what you mean by "it's all virtualised". Consoles (so far) don't use virtual memory so what you said doesn't make much sense to me.
I see you edited to ask this. what do you mean by virtual memory? As in SSD space used as RAM space? yeah I'm sure SSD space is reserved by the OS and used as a pagefile to move data for less demanding not always needed processes.
I mean in terms of memory allocation and virtual address space though. This basically

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/gettingstarted/virtual-address-spaces

People are oversimplifing memory managment to physical memory trying to suggest this chunk of physical memory is for this Game or component (GPU) and that chunk of physical memory is for that, when that's not really how it is. The OS doesn't need a 2GB chunk of physical memory like that and it is dynamic even for the game with a lower limit.

If you are trying to suggest VAS doesn't apply to xbox due to 'coding to the metal' or something wierd you can look at the other listed improvement which makes it clear:

‘Titles can now take better advantage of recent memory enhancements’. “We’ve addressed an issue where graphics virtual addresses were being allocated considerably slower than non-graphics virtual addresses…”
 
I see you edited to ask this. what do you mean by virtual memory? As in SSD space used as RAM space? yeah I'm sure SSD space is reserved by the OS and used as a pagefile to move data for less demanding not always needed processes.
I mean in terms of memory allocation and virtual address space though. This basically

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/gettingstarted/virtual-address-spaces

People are oversimplifing memory managment to physical memory trying to suggest this chunk of physical memory is for this Game or component (GPU) and that chunk of physical memory is for that, when that's not really how it is. The OS doesn't need a 2GB chunk of physical memory like that and it is dynamic even for the game with a lower limit.

If you are trying to suggest VAS doesn't apply to xbox due to 'coding to the metal' or something wierd you can look at the other listed improvement which makes it clear:
If you mean virtual address spaces, then it still doesn't make much sense when talking about a split RAM situation. The two things have nothing to do with each other, or am I missing something?
 

Riky

Banned
He was talking about the Series S.

Yes and he deleted the tweets, some will say because he was told to but it could just as easily be because the split memory problem turned out to be incorrect when that 2gb is reserved for the OS.
They have since patched a last gen game to run at 120fps on Series S, maybe RT could have worked at 30fps but that wouldn't suit Doom Eternal.
They did an interview with DF and seemed happy with Series S, just saying that something had to give when RT was mentioned, to maintain at least 60fps it is reasonable. It's a last gen game and not built with Series consoles in mind and only uses Tier 2 VRS, which the same guy said he wanted on all consoles.
At the end of the day the Series S version is what Jason Ronald said it would be at launch, cutting back graphical effects as long as they don't affect the fundamental gameplay, that's exactly what was delivered.
 

clampzyn

Member
They did an interview with DF and seemed happy with Series S, just saying that something had to give when RT was mentioned, to maintain at least 60fps it is reasonable. It's a last gen game and not built with Series consoles in mind and only uses Tier 2 VRS, which the same guy said he wanted on all consoles.
Yep a lot of people seems to misunderstand what "optimized for Series S/X " vs "optimized and built for Series S/X" on consoles, because games on consoles generally doesn't really scale well unlike games built on PC. Although, I'm pretty sure with the DX12U both available on PC/Xbox, future games will be much more easier to scale for the next gen hardware to come.
 
Last edited:

Riky

Banned
Yep a lot of people seems to misunderstand what "optimized for Series S/X " vs "optimized and built for Series S/X" on consoles, because games on consoles generally doesn't really scale well unlike games built on PC. Although, I'm pretty sure with the DX12U both available on PC/Xbox, future games will be much more easier to scale for the next gen hardware to come.

Yes and moving to a unified GDK which was rough at launch but seems to be the right decision now and going forward.
 

Three

Member
If you mean virtual address spaces, then it still doesn't make much sense when talking about a split RAM situation. The two things have nothing to do with each other, or am I missing something?
You're not missing anything other than the fact there is an oversimplification of memory allocation and managment here where people believe different physical memory is allocated in predetermined amounts to the OS or different components when games and the OS can use either for anything dynamically.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Unrealistic? Ray tracing memory usage scales with scene complexity. Acceleration structures, denoising and other temporal effects all are stored to ram and change scene to scene. If this data along with other game data would exceed the memory pool (like mentioned in my scenario) it causes the gpu to miss it's 33.3ms window (for 30fps) while waiting on the new data to come in. Right there, what happens? Either the game drops resolution or, in the case it's at it's lower res bounds, it drops frames.

How can you make the claim that having more ram available, during times of "memory-constrained conditions" not improve performance?

As mentioned before over and over, MS statement to game devs (not consumers) is "This gives developers more control over memory, which can improve graphic performance in memory-constrained conditions."
So your answer to my previous comment is to describe two scenarios where having access to more GPU memory increases the options to do additional intensive GPU work, which somehow makes your idea of the memory help developers get closer to the missed 16.67ms or 33.3ms, how, exactly?

If you are so close to the critical line on VRAM memory for fundamental work for the GPU to stall from out-of-memory in a consoles the most likely consequence is you will crash the game.

The more likely scenario where saving memory will aid "performance" - but not specifically the buzzy "graphic performance" as you simply claim - is that they are freeing up an extra 100 or 200MB for the CPU, which is a natural place where paging out to the SSD incurs a controlled performance degradation and so having more memory - when memory limited - alleviates aspects of the problem. But if they described it that way it doesn't allow people like Colt to say what he does, does it?
 
So all of that talk about the memory allocations, and it was based on one developer? And a questionable context?

And id software, of all developers.

It makes sense, then - and was just a nothingburger to begin with.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
So your answer to my previous comment is to describe two scenarios where having access to more GPU memory increases the options to do additional intensive GPU work, which somehow makes your idea of the memory help developers get closer to the missed 16.67ms or 33.3ms, how, exactly?

If you are so close to the critical line on VRAM memory for fundamental work for the GPU to stall from out-of-memory in a consoles the most likely consequence is you will crash the game.

The more likely scenario where saving memory will aid "performance" - but not specifically the buzzy "graphic performance" as you simply claim - is that they are freeing up an extra 100 or 200MB for the CPU, which is a natural place where paging out to the SSD incurs a controlled performance degradation and so having more memory - when memory limited - alleviates aspects of the problem. But if they described it that way it doesn't allow people like Colt to say what he does, does it?
I can see that in an effort to simply the scenario, pertinent details are omitted and the points are getting lost in translation. Instead of this back and forth in which we run the risk of our points not coming across clearly or being misrepresented, how about I propose a simple question.

Will having more ram available positively impact performance, specifically fps, in a situation where the software is memory constrained?

Also, why would I care about what this Colt guy says. He is a YouTube hype man that makes money off of content engagement. Weird that you would bring his claims into the discussion when at no point were his words/claims referenced by me.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I asked earlier if you could elaborate on MS certification requirements you brought up earlier. Would you mind explaining these to me?
 
Last edited:

EL BABE

Neo Member
Holly cow, I don't understand a single word everyone is talking about, but I'm enjoying the discussion. Keep it going guys!
 

PaintTinJr

Member
I can see that in an effort to simply the scenario, pertinent details are omitted and the points are getting lost in translation. Instead of this back and forth in which we run the risk of our points not coming across clearly or being misrepresented, how about I propose a simple question.

Will having more ram available positively impact performance, specifically fps, in a situation where the software is memory constrained?
So you wish to move the goal posts - now that your own words contradict you or the "graphics performance" statement you take issue with me saying is wrong?

Your very question shows you agree with the point I made originally, but you now wish for me to read a subtext, yes - to let it fit, now?
Also, why would I care about what this Colt guy says. He is a YouTube hype man that makes money off of content engagement. Weird that you would bring his claims into the discussion when at no point were his words/claims referenced by me.
You took issue with saying the technical info looked tweaked by marketing - when clearly a statement like this that is technically wrong, that should be re-written IMO, only help serve up the stuff that Colt says, and you defending the statement, telling me my point is a strawman, and it was simple enough inadvertently help the likes of Colt.
 

MarkMe2525

Member
So you wish to move the goal posts - now that your own words contradict you or the "graphics performance" statement you take issue with me saying is wrong?

Your very question shows you agree with the point I made originally, but you now wish for me to read a subtext, yes - to let it fit, now?

You took issue with saying the technical info looked tweaked by marketing - when clearly a statement like this that is technically wrong, that should be re-written IMO, only help serve up the stuff that Colt says, and you defending the statement, telling me my point is a strawman, and it was simple enough inadvertently help the likes of Colt.
I don't think many people would consider attempting to reroute a derailed conversation back to its original topic "moving the goal posts".

Our last exchange was clearly going no where to address your claim that the statement that MS made "This gives developers more control over memory, which can improve graphic performance in memory-constrained conditions." is technically wrong in your opinion. You literally have no idea of any of the technical underpinnings of this statement as they have provided non. So again, this is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple statement that can't be interpreted in another other way than it's presented.

I also addressed once again the claim that this would somehow mean that MS is failing to enforce their software certification requirements. I'm really interested in what those are. So for the third time I will ask if you could go into any detail whatsoever about these certification requirements.
 

DETACA

Banned
I don't think many people would consider attempting to reroute a derailed conversation back to its original topic "moving the goal posts".

Our last exchange was clearly going no where to address your claim that the statement that MS made "This gives developers more control over memory, which can improve graphic performance in memory-constrained conditions." is technically wrong in your opinion. You literally have no idea of any of the technical underpinnings of this statement as they have provided non. So again, this is not a matter of opinion. It's a simple statement that can't be interpreted in another other way than it's presented.

I also addressed once again the claim that this would somehow mean that MS is failing to enforce their software certification requirements. I'm really interested in what those are. So for the third time I will ask if you could go into any detail whatsoever about these certification requirements.

They think it was because of improvement in development tools/drivers. They directly say that the system getting updated over time is what resulted in the game performance being improved.
 
DF talk about this in their new Weekly video, seem to think it will help with Series S Raytracing, although they don't know how much.
Nahhhhhh.

Raytracing on the S is a lost cause for most devs. They'll just use that memory for textures and assets.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom