Octopuss Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Aha, so the patch itself recommends real 512MB for block1 going from game's default 256. Allright. Let's see how will SKSE change when it gets from alpha. This is confusing.
Nearox Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 With the latest version of ENBoost then Boris has decided to implement support for up to 192Gb of memory use with compression..... Talk about securing for the future!Why would such a super large amount ever be necessary though? What is the benefit from this at the moment? I don't get it.
EssArrBee Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 RAM/VRAM being combined for use by the entire system is coming. Nvidia's CUDA 6 has it and AMD has been working on it's Fusion stuff for a while. Boris is probably just ahead of the curve. Or he was bored and just added it in there.
SSL Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 With the latest version of ENBoost then Boris has decided to implement support for up to 192Gb of memory use with compression..... Talk about securing for the future!Why would such a super large amount ever be necessary though? What is the benefit from this at the moment? I don't get it.Pardon my offtopic, but.. For the same reason we have to switch to ipv6. In the days of yore people said " Four billion adresses? This will last 4evah!". And now we have problem, mostly because USA took such big space. (one /8 for MIT and two for DOD...) I digress. My point is - whatever you think is unnecessary now, will be not enough someday.In 20 years, someone might want to throw at Skyrim all 4k texture mods he finds on nexus. Just because he can. Future-proofing is good thing. /rant
CJ2311 Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 RAM/VRAM being combined for use by the entire system is coming. Nvidia's CUDA 6 has it and AMD has been working on it's Fusion stuff for a while. Boris is probably just ahead of the curve. Or he was bored and just added it in there.Or he's got a server laying around and thought he might as well use it to play Skyrim :p
EssArrBee Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 RAM/VRAM being combined for use by the entire system is coming. Nvidia's CUDA 6 has it and AMD has been working on it's Fusion stuff for a while. Boris is probably just ahead of the curve. Or he was bored and just added it in there.Or he's got a server laying around and thought he might as well use it to play Skyrim :pHaha.... Microsoft servers though, eww.
SSL Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 RAM/VRAM being combined for use by the entire system is coming. Nvidia's CUDA 6 has it and AMD has been working on it's Fusion stuff for a while. Boris is probably just ahead of the curve. Or he was bored and just added it in there.Or he's got a server laying around and thought he might as well use it to play Skyrim :pHaha.... Microsoft servers though, eww.If I had Tesla server by hand, I'd install Windows on it, just to play skyrim. :( Stack Exchange runs on .net :P
Freyrgjurd Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 It's the combined RAM/VRAM stuff. I don't remember where I read it, but there is a project to extinguish VRAM and let the VGA use the RAM, since the BUS it'll use for communication will be as fast as on the same PCB. Technology keeps evolving. And we are yet stuck on old fashion values. In a few years, I guess we'll be playing skyrim as an abandonware theses days.
Octopuss Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 The only problem is GDDR5 is much faster than DDR3 we're using now. It might be completely different architecture for all I know, but there is a reason graphic cards have dedicated and different memory on them.
Freyrgjurd Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 But it is still based on the DDR3 specs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5
Octopuss Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 The bandwidth difference is night and day though... I'll have to read up on the memory subject again. It's an interesting topic.
EssArrBee Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 The problem with every new gen of RAM/VRAM is that access time is growing exponentially. The manufactures have refused to address this as a real issue since demand is capacity driven much more than access time, which they say is addressed by core clock, but that is LIES!!!! Capacity is creating these ridiculous RAM bursting algorithms because of the many layers of DRAM/SDRAM jammed onto every stick of memory.
Freyrgjurd Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Well, they obscured the ns timming in every big kit. If you wonder well, the 1600 are the most responsive ones, even at 16Gb + I use 16Gb (4x4Gb [Two kits of 8]) and find it more responsive than my 16Gb (2*8) of my girlfriends.
sheson Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Both SKSE and SSME expect the number to be 768 for a net 512MB block1/defaultheap Most people just don't notice it when looking at the 300 hex value of SSME.
Bundy714 Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 Well, they obscured the ns timming in every big kit. If you wonder well, the 1600 are the most responsive ones, even at 16Gb + I use 16Gb (4x4Gb [Two kits of 8]) and find it more responsive than my 16Gb (2*8) of my girlfriends.I notice you went for speed, while your girlfriend went for size.....and they always lie and tell us size doesn't matter. LOL All joking aside, so you are saying if you use the same rated RAM, four 4gb sticks are faster than two 8gb sticks? Interesting, I did not know this.
Recommended Posts