this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
40 points (95.5% liked)

PC Gaming

8781 readers
355 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9point6 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Right, so I'm not a low-level PC hardware expert or anything, but:

We only got resizable BAR like a couple of years ago, and it was very much a premium enthusiast feature at the time. Are modern engines and the games built for them optimised to expect resizable BAR as a baseline yet? If not that will still be a limiting factor right?

I thought the reason resizable BAR was introduced was because we hit the limits of what the previous approach allowed regardless of the speed of the link

i.e. of course it doesn't make a difference with games today, they're built targeting hardware configurations that will limit the utility of extra storage bandwidth

Reiterating that I might have this entirely wrong, so I'm more than happy to be corrected here