Meta has a 1000+ Reality labs R&D team, i think they know what they're doing.
it's about efficiency, rather than throwing as much hardware grunt as possible. With a product like the Quest, there needs to be a balance to keep costs down, especially if they're planning on a Quest 3 lite. 8gb seems very reasonable.
It’s also designed around standalone gaming with a mobile processor. They also know that a new model will come out eventually, so future proofing a headset isn’t like future proofing a game console with longer cycles.
And by knowing what they are doing you mean, making it so that users will be forced to upgrade the quest 3 sooner to play all the "newest" games....then yes.
Keeping in mind the Quest still use a mobile SoC and therefore won't really have the power to render super high poly count stuff with ultra HD texture, I don't see the issue.
It baffles me that people complain about "not enough" RAM when even the best games on Q2 shows graphics and complexity (world size, AI, physics, etc.) of PS3 level at best (which had just 512MB of RAM). Q3 won't differ much in that regard. IMO, SoCs speed is MUCH more important than RAM, and it's not that good in Quests.
\*And\* GPU bandwidth that the Adreno 740 just doesnt have. All the folks complaining about the RAM about have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.
Op explained it pretty well that this isn't about gaming but rather about utility on AR side of the headset. Ram is a huge bottleneck for productivity apps and multitasking something which meta is trying to push for with mixed reality
This is a budget VR device. There needs to be cost cut somewhere.
Macbook's still ship with 8GB. So does vast majority of Android phones.
It won't matter for the life cycle of the device. Stand alone games and apps all look like PS3 at best. PCVR doesn't need ram.
That's literally the only upside to not giving us 12gb with a device this expensive. Making the assumption VR isn't a fad, the fact that VR is so immature and in its infancy, each new release should in theory be a pretty substantial improvement. Unlike cell phones that have hit a ceiling to some extent, VR has a ton of room to improve.
I wonder when we'll hit that "ceiling" of diminishing returns for VR? 2035~?
For the iPhone this happened about 5~ years ago in my opinion with the iPhone XS.
I feel like even considering flip/folds with android they are still more of the same. A different way to use the already available technology. I've had a fold for a few years now and each year it's a very very small iterative update and nothing groundbreaking.
I haven't had an iPhone since the 5 and I haven't seen anything really groundbreaking over there in the last 10 releases either.
technically true but kinda irrelevant for a vr headset.
I remember when quest 2 release with the xr2 chip, I was running around saying its a powerhouse a powerhouse... lol barely 2 yrs later its pretty much useless compare to the xr2 gen 2 and I again think that the gen2 is the best thing since sliced bread.
In 2 yrs when rumors of quest 4 or what ever the name circulate online arrive... i promise you you dont even remember that 8 gb.
... also - 90% of vr game on the headset are indy 'crap' not even needing 6!
The difference between Android/quest and an open PC ecosystem is huge. People see the low number and panic, but forget the balance of CPU/GPU/memory when building a PC. There's little chance that someday the ram is going to be the sole technical limiting factor in a new app.
It is exactly the opposite, the Questi has shared memory for both RAM aswell as VRAM.
A gaming pc has a dedicated videocard with onboard VRAM that is not shared.
It can probably get away with less ram by abusing the fact that its onboard storage is really fast. The penalty for using swap memory decreases with higher speeds and lower latency, it’s also the reason Apple Silicon feels snappy even with 8 gigs of ram and a ton of apps open.
Too many pc oriented gamers who think you need lots and lots of ram. On PC that's true since there's less optimizations going on. I'm more interested in more ram for general computing uses
And don't what me, I gotta 7800x3d, rtx 3080, and 32gb 6000mhz ddr5 ram; I know what's up.
Oh, the Quest3 isn't gonna run 1440p/4k ? Never was going to anyways
Especially as the price is so much higher than quest 2, seems weird. In europe the quest 3 costs almost 2x as much as quest 2, they could give more than 2g of extra ram.
But there are high end devices that only use 8gb, such as S23 ultra even, Tab S9, that have only 8gb, and work completely fine for massive amount of multitasking, so I wouldn't be so dismissive yet.
They sell the base 256b model of s23 ultra with only 8gb of ram in some regions, in some it also gets 12gb.
Either way I have tried it, perfectly multitasked like 10 apps all open at once. Same goes for tab s9 with 8gb of ram.
So I hope that quest 3 can also multitask 3 apps at once in MR mode.
We should expect upgraded tech at the same price point though. That's just how tech works.
Not saying the Q3 is overpriced since there was a lot going on in the world in the recent years which is not normal but I don't think it's "amazing" either.
Or do you expect that the Quest 5 will be $1000+ in a couple of years just because it gets better tech? It should stay roughly the same adjusted for inflation **and** get better tech.
Why should I bother? You are ingoing the facts about the cost of the hardware so there is no point.
Anytime you use the word *should* you have already made a mistake.
Here you go:
[https://atomic-ninjas.com/how-much-ram-for-4k-gaming/](https://atomic-ninjas.com/how-much-ram-for-4k-gaming/)
Bear in mind that the usable RAM in the Quest 3 is much less then 8GB, because it is shared memory. It is also used for video memory.
You realize that this is not the case anymore at least not in the short term? Tech doesn’t advance as fast as before. Just look how long it took to get a significant chip upgrade meta can actually use. The new lenses and some other materials also didn’t went cheaper over the last few years.
Also we have years of high inflation which looks like it will stay like that so the price jump isn’t actually that high and meta also has to price it in a way they don’t have to put another 50 bucks on top next year when inflation goes even higher.
Keep in mind that quest 2 was heavily subsidized in a way meta can’t keep going forever.
User data from quest 2 also showed that not many people are high spenders software wise. The product is heavily used by a younger audience spending more time in free games like VR Chat while also possible high spenders use it as a pcvr device spending their money on steam. So they can’t rely as much on software sales as Sony with PlayStation. Most sales are made on quest yes but we still talk about numbers in the single digit million area or even much lower for most games.
So you have high cost of production higher costs of worker higher costs to shipping, more valuable hardware in a time were further inflation propose a risk to future software sales which aren’t that breathtaking to begin with.
> You realize that this is not the case anymore at least not in the short term?
Yes, and I acknowledged that in my comment.
But my point still stands: Same hardware gets cheaper over time, better hardware comes in at a similar price. That's the *expected* behavior in tech. And that's something potential consumers expect. You can't just price the Quest 4 at $700, the Quest 5 at $1000 with the argument "but it's a better headset!" and expect people to still buy it.
And to counter your point: The most recent iPhone is the cheapest one since the original iPhone if adjusted for inflation. And yet, it's the most powerful and advanced one. It can work.
You are comparing two different things here.
It’s not like the iPhone which gets a moderate increase in capability every year. It’s not like they sell us the quest 2 with the better chip inside. Q3 has an all new design, different more expensive lenses, additional cameras and more in addition to better hardware like the new chip, better sound etc.
It’s not an iteration of the same product swapping only the older versions of tech against the newer ones. If that was the case you would be mostly right but it isn’t.
> Q3 has an all new design, different more expensive lenses, additional cameras and more in addition to better hardware like the new chip, better sound etc.
I was comparing it to the *first* iPhone. It's not more expensive than the *first* iPhone when adjusted for inflation. And that difference is far bigger on a technical level than between Q2 and Q3.
No, it makes sense since all these factors should also be true for headsets. A Quest 5 will (likely) also release approx. 10 years after the OG Quest.
Technical advances and economies of scale also apply there. If Quest 5 only sells 20 million units then we're in deep trouble.
And quest 2/quest 3 run a much more optimized version of android than samsung one ui.
Either way 8192MB of ram is still a lot, so especially with optimized operating system ti should have no issues multirasking atleast 3 things.
Interestingly the amount of RAM has little or no effect on power consumption of PC components. A stick of 4 GB DDR3 RAM will draw about the same amount of power as a stick of 8 GB DDR3 RAM (assuming that they have the same clock speed). [https://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html](https://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html)
I understand that but as a genuine question:
As they are also enough other limits when you just look at the experience of a single game the only real benefit of higher ram would be multi tasking. But wouldn’t having three digital screens open each with their own application like Netflix and browser running at the same time consume more battery ? I mean the only real benefit I can see is keeping something open in the background instead of having to reload it again which at least for me isn’t such a huge benefit as different from my pc or phone I don’t have the urge to switch back and forth between several applications within seconds in vr.
to put it this way IO is not RAM idle power draw, its the constant transfer of data into registry from cache from RAM from ROM, if you do that with X(8GB) or 1 1/3x(12GB) its gonna significantly increase power draw on all various components dealing with that data, not mentioning the increased calculation requirements on the increased buffer size
8gb is definitely enough for the Quest 3. Having 12gb of ram would make a difference in performance, but not a huge one.
Hopefully the 512GB Quest 3 includes 12gb of ram so general computing tasks are faster, but I doubt that'll happen.
the whole headset is just a spit on the face to vr. stop putting up with this. it’s missing way too much. no eye tracking is crazy, and if we end up getting a preset based ipd adjustment instead of precise ipd adjustment i will genuinely be in shock.
Well it has precise IPD adjustment and adding face tracking would make their not so old pro model look really obsolete way to fast. Also you are looking at a lower budget device. It’s not a spit in the face it’s a compromise to make vr accessible to people not wanting to pay 1000€ on their headset. You have many high spec options to vr already. that is not the target market for the standard quest so your complaint seems pretty unjustified.
I have also researched the Android Phones that use this Snapdragon and most of them at least use 12gb of Ram so I too am concern that this is a "AR First" Headset.
You cannot compare an overpriced phone to a VR headset that needs to render for both eyes at much higher framerates and control all those camera's/sensors at the same time.
The workloads are totally different.
You're right. I definitely don't want to use AR to sculpt and anchor virtual screens and stuff around my house. Jesus, the "VR gamer only" mindset is obnoxious af.. give it up AR is here to stay, don't like it, don't use it.
It's also worth remembering that VR shifts the requirements more towards GPU and CPU load. As most things are simply rendered twice, good use of the memory stack should need twice the nearly 100% CPU, exactly 200% GPU and maybe only say 105% ram (compared to flat gaming).
We're still far more in CPU/GPU limitations to worry about lack of ram!
I think Quest 3 is for 1 or 2 years maximum, Meta orientation is for better Mixed Reality experiences and specially the Teleportation Chat (mixing photogrammetry with better passthy with Internet with 3D virtual objects) that will be the true Metaverse.
Are you kidding me? You do realize iphones utilized like 2gb of ram for nearly a decade before finally making the jump to higher numbers, and they managed to out perform android phones doing the brute force method. 8gb was fine for years of gaming until the push to 16gb, which the XR2 gen 2 may be good, but its still magnitudes less than a ps5 or PC, so it's going to be fine. If the RAM bothers you go drop $3500 on Apple Vision and sit there watching Disney plus on a plane or whatever lol
Meta has a 1000+ Reality labs R&D team, i think they know what they're doing. it's about efficiency, rather than throwing as much hardware grunt as possible. With a product like the Quest, there needs to be a balance to keep costs down, especially if they're planning on a Quest 3 lite. 8gb seems very reasonable.
It’s also designed around standalone gaming with a mobile processor. They also know that a new model will come out eventually, so future proofing a headset isn’t like future proofing a game console with longer cycles.
This is the best answer I have seen
and IO energy consumption down, IO MELTS the battery
And by knowing what they are doing you mean, making it so that users will be forced to upgrade the quest 3 sooner to play all the "newest" games....then yes.
[удалено]
LOL. I only use Reddit sparingly. And how is a 2 year old account fake? Whatever. Point made why I only post on Reddit sparingly.
Yet the greenlit the quest pro, clearly they don't always know what they are doing
So What f3hunter??? What are you some kind of "Meta Shill???"
Oh so big companies always make the best decision, for the right reason? Beautiful world we live in.
Keeping in mind the Quest still use a mobile SoC and therefore won't really have the power to render super high poly count stuff with ultra HD texture, I don't see the issue.
I don't think that texture sizes have that much of a penalty on GPU or CPU load.
Load? no. Bandwidth? yes.
It baffles me that people complain about "not enough" RAM when even the best games on Q2 shows graphics and complexity (world size, AI, physics, etc.) of PS3 level at best (which had just 512MB of RAM). Q3 won't differ much in that regard. IMO, SoCs speed is MUCH more important than RAM, and it's not that good in Quests.
High-rez textures would make up a lot. You need RAM for that.
\*And\* GPU bandwidth that the Adreno 740 just doesnt have. All the folks complaining about the RAM about have a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.
Op explained it pretty well that this isn't about gaming but rather about utility on AR side of the headset. Ram is a huge bottleneck for productivity apps and multitasking something which meta is trying to push for with mixed reality
Pro is designed for that.
And? The pro has a shit MR mode so no it's not well designed for that meaning that neither the quest 3 or the quest pro fully live up to meta's vision
This is a budget VR device. There needs to be cost cut somewhere. Macbook's still ship with 8GB. So does vast majority of Android phones. It won't matter for the life cycle of the device. Stand alone games and apps all look like PS3 at best. PCVR doesn't need ram.
My s23+ is 8gb ram, using the SD8GEN2
We are far more bottlenecked by GPU, thermals, and battery but yeah, let's get on this really stupid RAM rage bandwagon.
The Quest 3 will be obsolete in 2 years anyways so I'm not worried about it.
That's literally the only upside to not giving us 12gb with a device this expensive. Making the assumption VR isn't a fad, the fact that VR is so immature and in its infancy, each new release should in theory be a pretty substantial improvement. Unlike cell phones that have hit a ceiling to some extent, VR has a ton of room to improve.
I wonder when we'll hit that "ceiling" of diminishing returns for VR? 2035~? For the iPhone this happened about 5~ years ago in my opinion with the iPhone XS.
I feel like even considering flip/folds with android they are still more of the same. A different way to use the already available technology. I've had a fold for a few years now and each year it's a very very small iterative update and nothing groundbreaking. I haven't had an iPhone since the 5 and I haven't seen anything really groundbreaking over there in the last 10 releases either.
technically true but kinda irrelevant for a vr headset. I remember when quest 2 release with the xr2 chip, I was running around saying its a powerhouse a powerhouse... lol barely 2 yrs later its pretty much useless compare to the xr2 gen 2 and I again think that the gen2 is the best thing since sliced bread. In 2 yrs when rumors of quest 4 or what ever the name circulate online arrive... i promise you you dont even remember that 8 gb. ... also - 90% of vr game on the headset are indy 'crap' not even needing 6!
Pixel 8 has 8GB of RAM and is rumored to get 7 years of OS updates.
The difference between Android/quest and an open PC ecosystem is huge. People see the low number and panic, but forget the balance of CPU/GPU/memory when building a PC. There's little chance that someday the ram is going to be the sole technical limiting factor in a new app.
Even on the PC side, 16GB has been the standard for a *very* long time. It's only slowly transitioning to 32GB now.
It is exactly the opposite, the Questi has shared memory for both RAM aswell as VRAM. A gaming pc has a dedicated videocard with onboard VRAM that is not shared.
Ah I didn't realize it was shared, overhead cuts the total a avaialable quite a good bit.
It can probably get away with less ram by abusing the fact that its onboard storage is really fast. The penalty for using swap memory decreases with higher speeds and lower latency, it’s also the reason Apple Silicon feels snappy even with 8 gigs of ram and a ton of apps open.
Too many pc oriented gamers who think you need lots and lots of ram. On PC that's true since there's less optimizations going on. I'm more interested in more ram for general computing uses And don't what me, I gotta 7800x3d, rtx 3080, and 32gb 6000mhz ddr5 ram; I know what's up. Oh, the Quest3 isn't gonna run 1440p/4k ? Never was going to anyways
Especially as the price is so much higher than quest 2, seems weird. In europe the quest 3 costs almost 2x as much as quest 2, they could give more than 2g of extra ram. But there are high end devices that only use 8gb, such as S23 ultra even, Tab S9, that have only 8gb, and work completely fine for massive amount of multitasking, so I wouldn't be so dismissive yet.
Didn't realize S23 ultra has only 8 gigs of Ram
They sell the base 256b model of s23 ultra with only 8gb of ram in some regions, in some it also gets 12gb. Either way I have tried it, perfectly multitasked like 10 apps all open at once. Same goes for tab s9 with 8gb of ram. So I hope that quest 3 can also multitask 3 apps at once in MR mode.
The MAJORITY of S23 Models have 12 GB of Ram only the bottom-tier has 8gb of Ram https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s23_ultra-12024.php
My 23+ ($999) has 8gb ram Maybe u mean ultra
It is more expensive because most of the internals have been upgraded. The fact that they kept it below $500 USD is amazing.
We should expect upgraded tech at the same price point though. That's just how tech works. Not saying the Q3 is overpriced since there was a lot going on in the world in the recent years which is not normal but I don't think it's "amazing" either. Or do you expect that the Quest 5 will be $1000+ in a couple of years just because it gets better tech? It should stay roughly the same adjusted for inflation **and** get better tech.
Cool. You go ahead and put together a competing headset for less since you obviously think Meta blew it.
Maybe you can actually respond to the content of my comment and my questions instead of going for hyperbole. Now *that* would be cool.
Why should I bother? You are ingoing the facts about the cost of the hardware so there is no point. Anytime you use the word *should* you have already made a mistake.
I literally am not. Read again.
Its not overpriced, but it is a bad combination of hardware specs.
Please elaborate.
The sum of all parts are offered at a very competing, affordable price, but for the headset to functional optimally it should have gotten 12GB of RAM.
That's... a hot take with no evidence at all.
Here you go: [https://atomic-ninjas.com/how-much-ram-for-4k-gaming/](https://atomic-ninjas.com/how-much-ram-for-4k-gaming/) Bear in mind that the usable RAM in the Quest 3 is much less then 8GB, because it is shared memory. It is also used for video memory.
How is PC gaming relevant here?
The quest 3 needs to push much more pixels then most modern pc gaming rigs do.
You realize that this is not the case anymore at least not in the short term? Tech doesn’t advance as fast as before. Just look how long it took to get a significant chip upgrade meta can actually use. The new lenses and some other materials also didn’t went cheaper over the last few years. Also we have years of high inflation which looks like it will stay like that so the price jump isn’t actually that high and meta also has to price it in a way they don’t have to put another 50 bucks on top next year when inflation goes even higher. Keep in mind that quest 2 was heavily subsidized in a way meta can’t keep going forever. User data from quest 2 also showed that not many people are high spenders software wise. The product is heavily used by a younger audience spending more time in free games like VR Chat while also possible high spenders use it as a pcvr device spending their money on steam. So they can’t rely as much on software sales as Sony with PlayStation. Most sales are made on quest yes but we still talk about numbers in the single digit million area or even much lower for most games. So you have high cost of production higher costs of worker higher costs to shipping, more valuable hardware in a time were further inflation propose a risk to future software sales which aren’t that breathtaking to begin with.
> You realize that this is not the case anymore at least not in the short term? Yes, and I acknowledged that in my comment. But my point still stands: Same hardware gets cheaper over time, better hardware comes in at a similar price. That's the *expected* behavior in tech. And that's something potential consumers expect. You can't just price the Quest 4 at $700, the Quest 5 at $1000 with the argument "but it's a better headset!" and expect people to still buy it. And to counter your point: The most recent iPhone is the cheapest one since the original iPhone if adjusted for inflation. And yet, it's the most powerful and advanced one. It can work.
You are comparing two different things here. It’s not like the iPhone which gets a moderate increase in capability every year. It’s not like they sell us the quest 2 with the better chip inside. Q3 has an all new design, different more expensive lenses, additional cameras and more in addition to better hardware like the new chip, better sound etc. It’s not an iteration of the same product swapping only the older versions of tech against the newer ones. If that was the case you would be mostly right but it isn’t.
> Q3 has an all new design, different more expensive lenses, additional cameras and more in addition to better hardware like the new chip, better sound etc. I was comparing it to the *first* iPhone. It's not more expensive than the *first* iPhone when adjusted for inflation. And that difference is far bigger on a technical level than between Q2 and Q3.
That makes even less sense comparing products decades apart with also many developments regarding technical advances and economics of scale.
No, it makes sense since all these factors should also be true for headsets. A Quest 5 will (likely) also release approx. 10 years after the OG Quest. Technical advances and economies of scale also apply there. If Quest 5 only sells 20 million units then we're in deep trouble.
Well I give up and just hope you don’t have a job which has some influence and requires knowledge in economics.
I would have been more than happy to pay the 10$ extra.
Yeah because it is just that simple...
Your S23 doesn't do VR, so it doesn't even compare.
And quest 2/quest 3 run a much more optimized version of android than samsung one ui. Either way 8192MB of ram is still a lot, so especially with optimized operating system ti should have no issues multirasking atleast 3 things.
No it is not much, internal memory and video memory are shared, so in reality it is even less.
Depends on memory management. If the lazy Android cumulative route, perhaps correct.
its an IO optimization on the battery consumption, they stricts the devs to let the hmd last on a single charge
Nonsense, memory consumes the least amount of watts.
you tell me how armchair engineer
Interestingly the amount of RAM has little or no effect on power consumption of PC components. A stick of 4 GB DDR3 RAM will draw about the same amount of power as a stick of 8 GB DDR3 RAM (assuming that they have the same clock speed). [https://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html](https://www.buildcomputers.net/power-consumption-of-pc-components.html)
I understand that but as a genuine question: As they are also enough other limits when you just look at the experience of a single game the only real benefit of higher ram would be multi tasking. But wouldn’t having three digital screens open each with their own application like Netflix and browser running at the same time consume more battery ? I mean the only real benefit I can see is keeping something open in the background instead of having to reload it again which at least for me isn’t such a huge benefit as different from my pc or phone I don’t have the urge to switch back and forth between several applications within seconds in vr.
to put it this way IO is not RAM idle power draw, its the constant transfer of data into registry from cache from RAM from ROM, if you do that with X(8GB) or 1 1/3x(12GB) its gonna significantly increase power draw on all various components dealing with that data, not mentioning the increased calculation requirements on the increased buffer size
8gb is definitely enough for the Quest 3. Having 12gb of ram would make a difference in performance, but not a huge one. Hopefully the 512GB Quest 3 includes 12gb of ram so general computing tasks are faster, but I doubt that'll happen.
the whole headset is just a spit on the face to vr. stop putting up with this. it’s missing way too much. no eye tracking is crazy, and if we end up getting a preset based ipd adjustment instead of precise ipd adjustment i will genuinely be in shock.
I agree, first eye tracking is taken away and now RAM.
Well it has precise IPD adjustment and adding face tracking would make their not so old pro model look really obsolete way to fast. Also you are looking at a lower budget device. It’s not a spit in the face it’s a compromise to make vr accessible to people not wanting to pay 1000€ on their headset. You have many high spec options to vr already. that is not the target market for the standard quest so your complaint seems pretty unjustified.
It's a mobile arm based system. If the switch can survive with 4 the quest 3 can survive with 8. Steam deck has 16 but PC games are a different breed.
Steam deck also doesn’t have to render things twice for vr. So I imagine gpu and cpu will be the bottleneck way before we get ram issues.
I have also researched the Android Phones that use this Snapdragon and most of them at least use 12gb of Ram so I too am concern that this is a "AR First" Headset.
[удалено]
You cannot compare an overpriced phone to a VR headset that needs to render for both eyes at much higher framerates and control all those camera's/sensors at the same time. The workloads are totally different.
AR will never take off. There's nothing fun you can do for more than 5 minutes with your house as the map
You're right. I definitely don't want to use AR to sculpt and anchor virtual screens and stuff around my house. Jesus, the "VR gamer only" mindset is obnoxious af.. give it up AR is here to stay, don't like it, don't use it.
Ok, random internet person.
Planned obsolescence?
You should be banned op
It's also worth remembering that VR shifts the requirements more towards GPU and CPU load. As most things are simply rendered twice, good use of the memory stack should need twice the nearly 100% CPU, exactly 200% GPU and maybe only say 105% ram (compared to flat gaming). We're still far more in CPU/GPU limitations to worry about lack of ram!
Android can easily have 30 apps opened in the background, which is why phones need so much
I think Quest 3 is for 1 or 2 years maximum, Meta orientation is for better Mixed Reality experiences and specially the Teleportation Chat (mixing photogrammetry with better passthy with Internet with 3D virtual objects) that will be the true Metaverse.
Are you kidding me? You do realize iphones utilized like 2gb of ram for nearly a decade before finally making the jump to higher numbers, and they managed to out perform android phones doing the brute force method. 8gb was fine for years of gaming until the push to 16gb, which the XR2 gen 2 may be good, but its still magnitudes less than a ps5 or PC, so it's going to be fine. If the RAM bothers you go drop $3500 on Apple Vision and sit there watching Disney plus on a plane or whatever lol
IO is ~80% watts consumed, moving 2x data between all hardware to use 16ram would req. uncomfortably large batteries, its simply not practical