GTA5 will use +3gb vram @Ultra

Absolutely, remember what kind of a vram eater MP3 was, and given the scope of GTAV it will be even more demanding in this department. This and other games are the main reason I will have to upgrade, 2GB at my 1440p is just laughable these days.

 

that's a wast of good vram:3eyes:
2gb of vram is very enough
and it also depend on Memory Bus 384 bit is better than 256 bit
i hope nvidia cards gtx900 will have 384 bit Memory Bus

 

My guess with 2GB cards is that either the game will stutter like Watch Dogs on Ultra, or graphics settings will be restricted like in Wolfenstein and Titanfall.

In either way graphics cards with more than 3GB of available vRAM will see more than 3GB usage, but I think that won't mean that it won't run good on 3GB cards.

Can't wait to find out!

 

the problem is after all those ultra Requirements we discover the game was ported from consoles to pc:bang:

 

Just 1GB Vram in 1080p without MSAAx4, and 1,6 GB with MSAAx4.

 

How could it possibly be otherwise ? You don't discover in 2014 that consoles are the main development platform, do you ?

It won't prevent the PC version from being very good but it's obvious they're priorising consoles over PC as pretty much every developpers do.

As a diehard PC gamer I'm 100% fine with that so as long the work is done properly. I don't ask publishers and developpers to bow and scrape to the PC.
That's unecessary. All I'm asking is a working, optimized, stable product.
Bells and whistles are just gravy.

 

Couldnt agree more - they will obviously prioritize the group that holds by far the largest market share (the consololol users), but as long as they provide proper products for us pc users, then it doesnt really matter all that much.

 

Most PC alternates usually are proper whatever proper is supposed to mean. They run, function...etc. Bugs are just part of the nature of open hardware and various software configurations.
It's nothing today like it used to be with PC games and horribly coded drivers, DRM..etc. Devs today have engines that can simultaneously put out for all the platforms it was designed for as apposed to porting code or creating separate engine.

 

I'm pretty sure this time, it's the other way around. They started working on GTAV for PC well before Sony or Microsoft had any ps4 or xbone dev skus to deliver. But having a similar architecture, it was fast to port the pc version to those consoles.

 

I think the dev kits were out long before GTA 5 was finished. Developing on PC hardware doesn't mean it was a Windows PC run version, you can code for whatever you want. Likely they did all 3 simultaneously through the updating process of the Rage engine where all 3 variants of code needed were included. The other teams just use the tool sets, build it once and have runable version of all 3.

 

I dont agree with this - you see alot of poorly ported games for pc these days, that runs like **** on even the most highend hardware, which is obviously cause they cba taking their time to port it properly, due to the small amount of potential extra sales.

And this trend is something that im worried about.

 

How long does fall last in America? Through November?
I'm a little worried when they still haven't announced a date.

 

It should be out by mid to end november to make it in the "fall"... I seriously hope there will be no more delays.

 

Most modern games are not ported. Rather they are cross platform. There is a difference.

Furthermore, games that you claim run like ****, may not necessarily run that way for everyone and as I said has more to do with the nature of open hardware and the budget spent or time constraints for debugging on the developers part. Some games don't even run that good or are buggy for consoles as well.

 

You are obviously correct that everyone will have different experiences on open hardware, but you can usually see generel line in performance, or lack of.

If you take watch dogs as an example (i know everyone hates that example), its the perfect example of a game that has been optimized for the unified memory of the ps4, and where they have just dumped the majority of the memory usage on pc on the vram, where it would have made sense to dump as much as possible on the system ram instead (where watch dogs uses close to nothing).

2gb vram usage with ****ty low settings graphics says everything
^^

 

Its a bad example indeed 0f game that supposedly shoul. Be running much much better

 

it's not exactly a great example of dumping the majority of memory usage onto vram because even 6gb Titans stutter in W_D. Also, console version of W_D will never utilize 6gb of vram, not even close. Also, you can't just "dump" everything onto the vram, doesn't work like that.

W_D is broken. Fact remains that even a 6gb gpu stutters. It has nothing to do with vram. Its' to do with a sh1tty code. Get it through your skull already.

 

It does run reasonable well, but only as long as you keep the vram consumption a bit below the max capacity of your gpu. What that Means for me is, that i can use high textures, and 2x msaa... but increase either of those settings, and i get vram bottlenecked, and the game stutters like a mofo, despite being at about 50% gpu load.

 

And fact remains it runs better on 4GB gpus without stuttering and not 2GB gpus. Get it though your skull finally.

Let the trolling commence. You haven't even played the game so stop spreading bs all the time.

 

Oh, did moronclap post? I put him on ignore a while ago, as he does nothing but try to be a keyboard hero - i suggest you do the same.