Discussion in 'Games, Gaming & Game-demos' started by Stone Gargoyle, Nov 12, 2013.
Interesting, I hope they include a built in benchmark
@1080p + MSAAx4 my 2GB card will run out of memory after 5 minutes (and when that happen performance will be cut in half). Only MSAAx2 and SMAA is playable on my card.
BTW crysis 3 is using average textures, but specular and parralax will trick you to think it's high quality
If it cuts in half then its driver fault.. Crysis engine uses texture streaming and that is highly adjustable. I didnt have any issues with 570 1.2gb or 580gtx later with 1.5gb vram.. Other then low fps since gpu wasnt powerful enough.
Either this Middle-Earth uses static textures or some overdone high-reso texture made on purpose to actually fill them 3gb+. Also 980GTX with 8gb if it happens won't be playable @ 4k anyway.. Well unless someone enjoys 20-40fps with a single gpu.
I sure won't buy this game, it doesn't look anything special and its gameplay. Will rather wait for proper next-gen games @ U4E and alike
The 8GB version is only needed if you like SLI and have a 4K monitor.A single 970/980 4GB should be enough for 1080P/1440P.If not, people are gonna make a lot noise in their forums.
Started preloading for me this morning game seems to be around 33.6 Gb
I also had the same situation with crysis 1/2, on my old PC (8800Ultra 768MB). It ended when I bought GPU with more Vram, thats why I know, new card with 3GB Vram would solve my issue with MSAAx4 in crysis3
You are entirely correct - i experienced the very same when i was using 680 2gb sli.
With 2x smaa / msaa, i was at like 1950 mb vram consumption, with 4x msaa i was at 2048, and it stuttered like a mofo.
And I also played those too, but not with 768mb, Crysis1 with 1gb, Crysis2 with 1.28gb and later 1.53gb vram gpu, didnt experience anything like that since Crysis2 already used texture streaming, but I did have more system ram and that fixed any occasional stutter vs idk when I had only 4gb ram by Crysis2.
Figured as much.
I think pretty much anyone who has a NVidia/AMD card is... how many feature 6GB or more of VRAM? The standard for a high end consumer card has been up to this point 3-4GB. Considering you can't get 5GB VRAM cards, they could have been like well we've seen with Ultra that it can go over 4GB and since 5GB isn't available, the next one up is 6GB.
Until the game is out I think people need to chill out. It may be a situation that Ultra isn't much noticeable over High. Or like I said that Monolith over estimated how much VRAM you might need for Ultra for a smooth experience.
In a way I'm surprised many PC people are up in arms... isn't this the kind of stuff we like? More advanced features to justify our machines?
They still shouldn't have quoted it as 6GB required for ultra textures.
They should have said 3gb for ultra settings ( including textures ), but that you would need over 4gb for downsampling.
Downsampling is a nice feature but it should not be included in the ultra settings requirements of the game. Much how there are settings above ultra in tomb raider for higher shadows, and settings above ultra in Wolfenstein for higher shadows.
Or like how physx is not included in global presets in games it is in.
1GB Vram for crysis 1 was already enough, also 1.3GB for crysis2 (although I'm not so sure about maldoHD texture mod)
It "should" be enough for 1080p, yes. But "should" imply guessing, people who bought 980GTX (500$) are now wondering, if their new beast would be enough for games (maxed out settings) like shadow of mordor. 4GB Vram in 980GTX is very low amount of Vram in new High End card, because even W_D right now can use more than 3800MB @1920x1200p so it's almost 4GB. Just the idea, that people who spend 500$ still needs to worry (if game will run or not on 4GB) is not nice at all. That's why I still waiting for better cards (6-8GB)
4GB is not a "very low amount". And WatchDogs does not use close to 4GB at 1080p, especially when you use SMAA.
Get your facts straight.
Omg, thank you.
That Neogaf quote is a play on words. The Options stated 6gb for Ultra Textures @1080p...1080p, not 4k downsampled. If that were the case, lots of older games would probably require absurd amounts of vram if we're are taking ridiculous resolutions into play.
This game at 1080p and Ultra textures should not require anymore than 2-2.5gb tops.
The textures in games havnt come that far from the quality of BF3/Metro LL, yet some how vram requirements have tripled for barely any real quality increase?
None of the games that have been using more than 2gb vram look anywhere near better than the like of Crysis 3, BF3 or Metro LL (vanilla), these current batch of vram hogs should not require such ludacris amounts of vram. Visually, they don't deserve it and the amount of action on screen isn't exactly massively increased compared to something like asscreed or gtaIV.
Watch Dogs @1920x1200p use 3200MB with SMAA, and 3.600-3.800MB with TXAAx4/MSAAx4 on 4GB card. If someone bought 3xSLI 980 for 4K gaming his Vram usage will be even higher
It doesn't need that much Vram for 1080P, it just uses as much as it can see.3GB of Vram is enough for 1080P and 2xMSAA in Watch_Dogs.
Not if your using SMAA or lots of other AA etc. But at 4k alone it should be more than enough and this isn't about SMAA/TXAA/MSAA, its about the Ultra textures at 1080p native.. for this game and how it looks even on high, a reference 680 should be enough for ultra 1080p.
I also saw the same 3.8GB usage on titan @1080p. If your theory would be correct, W_D should use almost 6GB on titan. People who bought 970/980 experience a lot less stuttering in W_D, so it looks like 3.2+SMAA and 3.8+MSAA is real Vram usage.
But what level of AA?
I play Watchdogs at 1080p max/ultra settings with SMAA and I'm always under 3GB.