Chance Hale
Member
*citation needed*
*citation needed*
Never stop reading the thread. Just 10 posts down I address that, but I'm guessing you were in a fervor to post that.
I'm aware the ultra settings are higher than console settings. The post was in a broad context, not about this specific game (the post I quoted was about the gen as a whole).
PCGamer put up a 1440p max setting vid on youtube. Youtube has some shit compression, but its something I guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzSBpkxbqw
I mean, when GTA5 was developed the only versions being worked on were 360 and PS3. With Evil Within and Mordor, the PS4/X1 versions have been developed alongside 360 and PS3, and they're also the primary SKUs. So my theory is that means GTA5 should run fine on 2 gigs. Actually, I'm not even sure that makes sense. Time for bed.*citation needed*
... and GTA5 will probably laugh at my 670.
Just needs extra 2gigs of VRAM and that bad boy is enough to max this.I can't believe that the just released GTX 980 is already obsolete. This is absurd.
This gen, PS4/X1 are pretty much low-med PC. Thus, it's much easy for developers to do highend stuff and downsize / optimize fit them.People always complained that the last gen consoles were holding the PC back. Well, there you have it.
So wait... if I have a 2GB 680, that means I literally won't be able to run even High?
So wait... if I have a 2GB 680, that means I literally won't be able to run even High?
Fervor? LOL right. And by "address" you mean this nugget?
Which promptly was responded to by multiple people. Nothing has changed. The curve for graphical improvement continues to swing and max-out current gpu's (as always). And, as always, you can build a PC that will match the PS4/X1 at this game for the same price as those consoles. And good news for you, gpu prices will continue to drop.
You can stay happy with the PS4 playing this game at 1080p/60fps @ medium/high equivalent settings without coming misguidedly into this thread as if this news is some sort of prophecy to validate your console purchases.
I was building a new PC that is future proofed for at least 5 to 6 years. I will have to look for a different graphics card. I thought 3gb was enough VRAM.
Well, I guess WB just saved me 60$. I can't even say how much I love when publishers doing such a nice thing. THANK YOU WB. THANK YOU SO MUCH!
They're not and no one is saying they are, but high requires 3 gigs. That's an expensive card. And this is a cross-gen game that's releasing in the first year of next-gen. Think about it and what it means for 2015 and beyond.Ultra textures here requires 6gb of vram...
Do we know for sure that console version use these textures ?
4GBsAnybody know requirements of Ryse?
It's funny because everytime I see that kind of recommended hardware, people panic for nothing and we amways have the same reaction:
"This means I cant play it on my PC"
"Those saying my 500 dollars rig blow consoles away were saying bullshit"
People should learn two things first:
Minimum and recommended settings mean nothing.
It changes from game to game. From situation to situation. I'll take an exemple:
Metal Gear Rising minimum config was about a quad core i5 2400. Last year I had an old dual core C2D CPU. Believe it or not, the game still ran at 60fps most of the time.
These settings depends on what kind of experience developpers expect you to have. And not meeting minimum doesnt mean the game wont start or that you'll need to lower every settings.
Not meeting recommended doesnt mean you cant max out the game either.
As for the other thing to learn:
Max quality doesnt mean console quality. I see a lot of people, sometimes with GTX670 or 770 claiming "This will run like shit on my hardware, I'll play it on my PS4/One."
Before jumping to conclusions, make sure that these settings are equal to console settings.
Ultra textures here requires 6gb of vram...
Do we know for sure that console version use these textures ?
They're not and no one is saying they are, but high requires 3 gigs. That's an expensive card.
Anybody know requirements of Ryse?
I doubt that. In fact, I really, really doubt that. Even so, why would you want to do that? That's my point. People aren't paying hundreds of dollars on a card to run at console-equivalent settings.
HD7950 is a 200 euro card, even 150 during sales... how is that expensive ?
It's 250 bucks on Newegg. Three gigs isn't going to be enough, anyway. That probably won't even be enough for 2015.HD7950 is a 200 euro card, even 150 during sales... how is that expensive ?
Nothing is set in stone until people actually get to play the game, Watch Dogs had the same problem, people were able to run higher quality textures than what they recommended.
It's 250 bucks on Newegg. Three gigs isn't going to be enough, anyway. That probably won't even be enough for 2015.
It's 250 bucks on Newegg. Three gigs isn't going to be enough, anyway. That probably won't even be enough for 2015.
we are in the age where console optimization has overtaken PCs even with superior GPUs. a graphics card alone to get 4 VRAM is what 350ish+
Yeah, true.The issue with that card isn't the amount of VRAM. It's more the fact it will run out of gas trying to run next gen titles at higher settings over the next few years.
Is that in Euros? Maybe I'm looking at old prices. I just googled it. https://www.google.com/search?q=HD7...illa:en-US:official&channel=rcs&q=hd+7950+3gb185 dollars on Newegg and you have 3 games with that.
It will, as far as consoles will go.
This wont be enough if you want to max out games of course. But for the rest, as long as consoles will do it. It will. But with better framerates and resolution.
we are in the age where console optimization has overtaken PCs even with superior GPUs. a graphics card alone to get 4 VRAM is what 350ish+
If we awake the beast, we won't know the consequences and it could lead to war.Good. Push it more. More! PC progress needs to wake from its 5 year nap. Push it til the smoke alarms scream.
Yeah, true.
So what are we looking at as the ideal price/value ratio 4 gig card out right now?
$330...that's actually not too bad, not at all.Nothing better than the new nvidia 970. Can be had for $330.
we are in the age where console optimization has overtaken PCs even with superior GPUs. a graphics card alone to get 4 VRAM is what 350ish+
we are in the age where console optimization has overtaken PCs even with superior GPUs. a graphics card alone to get 4 VRAM is what 350ish+
Yay... back to playing PC games on Medium-Low
Yeah, true.
So what are we looking at as the ideal price/value ratio 4 gig card out right now?
Is that in Euros? Maybe I'm looking at old prices. I just googled it. https://www.google.com/search?q=HD7...illa:en-US:official&channel=rcs&q=hd+7950+3gb
As long as there's decent options that will fit within 4GB then this is only a positive thing.
Users that recently bought 2GB cards are being fucked at this point but there's been plenty of posters like myself warning that this would always be the case.
The GTX 770 2GB will rightly go down as one of the worst GPU purchases of all time. What a horribly mismatched card that is. It pains me that many PC GAFers recommended it without qualification when it was clear as day it didn't have any life in it.
we are in the age where console optimization has overtaken PCs even with superior GPUs. a graphics card alone to get 4 VRAM is what 350ish+
Thx, but nope, I have HD 6870 with 1 GB VRAM and I have no desire to play this game with low quality textures + it seems like this game is only about about killing orks for the most part and I have no interest in killing tons of orks in LOTR game over 30 hours, it;s just f*****g boring as hell.Eh. You can get the game for $37 from GMG.