And don't forget downsampling..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shadow of Mordor offers Ultra texture optional download, recommends 6GB VRAM @ 1080p
- Thread starter Regret Truth
- Start date
And don't forget downsampling..
did you go with a prebuilt without picking the parts yourself?
Prophet Steve
Member
Unless you bought a laptop or went for a super shitty deal you wouldn't have no trouble at all except for maybe a texture setting. I am going to assume you went for a 770. Or maybe a 760.
SteveWinwood
Member
you either picked parts terribly or youre wrong
edit oh i see what youre saying
thats solely for textures bro
Yes, 770 with 2GB VRAM.
I did not expect any games that require more than that when I bought it.
Brofist
Member
specs?
edit - posted before I saw your reply. Seems like you spent a lot. Must have been a prebuild or something.
You must have chosen your parts terribly. You can't really blame the game or the developpers.
From the reports I'm hearing the game runs really well.
Prophet Steve
Member
The 770 itself wasn't in the most ideal position price performance wise, and the amount of VRAM Nvidia put in their cards was terrible. It will still have no trouble with the game, except for the texture setting.
Before I bought it there was no this VRAM trend in PC gaming.
If I know this I wound buy other card instead.
Gipsy Danger
Member
2 games isn't really a trend. You'll be fine with your 770.
Canis lupus
Member
An offtopic question about ram since we're talking about it: I have 16GB system memory and whenever I hit ~12GB used, my Firefox tabs start going black whenever I scroll through pages. I know FF can use a lot of memory with many tabs, but I have a spare 4GB free ram available, why does it become unstable with so much left? Thanks in advance.
diggmcbadass
Member
[Fugo];132116849 said:
If a game crashes because you only have 16GB ram, it is fundamentally broken. You can always get more ram in the future. Right now there are few reasonable arguments for a normal gaming PC having more than 16GB.
Prophet Steve
Member
[Fugo];132116849 said:
16 GB really really should be enough for games. Right now next gen consoles seem to only use 2 for games. Windows seems to be requiring less RAM with new version, so let's say 2 GB. Then you have 12GB for higher PC settings and whatever you want to have open besides your games.
You should regularly get system crashes because of a shortage of RAM, something else is going wrong. I only have gotten crashes in the Battlefield 4 beta, but I doubt that was a RAM issue since it was so extremely widespread. And I haven't had any problems with Hardline. And I have 8 GB.
With the next gen consoles it seems to have gone very fast. There was a huge increase in VRAM for consoles. But it still doesn't mean you can't run games.
calls for reason are sadly pissing in the wind at this point
It not really a trend. There have been 2 or 3 games that have extra texture settings.
That 770 will run every new game with most settings turned up.
I have a 760, so I'll run the game at -7 FPS (compared to 770). I guess it should be alright, without in-game AA options enabled (force Post-AA via SweetFX or something).
They need to future proof it. Let's say the current OS takes only 1GB. If they let people use those extra 2GB, they have to make whateve feature they can possibly want to add in the future work with only 1GB, because they can't make the console run out of RAM when playing those games that used the extra 2.
You are in luck!
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Man I thought 4gb would be enough for this gen @ 1080p.
Both this and the a Evil Within thread are ending up much ado about nothing.
Here it seems it is talking about super sampling and an optional mega-texture download
There it seems Evil Within specs mean shared VRAM from Direct X, not actual video card memory.
But that isn't going to stop people from raging for no reason or reverse all the FUD.
It probably will. It seems this is not about 1080p. This is about 4k down sampling. Which is simply running at 4k on a 1080p monitor.
Hopefully it's just a recommendation...?
I remember people recommending 6GB VRAM for Watch Dogs to run at ultra, yet my 3GB 780 Ti ran it at max settings perfectly. A lot of "requirements" and "recommendations" are just inflated sometimes aren't they? "i7" is often thrown on the list of recommended specs in some games when our i5s are running games on ultra without a hiccup.
I'd be upset if this is true.
I remember people recommending 6GB VRAM for Watch Dogs to run at ultra, yet my 3GB 780 Ti ran it at max settings perfectly. A lot of "requirements" and "recommendations" are just inflated sometimes aren't they? "i7" is often thrown on the list of recommended specs in some games when our i5s are running games on ultra without a hiccup.
I'd be upset if this is true.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Ahaha oh nvm, should have read first haha
It is enough. What's not enough about it?
2 gig is "enough"
You don't have to max out every setting get for every game.
UnrealEck
Member
I don't think it's technically accurate to call, for example PS4's memory 'VRAM'. I might be wrong but I don't think GDDR5 necessarily means the same as VRAM, just that that's its typical purpose. I think it's a bit misleading because people seem to think 8 minus the 3 for the OS equals 5GB of VRAM when it's really just 5GB of RAM, some of which will be used as VRAM for storing graphics data and some will store non-graphics data.
Someone correct me. I'm always wrong about this stuff.
Someone correct me. I'm always wrong about this stuff.
alexandros
Banned
My GTX Titan stuttered like crazy even though it had 6GB VRAM. Watch_Dogs was just broken.
Smooth Operator
Member
I'm really curious to see how the game will perform on my config (I5 2500 + 670)
There's some serious misconception about how windows handle system RAM.
Whenever you go into a game, the memory pool of non active application taking up system RAM is moved from RAM to the hard-drive in order ot make room for active applicaitons (asusming there isn't enough system RAM to hold everything on there.
Whenever you go into a game, the memory pool of non active application taking up system RAM is moved from RAM to the hard-drive in order ot make room for active applicaitons (asusming there isn't enough system RAM to hold everything on there.
BONKERS
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Cu9Wb-6l0&feature=player_detailpage#t=12
(^ Ultra textures are enabled, meaning must have the pack)
Also: Video is compressed as fuck. So no way of judging actual detail.
(^ Ultra textures are enabled, meaning must have the pack)
Also: Video is compressed as fuck. So no way of judging actual detail.
Felix Lighter
Member
If the ultra textures are truly enabled in that and that benchmark is a good representation, I've feeling really good now.
Ultra textures are not enabled in that video. These are just high.
dr_rus
Member
No, it won't. We'll end up having 8GB as a minimum for this gen even for 1080p pretty soon. And all the improvements of PC versions will require even more. Essentially you need 8GB of RAM to fit 8GB of data in them. Having system RAM doesn't change much on PC because of how slow any access to it is from the GPU. We're likely to need 8+8 to be able to run this gen games without problems.
We'll probably need 32 GB of RAM and 128 GB of GDDR5 VRAM given current optimization trends from developers.
As a minimum at 1080p? Not going to happen. Devs can't even use the full 8GB on PS4/X1, they only have access to around 5GB. Not all data needs to be loaded into VRAM either... you can't use whatever a game takes up on the consoles as a baseline VRAM requirement, it doesn't work like that.
Prophet Steve
Member
What the hell, based on what? Because the minimum for this is 1GB of VRAM. You want to be on par on console textures you'll need 3GB of VRAM. Which is how much the consoles also use, so that makes sense. And then you have 6GB of VRAM if you have got the specs for it and that is fine.
But it isn't "required" at all. We now need a boost of VRAM because the consoles have way more than they had before, but it is unlikely that the VRAM demands will suddenly be much higher again.
If you get problems with VRAM you won't notice it through average FPS, it will cause a stutter.
Haha based on what? Two games. Next you'll be telling us 12 core processors are going to be mandatory for 1080p.
Turin Turambar
Member
Based on the past generation, where console games ran with 256mb of vram/512 unified but much more was needed on pc, I think we will reach the point eventually where 8gb of vram is required for resolutions like 1200p, msaax4, etc.
Prophet Steve
Member
Resolution and anti-aliasing have been higher on PCs than on consoles in the past generation. Developers were really limited by the amount of VRAM on consoles.
This probably will again be a problem later in the generation, but I doubt it will be as bad as this amount feels a lot less restrictive. Also the MINIMUM amount of VRAM isn't very high on PCs.
EDIT: Also it seems that Shadows of Mordor isn't actually using 6GB on ultra settings.
He says it didn't stutter. It did fill up his 4gb vram but he didn't notice any stuttering. Not sure if he was playing on 1080p or 1440p. Will ask him when he's back if anyone's interested.