Support NeoGAF

[Prophet Steve]

Interesting. The video stutters a fair bit for me but that may have just been the encoding..

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4927049&postcount=543

Since you won't see VRAM issues on the avarage framerate, the video stutters and he only displays the benchmark I'd say this is an absolutely terrible debunk.

EDIT: Also since he is in the 970 owners thread the card should use slightly less VRAM because of delta color compression and the results may be different on other 4GB cards.

 

[ambar_hitman]

People running benchmarks do realize that it also shows minimum FPS right? I mean that guy's minimum FPS is 8.98. That is unacceptable. If the game drops to 9 fps while gameplay, we can safely say that the GPU is struggling. Strange to see people avoiding or neglecting such an obvious point.

A system running this at Ultra should not have minimum FPS below 30 to safely say that it wont stutter while actual gameplay. As simple as that.

 

[Prophet Steve]

People running benchmarks do realize that it also shows minimum FPS right? I mean that guy's minimum FPS is 8.98. That is unacceptable. If the game drops to 9 fps while gameplay, we can safely say that the GPU is struggling. Strange to see people avoiding or neglecting such an obvious point.

A system running this at Ultra should not have minimum FPS below 30 to safely say that it wont stutter while actual gameplay. As simple as that.

Minimum framerate seem to go wrong for everybody, the minimum framerates are measured at the start while it is still initializing, you can see this clearly in the video too.

 

[Renekton]

People running benchmarks do realize that it also shows minimum FPS right? I mean that guy's minimum FPS is 8.98. That is unacceptable. If the game drops to 9 fps while gameplay, we can safely say that the GPU is struggling. Strange to see people avoiding or neglecting such an obvious point.

A system running this at Ultra should not have minimum FPS below 30 to safely say that it wont stutter while actual gameplay. As simple as that.

The game normally starts off at very low FPS right on load in, hence the low min FPS numbers in many pics here.

 

[ambar_hitman]

Mine doesn't. My minimum FPS was around 20. Ran it many times.

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

Haha based on what? Two games. Next you'll be telling us 12 core processors are going to be mandatory for 1080p.

He isn't far from the truth... console always push hardware, not because pc can't handle them but because of extremely poor optimization. And yes you might benefit from an 8 core proc by the end of this generation... didn't watch dog already say 8 core recommended, its coming folks, slowly but surely!

 

[Derp]

Quick comparison I made. The difference is minor (and it's only some textures, not all) so anyone with not so powerful systems shouldn't worry about not being able to run ultra

That's a bloody clear difference if you ask me.

Ultra or nothing for me.

 

[ambar_hitman]

The game normally starts off at very low FPS right on load in, hence the low min FPS numbers in many pics here.

Minimum framerate seem to go wrong for everybody, the minimum framerates are measured at the start while it is still initializing, you can see this clearly in the video too.

Here, just now tried it. My FPS started from 30, dropped to 20-19 a few times:

 

[DarkoMaledictus]

Before I bought it there was no this VRAM trend in PC gaming.

If I know this I wound buy other card instead.

Dude, should have expected this... consoles come with 8 gigs of ram and pc games tend to use higher settings, yes folks vram and cores will be a thing in the coming years.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Mine doesn't. My minimum FPS was around 20. Ran it many times.

Here, just now tried it. My FPS started from 30, dropped to 20-19 a few times:

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/532873149591216655/74960BDB534605B569D7BE7FDC7F544F2A007591/[IMG][/QUOTE]

The ultra textures seem to give a bigger drop at the start, but during the benchmark itself it never seems to reach that framerate again. We can't really draw any conclusions out of it.

It always seems to be between 20 or 30 otherwise no matter how high the average FPS. Doesn't mean they can't handle it.

EDIT: Never mind, that doesn't seem to be the case, it mostly seems to be unpredictable.

[quote="DarkoMaledictus, post: 132583535"]He isn't far from the truth... console always push hardware, not because pc can't handle them but because of extremely poor optimization. And yes you might benefit from an 8 core proc by the end of this generation... didn't watch dog already say 8 core recommended, its coming folks, slowly but surely![/QUOTE]

Yes, slowly but surely. But not a required 8GB of VRAM for 1080P pretty soon. There is a difference there. And even though Watch Dogs scaled very nicely with better CPUs an 8 core was absolutely not necessary. Besides that the port had a lot of issues.

 

[KKRT00]

Cant you use a lot of tricks with background scenery, though?

Yes, if You cant reach geometry 2km away, but thats not the case in Ryse or Crysis 3 for that matter.

 

[Skyzard]

I can't put my finger on it, but ultra definitely has a positive impact.

I drop 5-8 frames sometimes with it though (780ti 3GB-1440p) so I set everything to max except high textures and high shadows.

Still looks alright and is a solid 60.

 

[kharma45]

He isn't far from the truth... console always push hardware, not because pc can't handle them but because of extremely poor optimization. And yes you might benefit from an 8 core proc by the end of this generation... didn't watch dog already say 8 core recommended, its coming folks, slowly but surely!

Watch_Dogs was a terribly made game. 8 'core' was recommended yet they said an i7 was the recommended CPU, which is just a quad with HT.

The requirements for it were bollocks.

 

[BONKERS]

I'll just post this again then, quoted from the developer.

but why not give people the option to crank it up? It makes sense to get it out into the world there - we have it, we built it that way to look as good as possible

Based on the shot posted kindly on the last page, the difference does seem there. But the shots aren't entirely 1:1, which is a difficult thing to get I understand if say you have to reset the game to change the texture settings or the game doesn't save the camera angle when you change settings.

I can definitely see the difference though.