Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shadow of mordor 6GB Vram!?Can 970 SLI run it?

Tags:
  • Video Games
  • Corsair
  • Computers
  • SLI
  • Intel i5
Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 29, 2014 12:42:02 AM

Hey people,

I just bought myself a 1800 euro computer.
Also pre ordered shadow of mordor,only i saw that ultra needs 6gb vram?Wtf is that.
Can i even run it?
Specs below

i5 4670K
MSI Z97-G45 motherboard
MSI GtX 970 maybe later SLI
16 GB Corsair pro series 1866mhz
Corsair H100i watercooling
Corsair AX860 powersupply
250 GB ssd samsung
2TB WD HDD
Corsair 450D
5 Corsair SP120 cool n quit fans

What u think?The recommended is a i7 ? Is my cpu not enough? Pfff

More about : shadow mordor 6gb vram 970 sli run

September 29, 2014 2:24:14 AM

I honestly can't understand if you're serious or if you're trolling... In any case, you should never trust either minimum or recommended requirements, as the former ones will usually be far below what is actually needed and the latter ones will instead be too high.

Most AAA games recommend an i7 because of sheer numbers and marketing policies; remember that an i7 could literally be considered an i5 with HyperThreading enabled, and almost always never brings any significant performance advantage in gaming unless you're going for exotic configurations (1440p/2160p gaming/recording, three-way and up SLI/Crossfire setups). That will be more than fine to play it.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 3:07:52 AM

I aint trolling. Just a question couse those specs are insane. Maybe ur right. Always lower then they are saying.
Anyway thanks for the reply
m
0
l
Related resources
September 29, 2014 3:15:06 AM

SLI wont help since VRAM does NOT stack by adding another card.
m
2
l
September 29, 2014 5:41:15 AM

Specs are indeed insane, but that goes for any AAA game nowadays. If all of those requirements were true for any game, most of them would've required a yearly rig upgrade to keep up, yet games like Watch_Dogs can run on a dual core with the right Nvidia GPU...

BTW, +1 to ZeroRequiem for stating about SLI not increasing VRAM. To add up on him, when going SLI/Crossfire, VRAM is shared up among gpus, not summed up. Two 4gb cards will still have that amount as the available memory, and not 8gb.
m
0
l
September 29, 2014 5:52:57 AM

Companies are trying to make it look like their games will look better on paper than in reality...
Also, optimization is less important if you can blame the lack of it on some recommended specs that are way crazy.
Its actually a good reason to NOT buy shadow of mordor, as they clearly are trying to hype it to sell (good games dont really need to do that).
m
1
l
October 1, 2014 7:43:57 AM

It only requires 6GB vRAM for the Ultra graphics package to load - not to play the game at all, only that top end graphics package (and I read that package isn't out yet -- it's a console port game.)

As such, don't worry too much about the video card requirement - the next step down says 3GB needed and the vRAM goes down from there.

There are several more titles coming out over the next few months that will also have listed 4GB vRAM as their minimum to load "best of the best" packages to the cards.

Note that this is not gotten around by 2 3GB SLI cards or the like. It wants the vRAM per GPU/card as the buffer space it loads up the textures, buffer space, etc. (SLI helps with rendering speeds and such - if there isn't enough room to load up all the stuff it will need, it'll use a lower graphics package).

So each card will need that higher quantity of vRAM to load up the top stuff -- not to load the game, simply the "best of the best" graphics available.
m
0
l
October 1, 2014 5:55:34 PM

Vynavill said:
I honestly can't understand if you're serious or if you're trolling... In any case, you should never trust either minimum or recommended requirements, as the former ones will usually be far below what is actually needed and the latter ones will instead be too high.

Most AAA games recommend an i7 because of sheer numbers and marketing policies; remember that an i7 could literally be considered an i5 with HyperThreading enabled, and almost always never brings any significant performance advantage in gaming unless you're going for exotic configurations (1440p/2160p gaming/recording, three-way and up SLI/Crossfire setups). That will be more than fine to play it.


he ain't trolling hit's 5500mb on my gpu!! http://tinypic.com/r/2eztsgp/8 next gen is here!!!. The evil within, ryse requires 4gbs and there's going to be plenty more 4gb+ games coming. People better start selling there 2gb/3gbs gpu's if they want to start maxing games out. Feel bad for 780 ti owners!. All this 2gb/3gb is fine for 1920x1080 is a load of bull!. Think about it ps4 has 8gbs of vram devs are going to be able to do a hell of a lot more with games so higher the vram the better end ove. Ryse only requires 660 ti, the evil within requires 670 these games are hardly that demanding just vram hungry.

There has been plenty on moany whiney girls on steam moaning about there 2gb's/3gb's gpu's saying it's the devs fault it's a bad port blah blah. It next gen get over it! it annoys me when they blame someone else because there gpu lacks the requirements. We've been waiting 10 years for games to advance even more and it's finally here.
m
0
l
October 4, 2014 4:09:27 AM

I'm running shadow of mordor on a 770 4gb on ultra just fine, however sometimes the frame rate will dip if running through large open area very fast. 90% of the time though I'm golden. On a side note the 2/3gb vram cards will continue to play games just fine for a while just dont expect tons of those super nice textures. Everyone told me to get a 2gb card 4gb was only 50$ more, but just looking in comparison to consoles and how unoptimized the ports are from them, I was pretty certain things would be getting more memory hungry. Whats funny is that skyrim with tons of visual mods still looks and plays better (fps wise) than this game.
m
0
l
October 5, 2014 4:23:42 PM

A site that interviewed Monolith about the game said in their experience thus far, a single 970 handled Ultra textures OK.

"...the mere existence of this texture pack has led to concern that even high-end, cutting-edge GPUs like the GTX 970 and GTX 980 are already obsolete - even though, based on our initial testing, the hit to the experience isn't really an issue."

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-e...
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 11:01:53 AM

It looks fine on medium/high on my i3 750ti system.
m
0
l
October 6, 2014 2:04:36 PM

Nick Verbeek said:
I aint trolling. Just a question couse those specs are insane. Maybe ur right. Always lower then they are saying.
Anyway thanks for the reply


It is going to be a regular occurance from now on with games that are ported from the new gen consoles, I don't know the full details but it has something to do with the way the ram is controlled on the consoles, The first example was Watch dogs which used more than 3 gb's on max'd settings for 1080p according to tests by Tim Logan on the OC3D site, Games like The Evil Within also have similar high ram requirements. You'll be able to run it on ultra but you'll need to reduce some settings if the ram does go over what you have, An example is a chap on a site I frequent runs a Titan and Mordor uses just over 5 gb's at 1440p.
The problem is the console developed games that are ported are not being optimized properly for PC, It's why I never bought a 970/980, We knew this was coming and it's why I sold my 780 several months ago and bought a 290x, I expected 4 gb's to last longer but alas not so, Now I'm waiting for either a Titan (GK110) replacement or an AMD (Hawaii) replacement before buying again. I was going to crossfire this 290x but there's too many issues with the chip so I'll probably go back to Nvidia once the real high end cards are released.
As for your PC a pair of 970's are a lot faster than any single gpu on the market so you'll be able to easily run any game maxed you'll just have to play with things like AA/Tesselation etc to reduce the ram if it goes over 4 gb's

m
0
l
October 6, 2014 2:13:04 PM

"It is going to be a regular occurance from now on with games that are ported from the new gen consoles..."

Actually that's one of the many misconceptions about this game, it was developed on PC.

"Then obviously there's going to be that boundary where our monster development PCs are running it OK - but why not give people the option to crank it up?"

Source: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-e...

The reasons PC games are requiring more and more VRAM is the graphics in games are advancing, but PCs still do not have unified memory.

Thus the huge texture files have to be dumped in and out of both RAM and VRAM, which causes lag/stutter if your GPU doesn't have much VRAM.

Nvidia is working on solving that problem with their next GPU architecture releasing 2016, code named Pascal. Pascal will have unified memory.

m
0
l
October 7, 2014 12:45:10 AM

Frag Maniac said:


Actually that's one of the many misconceptions about this game, it was developed on PC.

The reasons PC games are requiring more and more VRAM is the graphics in games are advancing, but PCs still do not have unified memory.




First of all every game is developed on PC, The games are not any more advanced there just handling the memory differently due to being developed (on PC) with the new consoles system as it's priority. This is all basic stuff which has been discussed and explained throughout the PC community for some time, If you want to hear it from someone else go to the OC3d You-tube site and watch the video on Watchdogs where it gives a breakdown of what I've said here. Ask yourself why are the games using this unified memory system if the games primary target was PC? Because it was made for console first and that's how memory is used on the newer consoles which it was primarily developed for, PC only games won't have this issue but developers who are writing the games code and developing there titles for consoles are then not completely rewriting the game so that it does not use the ram on the PC, They port it without fully optimizing it to the PC system.

m
0
l
October 7, 2014 1:13:01 AM

cats_Paw said:
Companies are trying to make it look like their games will look better on paper than in reality...
Also, optimization is less important if you can blame the lack of it on some recommended specs that are way crazy.
Its actually a good reason to NOT buy shadow of mordor, as they clearly are trying to hype it to sell (good games dont really need to do that).


No - it makes sense.

Set a package of all the looks and effects you need up - compress it nicely (GPU's can handle the decompression and rendering). Load it to a video card, local to the GPU for it to work from there.

Now the GPU is working straight from its local memory store vs spooling from disk and/or system RAM.

Faster performance with a single load hit at the front end to then render as called upon to do so. No "need this piece.. go get it. need that piece... go get it." It's there in the vRAM.

What has me hacked off:

Modern GPU's can easily render very high quality graphics - NVidia's 600 series on up are all very powerful. It's how fast it can get the stuff to the card and how much the card can store at a time which shifts the differences and most of those are small differences in performance.

Lower price-point 6GB cards started shipping a few months ago - plenty of fanfare about them, etc. Now they're gone. All of them being pulled right as a need for that top capacity is coming out as a prereq to even load the graphics packages.

- It's not a memory shortage or the higher end cards would be scarce.
- It's not a design issue - they existed already.

They were pulled and across all vendors - so the ~$500 range price-point cards are gone and those cards could render HQ images just fine - they just won't load the packages if there isn't enough RAM to do it.

The only cards left with this much capacity are the $1,000+ price tag cards - even though the lower cost cards did exist.

Very odd timing on this and what has me annoyed. "Ok, so go spend $1k+ now". Bullshit.

I'll wait for the costs to come down but there's no way in hell I'd buy a 3GB card anymore no matter the GPU -- it's a trash card if it won't load the top graphics.

Spending thousands on graphics cards... To what: Effectively get lower quality graphics? -- why not crank the look down to low res? Same comparison for "I get good performance".
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 2:21:32 AM

I'd have to agree.. If 4+ gb vram is going to be normal, I'm pretty sure Nvidia and AMD would know about this and probably would have adapted the 900 series for these requirements. Unless they already had started the production when they found out. But not let's not forget that AMD provided what's in the PS4 so they should have a pretty clear view on what those machines can offer compared to a PC GPU. It's only natural to assume they will provide cards that is up to pair with the PS4.

What people is also forgetting is the Ultra HD pack is just a nice feature for people, who have monster cards and are able to utilize the potential. It's actually some real love for high-end PC gamers. You don't need the HD pack for good graphics at all but it's there if you want it and your PC can handle it. It's not for the masses and it was never intended to be.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 9:12:30 AM

running Shadow of Mordor on my 4GB 770 using Ultra HD texture Pack and everything @ highest settings 1080p. looks much better than the High texture setting and runs great.
tried running the Ultra HD Texture Pack on my 1GB 7770 and 2Gb 7870 and both crashed with memory allocation errors over and over. put them down to High texture setting and crashes\memory errors stopped.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 10:21:00 AM

From the tests that have been done it looks like (and I am hoping this is true) that they have actually programmed the game in a way that it utilizes whatever memory you have available as far as the 3GB and up cards go when using the ultra textures pack. If this is the case, it would appear that a game developer actually went the extra mile for PC!!
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 3:06:12 PM

GObonzo said:
running Shadow of Mordor on my 4GB 770 using Ultra HD texture Pack and everything @ highest settings 1080p. looks much better than the High texture setting and runs great.
tried running the Ultra HD Texture Pack on my 1GB 7770 and 2Gb 7870 and both crashed with memory allocation errors over and over. put them down to High texture setting and crashes\memory errors stopped.


Honest question - are you sure its actually loading the Ultra HD Pack?

Someone I know with a 4GB card said it would let him pick the pack but loaded the next step down.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 3:13:45 PM

Mahisse said:
I'd have to agree.. If 4+ gb vram is going to be normal, I'm pretty sure Nvidia and AMD would know about this and probably would have adapted the 900 series for these requirements. Unless they already had started the production when they found out. But not let's not forget that AMD provided what's in the PS4 so they should have a pretty clear view on what those machines can offer compared to a PC GPU. It's only natural to assume they will provide cards that is up to pair with the PS4.

What people is also forgetting is the Ultra HD pack is just a nice feature for people, who have monster cards and are able to utilize the potential. It's actually some real love for high-end PC gamers. You don't need the HD pack for good graphics at all but it's there if you want it and your PC can handle it. It's not for the masses and it was never intended to be.


I'm less interested/concerned about a 1-time game situation. The "first in" is what I'm looking at - first one trending for more games like it and more and more... That's the usual on any kind of "you'll need more to do this" with respect to computers.

With several other games coming out of the next few months wanting 4GB - this one having a 6GB option up front... How soon do you plan on upgrading your video again? and again... and again...

That's the part I'm looking at. I like the card I get to last a while - driver issues, etc. So I tend to buy higher-end units but with some miles on that model so I know they work well and are reliable. (GTX 780 series being very reliable and excellent quality -- until these vRAM changes... and the 6GB cards disappearing...)

So this game? That game? But a few? ... That's not something to ignore and this one is starting at 6GB (which with respect to the GTX 780 series was about $50 more than 3GB). If that's something we'll see across the next year, that's something to watch out for if you like higher end quality graphics.
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 4:30:43 PM

all stalked out said:
First of all every game is developed on PC...


LOL, that is SOOO not true.

m
0
l
October 7, 2014 5:50:35 PM

Eleazaros said:
GObonzo said:
running Shadow of Mordor on my 4GB 770 using Ultra HD texture Pack and everything @ highest settings 1080p. looks much better than the High texture setting and runs great.
tried running the Ultra HD Texture Pack on my 1GB 7770 and 2Gb 7870 and both crashed with memory allocation errors over and over. put them down to High texture setting and crashes\memory errors stopped.


Honest question - are you sure its actually loading the Ultra HD Pack?

Someone I know with a 4GB card said it would let him pick the pack but loaded the next step down.

"looks much better than the High texture setting"
m
0
l
October 7, 2014 6:49:23 PM

I'm running on ultra on a 3 monitor setup in 56**x1080 on 780 ti sli setup. No dips, no problems
m
0
l
October 9, 2014 4:47:58 AM

I currently get 102avg on full ultra in 1080p with my specs. I also get 73avg with full ultra in 1080p w/ the rendering at 150% or 2880x1620. This is in the benchmark just to be clear. I have a video to prove this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3UZqsJjDEM&list=UUpn5W.... Your gpu should get 73avg on full ultra in 1080p in this game.
My rig specs:
i7 5820k 4.5ghz
16gb 2666mhz Gskill Ripjaws 4
2x 280x Powercolor Turboduo@1100mhz
Msi x99s Sli Plus
Corsair H100i
Asus Xonar Essence Stx
128gb Samsung 840 Evo
1tb Seagate Barracuda 7200rpm
Cooler Master Haf XM
Evga Supernova 1300w g2
Windows 8.1 64bit
m
0
l
October 9, 2014 6:12:53 AM

Frag Maniac said:
all stalked out said:
First of all every game is developed on PC...

LOL, that is SOOO not true.


Everyone knows that Halo 3 was coded on an Xbox360, they hooked up a keyboard and everything.

Every game was developed on PC, maybe not for PC though. The software that exists in a smartwatch definitely wasn't coded using the device itself, even though the software wouldn't run on a PC outside of an emulator.

m
0
l
October 11, 2014 8:56:17 AM

Hmmmm.... I get 60fps all day on Max settings. with a Fx8350 and a GTX 770 4GB @ 1080p. Dont know what this HD pack is though. Will look when I get home. SLI doesn't work for this game otherwise I would have it on. The game has some bugs they need to work out. Lightning for example creates rainbow colors on the ground and random FPS drops.
m
0
l
October 11, 2014 11:44:37 AM

Yup! Just ran this game on Ultra settings and textures with on a single GTX770 4Gb card with 100 fps @ 1080p. Dont know what you guys are smoking. This game is fantastic!
m
0
l
18 minutes ago

You guys seriously need to understand the difference between using VRAM and requiring VRAM. Some guy posts a VRAM usage of 5.5GB at ultra and suddenly the game requires that amount. This is not how it works. This is not how any of this works.

As many have seen already, this title can be run over 60fps at maximum settings on a GTX 970. So what happened to the requirement?

Well, it turns out it wasn't a requirement. It turns out that, since the video card in which some guy ran the game had 6GB of VRAM, it used it. It turns out the driver is smart enough to cache as much data as it possibly can, to make use of that resource. But it also turns out that those last 2GB of cache are hardly needed as data can be read from disk/RAM while the game works on the 4GB available to other video cards, which is more than enough.

In short, if you have a lot of VRAM, it only makes sense to cache as much as you can. This doesn't make it a requirement in any way.

This is very much alike the way windows pre-caches stuff to RAM. When this feature came up (superfetch), people saw RAM usage skyrocket and things like "windows vista requires 16GB ram" were said all over. Turns out it worked perfectly with 4GB, but would cache another 12 if you gave it to the OS, because, well... because it could.

Basically, stop comparing RAM usage (which is worthless information) and start comparing performance.
m
0
l
!