Prepare to cry: 6GB of VRAM for Ultra, 1080p for Shadow of Mordor

[amdfangirl]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=901841

Hopefully this is a new trend. Really excited about games pushing the graphical limits again! (Looking at you Star Citizen). Wondering what kind of performance/VRAM we'll need to run GTA 5... hmm...

I think I might be regretting my 2GB GTX 660...

Just a little

 

[rmark45matsu]

So much for people saying 2 gb of vram is enough lol xD

 

[Mouldread]

If you didn't notice there is a note there:

Ultra only differs from from High if ULTRA HD pack is installed - Ultra HD - AKA 4K.

For High you only need 3GB of memory and I'm pretty sure you can get away with 2GB just fine. Of course you would expect higher VRAM requirements for 4K textures.

 

[amdfangirl]

If you didn't notice there is a note there:

Ultra only differs from from High if ULTRA HD pack is installed - Ultra HD - AKA 4K.

For High you only need 3GB of memory and I'm pretty sure you can get away with 2GB just fine. Of course you would expect higher VRAM requirements for 4K textures.

3GB is still alot.

I'm wondering whether this is MSAA or just really detailed textures...

Because you don't really get 4K textures per-se. 4K is a resolution... not really tied to texture detail. More of a vague marketing term.

 

[clueless77]

If you didn't notice there is a note there:

Ultra only differs from from High if ULTRA HD pack is installed - Ultra HD - AKA 4K.

For High you only need 3GB of memory and I'm pretty sure you can get away with 2GB just fine. Of course you would expect higher VRAM requirements for 4K textures.

And outta all the people who play games at 4k resolutions, what percentage of those people are actually using Titans or some other strange variation of a GTX? 6gb for 4k textures just seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. I'm not saying it wont happen at some point, but from what I know there hasn't even been a middle ground yet.

 

[Mouldread]

I'm not sure what are you trying to say. It's an optional Ultra HD texture pack which you can download. I never said you had to play it on a 4K resolution monitor.

 

[renz496]

we need another crysis. where top end single gpu only capable of running medium setting at 30FPS. and take a few generation after that to run high setting at stable 60FPS

 

[clueless77]

What I'm trying to say is that the 4k textures would be optimal for 4k resolutions, and that out of all the people who would want to play this game to its maximum potential that Titan owners or 6gb TI owners and such would be a small percentage of them. This would lead one to presume this game or the optional textures themselves are poorly optimized when there hasn't even been a middle ground and therefore should not be accepted as a standard were things start to trend that way, which is what some of the discussions that have been taking place around this have consisted of.

 

[Mouldread]

Sorry clueless77 I was talking to amdfangirl.

And you roughly proved my point - the "oh so scary 6GB" requirement is only for some people with more money than sense.

 

[amdfangirl]

What I'm trying to say is that the 4k textures would be optimal for 4k resolutions, and that out of all the people who would want to play this game to its maximum potential that Titan owners or 6gb TI owners and such would be a small percentage of them. This would lead one to presume this game or the optional textures themselves are poorly optimized when there hasn't even been a middle ground and therefore should not be accepted as a standard were things start to trend that way, which is what some of the discussions that have been taking place around this have consisted of.

Well the game clearly has these requirements pegged at 1080p. I'm wondering what they mean by Ultra HD, because there's nothing stopping you from using extra-detailed assets in a 1080p game.

Or is this a form of supersampling, where they draw it as a 4k resolution and downscale for 1080p to explain the performance impact.

I guess what I'm saying is that extra-detailed textures should make the picture look better at 1080p anyway, so it doesn't make so much sense to call them 4k textures? More detailed textures, maybe? There's nothing 4K about them.

 

[clueless77]

^

Modders for Skyrim, even if it's an older game which makes it almost incommensurable, made "ultra HD texture" packs that were easily playable at 1080p and 4gb's could comfortably run the texture packs and I'd assume 3gb's could too. From messing around with supersampling and downsampling at 1080p/1440p/4k, I get more of a performance hit and higher vram usage with downsampling as opposed to in-game SSAA, although I couldn't possibly imagine that any game with downsampled/supersampled textures would require 6gb's at 1080p or even native at 4k with the current levels of detail.

Some people are always eager to adopt new standards and I don't necessarily have anything against that, but this is ridiculous if development studios ever try to generalize this without fully utilizing current tech. Funnily enough, a lot of people are unhappy with the often intentional tick/tock types of innovation within the tech industry, but this right here would be bad for most consumers who use PC tech for gaming and jumping the gun while at it.

 

[clueless77]

So messing around a little with one 980:

Skyrim with Bethesda HD texture packs at 4k DSR and ultra settings in outdoor environment = 2800 mb, solid 60fps.

Tomb Raider 4k at 4x SSAA and ultra settings including TressFX in outdoor environment = 3500 mb, utterly horrible framerate, around maybe 15 fps minimum. But still, is anyone running a playable 4k with 4x+ MSAA or SSAA as of yet?

Lol, 1080p 6gb? I realize downsampling isn't displaying these resolutions at native but the performance impact is the same as displaying ultra HD in native, and more of an impact than supersampling at it. Also, please don't interpret my posts as hostility towards OP but a rejection of an inefficient use of resources that affects the people who buy these products, both games and PC tech. From the way some of the discussions have been going, some people would easily and uncritically accept 6gb vram as being a new standard for ultra and 1080p at that, supersampling or not. It'd be kinda like Sony making a PS5 next year, nobody wants that, not even Sony.

 

[amdfangirl]

So messing around a little with one 980:

Skyrim with Bethesda HD texture packs at 4k DSR and ultra settings in outdoor environment = 2800 mb, solid 60fps.

Tomb Raider 4k at 4x SSAA and ultra settings including TressFX in outdoor environment = 3500 mb, utterly horrible framerate, around maybe 15 fps minimum. But still, is anyone running a playable 4k with 4x+ MSAA or SSAA as of yet?

Lol, 1080p 6gb? I realize downsampling isn't displaying these resolutions at native but the performance impact is the same as displaying ultra HD in native, and more of an impact than supersampling at it. Also, please don't interpret my posts as hostility towards OP but a rejection of an inefficient use of resources that affects the people who buy these products, both games and PC tech. From the way some of the discussions have been going, some people would easily and uncritically accept 6gb vram as being a new standard for ultra and 1080p at that, supersampling or not. It'd be kinda like Sony making a PS5 next year, nobody wants that, not even Sony.

I'm in the same boat trying to figure out how/why it's given such a high requirement...

 

[caj]

Proab if higher msaa or if supersampling is enabled jus like bf4 to output it baq from a 2k to look like a 4k at 1080p else 3 gb should suffice.

 

[clueless77]

I'm in the same boat trying to figure out how/why it's given such a high requirement...

Well, people more technically savvy about these things than I am say it's probably poor compression techniques and the way the textures are compiled or cached, as of today I guess some people were seeing around 6 gb's of vram usage. One thing I'm certain of is that I don't want see this become a trend as a standard because a half assed port Nvidia'd to the max known as Watch Dogs set a precedent for horrible optimization for good hardware, which is completely apart from it being a terribly generic and boring game that one would come to expect from Ubisoft. That latter part is of course just my opinion, lol.

 

[cowboydude99]

I just played this on 1080p @45fps on a 7970 of to 1175mhz and 1550mhz (ram).

It was fine using the hd ultra pack. I only played about 30 minutes though.