• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Shadow or Mordor To Require 6GB of VRAM @ 1080p for Ultra Textures

dmonkey said:
Xizer, what are you going on about, man? :confused: Combining VRAM? 4K downsampling being standard?
Click to expand...

Seriously. 4K downsampling and SSAA (or Nvidia's fancy new name for ancient tech: DSR) are horrendously wasteful uses of processing power. They are not "the standard" at 1080p for anyone who wants solid frames without SLI in modern games.

I'll keep my 120 FPS 1080p gaming experience with SMAA and a few texture mods if necessary, thanks.
 
Interesting discussion, made me have a look at what my system can do. I mostly run X Plane 10 in 8080x1600 resolution. I can turn al the rendering options up to the highest setting and get 30fps with 680sli. If I turn AA and AF both to 16 I'm still getting 30fps (mem use is 960meg). Even at these high AA and AF setting do I still have shimmering in the distance. Where it get's interesting is HDR rendering. Max is 8xSSAA+FXAA. This setting is a no go. Now I just simplified things to 2560x1600. Still no go. 4xSSAA+FXAA, nope. Turned the resolution down to 1280x800. Now it works. Upped back to 8xSSAA+FXAA. If I make the res 2560X800 it runs 26fps and no shimmering whatsoever. When I go 2560 by1200 we crawl down to 1.5fps and mem use of 1750meg. Conclusion. I have a perfect, non distance shimmering, experience at 2560x 800! Beautifull as long as I throw 5 sixth of my resolution in the trash. Clearly I'm running out of memory at the HDR settings at 8080x1600 so until I get two 980ti with 8gb no ulra anything for me.
 
Bismo Funyuns said:
Oh, many thanks for clarifying this. Just to confirm, on cards with two GPUs, such as Titan and R9 295x2, etc., we are able to make use all of the VRAM in the sense that the second GPU's VRAM is not mirrored?
Click to expand...

No. You only have the effective memory of one card since the frame buffer is duplicated. No way around it.
 
Bigc208 said:
Interesting discussion, made me have a look at what my system can do. I mostly run X Plane 10 in 8080x1600 resolution. I can turn al the rendering options up to the highest setting and get 30fps with 680sli. If I turn AA and AF both to 16 I'm still getting 30fps (mem use is 960meg). Even at these high AA and AF setting do I still have shimmering in the distance. Where it get's interesting is HDR rendering. Max is 8xSSAA+FXAA. This setting is a no go. Now I just simplified things to 2560x1600. Still no go. 4xSSAA+FXAA, nope. Turned the resolution down to 1280x800. Now it works. Upped back to 8xSSAA+FXAA. If I make the res 2560X800 it runs 26fps and no shimmering whatsoever. When I go 2560 by1200 we crawl down to 1.5fps and mem use of 1750meg. Conclusion. I have a perfect, non distance shimmering, experience at 2560x 800! Beautifull as long as I throw 5 sixth of my resolution in the trash. Clearly I'm running out of memory at the HDR settings at 8080x1600 so until I get two 980ti with 8gb no ulra anything for me.
Click to expand...

Do you have 4GB GTX 680's? It sounds like they're 2GB.
 
Parja said:
No. You only have the effective memory of one card since the frame buffer is duplicated. No way around it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Parja, you just saved me from making a rather expensive mistake.

I had no idea about this. So if I see a Titan Black 6GB for sale on newegg, it can only effectively make use of 3GB VRAM - essentially I should consider these cards with dual GPUs as if they only have half the VRAM advertised?
 
Bismo Funyuns said:
Thanks Parja, you just saved me from making a rather expensive mistake.

I had no idea about this. So if I see a Titan Black 6GB for sale on newegg, it can only effectively make use of 3GB VRAM - essentially I should consider these cards with dual GPUs as if they only have half the VRAM advertised?
Click to expand...

Titan Black's are single GPU's. But generally yes, any dual GPU card take the amount of memory reported on the box and halve it to get the effective memory pool size.
 
6GB of vRAM at 1080p? Yeah the lazy, incompetent, uselesss devs can go fuck themselves. Let's not kid ourselves this is no Crysis 3, and even if it was it shouldn't "require" 6GB of vRAM at 1080p period.
 
anonmoniker said:
Take a shower and wash the sand out of your panties bro. You knew the specs of the card when you bought it and chose to buy a card with only 4GB even though 6GB cards have been out for years. Stop blaming the reviewers and start blaming yourself. You had all specs right in front of you. The pricing of the 980 is positioned as a mid-range card and mid-range can't always max every game. You got what you paid for. If you wanted a high-end card, you should have waited longer and been prepared to spend a bit more. Try not to be too upset that my years old Titans will be rocking ultra textures while you struggle around with "high."
Click to expand...


550 dollars is the new mid range now, god help us all
 
tybert7 said:
550 dollars is the new mid range now, god help us all
Click to expand...

I've refused to make the mental shift that $550 is not the top-end of the spectrum, and anything else to me is a "special edition" card meant for people with more money than brains similar to the 7800 GTX 512. It's really a shame nV's model has shifted to sitting on a single architecture for 3 years and charging such a premium to tack on a few more cores and vram chips.

There's just no way I'm spending more than $550 on a single card which is why I'm going to have a real dillemma when the 980 ti is released.

Hopefully, AMD will come with something interesting that at least bests 980 at ultra-high resolution i.e. more vram, bandwidth.
 
Yeah, well sorry to displease the bringers of vram doom, but I got to see the game at a friends. @1080 with the ultra textures and setup similar to mine (i5 3570k crossfired 7950). The game run great. I didn't really see a number but it seemed like 50-60fps to my eye.

So, no. 6gb ain't needed. Not yet, and not for this one.
 
sblantipodi said:
how can a GTX980 max out this game if it requires 6GB of VRAM?
Click to expand...

If I tell you that e.g. Tomb Raider requires 8gb of vram, will you be able to run it? I mean, without altering anything, as the game is right now.

6gb is an extreme overstatement and I base that after actually seeing the game in action. Actually seen it being played by a person with two 3gb 7950 cards. Ultra settings. It was FINE.

EDIT: SLI does not add vram of one card on top of the other's vram. The closest thing to that known -to me- is crossfire when a game supports mantle. Then the vram of both cards can be used independently.
 
We have some reports in from the game thread in the gaming sections regarding VRAM usage (as well as graphics demands) -

Using a GTX 670 4gb -
Johnked6 said:
Downloaded ultra texture pack (make sure to restart game after you set it to ultra) and my benchmark is still 64 fps. My vram usage went from 3gb(high) to 4gb(ultra). Gameplay is just as smooth as high. Graphics do seem better but I didn't take any screenshots.
Click to expand...
Johnked6 said:
1080p, everything maxed except no motion blur and ambient occlusion to medium. No stuttering.
Click to expand...

Monitored VRAM amounts -
DPI said:
High: 2365 MB
Ultra: 3550 MB
Click to expand...

My theory (guess) was that the requirements (jump) was just related to a qualification issue. Basically they probably (and this isn't really unexpected as it comes to the PC side) only tested on a limited permutation of hardware configurations while building in a margin of error (eg. 3gb was not enough, so the next jump up was 6gb). Or there are some really demanding sections of the game at some point :p
 
sblantipodi said:
how can a GTX980 max out this game if it requires 6GB of VRAM?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't require 6GB of VRAM. Seems the developers were vastly overestimating the requirements. On my 3GB 780 with the Ultra texture pack downloaded and everything at max (except motion blur because I hate motion blur) @ 1920x1080 the benchmark average is 62FPS. If I used the game's built in downsampling to push the resolution it renders at significantly higher I would have a problem, but I have no intention of doing that this morning.
 
I've always thought that games should offer settings that cannot be run by current gen hardware. This may give me one more incentive to revisit the game a couple of years down the road. Seeing how great Skyrim can look with all the mods (though they can't help the god-awful animations) on modern hardware is an example. Or the Fakefactory mod of Half-Life 2.

But gamers can be bitchy. Especially those with high end hardware. Because they want their $500 GPU to be able to run most every game on max details. But they'll also complain if games aren't taxing enough so people with $300 GPUs can run them on max details.
 
timmay said:
I've always thought that games should offer settings that cannot be run by current gen hardware. This may give me one more incentive to revisit the game a couple of years down the road. Seeing how great Skyrim can look with all the mods (though they can't help the god-awful animations) on modern hardware is an example. Or the Fakefactory mod of Half-Life 2.

But gamers can be bitchy. Especially those with high end hardware. Because they want their $500 GPU to be able to run most every game on max details. But they'll also complain if games aren't taxing enough so people with $300 GPUs can run them on max details.
Click to expand...

They would rather release "HD" "remasters", unless they're out to make a name for themselves like Crytek.
 
limitedaccess said:
We have some reports in from the game thread in the gaming sections regarding VRAM usage (as well as graphics demands) -

Using a GTX 670 4gb -



Monitored VRAM amounts -


My theory (guess) was that the requirements (jump) was just related to a qualification issue. Basically they probably (and this isn't really unexpected as it comes to the PC side) only tested on a limited permutation of hardware configurations while building in a margin of error (eg. 3gb was not enough, so the next jump up was 6gb). Or there are some really demanding sections of the game at some point :p
Click to expand...

Your theory would stand if 3gb was not enough. Only, as someone else already stated (and I also stated twice already) and by my experience 3gb vram IS enough. I didn't measure the vram usage but I did see it being played and played a bit myself on 3gb vram and it was running perfectly fine. Like 60fps give or take fine. Plus, how come the next jump up is 6gb? There are plenty 4gb cards and only one (or two?) 6gb. Hell, the newest cards are 4gb (so far). So, by your logic, the next-next logical jump up will be 12gb?

Now on to the next person who goes WTS 980/970/whatever.
 
Stardusted said:
If I tell you that e.g. Tomb Raider requires 8gb of vram, will you be able to run it? I mean, without altering anything, as the game is right now.

6gb is an extreme overstatement and I base that after actually seeing the game in action. Actually seen it being played by a person with two 3gb 7950 cards. Ultra settings. It was FINE.

EDIT: SLI does not add vram of one card on top of the other's vram. The closest thing to that known -to me- is crossfire when a game supports mantle. Then the vram of both cards can be used independently.
Click to expand...

no were developers written that tomb rider requires 8GB of VRAM
 
Stardusted said:
Please quit trolling or learn to read. Either way you underperform.
Click to expand...

can you explain this? I'm not understanding.
as far as I know no one ever saied that TombRider requires 8GB of VRAM
but someone wrote that SOM requires 6GB of VRAM.
 
Stardusted said:
Your theory would stand if 3gb was not enough. Only, as someone else already stated (and I also stated twice already) and by my experience 3gb vram IS enough. I didn't measure the vram usage but I did see it being played and played a bit myself on 3gb vram and it was running perfectly fine. Like 60fps give or take fine. Plus, how come the next jump up is 6gb? There are plenty 4gb cards and only one (or two?) 6gb. Hell, the newest cards are 4gb (so far). So, by your logic, the next-next logical jump up will be 12gb?

Now on to the next person who goes WTS 980/970/whatever.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned you may want to qualify for a margin of error/cushion. VRAM is actually consumed aside from the game and it may vary depending on the user/system. If you look at minimum requirements for games for example they are often playable below whats listed.

They won't test for every single hardware permutation. You also need to consider that for Nvidia 4gb was not available in a base configuration until the 970/980. As such if you were to suggest and test from an Nvidia hardware perspective 3gb -> 6gb would be how it would have worked out.

Aside from a qualification related issue why would you suspect they, at one point anyways, had a listed suggestion of 6gb VRAM?
 
Derangel said:
Because it doesn't require 6GB of VRAM. Seems the developers were vastly overestimating the requirements. On my 3GB 780 with the Ultra texture pack downloaded and everything at max (except motion blur because I hate motion blur) @ 1920x1080 the benchmark average is 62FPS. If I used the game's built in downsampling to push the resolution it renders at significantly higher I would have a problem, but I have no intention of doing that this morning.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post. I'm going to be running the game very close to your configuration. I'm glad to know this.
 
limitedaccess said:
Like I mentioned you may want to qualify for a margin of error/cushion. VRAM is actually consumed aside from the game and it may vary depending on the user/system. If you look at minimum requirements for games for example they are often playable below whats listed.

They won't test for every single hardware permutation. You also need to consider that for Nvidia 4gb was not available in a base configuration until the 970/980. As such if you were to suggest and test from an Nvidia hardware perspective 3gb -> 6gb would be how it would have worked out.

Aside from a qualification related issue why would you suspect they, at one point anyways, had a listed suggestion of 6gb VRAM?
Click to expand...

Hmm yes that makes sense I guess. I will run the game on my own system tonight and will post results considering vram usage and performance (I also own 2x 7950).
 
Derangel said:
Because it doesn't require 6GB of VRAM. Seems the developers were vastly overestimating the requirements. On my 3GB 780 with the Ultra texture pack downloaded and everything at max (except motion blur because I hate motion blur) @ 1920x1080 the benchmark average is 62FPS. If I used the game's built in downsampling to push the resolution it renders at significantly higher I would have a problem, but I have no intention of doing that this morning.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the only difference between High and Ultra was the downsampling setting rendering at 4k using the higher res textures from the Ultra texture pack, no?
 
Last edited:
I am running at 2560x1600 and it runs pretty much exactly the same in both High and Ultra texture modes. I can't tell the difference in either FPS or in Image Quality. If there is a difference its subtle, I don't think anyone could really tell the difference especially when playing IMHO.
 
My GTX 970 oced +150/+500 is getting benchmark score of 90 average FPS and minimum of 60 on ultra at 1920X1200
 
Last edited:
Armenius said:
There is no profile from NVIDIA for this game yet. You can try creating a custom profile and forcing any one of the many AFR profiles in the drivers.
Click to expand...

I'm so back logged on games I think I'll add it to my wish list and grab it when it goes on sale, hopefully there will be a Sli profile then.
 
I got this game, and all I can say is the textures look like absolute unfiltered morning-after-taco-night ass on the medium setting (which is what I get with my measly R9 270). The gameplay is fun as hell though, which makes up for it. Once I get a better GPU I'll try higher settings as I'm already only hitting 46-50fps on medium at 1080p.
 
LigTasm said:
I got this game, and all I can say is the textures look like absolute unfiltered morning-after-taco-night ass on the medium setting (which is what I get with my measly R9 270). The gameplay is fun as hell though, which makes up for it. Once I get a better GPU I'll try higher settings as I'm already only hitting 46-50fps on medium at 1080p.
Click to expand...

textures have 0 effect on performance. the only thing limiting you is vram.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top