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

Reality said:
yeah i ran the benchmark and was like "why is it running so poorly with these visuals"

the performance doesn't match the graphics
Click to expand...

Ultra stays at 60 for me (with the exception of textures which can cause stuttering), doesn't really seem to run poorly at all.
 
Ive settled on all ultra save textures on high and motion blur off at 150% scaling, its smooth
 
I am looking forward to this game getting benchmarked by some of the major tech websites. Techspot, Toms, and here of course!
 
With ambient occlusion on medium everything else on ultra (textures too) at 3840x2160 I'm getting 70fps in the benchmark.
 
pandora's box said:
With ambient occlusion on medium everything else on ultra (textures too) at 3840x2160 I'm getting 70fps in the benchmark.
Click to expand...
Sorry to ask a stupid question and maybe this has already been mentioned but did you actually download and install the HD texture pack? It does not already come in the game yet it will show the Ultra option anyway so many people think they have Ultra textures on when really they dont.
 
pandora's box said:
With ambient occlusion on medium everything else on ultra (textures too) at 3840x2160 I'm getting 70fps in the benchmark.
Click to expand...

I assume you have the ultra textures installed (optional download)? Ultra and High are the same setting without them.
 
Running a Titan on a 1920x1200 monitor: ultra with the HD pack I hit 5.9 GB used on the video card while playing.

Plays smooth.
 
canon.tk said:
Running a Titan on a 1920x1200 monitor: ultra with the HD pack I hit 5.9 GB used on the video card while playing.

Plays smooth.
Click to expand...

May I ask if you can take some screenshots of Ultra HD texture and just plain Ultra? Curious if it makes a difference in visuals.

Thx!
 
So I decided to overclock my reference R9 290 to see what difference overclocking would make in the game's benchmark tool using the Ultra HD textures.

947 core 1250 mem. 85 fps avg.
1025 core 1300 mem 86 fps avg.
1040 core 1325 mem 87 fps avg.

Does this mean that I am "VRAM limited"?
 
cageymaru said:
So I decided to overclock my reference R9 290 to see what difference overclocking would make in the game's benchmark tool using the Ultra HD textures.

947 core 1250 mem. 85 fps avg.
1025 core 1300 mem 86 fps avg.
1040 core 1325 mem 87 fps avg.

Does this mean that I am "VRAM limited"?
Click to expand...
I would guess maybe cpu limited...
 
cageymaru said:
So I decided to overclock my reference R9 290 to see what difference overclocking would make in the game's benchmark tool using the Ultra HD textures.

947 core 1250 mem. 85 fps avg.
1025 core 1300 mem 86 fps avg.
1040 core 1325 mem 87 fps avg.

Does this mean that I am "VRAM limited"?
Click to expand...

Possibly? Also potentially CPU limited. One thing I noticed is that when you start going over the VRAM size in this game it does seem to do a reasonably job of swapping from system memory, the framerate doesn't completely go off a cliff like some titles. However when I blew past the vram barrier by rendering the game beyond 4K using DSR my GPU usage actually went down presumably because it was waiting on the memory side of thing.
 
Game seems to use all 8 cores looking at my Afterburner logs. If I increase the resolution it gives the same type of results; just at a much lower fps.
 
Kor said:
Possibly? Also potentially CPU limited. One thing I noticed is that when you start going over the VRAM size in this game it does seem to do a reasonably job of swapping from system memory, the framerate doesn't completely go off a cliff like some titles. However when I blew past the vram barrier by rendering the game beyond 4K using DSR my GPU usage actually went down presumably because it was waiting on the memory side of thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, when I go over the VRAM requirements @1080p my pagefile increases from 3GB to 11GB+. As soon as I end the benchmark and exit the game, my pagefile shrinks back to the 3GB - 4GB range instantaneously. I like the way that they handle the framerate when the VRAM is overextended. As shown above my fps doesn't alter in the slightest. I wonder if I had 16GB of ram would that help it swap textures better?
 
Still haven't seen any pictures or videos which make me think that this game justifiably requires 6gb of VRAM. The graphics look serviceable, but not stellar when compared to the likes of BF4, Crysis 3, Sleeping Dogs, Arkham City, etc.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Still haven't seen any pictures or videos which make me think that this game justifiably requires 6gb of VRAM. The graphics look serviceable, but not stellar when compared to the likes of BF4, Crysis 3, Sleeping Dogs, Arkham City, etc.
Click to expand...

I think part of that has to do with the fact that well... the game is set in Mordor. It's not exactly lush with vegetation in the fiction :p

From a technology standpoint I'd say it's much more accomplished than Arkham or Sleeping Dogs.
 
cageymaru said:
Yes, when I go over the VRAM requirements @1080p my pagefile increases from 3GB to 11GB+. As soon as I end the benchmark and exit the game, my pagefile shrinks back to the 3GB - 4GB range instantaneously. I like the way that they handle the framerate when the VRAM is overextended. As shown above my fps doesn't alter in the slightest. I wonder if I had 16GB of ram would that help it swap textures better?
Click to expand...

Dumb Q: would ram speed in this case help with frames at all if you hit the vram wall? Or would latency matter more here?

Maybe someone should do a test comparing how the game runs with a vram limited card when ram is set to 1600MHz vs 2400MHz for example.
 
n=1 said:
Dumb Q: would ram speed in this case help with frames at all if you hit the vram wall? Or would latency matter more here?

Maybe someone should do a test comparing how the game runs with a vram limited card when ram is set to 1600MHz vs 2400MHz for example.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... maybe later.
 
What would be interesting is to test PCIe bandwidth differences. While PCIe bandwidth tests haven't shown much of an impact, after a certain baseline, of impacting GPU performance significantly I'm wondering if they do impact cases (and how much so) in cases like this if you were to need to do a large data (texture) swap between the GPU and system.
 
is ultra texture an addon? an optional download?
is there someone with a 4GB card able to play the game smooth on ultra texture?
 
sblantipodi said:
is ultra texture an addon? an optional download?
is there someone with a 4GB card able to play the game smooth on ultra texture?
Click to expand...

Yes its an addon.

My 290x at stock clocks pushes out 92fps avg in the benchmark with everything maxed out on ultra with the HD pack installed.
CPU is a 2500K @ 4.5GHz, around 50% utilised on all cores.

In game it is very smooth with a very occasional momentary stutter that doesnt bother me at all.
The stutter seems to be related to texture loading for an area.
I play with vsync on @ 60Hz.

During battles I dont notice any issues at all.

I had to set my swap file to system managed because it used up my 8GB and gave an error.
But it doesnt seem to be a detriment to gameplay, so I'm very happy.


forgot to say 1080p res.
 
Last edited:
n=1 said:
Dumb Q: would ram speed in this case help with frames at all if you hit the vram wall? Or would latency matter more here?

Maybe someone should do a test comparing how the game runs with a vram limited card when ram is set to 1600MHz vs 2400MHz for example.
Click to expand...

I have an AMD FX-9370 processor. While Intel processors typically don't scale well off memory speed, the FX series from AMD does. With that said I purchased a 1866MHz kit as it is the minimum speed that you should run with an AMD processor. My kit can't be overclocked as I discovered later that it is actually 1333MHz memory that has been binned for 1866MHz speeds. So basically that's all the speed that I'll ever get out of the kit as it's a factory overclock.
 
Nenu said:
Yes its an addon.

My 290x at stock clocks pushes out 92fps avg in the benchmark with everything maxed out on ultra with the HD pack installed.
CPU is a 2500K @ 4.5GHz, around 50% utilised on all cores.

In game it is very smooth with a very occasional momentary stutter that doesnt bother me at all.
The stutter seems to be related to texture loading for an area.
I play with vsync on @ 60Hz.

During battles I dont notice any issues at all.

I had to set my swap file to system managed because it used up my 8GB and gave an error.
But it doesnt seem to be a detriment to gameplay, so I'm very happy.


forgot to say 1080p res.
Click to expand...
I turned the textures down to High and there is no more hitches or "loading" time throughout all the areas I ran to. It runs seamless, which is nice for a quasi-open world like this game has. I don't really notice any difference between High and Ultra anyway. I'd rather have some AA options, but DSR works with this game so I've settled on downsampling from 1440p to 1080p. Performance hit was negligible and the game looks a lot better with reduced jaggies. 4k was too much of a hit to performance with 970 SLI. I'd like to keep framerate in the triple digits to take advantage of my monitor.
 
Armenius said:
I turned the textures down to High and there is no more hitches or "loading" time throughout all the areas I ran to. It runs seamless, which is nice for a quasi-open world like this game has. I don't really notice any difference between High and Ultra anyway. I'd rather have some AA options, but DSR works with this game so I've settled on downsampling from 1440p to 1080p. Performance hit was negligible and the game looks a lot better with reduced jaggies. 4k was too much of a hit to performance with 970 SLI. I'd like to keep framerate in the triple digits to take advantage of my monitor.
Click to expand...

is the ultra pack an official pack?
where can I download it?
is there a big difference between high and ultra?
 
sblantipodi said:
is the ultra pack an official pack?
where can I download it?
is there a big difference between high and ultra?
Click to expand...

yes, its official and ultra setting require to download it in order to work.. without the pack the game will work with high textures even if you select "ultra"
 
cageymaru said:
I downloaded the HD texture pack before I ever fired up the game for the first time.
Click to expand...

Same here but a friend was here who played it without.
He said that during normal play he couldnt see a difference but the cutscenes are better.
 
I'm running the game off a single EVGA GTX 970 SC at stock speeds @ 1080p with ultra textures and there is very little slowdown in the game. Besides ultra textures, I have all other settings to their highest setting as well. On occasion it will stutter for just a moment but I think it's as I move from area to area only. I plan on going to high textures next time I play to see if there is much visual quality difference or performance difference.
 
Nenu said:
Same here but a friend was here who played it without.
He said that during normal play he couldn't see a difference but the cut scenes are better.
Click to expand...

What we need are some Titan Ultra vs Ultra HD screenshots from the same spot on the map. Or we need the [H]ardocp crew to beat the game and do a review or gather enough data to do a nice preview like they did with Watch Dogs.

:)
 
cageymaru said:
What we need are some Titan Ultra vs Ultra HD screenshots from the same spot on the map. Or we need the [H]ardocp crew to beat the game and do a review or gather enough data to do a nice preview like they did with Watch Dogs.

:)
Click to expand...
I don't think this game was even on [H]'s radar. There wasn't a lot of hype behind it beyond that manufactured by the gaming press. But it does seem to be quite popular, so maybe they'll do an IQ review on it in the future. Would love to see some 4k analysis done between Ultra and High by their brilliant minds ;).
 
235 posts in the video card section and 321 more posts in the PC Gaming section. My crystal ball sez that a review is incoming. ;)
 
cageymaru said:
235 posts in the video card section and 321 more posts in the PC Gaming section. My crystal ball sez that a review is incoming. ;)
Click to expand...

they test the overvalued Watch dogs.. this isn't hard to add to the Game review Suites i would take it over watch dogs anytime.. =D.. they test Assassins creed and also batman.. why not Shadow of mordor? ;) i can see the review incoming too.. =D..
 
cageymaru said:
Ultra vs Ultra HD
Click to expand...

Again, if you don't have the ultra pack installed, there is no ultra. It's just high. Yes, the option is available, but without the pack, it just loads the high textures.
 
Parja said:
Again, if you don't have the ultra pack installed, there is no ultra. It's just high. Yes, the option is available, but without the pack, it just loads the high textures.
Click to expand...
Also, if you bother to read the tooltip that is included in the game, it says explicitly that you need to optional texture pack for Ultra.
 
Parja said:
Again, if you don't have the ultra pack installed, there is no ultra. It's just high. Yes, the option is available, but without the pack, it just loads the high textures.
Click to expand...

So how do you install it then? I thought that you just "bought" the HD textures DLC, which initiated a 3.7GB download separate from the game download, and then it was installed. In my DLC properties for the game it says that I have installed and that they are enabled. What you are saying is that they are NOT installed this way. That I am doing it wrong.

So I need to do what else to get them on my PC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top