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

Xizer said:
PC Gamer master race.
Click to expand...


1411998021581.jpg
 
At the end of this thread I don't understood if I will be able to play smooth with the system in signature running ultra texture.
If yes, what frame rate should I expect?
20fps, 50fps, 100fps what?

Does it scale well on a two way SLI?
 
sblantipodi said:
At the end of this thread I don't understood if I will be able to play smooth with the system in signature running ultra texture.
If yes, what frame rate should I expect?
20fps, 50fps, 100fps what?

Does it scale well on a two way SLI?
Click to expand...

Nope, won't run at all. I'd be surprised if you got 10fps.
 
sblantipodi said:
At the end of this thread I don't understood if I will be able to play smooth with the system in signature running ultra texture.
If yes, what frame rate should I expect?
20fps, 50fps, 100fps what?

Does it scale well on a two way SLI?
Click to expand...

CrxnSyA.jpg
 
xLokiX said:
Nope, won't run at all. I'd be surprised if you got 10fps.
Click to expand...

Question is not absurd as it seems.
If it really requires 6gb of vram the stutter could be significant due to the huge swap.
Is this the case?
Is it possible to play this game smooth on ultra texture with less vram?
 
polonyc2 said:
if you can spot the differences in IQ in the video below then your eyes are better then mine...
Click to expand...

Yeah, let me just watch a shitty <4 Mbps YouTube video to compare the graphical fidelity of two games.

I'm sure all that bitrate raping will have zero effect on all the extra fine detail present in the PC version...

I'm going to let you in on a pro tip here, buddy: bitrate starved Internet streaming video is the great equalizer between console and PC games, because it removes all the extra detail that would be present in the PC version and brings it down to the console version's level.

Of course there isn't much difference between the two in a YouTube video.
 
Parja said:
That's debatable.
Yep, sure is! Just run at about 900p and you should be all set.
Click to expand...

I would like to play it on native resolution, 1920x1200.
Ok, I understood that if I want to understand something on the performance of this game I need to buy it :D
 
sblantipodi said:
I would like to play it on native resolution, 1920x1200.
Ok, I understood that if I want to understand something on the performance of this game I need to buy it :D
Click to expand...

Seriously, don't get hung up on Ultra textures. You're not going to notice the difference while playing the game. There's such a subtle difference, you'll only notice if you compare screenshots side by side.
 
Parja said:
Seriously, don't get hung up on Ultra textures. You're not going to notice the difference while playing the game. There's such a subtle difference, you'll only notice if you compare screenshots side by side.
Click to expand...

I have answered that guy 20 times when he asked the same question over and over the first few days that the game came out. He is just trolling the thread or trying to get his post count up in the FS/FT section.
 
cageymaru said:
I have answered that guy 20 times when he asked the same question over and over the first few days that the game came out. He is just trolling the thread or trying to get his post count up in the FS/FT section.
Click to expand...

He is already at 2{H}4U status so I doubt that's it. Maybe your posts haven't convinced him or he has 10 second tom syndrome :D
 
Is this for real? You need at least 6GB to run Ultra textures at 1080p? At 4K I may understand but at 1080p is laughable.
 
ChronoDetector said:
Is this for real? You need at least 6GB to run Ultra textures at 1080p? At 4K I may understand but at 1080p is laughable.
Click to expand...

It uses 5.9GB of VRAM on a Titan. It will run on my 4GB R9 290 just fine, but there is some hitching later in the game. My Windows pagefile balloons from 3GB to 11GB when I enable the Ultra textures. So what I think it is doing is swapping from memory and my SSD.

Does the game look better with Ultra textures? To me it does, but it is all subtle touches. If you just run it on high you won't miss them and it completely eliminates the hitching later in the game. Basically the art team had 6GB Titans when developing the game. After making concessions to make it "fit" on the consoles and PC, they decided to bundle the original textures into the no compromises optional HD pack.

I think it was a wonderful idea and I hope that more developers do so in the future.
 
cageymaru said:
I have answered that guy 20 times when he asked the same question over and over the first few days that the game came out. He is just trolling the thread or trying to get his post count up in the FS/FT section.
Click to expand...

Lord_Exodia said:
He is already at 2{H}4U status so I doubt that's it. Maybe your posts haven't convinced him or he has 10 second tom syndrome :D
Click to expand...

its normal with him.. xD its the same in Intel Motherboard and Intel processors.. to the point everyone its ignoring him, even Raja@Asus ignore him in the official X99 support.. xD :D:D its just funny..
 
As there isn't a crossfire profile yet for this, I didn't think it would run butter smooth on a single 4gb 290x. I haven't installed the game yet but probably will tonight. Is this a game better suited for a keyboard/mouse or a 360 controller?
 
XViper said:
As there isn't a crossfire profile yet for this, I didn't think it would run butter smooth on a single 4gb 290x. I haven't installed the game yet but probably will tonight. Is this a game better suited for a keyboard/mouse or a 360 controller?
Click to expand...

a Xfire profile will not make it run smoother.. a single 290X have the power to run it maxed out the issue will come with the HD pack/Ultra Textures as being limited by the 4GB vRAM you will be forced to use the PageFile (and be sure to have a SSD for that with this game) and even yet the game will run completely smooth with little exception in the area transition.. you can also run it with High Textures and you will be butter smooth through the whole game..
 
I'm running the game with a stock clock 290x from a hard drive, swap file on a hard drive and it is very smooth.
No need to put anything on an SSD.
With vsync disabled, minimum framerate hits approx 60fps for a split moment, the rest of the time it is well above 60fps.
(from inspecting MSI Afterburner graph)
 
Nenu said:
I'm running the game with a stock clock 290x from a hard drive, swap file on a hard drive and it is very smooth.
No need to put anything on an SSD.
With vsync disabled, minimum framerate hits approx 60fps for a split moment, the rest of the time it is well above 60fps.
(from inspecting MSI Afterburner graph)
Click to expand...

So basically 3 years from now we wont be asking "But can it play Shadows of Mordor?" :)
 
Nenu said:
lol no, its definitely not Shadow of Crysis.
Click to expand...

Grand Theft Crysis IV?.. =).. worse port ever made.. unbeatable..

in the other hand i found Shadow of mordor way more playable and smooth than any of other assassins creed games or batman tittle (as all love to compare as a mixture of those games:p)..
 
dang 16 pages!!


playing at 2560x1440 with everything maxed on a 980 and it does not dip below 60
 
this game is repetitive garbage anyways; I can't believe it got such a high score. massive rip off from batman and assassin's creed.
 
With a single 970 my frames are anywhere between 50-60+ fps @1440p with everything maxed except textures. I tried Ultra textures but I get noticeable stuttering even with G-sync. My performance using SLI 970's using the FEAR 3 profile is actually worse with G-sync than a single 970. With a single card its buttery smooth with 50-60 fps but with SLI and 90+ fps,when the action gets hectic, my frames drop to the 60's and it starts to stutter pretty good,even with G-sync.

So until we get official SLI drivers,my experience is that a single card with G-sync is a much smoother experience than SLI.
 
bodine1231 said:
With a single 970 my frames are anywhere between 50-60+ fps @1440p with everything maxed except textures. I tried Ultra textures but I get noticeable stuttering even with G-sync. My performance using SLI 970's using the FEAR 3 profile is actually worse with G-sync than a single 970. With a single card its buttery smooth with 50-60 fps but with SLI and 90+ fps,when the action gets hectic, my frames drop to the 60's and it starts to stutter pretty good,even with G-sync.

So until we get official drivers,my experience is that a single card with G-sync is a much smoother experience than SLI.
Click to expand...

change your pagefile to be managed by the OS.. most stuttering problems with ultra textures are due to that factor...
 
medeyer said:
Yay! Can we close this thread now? The original claim is BS. Getting tired of seeing it here.
Click to expand...

Well, not entirely BS. You WILL get some occasional hitching with less than 6GB running Ultra textures at 1080p when the game needs to swap textures. Can it still be played with less? Sure. It's just not optimal.

Araxie said:
change your pagefile to be managed by the OS..
Click to expand...

Which is what it should be set to with every Windows OS post-XP anyway.
 
Parja said:
Which is what it should be set to with every Windows OS post-XP anyway.
Click to expand...

exactly but lot of people like to keep it as minimum as possible, other even delete the pagefile.. specially those who have large amount of RAM and are using Small SSD.. its always good to check that =)..
 
Using the rig in my signature I'm getting 50+ FPS on Ultra. Sure the VRAM is maxxed out according to MSI Afterburner but aside from some hitching when loading assets it runs really great. I have a I7-4790K coming in this week which probably won't improve performance much with this game but I'm still curious.
 
Anti-Hero said:
Using the rig in my signature I'm getting 50+ FPS on Ultra. Sure the VRAM is maxxed out according to MSI Afterburner but aside from some hitching when loading assets it runs really great. I have a I7-4790K coming in this week which probably won't improve performance much with this game but I'm still curious.
Click to expand...

That should be a significant overall upgrade, regardless of the outcome for this one game.
 
I'm very excited. I've had the same mobo/cpu/RAM for what would be 5 years this January.
 
Parja said:
Well, not entirely BS. You WILL get some occasional hitching with less than 6GB running Ultra textures at 1080p when the game needs to swap textures. Can it still be played with less? Sure. It's just not optimal.



Which is what it should be set to with every Windows OS post-XP anyway.
Click to expand...

Araxie said:
exactly but lot of people like to keep it as minimum as possible, other even delete the pagefile.. specially those who have large amount of RAM and are using Small SSD.. its always good to check that =)..
Click to expand...

I have found Zero need for a "pagefile" with 16GB of ram and Win7 running on my Samsung 256GB SSD..

Here are my benchmark results with my sig rig @ 1440P:

Ultra Preset/No Motion Blur/Before HD Pack installed:

Min: 24.5, Avg: 77.5, Max: 470

Ultra Preset/No Motion Blur/After HD Pack installed:

Min: 15.6, Avg: 58.3, Max: 378

Ultra Preset/No Motion Blur/After HD Pack installed (Standard OC 1.275Ghz/1.375Ghz):

Min: 25.8, Avg: 101.5, Max: 715
Click to expand...

I was seeing Vram usage of 3885MB and a total of 4.45GB of system ram being used during the latter runs (with the "Ultra" HD textures)...Now to kill some Orcs!!:p

PS, anyone checked their CPU usage just during the benchmark? I was only seeing ~45% on 4 cores and a minor load on the others on my 3770K @ 5Ghz..Most likely due to the "canned" nature of the benchmark?:confused:
 
Last edited:
ccityinstaller said:
I have found Zero need for a "pagefile" with 16GB of ram and Win7 running on my Samsung 256GB SSD..
Click to expand...

You must not play at 4k then.... when I had my haswell system with 16GB of ram playing Skyrim (not loaded with a ton of mods, only texture mods), my actual vram usage is around 4.2GB but my committed ram will shoot way up without a pagefile. If you go look at task manager you will see a lot of "unused" ram, but in reality it is committed already and not available for additional OS use. I usually start getting OS running out of ram messages soon. I do run Skyrim with 8xMSAA and 4xTRSSAA.

I would either set a large pagefile on a decent sized disk, or let the OS manage it. No real reason to turn it off anymore.
 
Phlorge said:
dang 16 pages!!


playing at 2560x1440 with everything maxed on a 980 and it does not dip below 60
Click to expand...

Haven't played the game myself, but I read there is not any traditional AA, and you need to set the resolution to 150% or 200% of your native resolution in order to activate the downsampling for Ultra. Is that right, or how does the downsampling work in this game?
 
clayton006 said:
You must not play at 4k then.... when I had my haswell system with 16GB of ram playing Skyrim (not loaded with a ton of mods, only texture mods), my actual vram usage is around 4.2GB but my committed ram will shoot way up without a pagefile. If you go look at task manager you will see a lot of "unused" ram, but in reality it is committed already and not available for additional OS use. I usually start getting OS running out of ram messages soon. I do run Skyrim with 8xMSAA and 4xTRSSAA.

I would either set a large pagefile on a decent sized disk, or let the OS manage it. No real reason to turn it off anymore.
Click to expand...

During the quick benchmark runs I posted (they were @ 1440P BTW) I didn't see anything unusual with ram usage, but then again the reason I bought 16GB of ram was to use it..

I was out of town yesterday and am about to finally get into the game tonight..I am going to run @ 150% scaling so I will report back if there are any issues..

As to pagefile, I prefer not writing any data to my SSD unless it's needed, especially since it is getting a bit full..I am going to find a good deal on a 480~1TB during BF and then it would be as big a deal.
 
alawadhi3000 said:
I really doubt It'll need 6GB vRAM, marketing stunt IMO.
Click to expand...

nope, it really use it and need it to be smooth the whole game.. will it run with lower vRAM of course.. but will stutter in some area transition and also will pull extra RAM and PageFile.. so nope ins't marketing..
 
Araxie said:
nope, it really use it and need it to be smooth the whole game.. will it run with lower vRAM of course.. but will stutter in some area transition and also will pull extra RAM and PageFile.. so nope ins't marketing..
Click to expand...

it's not marketing, is only a low end game engine.
ryse son of rome can run with 4GB of VRAM without stuttering and that game is the real next gen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top