Will DirectX10 require more video RAM?

7

7331

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
220
I'm asking this because a lot of people are saying 256MB or 320MB cards are going to have problems with DirectX10 games.

I'm wondering if these people actually know something I don't, or are they just guessing. I have read a lot about DirectX10, and nowhere have I seen anything that suggests it'll require more RAM. Actually, features like instancing and virtual RAM means less memory usage than DirectX9.

Nvidia is about to release a whole bunch of 256MB mid range Dx10 cards, and what I'm asking here really matters. I don't believe Dx10 actually requires more RAM than Dx9. I'd be glad if someone can confirm this or prove me wrong.
 
no, it shouldn't require more RAM. DX10 is a bit of a marketing gimmick. It doesn't really add any new features to DX, it just optimizes existing ones, so you may be able to get more polys on screen, etc.
 
Games that run DX10 will most likely use more memory than older games running DX9 just by their very nature of being new.
 
i think they just mean at some point developers will migrate to really benefit from more than 256 MB video ram, and that point might be DX10.

You see it already in a few games, like GRAW2, COH, Titan Quest.

I'll bet money that Crysis will really want 512 MB of video ram.
 
Besides upping the caps(ie HDR, FP Targets, precision etc) geometry shaders are the only real feature getting added. Although unified shaders and some of the other improvements are a nice step most of the changes are essentially a better written DX9. Other than geometry shaders possibly creating excessively large amounts of geometry there is nothing in DX10 to use more memory.

The only reason more ram MIGHT be required would be because of the overhead reductions in DX10 removing some of the CPU bottleneck. In turn the developers actually try to start rendering more. The main thing video memory is going to determine is how large of textures you can use. And while "virtual RAM" is nice to have it will be more of a stopgap measure to keep performance from tanking on cards that don't have enough memory. And DX9 already has similar functionality.

To play the newest generation of games at moderate to high levels >512MB will probably be a requirement IMHO.
 
Stop concentrating on the graphic api's and such, and look at the actual games and their design.

Gamers want bigger, more complicated, more detailed, more interactive environments. More objects, bigger maps, more details = more textures to manage(also more shaders and poly's)

Artistically, there's some interesting things and methods to make a game look "good", with a variety combinations and balances of textures, shaders, and poly count. Low poly can be "hidden" by textures and shaders.. Low textures can be enhanced with shaders.. etc etc.


IMO, at the very least, there are simply just going to be more objects and more detailed environments, and therefore more textures flying around in the future games. This is why I personally would not bother getting a 320 meg GTS (unless you plan on replacing it soon anyways) IMO, my crystal ball says the 320 meg GTS will be memory/texture bound in performance, when the detail sliders are pushed over the right more.

Of course PC game dev's will have design the game so that the mainstream cards with 256 megs of ram will run well (along with consoles).. Again, my crystal ball says, most future games will run well under these cards, might have to bump the texture detail down a notch.
 
Varmint said:
i think they just mean at some point developers will migrate to really benefit from more than 256 MB video ram, and that point might be DX10.
Click to expand...

Actually many modern games will use over 256mb at around 1600x1200, especially with any form of AA.
 
J-Mag said:
Actually many modern games will use over 256mb at around 1600x1200, especially with any form of AA.
Click to expand...

Dunno, most games show little benefit from 512/640 MB in benchmarks.

There was just a STALKER comparison that showed like 7-10% gain from 512 MB. That's not very significant.
 
Varmint said:
Dunno, most games show little benefit from 512/640 MB in benchmarks.

There was just a STALKER comparison that showed like 7-10% gain from 512 MB. That's not very significant.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they showed extreme benefits. I just noticed many games using more than 256mb by using vidmem watch recently. Actually I came close to filling up 768mb when running a few newer games at 2048x1536 4xAA.
Normally the need for a large buffer only comes into play at these higher resolutions where the game is extremely limited by GPU processing power. This is why you don't see a huge benefit compared to just buying a faster GPU.
 
Well dx10 or not, future games will use larger textures thus requiring larger video ram. In ghost recon: advanced warfighter for example even the overclocked 320mb 8800gts fall behind the 640mb version even at 1280x1024. I don't think video ram is something you want to cut costs on. Wouldn't it suck to have a powerful gfx card that just coudn't get decent frame rates just because of low video ram?
 
I don't think larger textures mean better visuals. Has anyone been able to see any difference between Doom 3's or Quake 4's High Quality and Ultra Quality modes? High quality runs on 256, Ultra needs 512, and there's absolutely no difference in image quality.

Games like GRAW need high amounts of RAM only because they are badly coded, not because they look good. No game looks better than Half Life 2 Ep1 or Oblivion, but they run OK with 256MB. If a game that doesn't look as good as them needs more RAM, it's the programmers' fault.

My guess is, current texture sizes are big enough. Having larger textures doesn't automatically mean better looking games. The real difference comes from lighting, shadows, shaders and such. Higher video RAM is only needed for AA, and Dx10 isn't going to change that.

If you don't agree, find me a game that runs OK on a 256MB card with high textures, but slows down when you select ultra high textures. Show me screenshots with any visible image quality difference and I'll accept defeat. :)
 
meatfestival said:
totally wrong.
Click to expand...

For the most part he's actually correct. Everything possible in DX10 was also possible in DX9, you just had to know your shit. It's more accessible in DX10 to the average developer and it is more efficient/optimized.
 
SuperKeijo said:
Even so, future games will still use larger textures just to piss off people with low video mem.
Click to expand...

LOL! :D I doubt that. Dx10 low/mid range cards will have 256MB. The most accessible high end card has 320MB. Developers are interested in making games that the majority can play, not only 5-10% of the market that has 768MB.
 
7331 said:
LOL! :D I doubt that. Dx10 low/mid range cards will have 256MB. The most accessible high end card has 320MB. Developers are interested in making games that the majority can play, not only 5-10% of the market that has 768MB.
Click to expand...

More like 0.5%.
 
7331 said:
LOL! :D I doubt that. Dx10 low/mid range cards will have 256MB. The most accessible high end card has 320MB. Developers are interested in making games that the majority can play, not only 5-10% of the market that has 768MB.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they won't run on 320mb or less with low detail settings, but if you want to run them using high detail settings then it might be a different story.
 
Games are always getting more detailed and more power hungry. It is just like the hard drives and memory of long ago, where you think you could never use that much, but that was blown away. The video card is no different in that more is going to allow the user to select the higher options.
If you have the money for the 320mb version then what is saving up a bit more for a version with more memory? It also comes down to resolution, like me I play at 1280x1024(low res) but would i save a few bucks and buy the 320mb version? Nope, expecially with games advancing as they are, you just never know.
The OP's question was will dx10 require more memory and I think its more that the games will require it.

Just my 2 cents.
 
7331 said:
I don't think larger textures mean better visuals. Has anyone been able to see any difference between Doom 3's or Quake 4's High Quality and Ultra Quality modes? High quality runs on 256, Ultra needs 512, and there's absolutely no difference in image quality.

Games like GRAW need high amounts of RAM only because they are badly coded, not because they look good. No game looks better than Half Life 2 Ep1 or Oblivion, but they run OK with 256MB. If a game that doesn't look as good as them needs more RAM, it's the programmers' fault.
Click to expand...

That may be true today, but DX10 allows the use of more variety of textures, and I think it's clear from looking at Crysis that 256 MB is not gonna cut it.

GRAW definitely looks more next-gen than Oblivion or HL2 Ep1 though.
 
My guess is that next generation games that'll require more RAM will also require a new feature set, like Shader Model 4.1, which no card today no matter what size RAM it has can run.
 
7331 said:
My guess is that next generations games that'll require more RAM will also require a new feature set, like Shader Model 4.1, which no card today no matter what size RAM it has can run.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that? The fact is that g80 is a very powerful gpu and can certainly handle very large textures at playable frame rates if only it has enough memory. I think it's kind of stupid to speculate would you or would you not be fine with 256-320mb in the future. The 8800gts and gtx have 640 and 768 ram and upcoming r600 1024mb and so on, so if the graphics cards have a lot of memory I'm sure the game developers will use it. The 320mb model barely manages with present games so I'm sure the future won't be much better for it.
 
nV and ATI(AMD) introduce 640 to 1GB vidmem so introduce a bigger Vidmem target platform Dev's can support optional til it becomes mainstream.
Mo VidRam is important if you keep your High-end card long.
For those 6month or so upgarders low to high-end it doesn't matter. Till it matter they have already someting that have the optimal amount of Vidram.

Dev's saw vid mem up to 512 as max target.
Now to 640
will be wenn r600 is there, to 1GB.
It take some time wenn those games are out and if the Dev want to push his Project to the highest level whats aviable on the market, or to support a larger audience to keep the requierment more mainstream.

In my case I gonna keep my hardware long and aim for high-end so 1GB is a must for me, must do more then 3 years with it.
 
ynnek888 said:
IMO, at the very least, there are simply just going to be more objects and more detailed environments, and therefore more textures flying around in the future games. This is why I personally would not bother getting a 320 meg GTS (unless you plan on replacing it soon anyways) IMO, my crystal ball says the 320 meg GTS will be memory/texture bound in performance, when the detail sliders are pushed over the right more.
Click to expand...
gotta agree. good time to get a 320 meg version out tho...when there is no dx10 title
 
I got the 640MB GTS partly because I was concerned about the 320MB memory size. All previous cards over 256MB have had 512MB and I'm wondering how the games will treat this intermediate size. If they default to greater than 256MB is 512MB that could cause serious bottlenecks on 320MB cards due to memory spillover.

Right now I'd say the 640MB card is likely to be a much better choice than the 320MB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top