[GGPU.RU] 3GB of VRAM for Titanfall on highest settings

[BrightCandle]

So gamegpu.ru has done their usual in beta performance testing of titanfall

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/titanfall-beta-test-gpu.html

The game is limited to 60 fps (show its poor console port credentials unfortunately) but its also the first game to really want 3GB of VRAM at 1080p. You can't even set the textures to insane unless you have 3GB of VRAM, and then it appears to use the whole lot. Strangely enough the textures look pretty bad at all settings despite the insane VRAM requirements they need.

We don't know if this is a special case but its interesting to see this happem. Its not a heavy requirement game, a 7970/770 can run it at 60 fps and yet the Nvidia card is genuinely held back by its VRAM.

High settings

Insane settings

 

[OCGuy]

I don't think that is showing what they want it to show. You need to also use the same method on cards with only 2GB and 1GB.

There is a reason 1080p shows basically the same VRAM usage as 3840x2160. There is also a reason on the GPU charts that even capped @ 60FPS, performance doesn't seem to take a hit based off of VRAM.

780/Titan/780ti all line up exactly as they should, even at extreme settings at extreme resolutions. Titan would be the easy winner should the game actually use over 3GB.

Obviously this is a flawed preview for multiple reasons.

 

[guskline]

Would SLI help?

 

[ShintaiDK]

The console version struggles at a wierd 792p res.

Atleast its not 30fps locked like so many other console games

http://titanfallblog.com/2014/02/12...on-on-xbox-one-may-increase-with-final-build/

Even at much lower settings. But they hope to go 900p. The PC version memory usage might drop too.

PCs outperform consoles easily.

Note even 1GB cards run the very high settings. The insane setting seems more like a idiot setting to waste as much GPU power/memory as possible so people wouldnt notice their 2 year old cards run the games maxed at 60fps.

No surprise in the CPU performance either, since its a console port:

 

[ShintaiDK]

Would SLI help?

Not in memory usage. And the game doesnt appear to have a SLI profile or support.

 

[guskline]

Not in memory usage. And the game doesnt appear to have a SLI profile or support.

OK, Thanks.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Insane vs High settings.

I am underwhelmed.

 

[StrangerGuy]

So we need 3GB VRAM for blurry textures straight from the 90s?

 

[redhotiron2004]

It is a super unoptimized port. Where the graphic tiles and textures are not optimized(remain in there raw format). For eg: A png image can take 5mb space and once optimized it can take less then 500kb without much loss in fidelity.

Seems to me that they have not even bothered to optimize those images leave alone the code.

Using 3GB of vram is a joke. The developers shouldn't even have bothered to bring it to PC. I know many games that looks much better than this sh*t and still use less than 1GB to 1.5GB at the most. Even at ultra settings.

 

[Mondozei]

You should be able to play at 120 fps.

Trilinear filtering is presently required to make use of 120Hz refresh rate displays.

Source

I'm not that surprised about the quality considering that the engine is so old and the trailers didn't look that spectacular anyway. The gameplay itself is absolutely decent but nothing revolutionary. Might pick it up on Steam sale if there are still people playing 4-5 months from now.

I am surprised, however, just how badly optimised it is this close to launch. I mean, officially it is a "beta" but we all know it is actually a demo. A massive "beta" a few weeks before launch is not really a beta. It may seem like ancient history now, but I remember a time when the demo of games that were released 1 months ahead of the full game were really well optimised. The days before pre-order become a norm in the industry and sequels were more important than getting the first game rid of bugs.

 

[BrightCandle]

The problem with betas is that only a limited number of people can play it, and in this case its a closed beta so some people don't even get to try the demo.

I don't remotely think the game deserves to use 3GB VRAM, you can see the polygons clearly in this game, feels very much like it ought to be on the Xbox 360 not Xbone with these graphics but apparently its heavy on VRAM and extremely light on GPU compute resources. I suspect the textures on insane and high aren't compressed, its not like the quality of the textures is even normal, it all looks pretty bad generally.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Even on high you only need 1GB. Maybe less. And there is no difference visually to insane.

 

[MBrown]

It would suck if I can't max out the released version with SLI 780s. I so hope this is just a pre-release issue.

 

[Beavermatic]

There's no way this game uses 3GB of VRAM at 1080p... or even 1600p.

I'm running the beta fine maxed out on my twin 780ti's, and the game doesn't even look like anything special. It doesn't look bad, but you can definteley tell its a source engine game, and kinda looks subpar graphically to other games. Certainly looks "last-gen" if you were to compare it to... I dunno, say something like Crysis 3.

In fact it runs too fast, and I wish they'd add a frame rate limiter in it, because vsync is a finicky.

 

[Erenhardt]

memory leak maybe?
ohh, and: Beta is beta...
Anyone who played PS2 beta will know what I mean.

 

[Arkadrel]

Insane vs High settings.

I am underwhelmed.

I cannot really spot any differnces <.<

Whats the point of "insane" if it looks exactly the same as very high.

 

[Morbus]

Of course you can spot the differences. High is nice quality textures almost everywhere and some AWFUL textures right in your face in that dumpster, and inside is textures that are obviously too good to be really enjoyed (and, as such, a waste) almost everywhere, and some really terrible textures right in your face in that dumpster.

It's a crap game anyway, who gives a damn.

 

[Gloomy]

Should have bought those 4GB 680s/770s. Now you can't even max a source engine game. Say "Th-thanks Nvidia"

 

[DarkKnightDude]

3GB of RAM and the game textures look like shit.

But thankfully I don't spend my time in titanfall staring at bushes. Very nicely paced.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I cannot really spot any differnces <.<

Whats the point of "insane" if it looks exactly the same as very high.

Yep, same textures. Zero difference between 1GB and 3GB VRAM usage. And insane setting just makes it much slower for no visual reason.

 

[AntonioHG]

I've played it with my SLI 780s. It ran fine with no drops under 60FPS @1440. Doesn't look special at all and there is no SLI support last I played -- yesterday.

 

[MBrown]

I've played it with my SLI 780s. It ran fine with no drops under 60FPS @1440. Doesn't look special at all and there is no SLI support last I played -- yesterday.

with insane textures?

 

[Beavermatic]

with insane textures?

Yes, you want youtube proof?

I'll gladly dxtory or fraps that for ya.

also, gradoman, you can force it to alternate frame rendering 2 I do believe to force SLI mode.

 

[escrow4]

Source engine fail and no single player. Shooters keep this up and I'll toss my gaming PC. And damn, that is some ugly shit.

 

[AntonioHG]

with insane textures?

Hey, I didn't realize you guys wanted Insane textures and actually, I had no idea it was even an option, lol. Anyway, I tried it and I did get some low FPS as the dropship let the pilots off in Angel City, but once that sequence was over, it's just about locked at 60FPS. I did have some crazy graphical glitches after getting blown up and I got down to like 50FPS.

This is with the Single 780 at stock speed. My specs, I've copied/pasted from HardForum to give you an idea as to what I have. My CPU is @ 4.5GHz.

______________________
Intel i7 3770k | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Phanteks PH-TC14PE BK | Samsung 8GB DDR3 MV-3V4G3D/US x 2 | Samsung 830 256GB SSD | 2 Samsung Spinpoint F1 RAID0 | 2 TOSHIBA DT01ACA200 2TB |1 WD Green 1TB | LG BR-RE | 2 EVGA GTX 780 ACX SC SLI | Asus Wireless Network Card | Corsair AX1200 | Lian Li PC-X1000