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

[rgallant]

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.

it will be interesting if the nv lackey's cough up to replace all the 3gb nv cards IF our cards run out of vram in 2014. 1080 or 1440
after thread after thread on you will never need more than 3gb of the special nv vram lol.

 

[Cerb]

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.

Didn't they just make it not strange, by explaining it right away? The textures are made to look good from 10+ feet, and tons of unique scenery is included, but there is no concern for close up texture quality being abysmal. They probably had to spend 90% of their time making it barely playable on the console, and didn't have time to screw about with graphics quality. Consolitis at its finest.

 

[rgallant]

Didn't they just make it not strange, by explaining it right away? The textures are made to look good from 10+ feet, and tons of unique scenery is included, but there is no concern for close up texture quality being abysmal. They probably had to spend 90% of their time making it barely playable on the console, and didn't have time to screw about with graphics quality. Consolitis at its finest.

maybe a AMD 4gb vram card is the cure ?

just saying
none of us have access to the final 4Q 2014 - 2Q 2015 AAA games yet peeps still think the lasts semi decade of console ports will be the same as far as vram usage .
yet peeps go on about ++ vram not required when games run fine on low by the game setting [per card]or them turning settings down.
-peeps say I run xx game on max. at xx res. with xx card just fine no need for a upgrade , yet a bench say at that your running 20 fps avg.

-so not sure if a peep playing ac4 bf with a gtx560ti at 1080 is seeing the same game as I see at 1440 max. setting on a pls screen.

 

[Cerb]

maybe a AMD 4gb vram card is the cure ?

How so? Without textures that are 8x or more dense than what I see in those screenshots, it wouldn't make it look any better. And, those bigger textures don't necessarily mean it will need too much more VRAM, since so much of the scenery is probably good enough as-is.

 

[KlokWyze]

OMG my life is over

/wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[hawtdawg]

Don't really understand this personally. There was about a difference of 40 megs between 1080p 4xmsaa and 1440p 16x. Nothing about this game indicates it needs that kind of vram.

 

[hawtdawg]

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.

You sure? I'm showing full GPU usage on both of mine (780's 1202mhz). Can play it with 16xQASDASDAS whatever MSAA with no issues, except i get like 50fps during the drop sequence.

 

[OCGuy]

Don't really understand this personally. There was about a difference of 40 megs between 1080p 4xmsaa and 1440p 16x. Nothing about this game indicates it needs that kind of vram.

There appears to be a general lack of understanding, across all demographics, as to how VRAM and the cache work. Frankly I'm skeptical of that .ru source that is suddenly being sited.

 

[OCGuy]

maybe a AMD 4gb vram card is the cure ?

just saying
none of us have access to the final 4Q 2014 - 2Q 2015 AAA games yet peeps still think the lasts semi decade of console ports will be the same as far as vram usage .
yet peeps go on about ++ vram not required when games run fine on low by the game setting [per card]or them turning settings down.
-peeps say I run xx game on max. at xx res. with xx card just fine no need for a upgrade , yet a bench say at that your running 20 fps avg.

-so not sure if a peep playing ac4 bf with a gtx560ti at 1080 is seeing the same game as I see at 1440 max. setting on a pls screen.

Simply looking at the charts or reading the replies in this thread would reveal why a 4GB card changes nothing.

As to the rest....it doesn't make sense really.

 

[AntonioHG]

I had to resize the last one to get under the file size limit.

 

[wand3r3r]

There appears to be a general lack of understanding, across all demographics, as to how VRAM and the cache work. Frankly I'm skeptical of that .ru source that is suddenly being sited.

Why don't you "enlighten" us as to how VRAM and cache work, with sources? I won't be waiting for a response since it appears you are just trying discredit not only the results you apparently disagree with, but also the whole site for some unknown reason.

I'm not saying the results are correct/incorrect but a one-liner strawman without any sources or even any tangible information is just an attempt to use FUD to avoid the topic (necessary VRAM amounts).

 

[OCGuy]

^ That looks pretty bad. Console carp.

A game made for PC on med/high, not insane:

 

[TeknoBug]

I see a small difference between high and insane in the first set of screenshots, the garbage dump looks like ass in high, and the color on the person's arm is very saturated in insane, besides all that there's practically no visible difference.

Oh yeah, I never really trusted gamegpu.ru.

 

[OCGuy]

Why don't you "enlighten" us as to how VRAM and cache work, with sources? I won't be waiting for a response since it appears you are just trying discredit not only the results you apparently disagree with, but also the whole site for some unknown reason.

I'm not saying the results are correct/incorrect but a one-liner strawman without any sources or even any tangible information is just an attempt to use FUD to avoid the topic (necessary VRAM amounts).

Everything needed to understand is in the review and comments that follow.

Im not debating the outcome, I think those numbers look realistic. I am just embarrassed for "gamegpu" that they posted those charts without being clear that they understand why a 6GB Titan falls in line with the chip's features and clocks, with no edge for the doubled VRAM over 780 or 780ti.

Google translate could be failing me, but there is also no explanation as to why 1080p and 4k show the same utilization.

Games will work with your GPU based on how much available VRAM is present. Different textures can be stored in VRAM for easier access the next time they are needed, which makes it appear it is using up space. It is a dynamic system.

When this swapping doesnt work correctly, you get games like Skyrim? that show 100% ram usage no matter what card you have. Leaks cause a log jam that then actually does bog you down.

BF4 was infamous for both system and video memory being flooded after x amount of playing time, when in reality a 2GB card is more than enough for standard resolutions.

 

[Gloomy]

This game really does use that much VRAM. There's no streaming solution in place as far as I can tell.

This is what I've gathered from complaints about not being able to run the game with textures on Insane from my friends. Everyone is complaining that it gets choppy after a while. In other words, a VRAM bottleneck.

I haven't tested it personally though.

 

[OCGuy]

This game really does use that much VRAM. There's no streaming solution in place as far as I can tell.

This is what I've gathered from complaints about not being able to run the game with textures on Insane from my friends. Everyone is complaining that it gets choppy after a while. In other words, a VRAM bottleneck.

I haven't tested it personally though.

So somehow it uses the same regardless of resolution or texture settings, and a Titan isnt faster with 2x the VRAM.

Look at the screenies...."Insane" is an overstatement.

 

[Erenhardt]

IMG

^LOL @ 15m draw distance

 

[OCGuy]

^LOL @ 15m draw distance

Haha. Of all the games in the world....that is a default 2200m with the ability to go to 16km if you have the horsepower. Hint: The hills/trees/ocean are not just background portraits. Consoles couldnt dream of it. I actually hit near 2.2 GB @ 1080p on both 7970 and 290, but it is definitely the exception, not the rule. What does that tell you about average console ports like in the OP?

This game has better, and more realistic visuals, and texture quality compared to Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3. Beyond the textures, object detail, and shaders, Arma III also has the highest viewing distance in any game. Pop-up of objects and textures are a reduced phenomenon in this game, thanks to the high degree of view. That view distance, and object distance also greatly affect the performance, and rightly so. It is refreshing to have a game that doesn't compromise on view and object distance, and lets the gamer go all out if they wish to. This is the power of the PC, the awesome scalability and potential for long view and object distances.

http://m.hardocp.com/article/2013/10/02/arma_iii_video_card_performance_iq_review/8#.UwDmfMGIY0M

 

[Rajadog20]

I can confirm that there is a VRAM bottleneck if you have less than 3gb video ram. I had a PNY GTX 770 2gb and playing on insane, I usually get 60 fps, but I had frequent stutters, and choppy gameplay at times due to the fact that the game is using 100% of my 2gb of vram. Lowering it down to high I get a constant 60 fps without any stuttering.

And I really do notice a difference from Insane to high. Insane is quite a bit more detailed in many places, and the game overall just looks a lot higher resolution. Some areas though, there isnt much difference, but its easy to tell in game.

I really am dissapointed, I just got this 300$ card and I can't even play a source engine game on max?... I am hoping they just haven't optimized the VRAM yet, because I only play at 1600x900, and I can play BF4 on max with a constant 70+ fps. Is there any chance that a driver optimized for the game would fix this?

 

[AntonioHG]

I can confirm that there is a VRAM bottleneck if you have less than 3gb video ram. I had a PNY GTX 770 2gb and playing on insane, I usually get 60 fps, but I had frequent stutters, and choppy gameplay at times due to the fact that the game is using 100% of my 2gb of vram. Lowering it down to high I get a constant 60 fps without any stuttering.

And I really do notice a difference from Insane to high. Insane is quite a bit more detailed in many places, and the game overall just looks a lot higher resolution. Some areas though, there isnt much difference, but its easy to tell in game.

I really am dissapointed, I just got this 300$ card and I can't even play a source engine game on max?... I am hoping they just haven't optimized the VRAM yet, because I only play at 1600x900, and I can play BF4 on max with a constant 70+ fps. Is there any chance that a driver optimized for the game would fix this?

I'd say whatever Titanfall does graphically, BF4 does a lot better and if you're getting decent FPS in BF4 with Frostbite -- which should be used in more upcoming games -- why worry? It's also so fast-paced, meaning there's little time to really look at the scenery. To me, the difference with High to Insane, is as if the sharpness was increased.

If you really can't stand it, I'd sell your 770 and go for a 780 for $450-475.

 

[OCGuy]

I can confirm that there is a VRAM bottleneck if you have less than 3gb video ram. I had a PNY GTX 770 2gb and playing on insane, I usually get 60 fps, but I had frequent stutters, and choppy gameplay at times due to the fact that the game is using 100% of my 2gb of vram. Lowering it down to high I get a constant 60 fps without any stuttering.

And I really do notice a difference from Insane to high. Insane is quite a bit more detailed in many places, and the game overall just looks a lot higher resolution. Some areas though, there isnt much difference, but its easy to tell in game.

I really am dissapointed, I just got this 300$ card and I can't even play a source engine game on max?... I am hoping they just haven't optimized the VRAM yet, because I only play at 1600x900, and I can play BF4 on max with a constant 70+ fps. Is there any chance that a driver optimized for the game would fix this?

The game is the issue. A beta version + ancient HL2 engine = :/ The developers arent trying to sell this game on graphics, they are emphasising gameply, and there is nothing wrong wih that.

 

[futurefields]

Titanflop.

 

[jpiniero]

Well, the One has at least 5 GB of memory available for games so I don't think it's a stretch to think that 2 GB cards will become inadequate pretty quickly.

 

[OCGuy]

Well, the One has at least 5 GB of memory available for games so I don't think it's a stretch to think that 2 GB cards will become inadequate pretty quickly.

With such a weak GPU, the problem is bandwidth.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

The game is the issue. A beta version + ancient HL2 engine = :/ The developers arent trying to sell this game on graphics, they are emphasising gameply, and there is nothing wrong wih that.

The gameplay being so tired and played out is a an issue unfortunately. The beta is not inspiring much confidence in the final release for me.