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

[Red Hawk]

Now we are just making things up

I mean that if you have cards in SLI/Crossfire, you're going to be turning settings up higher than you would if you had just one card, causing VRAM usage to go up, and potentially making you need more VRAM than you would if you weren't using SLI/Crossfire.

 

[Makaveli]

I mean that if you have cards in SLI/Crossfire, you're going to be turning settings up higher than you would if you had just one card, causing VRAM usage to go up, and potentially making you need more VRAM than you woud if you weren't using SLI/Crossfire.

+1

 

[realibrad]

I mean that if you have cards in SLI/Crossfire, you're going to be turning settings up higher than you would if you had just one card, causing VRAM usage to go up, and potentially making you need more VRAM than you would if you weren't using SLI/Crossfire.

The problem with the statement is that you said SLI increases the need for VRAM. SLI does not increase the need for memory. If the problem with a game is that the gpu cannot process all the data, then adding memory will not help. If the gpu can take in more data, but cannot be fed fast enough, the adding memory can help.

If for example, the user had a 750Ti with 6gb of ram, then adding a 2nd card in SLI wold not require an increase in VRAM. If the user had a 750TI with 1GB of ram, then adding a 2nd card will do little to help.

Thus, SLI does not require more memory.

 

[Makaveli]

The problem with the statement is that you said SLI increases the need for VRAM. SLI does not increase the need for memory. If the problem with a game is that the gpu cannot process all the data, then adding memory will not help. If the gpu can take in more data, but cannot be fed fast enough, the adding memory can help.

If for example, the user had a 750Ti with 6gb of ram, then adding a 2nd card in SLI wold not require an increase in VRAM. If the user had a 750TI with 1GB of ram, then adding a 2nd card will do little to help.

Thus, SLI does not require more memory.

ok I think I understand it was just the way he worded it.

 

[coffeejunkee]

I played the beta on a 7790 with 1GB. On high settings it used 1004MB memory according to gpu-z. It didn't feel like vram was running out at all but I wasn't completely happy with the framerate. So I dropped it to medium settings and it still used 1004MB. Seems some caching is going on.

 

[BrightCandle]

That is interesting as high for me was showing 1700 usage. This might suggest its caching heavily and that it's no where near as obvious as bf4 is with its climb as the game precaches on load. Thus we have no idea what it really needs at all, it completely nullifies measurements taken by tools.
I will try running insane despite its warnings and see what I get.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Beta is closed now so it will have to wait.

One thing noticeable is that it filled my card's vram completely but left 300 MB spare in your case.

Highest vram usage I saw before was 960 MB in Unigine Heaven, but framerate was really low, like 10-15 fps, possibly even less.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Sorry for the necro resurrection, just got the game and wanted to ask a little bit about the game and this thread despite its age is as handy as it comes according to my google search.

I run high settings at 1366x768 with 4x msaa on my 2gb gtx770 and sit under 2gb used with a 60fps solid framerate, very high settings with no msaa apparently don't call for 3gb but i see my vram is capped and randomly i get erratic frames.

Is very high vram pushing pass 2gb cause of a memory leak or the erratic fps a bug?Gpu usage is low enough so i know i got the power and since i got a core i7 3770@ 3.7Ghz i know i got the cpu but the vram capped tells me its vram limited?

Game is a blast but this vram usage is intense, game doesn't really appear to look good enough to even push the vram limits at very high or intense but it happens lol.

 

[skipsneeky2]

About 5 months later and with my new 970,i am pretty much going to answer a 5 month old question that went unanswered.Don't blame you guys,this topic last year got beat half to death.

Very high appears to be using 2300-2500mb memory at 1366x768,varies widly depending on map and if i use MSAA or not and if its only 4xMSAA.Smooth as silk even with DSR and 1932x1086 but with up to 2x MSAA.Don't care for the slight performance hit and minimum IQ difference with 4x MSAA.

Insane i am certain is broken,depending on map uses anywhere from 3300-3500mb memory without MSAA at 1080p while at 768p its not to much lower.

Certainly plays miles smoother on the 970 then 770,Very High obviously calls for more then 2gb at any resolution and Insane is so silly that applying 2x MSAA at 1080p crashed and locked up the game cause vram hit over 3.5gb and my "3.5gb 970" pretty much choked.

 

[lavaheadache]

I like the game but SLI is broken and I'm running a Titan Z with a 3440x1440 monitor. It left a sour taste in my mouth to run the game without AA to get the performance I wanted.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I like the game but SLI is broken and I'm running a Titan Z with a 3440x1440 monitor. It left a sour taste in my mouth to run the game without AA to get the performance I wanted.

What settings did you end up having to use?That is a massive resolution for a single card.What was the memory usage?

Iv'e adjusted my settings so i don't drop below 60fps period,since its capped at 60 and any dips really gives a feeling like vsync stutter which i don't like much.