- Status
hello all i need a answer because it s will be on answer i will buy the card P ,
My config is :
intel core 7 4770 k
16 go dominator platinium pc 15000
and graphique card gtx 780
at this moment i ask me i the graphic of the game will be better with a gtx 980 > not speaking of fps its obvious gtx 980 is better than gtx 780 i speak of graphic if with the config i have i could play on max setting at 50 60 fps it s perfect i will not buy a gtx 980 for just fps > but i want the best witcher 3 experience i m a huge fan of the serie > have the 1 2 on collector and read all the book and the even the polish serie ( i m french ) thank for an answer
My config is :
intel core 7 4770 k
16 go dominator platinium pc 15000
and graphique card gtx 780
at this moment i ask me i the graphic of the game will be better with a gtx 980 > not speaking of fps its obvious gtx 980 is better than gtx 780 i speak of graphic if with the config i have i could play on max setting at 50 60 fps it s perfect i will not buy a gtx 980 for just fps > but i want the best witcher 3 experience i m a huge fan of the serie > have the 1 2 on collector and read all the book and the even the polish serie ( i m french ) thank for an answer
hello all i need a answer because it s will be on answer i will buy the card P ,
My config is :
intel core 7 4770 k
16 go dominator platinium pc 15000
and graphique card gtx 780
at this moment i ask me i the graphic of the game will be better with a gtx 980 > not speaking of fps its obvious gtx 980 is better than gtx 780 i speak of graphic if with the config i have i could play on max setting at 50 60 fps it s perfect i will not buy a gtx 980 for just fps > but i want the best witcher 3 experience i m a huge fan of the serie > have the 1 2 on collector and read all the book and the even the polish serie ( i m french ) thank for an answer
No need to upgrade. 780 is still a very powerful graphic card.
@MkTama90 Yeah, the requirement for very large VRAM implies that Bethesda's texture memory budget is either very liberal or not well controlled. Red Engine, at least in its Witcher 2 incarnation, is very conservative with texture memory; even the highest standard settings are not going to impact a 1GB card.
Now in order to manage texture memory well, you also have to be smart at deciding which textures you don't need anymore so you can flush them to make room for others. If you flush textures you are going to need in the next frame, you are going to spend a lot of time flushing and reloading textures. This is called thrashing and is evidence either of bad design or of inadequate resources. You can experience it for yourself by doing something crazy like trying to run TW2 on an old GPU with 256MB VRAM. This is not evidence that Red Engine is badly designed, only that a 256MB bank of VRAM is not enough for even the minimum textures needed to make the game work.
But a texture memory requirement that pushes the envelope for current GPUs really does suggest that Bethesda has not done a good job of memory budgeting and management.
Now in order to manage texture memory well, you also have to be smart at deciding which textures you don't need anymore so you can flush them to make room for others. If you flush textures you are going to need in the next frame, you are going to spend a lot of time flushing and reloading textures. This is called thrashing and is evidence either of bad design or of inadequate resources. You can experience it for yourself by doing something crazy like trying to run TW2 on an old GPU with 256MB VRAM. This is not evidence that Red Engine is badly designed, only that a 256MB bank of VRAM is not enough for even the minimum textures needed to make the game work.
But a texture memory requirement that pushes the envelope for current GPUs really does suggest that Bethesda has not done a good job of memory budgeting and management.
Last edited:
These are absolutely foolish VRAM requirements, what's worse is people are falling for it and wondering when 8GB VRAM cards will be out... *sigh*
What the hell are they filling up that much VRAM with? The textures are not super ultra high res 4096x4096, so what? That much VRAM is NOT easy to fill, 4GB VRAM is wayyy more than enough for now on GPUs for general computing needs.
What the hell are they filling up that much VRAM with? The textures are not super ultra high res 4096x4096, so what? That much VRAM is NOT easy to fill, 4GB VRAM is wayyy more than enough for now on GPUs for general computing needs.
Last edited:
I agree 100%, and said pretty much the same thing a few posts back.
Anyone buying an 8 gb card for gaming is getting played so bad it isn't even funny.
Yeah. But it kind of implies that more VRAM is needed further down the road. And some crappy ports might still be brilliant games and worth enjoying at their highest graphical settings. Also, I've heard that with enough mods you can make Skyrim use over 5GBs of VRAM so if you're into heavy modding you might appreciate the added VRAM capacity.
And regarding the 8GB models:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nv...o-have-4gb-initally-and-8gb-models-later.html
Fingers crossed for November release.
Last edited:
Of course more Vram will be required down the line, when 4k is in common use. But, 6gb to run at 1080p is lunacy. The only possible explanation is bad/lazy programming. Also, you can expect to pay a hefty premium for 8gb models, and it could turn out to be a waste of money, since this is not going down well, and devs will likely make far better use of memory going forward.
Well I'm probably going to opt for the 8GB models mainly because I do enjoy heavy modding.
I mean if you can exceed 5GBs VRAM usage in Skyrim what's it going to be with the "next gen" open world Bethesda games like Fallout 4 & TES6?
Sure you can exceed 5gb in Skyrim with mods, since, they are often terribly optimised, again bad/lazy programming. And at what resolution? I have pretty much every graphical mod running on Skyrim, I use nothing near 5gb.
I can guarantee you, Fallout 4 and TES6 won't look any batter than Witcher 3, and you can bet the house it won't require 6gb, so why should Bethesda's games? They are already getting huge stick for admitting The Evil Within will require 4. And why is it Rise: Son of Rome, which looks absolutely gorgeous in the PC screenshots, can do that with 4gb at 4k?
The requirement of 6+ GB vram for just 1080p is an example of pure unoptimized game or unnecessary uncompressed textures. I am a modder myself and have experimented with various texture compressions so here is a simple example.
A 2048x2048 texture saved in DXT5 texture compression results in 5.33 Mb of DDS file while a same 2048x2048 texture saved in 8.8.8.8 ARGB compression results in 21.3 Mb and the difference between two is almost none existent so if developers are lazy enough to compress those textures or do proper texture management then yeah the next era of gaming has began and you need 8 GB of vram and God knows maybe a jet propeller attached to your rig.
A 2048x2048 texture saved in DXT5 texture compression results in 5.33 Mb of DDS file while a same 2048x2048 texture saved in 8.8.8.8 ARGB compression results in 21.3 Mb and the difference between two is almost none existent so if developers are lazy enough to compress those textures or do proper texture management then yeah the next era of gaming has began and you need 8 GB of vram and God knows maybe a jet propeller attached to your rig.
It wouldn't be so bad if the likes of Nvidia weren't notoriously stingy with the memory on their cards, or didn't charge a small fortune when it comes to non-reference models with increased memory. I can see why many console users wouldn't touch PC gaming with a barge pole.
Last edited:
That's beside my point.
My point was, that it's now a fact that some games will start requiring more VRAM. Whether it's due to lazy programming or unnecessarily uncompressed textures I really don't care. I'd just rather have the hardware to run them regardless.
But hopefully some sites (like DSOgaming) will do an in depth tech article on Shadow of Mordor and informs us why it needs so much VRAM.
And that missed my point. They aren't getting away with this. Ubisoft have been called to task for Watch Dogs and previous 'efforts,' and have said they will be putting more work into their PC ports from now on. The same will happen with the rest. It's your money man, but don't be surprised if it was wasted. I'd rather wait for the more powerful cards late 2015, early 2016, that will actually have the horsepower to make use of memory above 4gb, beyond bloated textures soaking it up.
Ubisoft has promised great ports multiple times but the only great port in recent memory was FC3. So I wouldn't count on them delivering on their promises now or in the future.
But I do see your point. I do plan on waiting and seeing how the VRAM situation unfolds and how nvidia will be pricing their 8GB models before upgrading. If the price point isn't ridiculous don't see why I shouldn't opt for them. At least I don't have to worry about not meeting the maxed out reqs for every game out there.
Last edited:
Time will tell. Yeah, I'll be looking out for benchmarks of Shadows of Mordor on 'ultra,' and look forward to the backlash if it's true. As 6gb for 1080p, is a very poor showing. Guys working alone on their spare time have done better with mods.
Yeah DXT5 is pretty damn good.... using uncompressed textures is probably the stupidest thing I can think of I hope nobody does it.
I want one simple thing included in games released on the PC.
The option to LOCK THE FRAME RATES to stop the STUTTERING caused by fps fluctuations, in order to get a smoother and more consistent experience.
And I personally like to lock my FPS to 30, because 60 fps makes me dizzy especially when I'm playing games. A lot of people get motion sickness, so this is another reason to have the FPS lock option.
The option to LOCK THE FRAME RATES to stop the STUTTERING caused by fps fluctuations, in order to get a smoother and more consistent experience.
And I personally like to lock my FPS to 30, because 60 fps makes me dizzy especially when I'm playing games. A lot of people get motion sickness, so this is another reason to have the FPS lock option.
In fact I suppose every developer of this level has his know-how: as I said before the only explanation can be it is deliberately done
@shawn_kh everyone interested can do this via graphical drivers and it seems to me the best way to technically achieve it. I don't think this will be added as an option in-game
@shawn_kh everyone interested can do this via graphical drivers and it seems to me the best way to technically achieve it. I don't think this will be added as an option in-game
Last edited:
- Status