VRAM for maximum texture quality and vegetation density?

[delicieuxz]

VRAM for maximum texture quality and vegetation density?

The recommended specs mention a GTX 770, which has 2 GB of VRAM. That handles max texture quality no prob?


I have a Radeon R9 280x, which is almost par with a GTX 770 (but has 3 GB VRAM), and hope that with shadows set to medium or low, and AA set to something mid-quality, and tessellation on but set to low, that I will get good fps running everything else at max setting - particularly foliage density, shaders, particles, post-processing, and texture quality.

I also have 16 GB system RAM, and an i5 2500k @ 4.5 Ghz.

 

[Asmodean778]

There's a difference between how much VRAM a game needs, and how much it will use, given the opportunity. A lot of games will cache/buffer stuff into VRAM so long as there's enough to do so. but, it may not need it 'per se'.

Seeing as we know neither, yet. All anyone other than the devs can tell you, is speculation. At ~1080p, with low-ish hardware antialiasing, I'd 'speculate' that 2/3gb should be fine. but, the more the better.


#edit: I'm at 2560x1440 with an oc'ed 970(3.5g dur), I'm hopeful that it should be fine without msaa. post AA is usually fine at this res, provided that it's implemented correctly.

 

[MomoSinX]

If someone could answer that would be nice beceause I am interested in the minimum requirement. Will 1GB VRAM hold out in 720p?

 

[GuyNwah]

I have thought it more likely that the difference between 2, 3, and 4 GB VRAM will be the rate at which texture resources have to be thrashed. Unless you actually need more than 1.5GB of textures to render a scene, the rest of your texture memory budget can be used for textures the game used recently or anticipates needing in the immediate future. If it isn't enough, you could get texture pop-in or delays as textures that are needed in the current frame have to be reloaded from system RAM.

Many others as well as myself will have good information on how 1, 1.25, 1.5, and 2GB cards react to the game Real Soon Now. Though I suspect that because there is one texture size, cards with smaller VRAM will be at a disadvantage at all resolutions.

 

[andry18]

The recommended specs mention a GTX 770, which has 2 GB of VRAM. That handles max texture quality no prob?

Nope, the recommended specs are for medium-high setting

 

[Lieste]

The Uber texture cache is 800 Low is 200.. (files? MB? Something else?)
You'll need more VRAM for geometries other caches, and methods, but this is from the xmls for the installed game.

Not going to know what the VRAM usage is until the 19th (unless one of the reviews mentions it, or CDPR publish the revised "day one patch" requirements), but it looks *possible* that 1GB might manage low settings.

 

[eskiMoe]

I hope mine is enough for smooth play at 5 megapixels. 21:9 has ruined me so that I actually feel anxiety when playing in 16:9 because of the lack of horizontal field of view. :hope:

Talk about 1st world problems..

Btw. how much VRAM does post process AA use? I only really need 1xSMAA at my PPI..

 

[MomoSinX]

That's promising at least. I won't be able to afford any eye candy anyway so I am shooting for a smoth experience on the lowest settings in 720p. I might be able to afford 2x AA though.

 

[PsG1988]

I think a 770 will do the job good, when i look at what settings GTA5 runs on it with 35-55 FPS (Maxed out except population variety, high res shadow, and the extended distance settigns, with 4x msaa @ 1080p) VRAM usage shown ingame = 2,7 GB no problem at all (4 hours play session no crash)

 

[cyberpunkforever]

if the recommended 2GB are for middle settings, then ultra needs 4GB or more, right?

 

[eskiMoe]

if the recommended 2GB are for middle settings, then ultra needs 4GB or more, right?

How did you come to this conclusion?

 

[Eruvadhor]

How did you come to this conclusion?

If memory serves CDPR was using GTX980s and claiming 60fps@1080p? Which would suggest it is under 4gb.

 

[eskiMoe]

If memory serves CDPR was using GTX980s and claiming 60fps@1080p? Which would suggest it is under 4gb.

Yup. It doesn't mean it needs 4GB. It might be fine with having only 3GB frame buffer.

I was just wondering what made cyberpunk come to the conclusion that the game requires 4GB of VRAM. Especially considering the game only has one texture size.

 

[Lieste]

There is one texture size, but various downsampling texture and atlas scalings.

There is a 4:1 utilisation per texture, plus longer draw distances (and thus potentially more textures) for uber, compared to low settings.

Some other settings are closer, but some go to 6x the value (e.g. foliage shadow draw distance), and 8x the tesselation factor for water.

 

[eskiMoe]

Yup. It might be that I have to settle playing the game @ 1080p after all. Until there are GPUs that come with buttloads of VRAM that is.

 

[Lieste]

The value for uber texture loading target size is "800" - my guess is this means 800MB, leaving ~1200MB of a 2GB card spare for other shaders, the geometry, physics screen buffer etc... don't know for sure if it will all fit, but it might... I'd expect it to fit comfortably into a 4GB card, and probably also into a 3.5GB too.

Whether 2GB is quite enough for uber? Wouldn't like to guess, but if it is good for high then a 3.5GB will certainly cope with uber (IMO).

 

[SRSR333]

*Sigh* nobody cares about laptop gamers. GTX 860M overclocked with 2 GB VRAM, and I can run GTA V at high-very high settings at 45-55 FPS. Witcher 3 might be a little more demanding - 35-45 FPS is fine for me too. All the desktop gamers with SLI 970 and 980s whinging about performance, while I just sit, switch on and play. Looks like first-world problems to me...

 

[uthvag]

looking at recent games, i would say 2gb for high and 3 gb for ultra.As for AA i would prefer fxaa because it causes the least hit in performance.

eagerly waiting for benchmarks , currently stuck with my 860m.

PS- in general about performance , i think it will go up after nvidia/amd releases drivers ( for w3 + project cars) as well as after patches

 

[soldiergeralt]

*Sigh* nobody cares about laptop gamers. GTX 860M overclocked with 2 GB VRAM, and I can run GTA V at high-very high settings at 45-55 FPS. Witcher 3 might be a little more demanding - 35-45 FPS is fine for me too. All the desktop gamers with SLI 970 and 980s whinging about performance, while I just sit, switch on and play. Looks like first-world problems to me...

maybe it's because laptops aren't designed for gaming, and people who play demanding games on laptops have been taken advantage of by rip off artists.

 

[uthvag]

*Sigh* nobody cares about laptop gamers. GTX 860M overclocked with 2 GB VRAM, and I can run GTA V at high-very high settings at 45-55 FPS. Witcher 3 might be a little more demanding - 35-45 FPS is fine for me too. All the desktop gamers with SLI 970 and 980s whinging about performance, while I just sit, switch on and play. Looks like first-world problems to me...

Oi oi sir , can you tell me how you OC'd your 860m( bios flashed etc...)

with a little tweaking i can manage around 30 on ACunity High ( fxaa and hbao+) , high ultra in dragon age ( 35 fps avg)

i do hope that all the recommended specs are marketing stuff . I would be glad at medium high @ 1080p ( almost the same setting/a tad higher as PS4)

---------- Updated at 03:28 AM ----------

maybe it's because laptops aren't designed for gaming, and people who play demanding games on laptops have been taken advantage of by rip off artists.

there are laptops for gaming . the 870m = 760 880m = 770; 970m=770 but they are costly with the min 860m starting at 1000$.For the same a really powerful desktop can be built.

And most gamers buy it by necessity , esp if they are college students