I know it's not the minimum. But for me, playing on PC should offer better visuals and performance, that is a core goal of going PC over console. If you can't get more than marginally better with the current crop of hardware then it feels like a waste. This is coming from someone really itching to build a new PC when the new Intel chips hit the market.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shadow of Mordor offers Ultra texture optional download, recommends 6GB VRAM @ 1080p
- Thread starter Regret Truth
- Start date
Chance Hale
Member
Upload the power of your titan blacks to the cloud, save us all!
GHG
Member
I've said it before, but I think the problem isn't with developers (except Ubisoft), but with GPU manufacturers (especially Nvidia) skimping out on VRAM. It's quite ridiculous how stubborn they're sticking to their predictable VRAM gains schedule just to maintain incremental improvements in their most lacking area for people who need them.
The 780 Ti costing $700 and only having 3GB of VRAM is a reprehensible and intentionally restrictive move and today's top cards could and should be rocking more VRAM than they are... from launch and as reference. We could substantially move a baseline of texture quality forward if GPU manufacturers pushed a jump in standardized VRAM amounts and wecwouldn't be looking at these bizarre situations with vastly more powerful hardware hamstrung by something so trivial to change. But instead, Nvidia will be content to lock that privelage behind a $1000 wall.
The 780 Ti costing $700 and only having 3GB of VRAM is a reprehensible and intentionally restrictive move and today's top cards could and should be rocking more VRAM than they are... from launch and as reference. We could substantially move a baseline of texture quality forward if GPU manufacturers pushed a jump in standardized VRAM amounts and wecwouldn't be looking at these bizarre situations with vastly more powerful hardware hamstrung by something so trivial to change. But instead, Nvidia will be content to lock that privelage behind a $1000 wall.
brain_stew
Member
They were the sensible ones. You were probably screwed by Nvidia on price but it's not as if you had a decent alternative. The last 12 months has been full of bad GPU choices and inflated prices. The 970 finally saw an end to that.
GhostTrick
Banned
True ! But my point was that with these 2 cards had a total of 8GB of VRAM. Of course, SLI doesn't take that into account, that was just that his point was stupid to begin with. Like if you added 2 cards, it wasn't enough.
Then again, there's nothing that shows that PS4 represent the highest settings you know. Even if you don't put Ultra textures on... what about framerate ? IQ ? shadows ? tesselation ? the list can go more and more.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Hahaha, this hysteria. Watch AMD announce three 6GB models today and people will legit cancel some 970 orders.
Crimsonclaw111
Member
The textures will be better than or comparable to PS4 anyway. You can still run fancy tessellation, MSAA, etc and still have it look nicer than the console versions.
Have fun chasing max settings 24/7 though, it ain't gonna be easy. Unless you're Smokey.
I got mine from a Gaffer for ~$250, so I got a good deal out of it. Remember folks, second hand is an option!
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Why are you acting as though the Ultra HD textures are the only thing it has over the console versions? And that disabling it will mean you're getting a PS4 experience? We don't have any detailed analysis of the versions yet. One setting being designed for the ultra high end PCs doesn't mean your high end PC is getting an inferior product, it means they've gone the extra mile to get more options for more powerful machines.
You know it's actually pretty cool they are giving people an option for the higher res textures, people used to complain a lot about crappy textures even on consoles last gen, and to be honest they have been kind of shit the entire last generation outside of character faces like in mass effect games due to technical limitation.
This really has nothing to do with this thread, and besides that, an ultra resolution texture pack is one of the easiest things for a developer to put out since the source textures are often at extremely high resolutions.
Larogue
Member
8gb of GDDR5 ram, that has insane bandwidth compared to a typical DDR3 ram in PC. That's why developers are mostly utilizing the VRAM in PC which has similar bandwidth speeds.
Atraveller
Banned
Pimpbaa
Member
Um, they have 8 gigs of ram for both the GPU and CPU. So they physically have more than 6 gigs. Developers have access to much less than that due to ram being reserved for OS features. It's also entirely probable they will free up more ram for games in the future.
biglittleps
Member
Old days are 720p ports but now its 1080p ports, so developers are using high resolution assets for games which needs more RAM because PS4/XB1 has 5GB+ RAM for game. Seems like a lot of users are not going to play with settings like PS4/XB1 due to RAM limitation even though they have powerful cards than PS4/XB1 buts its waste now.
Coffee Dog
Banned
But it will still look miles above what the consoles are putting out.
Not max =/= console settings. There is a gradient here.
There's *so* much more to PC gaming than just pretty graphics...
Leafhopper
Banned
True. I keep forgetting its DDR3 in most PCs and DDR5 in PS4's. Alright fair point.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
So, realistically, does this hints that people will have to settle for just mere 1080p down the road for some titles?
GhostTrick
Banned
And it also has higher latency. Developpers are also using system ram. And your GDDR5 on PC also has a lot higher bandwith that your PS4 8GB of GDDR5... which in fact is 5 because of OS footprint.
GHG
Member
Nvidia also sell high end GPUs for $1000. What do you expect?
These guys basically have free reign of the market at the moment so they can do what they want. Profit margins are more important to them than anything else.
It's the same story on the CPU side with intel basically rehashing the same processors for the last 5 years and selling them at the same premium prices. They don't have affordable 6/8 core CPUs out at the moment because they simply don't have to. Nobody is pushing them.
The whole market is in need of a shakeup.
An 8gig GTX 970 will probably sell for around $400 in a month or two. Nothing wrong with some future-proofing, regardless.
Also, the idea some in this thread seem to have that they should just buy the PS4 version instead of running the game on their GTX 700 series or higher is laughable. If you have a lower version 500 series then you can start talking pros and cons of buying a console version.
For the second time, people, read Durante's thread on this topic. (the point of which is- it's a good thing if new games can't be maxed out)
Oh quiet you with your titan blacks.
everybody has been shitting on the 700 series last few days and then this news hits and it's panic lol
Chance Hale
Member
Don't think it really sets a precedent. Ryse requires 4GBs of video memory for 4K, and the textures in that game are pretty unparalleled. Benchmarks and impressions are 3 days away, we will find out soon enough.
Is this confirmed? Was getting the game on PS4 anyway but 60fps would be a nice suprise.
GHG
Member
It's at the point where I'm looking at those 6gb 780s and suddenly they don't look so bad anymore...
I keep seeing people in this thread misunderstand what effect output resolution have on VRAM requirements.
Higher resolution (like how 1440p is higher than 1080p) increases the size of the framebuffer, which is a static value. It doesnt increase the size required by other textures.
Thus, going from 1080 to 1440 will not increase the required ram by more than the difference in frame buffer size. Should be 100MB difference max assuming HDR buffer wih a deferred buffer.
Also, this means that a comparison with other games at higher resolutions (like the BF4 at 5880x2160) is pointless.
The textures of characters/objects/environment is what drives VRAM. And this game seems to have really high res textures on enemies, seen in those close ups.
Higher resolution (like how 1440p is higher than 1080p) increases the size of the framebuffer, which is a static value. It doesnt increase the size required by other textures.
Thus, going from 1080 to 1440 will not increase the required ram by more than the difference in frame buffer size. Should be 100MB difference max assuming HDR buffer wih a deferred buffer.
Also, this means that a comparison with other games at higher resolutions (like the BF4 at 5880x2160) is pointless.
The textures of characters/objects/environment is what drives VRAM. And this game seems to have really high res textures on enemies, seen in those close ups.
Chance Hale
Member
Video memory doesn't combine, you will still only have 4GBs. Not eight.
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
I just went through all these stages with you all! I can't afford a new card so Medium settings it is.
Edit: The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Damn fuckin' straight.
I saw the 970, but thought it would be better to wait until 2015 for a 20nm GTX 1070 with 6GB VRAM and a 384 bit bus at sub $400. Nvidia will probably charge at least $500 for 6GB cards next year though.
Acceptance
I just went through all these stages with you all! I can't afford a new card so Medium settings it is.
Edit: The 5 Stages of Loss and Grief
PS4/X1 may have more than your 670 VRAM, but they do have much weaker processing power. So, on your PC, you might have to run lower textures, due to limited VRAM, but can get offer higher FPS, polygons, shadow, particles and etc., due to more processing power. Overall, the experience on your pc should be better.
So unless you have a GTX Titan Black/Titan Z (or that one MSI version of the R280X with 6GB), Ultra is off-limits - even with a 970/980.
Looks like Nvidia needs to get to work on the 980Ti, stat. For now, I'll be stuck at medium textures with my 2GB 680 (if that - I'm rendering to a 1440p, not 1080p, target).
I'm not complaining, though - we spent long enough with 8800GTs as minimum and a lack of motivation to move to ever faster, more RAM-laden cards. Glad to see the consoles are actually driving PC specs forward this time around...
Looks like Nvidia needs to get to work on the 980Ti, stat. For now, I'll be stuck at medium textures with my 2GB 680 (if that - I'm rendering to a 1440p, not 1080p, target).
I'm not complaining, though - we spent long enough with 8800GTs as minimum and a lack of motivation to move to ever faster, more RAM-laden cards. Glad to see the consoles are actually driving PC specs forward this time around...
Of course, but they aren't all on the same levels of details. To pump out highly detailed textures packed with the game, the minimum quality of acceptance is bit higher than normal (so that everything is cohesive on screen when put together with everything else).
There are so many games already, which doesn't have the same level of texture details for the target game rendering resolution of 1920x1080 pixels. Certain objects have low detailed compared to other objects on screen at specific locations, this gap will only increase if an even higher level of texture details are mentioned to be in the game.
Chance Hale
Member
They will put out 8GB models of the 970/80 in a few months. And it says "recommended", not required. There's no way to know how things are going to run until Tuesday as it doesn't seem like the high res texture pack is out for reviewers. Benchmarks galore soon!
Larogue
Member
Its coming, hold your horses, you're 680 will be fine.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nv...o-have-4gb-initally-and-8gb-models-later.html
If anything, it will give me a go-to game to benchmark when I finally do get an 8GB card.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
Shoot. I just realized that 970/980 only have 4gb!
Not really good for Nvidia to show this just a few days after releasing those cards!
That's why its best to wait a bit longer.
Not really good for Nvidia to show this just a few days after releasing those cards!
That's why its best to wait a bit longer.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
We need to add Rogers swift kick in the nuts somewhere in there.
Sorry, American Dad joke
Of course it is not needed. The problem is people want it.
As time goes on, I think game developers need to put more technical information about a game's visual options at the settings page (if they don't want to alienate, they could at least put up a hover input_control over option tooltop for more information).
Instead of showing 6GB of VRAM required for this option, it would also be nice to mention more technical aspects one level down..like:
"average of value1xvalue2 resolution textures are utilized" and other information
or
"polygon mesh quality has these many polygons on average"
Instead of showing 6GB of VRAM required for this option, it would also be nice to mention more technical aspects one level down..like:
"average of value1xvalue2 resolution textures are utilized" and other information
or
"polygon mesh quality has these many polygons on average"
NumberThree
Member
Cool. I won't be buying a 6GB card any time soon but it's always great to have options for those who do, wouldn't it be a shame if there was nothing utilizing those $1000 cards?
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Glad to see what I was saying to people complaining about how weak the new consoles were compared to their "beast" PCs starting to come to fruition. Everyone should've known that the bar was going to be moved up big time, especially with how low its been for so many years longer than it should've been.
Still not replacing my SLI'd 460s, at least not yet, yay minimum requirements.
Still not replacing my SLI'd 460s, at least not yet, yay minimum requirements.
Agent_4Seven
Tears of Nintendo
Look man, I really have no problem with this "making the game look as cool as possible on the PC" thing, but while you doing this you also need to consider that almost no one have a video card with such a huge amount of VRAM, almost no one, period. So what's the point in making the game look cool on the PC if almost no one can play it with at least high settings? Or do you think everyone has an enormous amounts of cash to buy a new PC just to play this on high or ultra settings (not to mention The Evil Within)? Nope, they don't.