Support NeoGAF

[UrbanRats]

Yeah, i won't freak out and burn my 780 just yet.
i was told that anything above 3GB would've been mainly for 1200 and up resolutions, but i'm sure i'll still manage to run these games, better than with my ps4.. so not that big of a deal.
it's a bummer though as it appears my 780 will last less than i was hoping, but on the other hand it's good to see devs pushing specs, for one.

 

[pixlexic]

this is one thing that can be bad about pc gaming. its not the specs. its the people addicted to maxing out the settings.

These 6 gig settings are more so you can play it 4 years from now with your new gpu and still have room to improve not because you they think you should have 6 gig card right now.

 

[SparkTR]

If there's any truth to this, are we talking about evolution, or simply spec inflation?
There are already much better looking games available on the market, that don't come with such requirements. If someone made a game like Crysis again, with insane visuals and requirements while marketting it properly, that'd be more than fine, as an enthusiast, I'd find it very exciting. But for example, when Activision asks you to have 6 GBs of RAM on a game just to make it seem next gen, are we talking about evolution?

6GB isn't to make it 'seem' next gen, it's to make it well above next gen. I'm sure when Monolith started making this they didn't set out for it to become the next Crysis on any platform, I'd still rather they released the advanced settings than not.

 

[Fractal]

I don't think Monolith are incompetent enough to waste so much VRAM. If ultra textures genuinely require 6GB (or probably something between 4 and 6) then they must be very detailed.

Can't wait to see that. I'm not buying the game but I'd like to see the difference in texture quality.

I really hope so, but in any case, it would be much more efficient marketting to actually show us some good examples of these Ultra textures, instead of just talking numbers. Let people know what they're getting, and let us see if the difference between High and Ultra is anywhere as big enough to justify this yet unsubstantiated claim.

Anyways, I find it pretty ironic how a whole lot of PC gamers complained about their high-end hardware being underutilized over the last gen, yet as of now, even top of the line cards are under threat of becoming immediately obsolete when it comes to max settings. But if they become obsolete, they''ll sadly become obsolete for all the wrong reasons...

 

[Unai]

What's the source of this image?

 

[Fractal]

6GB isn't to make it 'seem' next gen, it's to make it well above next gen. I'm sure when Monolith started making this they didn't set out for it to become the next Crysis on any platform, I'd still rather they released the advanced settings than not.

Have you seen these Ultra textures in action and compared them with the textures from console versions?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

any comparison shots of the different settings?

 

[maniac-kun]

SInce 980 GTX are all 4 GB VRAM only Titan cards can run this at ultra ... What the fuck.

 

[2002whitegt]

I'm confident that my 980 at max settings and high textures will still look better than what my PS4 could do.

No way the PS4 is running the game on max settings and getting 1080p 60fps

 

[KingSnake]

I wish the graphics settings in the games to be like:

Mobile
Console
PC
Rich bastard
Insane owner with lots of available cash

It would save us from these crazy illogical threads.

 

[MikeE21286]

This is the official line in the sand for my 570.

Was gonna get this on Steam. Now it's PS4 for all future multiplats :/

 

[SparkTR]

Have you seen these Ultra textures in action and compared them with the textures from console versions?

No, but neither have you I imagine. We'll know eventually.

 

[leng jai]

What a daft thread. So many embarrassing meltdowns when we don't even have the actual game for testing yet.

 

[SparkTR]

Maybe I am being unrealistic...but this game requiring 6gb of VRAM is a joke, especially when you see the actual texture quality.

When comparing it to a game like Crysis 2 with Maldo's mods (which I can comfortably run on 2gb of VRAM) it makes me wonder why such ridiculous requirements are becoming the norm?

The game doesn't even look that good, certainly nowhere near the best looking game on PC yet 6gb of VRAM?

GTFO.

Crysis 2 is linear and small, modded Skyrim floats up to 5GB vram usage.

 

[Theecliff]

Maybe I am being unrealistic...but this game requiring 6gb of VRAM is a joke, especially when you see the actual texture quality.

When comparing it to a game like Crysis 2 with Maldo's mods (which I can comfortably run on 2gb of VRAM) it makes me wonder why such ridiculous requirements are becoming the norm?

The game doesn't even look that good, certainly nowhere near the best looking game on PC yet 6gb of VRAM?

GTFO.

The 6gb of VRAM is just for the optional Ultra textures, not for the game to run.

 

[BONKERS]

Crysis 2 is linear and small, modded Skyrim floats up to 5GB vram usage.

Yeah, but Skyrim mod textures are actually ridiculously high quality for the most part.

 

[Stevey]

And modded skyrim looks significantly better than this don't you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzSBpkxbqw

Linking Youtube videos is pointless.

 

[R_Deckard]

But what's the average VRAM use on consoles?

between 3-4gb for visuals/textures

 

[SparkTR]

And modded skyrim looks significantly better than this don't you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzSBpkxbqw

Seriously? No, not in the slightest. No amount of ENB bloom and blur can make Skyrim look like anything other than an old DX9 game, outside of 'scenic' shots.

 

[pixlexic]

between 3-4gb for visuals/textures

there has been no pc port of a console game that has needed more than a 2 gig card to run the same textures.

 

[Fractal]

No, but neither have you I imagine. We'll know eventually.

Exactly, but my point isn't about that. I just think the developer is going the wrong way here, if they're going to include a 6 GB VRAM option, they better show it off properly, both the textures themselves, and the performance difference between a 6 GB card and 2-3 GB card. Since this setting is clearly targetting the enthusiast market segment, the enthusiasts typically know their stuff, so the developer should respect that.

 

[hengyu]

So if I have a 4790k with 16 GB RAM and a GTX780, is it actually going to be better to play this on my PS4? I wasn't expecting that so soon.

Obviously not...

 

[Qassim]

This topic is everything that is wrong with people's annoying expectations for PC graphics. What on earth is wrong with developers pushing the absolute enthusiast level hardware? What because you don't have top end enthusiast hardware you believe we should be limited by your specific config?

This obsession with "ALWAYS ULTRA, MAX SETTINGS AT ALL TIMES" is dumb and stupid.

6GB VRAM requirements is ABOVE the console level - so things like "I'm giving up on PC" because of this is really absurd. We know there is only about 4.5-5GB usable memory on the consoles. That's system and VRAM (in a unified pool). This is above that.

 

[Gbraga]

You got some more of that fxaa?

 

[Lockjaw333]

Something is off, because the game doesn't look good enough in any footage we've seen to date to justify beastly specs. Honestly it just looks "good", not really among some of the best out there.

I'm sure the difference between High and Ultra textures will be hard to notice during normal gameplay, just like it is with most games.

My GTX 670 2GB is still holding on for life!

 

[Fractal]

And modded skyrim looks significantly better than this don't you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzSBpkxbqw

If you watch it at 1440p, I think this is a fairly good quality video, about the best you can get from Youtube. Anyways, after watching it, the game strongly reminds me of RAGE, looks good when taken as a whole, but upon closer inspection, many textures, most notably the ground ones look very low-res.

 

[Lockjaw333]

This topic is everything that is wrong with people's annoying expectations for PC graphics. What on earth is wrong with developers pushing the absolute enthusiast level hardware? What because you don't have top end enthusiast hardware you believe we should be limited by your specific config?

This obsession with "ALWAYS ULTRA, MAX SETTINGS AT ALL TIMES" is dumb and stupid.

I agree with you, and I won't act like I don't fall victim to this sometimes too. I feel like I'm not getting the complete experience if I can't max a game out at 1080/ 60fps. In reality, the difference between High and Ultra, for example in BF4, isn't really that big of a difference.

Its called high for a reason. Being able to run a game on high is pretty damn good, and I agree with you that Ultra settings should be aimed at the real enthusiast level hardware. Something that won't be able to be maxed out smoothly with consumer level cards until a few years later.

I remember Crysis was one of those games... I built a PC for Crysis, and was bummed that I could only play on a mix of medium and high. However going back a few years later and maxing that piece felt pretty fulfilling.

 

[Mman235]

The hysteria over this in terms of the 4GB 9xx cards continues to be absurd when much more efficient VRam use is one of the flagship features of them. Not to mention this is all assuming that these aren't extremely exaggerated figures in the first place.

 

[teiresias]

PC game devs are certainly trying their hardest to make the "Gaming PCs cost $4000" a real thing again with these kinds of specs.

 

[Saiyan-Rox]

So how is my i5 12GB ram 7950 gonna handle this? Preordered last week

 

[Qassim]

Edit: never mind - missed a post

 

[OmegaDL50]

Seriously? No, not in the slightest. No amount of ENB bloom and blur can make Skyrim look like anything other than an old DX9 game, outside of 'scenic' shots.

The original Crysis was also a DX9 game and still is visually on par with some of the best looking games today, so brushing Skyrim aside because it's based on DX9 isn't really a compelling point.

Even still not factoring SSAO or other post processing effects because of ENB. When you factor high res texture packs, such as the Serious HD Retexture pack which utilizes 4096x4096 textures based on real world rocks and foliage for ground, tree, grass, wood, etc textures makes it far cry beyond the original game.

 

[Kezen]

there has been no pc port of a console game that has needed more than a 2 gig card to run the same textures.

Watch Dogs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRveD-kzuME

And chances are 3GB+ will be necessary for same texture quality as consoles. It's just the way it is, the common denominator has been raised.

 

[FACE]

This thread

Devs offering these sort of settings is always a good thing in my eyes.

 

[KKRT00]

Crysis 2 is linear and small, modded Skyrim floats up to 5GB vram usage.

It doesnt matter how big game world is. You are only keep textures You are using or used lately in VRAM..

 

[Sentenza]

Maybe I am being unrealistic...but this game requiring 6gb of VRAM is a joke, especially when you see the actual texture quality.

But you didn't see the texture quality yet.
Not sure what you are arguing about, specifically.

 

[Turin Turambar]

Yeah, i won't freak out and burn my 780 just yet.
i was told that anything above 3GB would've been mainly for 1200 and up resolutions, but i'm sure i'll still manage to run these games, better than with my ps4.. so not that big of a deal.
it's a bummer though as it appears my 780 will last less than i was hoping, but on the other hand it's good to see devs pushing specs, for one.

I can assure you in Q4 2015 it will be a different story. Eventually AAA games will use up all the memory available in consoles to make a <900p game.

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

I'm actually impressed they give detailed explanations for their video settings, its nice seeing things like that.

Anyhoo, I don't see a need for any uproar yet until -

1. We have seen what Ultra textures actually brings to the table.
2. What the PS4's textures look like.
3. How it performs on PC with Ultra selected with less than 6GB of VRAM (for all we know it could be the devs being overly safe).

Extra PC enhancements are awesome bonuses, I think some people just need to get over having every slider to the max (although it does make me laugh when some people put everything to the max, not realizing some settings actually make a game look worse).

Time will tell.

 

[Sentenza]

I can assure you in Q4 2015 it will be a different story. Eventually AAA games will use up all the memory available in consoles to make a <900p game.

That doesn't change a thing, if your standard is to match what consoles do.
VRAM is not the only RAM available on a PC.
A console's memory pool is shared and used for everything. PC's VRAM is used specifically for what *needs* VRAM and everything else can rely on system RAM.

The average modern rig goes with 8GB of DDR3 as entry level PLUS the VRAM.

 

[FF Seraphim]

....so my GTX 680 will need to be upgraded sooner rather than later...

 

[CyberPunked]

I'm going to subscribe to this thread, just so in 5 years time I can look at it and laugh how we thought 6Gb was a lot for VRAM. It's like looking at a PC magazine from 2000 which is about "superfast 1Ghz CPUs"

 

[leng jai]

Seriously? No, not in the slightest. No amount of ENB bloom and blur can make Skyrim look like anything other than an old DX9 game, outside of 'scenic' shots.

Modded Skyrim is one of the prettiest games around. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter runs on UE3 and is one of the best looking games I've ever seen.

 

[epmode]

I remember when PC games were routinely released with max settings that couldn't be reached by existing machines. Good times.

Seriously, I loved going back to old games after a hardware upgrade to see the improved look.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

"But can it ran Shadows of Mordor?"

 

[Stallion Free]

What a daft thread. So many embarrassing meltdowns when we don't even have the actual game for testing yet.

Idk man, I can't max the game out on my PC so I'm just gonna wait for the 360 version instead where I won't have to think about these things.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Hahahaha, that's six GB of RAM, right?

Oh, it's VRAM. I'll just stick some DDR3 into my fan slot, that should do the trick.

 

[iceatcs]

That doesn't change a thing, if your standard is to match what consoles do.
VRAM is not the only RAM available on a PC.
A console's memory pool is shared and used for everything. PC's VRAM is used specifically for what *needs* VRAM and everything else can rely on system RAM.

The average modern rig goes with 8GB of DDR3 as entry level PLUS the VRAM.

But I thought VRAM and PC RAM not quite same task. That's why not many games use PC RAM many as VRAM.

 

[Kezen]

I'm going to subscribe to this thread, just so in 5 years time I can look at it and laugh how we thought 6Gb was a lot for VRAM. It's like looking at a PC magazine from 2000 which is about "superfast 1Ghz CPUs"

I remember when 512MB was considered overkill as well.
Good times.

 

[Sentenza]

I'm going to subscribe to this thread, just so in 5 years time I can look at it and laugh how we thought 6Gb was a lot for VRAM. It's like looking at a PC magazine from 2000 which is about "superfast 1Ghz CPUs"

Five years from now 16 GB of VRAM may even be the standard, but that doesn't mean that at ANY point in the next years you'll going to *need* them to match consoles.

Here's what everyone throwing around the optimization bullshit is missing: hardware that eclipse consoles today will STILL eclipse consoles in five years, no matter how much magic optimization you can throw in. What it won't necessarily do is "max out" PC games in five years, but that's because it's a very vague, arbitrary requirement to fulfill.

 

[DarkChronic]

Haha. My 970 4GB is already outdated.