[Gamepur] 2GB not enough for Watch_Dogs 1080p

[Gloomy]

http://www.gamepur.com/news/14763-w...irms-massive-3gb-vram-ultra-setting-text.html

 

[Stuka87]

You should put the source in the title of this topic.

It is interesting that they actually say in the options that you need 3GB. Not sure I have seen a game do this before.

 

[BrightCandle]

Titanfall also needed 3GB for its ultra texture setting in beta, although I think they paired back the setting once it got released.

 

[SlickR12345]

No kidding. It has to render a huge city with ultra quality textures, of course its going to require 3GB of memory.

I think if you want to be future proof you should be buying GPU's with 3+GB memory, I mean most games use 1GB up to a max of 2gb according to guru3d, but newer games I imagine will slowly but surely start using more and more.

So I'd say for now a 2GB card is very good and you can always disable AA or reduce resolution, but in the future a 3GB card will be needed for super quality gaming.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its inevitable that we will need more memory in the future, its a guarenteed. Question is when its necessary, and I'll reserve judgement on whether its valuable for Watchdogs until I see what difference it really makes.

 

[Attic]

Happening sooner than I thought, but 2gb cards are not cutting it anymore at high end 1080P.

The new Wolfenstein requires more than 2gb for it's ultra setting to be selectable as well.

 

[tential]

No kidding. It has to render a huge city with ultra quality textures, of course its going to require 3GB of memory.

I think if you want to be future proof you should be buying GPU's with 3+GB memory, I mean most games use 1GB up to a max of 2gb according to guru3d, but newer games I imagine will slowly but surely start using more and more.

So I'd say for now a 2GB card is very good and you can always disable AA or reduce resolution, but in the future a 3GB card will be needed for super quality gaming.

AMD has been making 3GB+ for awhile now. I think it's unreasonable to pick up a 2GB card at the moment. 3GB+ is really the way to go if you're spending money. The GTX770 at 2GB was king of mean. Sure you get good gaming when you bought it, but the future was just ignored. Or rather, Nvidia left a reason for you to upgrade once newer games came out.

 

[toyota]

this is more of a reason to pick a 780 than to pick a 770 4gb like many will suggest. a 780 will at least give ALL your games a performance increase.

whats sad is that these games are using way too much performance and vram for how they look. Wolfenstien is not the least bit impressive looking and has some horrible looking textures in spots. that Daylight game pegs my 780 at 99% and uses every bit of vram for just playing at 1080 and getting 60 fps. that is ridiculous for a game that looks worse than most UE3 games. just think how demanding any game that will actually look good will be. and hell UE4 does not even support SLI which is insane.

 

[blastingcap]

I seem to remember a thread on these very forums recently where people who already paid for 2GB-and-under cards insisted that 2GB is enough for 2560x1440--even for next-gen console ports.

I'm sure they weren't biased.

Meanwhile those of us at 3GB+ just shrug and game on.

 

[Grooveriding]

Bad time to be a GTX 680/770 owner I guess.

I think this game is going to be a stinker personally. Over-hyped so much it may end up just being bad game play all round. Seems to pan out like that a lot when a game has an announced release date and gets pushed back a long ways out to 'polish' it.

 

[ZGR]

I'm still chugging with 1gb and Wolfenstein is running very well (apart from the beginning flight). Although Wolfenstein isn't running on ultra settings, it seems to level off around 900mb on medium/high settings.

I think 1-2gb will be fine for medium settings for awhile, but ultra settings definitely are hungry for VRAM on a lot of newer games.

 

[Daedalus685]

While a game may want/need more than 2GB for a specific setting this is not the same thing as an identical card strapped with 4GB being better than one with 2.

There are lots of situations where more ram is needed today (extreme resolutions and modded textures) but in most cases the cards we generally talk about with 2GB (the 680s, 770s, 270s, etc.) would be painful to play at those settings regardless of ram except for a few exceptions.

There is such a thing as a balanced card and high end has moved well past 2GB. the midrange may well still contain cards that are perfectly logical and balanced with 2GB for years to come. I just feel bad for the folks that try to sli up those midrange cards in the next couple of years and expect ultra performance.

 

[Mand]

Average RAM count on cards goes up, game devs start using it.

We should be surprised why?

 

[toyota]

Average RAM count on cards goes up, game devs start using it.

We should be surprised why?

for the reason I just said. some of these games look like crap yet are demanding and eating up vram.

 

[Bateluer]

Average RAM count on cards goes up, game devs start using it.

We should be surprised why?

Because developers should only develop for 10 year old hardware, 256MBs of RAM maximum. Only 128KB texture allowed. Hardware should be supported indefinitely.

Learned this watching people bitch about the higher system requirements in Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, and Galactic Civilizations 3.

 

[toyota]

Because developers should only develop for 10 year old hardware, 256MBs of RAM maximum. Only 128KB texture allowed. Hardware should be supported indefinitely.

Learned this watching people bitch about the higher system requirements in Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, and Galactic Civilizations 3.

lol I like how everyone keeps avoiding my point. go look at screenshots or videos of the actual games and they are a joke for needing that much vram and/or gpu power.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36386490&postcount=556

and do i even need to post pics of that graphical joke, Wolfenstein.

 

[x3sphere]

Because developers should only develop for 10 year old hardware, 256MBs of RAM maximum. Only 128KB texture allowed. Hardware should be supported indefinitely.

Learned this watching people bitch about the higher system requirements in Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein, and Galactic Civilizations 3.

Well I agree with him, Wolfenstein isn't anything special, it looks way worse than say Crysis 3 yet demands way more VRAM. And people complained about Crysis optimization...

The jury's still out on Watch_Dogs obviously but the game better make my jaw drop with such steep requirements.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

You need 3 GBs alone for ultra textures at 1080p.

 

[tviceman]

I wouldn't want to get caught with insufficient VRAM, but I highly suspect the difference between ultra quality textures and high quality textures in this game will need screenshots blow up and dissected with a magnifying glass to see the difference.

Anyways, calling it now - a 770 and/or 280x won't have the horsepower to come close to getting 60fps @ 1080p ultra settings regardless of how much vram either card has equipped.

 

[Techhog]

I wouldn't want to get caught with insufficient VRAM, but I highly suspect the difference between ultra quality textures and high quality textures in this game will need screenshots blow up and dissected with a magnifying glass to see the difference.

Anyways, calling it now - a 770 and/or 280x won't have the horsepower to come close to getting 60fps @ 1080p ultra settings regardless of how much vram either card has equipped.

The the recommended GPUs aren't that high, though. This seems to be a CPU-centric game.

 

[tviceman]

The the recommended GPUs aren't that high, though. This seems to be a CPU-centric game.

Assassin's Creed 4 recommended a gtx470, look at it rape a r290 and gtx780 at 1440p:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming_6_GB/6.html

Those cards can barely break 50fps at 1080p with AA on.

Case in point: Watch Dogs will destroy 770's or 280x's if people try to run the game on super high settings.

 

[blastingcap]

Assassin's Creed 4 recommended a gtx470, look at it rape a r290 and gtx780 at 1440p:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_280X_Gaming_6_GB/6.html

Those cards can barely break 50fps at 1080p with AA on.

Case in point: Watch Dogs will destroy 770's or 280x's if people try to run the game on super high settings.

You linked to a review that did not test at 1440p, then claimed that AC4 "[raped] a r290 and gtx780 at 1440p." :whiste:

The review did test 1600p which is 11.1% more pixels and if resolution:fps scaling were perfect, then the R290/GTX780 would get 39/37 fps, respectively. That's not exactly "rape," and I find it objectionable that you used that term to describe video cards, anyway.

A pair of 280X 3GB cards would do quite well in any game mentioned in this thread at 2560x1440. They wouldn't be shut out of using the highest settings, due to how they have 3GB of VRAM.

A pair of 2GB cards might not cut it for highest settings, but for some people second-best is good enough.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist. Oh, the irony. )

 

[tviceman]

You linked to a review that did not test at 1440p, then claimed that AC4 "[raped] a r290 and gtx780 at 1440p." :whiste:

The review did test 1600p which is 11.1% more pixels and if resolution:fps scaling were perfect, then the R290/GTX780 would get 39/37 fps, respectively. That's not exactly "rape," and I find it objectionable that you used that term to describe video cards, anyway.

A pair of 280X 3GB cards would do quite well in any game mentioned in this thread at 2560x1440. They wouldn't be shut out of using the highest settings, due to how they have 3GB of VRAM. A pair of 2GB cards would have more issues.

1600p, 1440p... semantics. Thanks for that correction, though. Here are some 1440p benchmarks with the 290x and 780TI running [redacted]cred 4. http://i0.wp.com/alienbabeltech.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/GF-v-Cat.jpg The 290x can't even break 40fps at 1440p with FXAA. Again, we're talking about a game that recommended a gtx 470.

I apologize if you find words on the internet offensive. In this politically correct world we live in, the last thing we want to do is offend anyone when talking about video card performance, especially on the internet.

I'm sure a pair of 3gb cards would do well at 1080p, but it's questionable and remains to be seen at 1440p. And yes, I agree that 2gb cards will probably need to turn down the texture setting and/or AA. I didn't know we were talking about a pair of cards, though. Wait, we weren't. You were the first to bring it up. But a pair of anything less than 290's or 780's will still likely be under 60fps @ 1440p with all the bells and whistles maxed out, making micro stutter an issue. Apparently though you find 39fps acceptable so we're on the opposite end of the spectrum in regards to performance of video cards.

 

[Bateluer]

lol I like how everyone keeps avoiding my point. go look at screenshots or videos of the actual games and they are a joke for needing that much vram and/or gpu power.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36386490&postcount=556

and do i even need to post pics of that graphical joke, Wolfenstein.

Just took a look at your screen shots, and yeah, Medium looks like crap. The difference between High and Ultra may look minimal to the human eye, but those textures in Ultra take up a lot more space. Not necessarily worth it, but its better to have the Ultra setting in than to just shrug and take it out because people complain their 4 year old hardware can't run the game at Ultra.

 

[f1sherman]

A pair of 280X 3GB cards would do quite well in any game mentioned in this thread at 2560x1440. They wouldn't be shut out of using the highest settings, due to how they have 3GB of VRAM.

A pair of 2GB cards might not cut it for highest settings, but for some people second-best is good enough.

One of the reasons why I went with R9 290.
If you have the grunt, just turn on AA/SSAA, without having to worry.

Sure 2GB will be "fine" for foreseeable future, but 4GB gives you something more than just fine, and that's peace of mind.

And you can't really blame Nvidia for going with 2GB standard.
4GB GK104 has been available for quite some time, so the option had been there for those who demanded longevity.
Besides if they went with 4GB, then 780 should come with 6GB standard.
Somehow they always hit the refresh cycle much better than AMD does.