[Gamepur] 2GB not enough for Watch_Dogs 1080p

[Majcric]

Any of you folks seen this http://www.overclock.net/t/1491602/watch-dogs-2gb-vram-performance-analysis-and-graphics

From what I've gathered so far it looks like only sli users with 2gb cards could potentially have some Vram issues. Single 670/680/760/770 2gber's will more than likely run out of performance before Vram is ever a factor anyway, as always.

I personally will probably try High settings at my native rez of 1440p, if performance is not adequate, than perhaps scale back to 1080p and try a mix of high-ultra settings.

 

[Techhog]

Any of you folks seen this http://www.overclock.net/t/1491602/watch-dogs-2gb-vram-performance-analysis-and-graphics

From what I've gathered so far it looks like only sli users with 2gb cards could potentially have some Vram issues. Single 670/680/760/780 2gber's will more than likely run out of performance before Vram is ever a factor anyway, as always.

I personally will probably try High settings at my native rez of 1440p, if performance is not adequate, than perhaps scale back to 1080p and try a mix of high-ultra settings.

Ultra Textures
This is the killer right here, from my experience turned my game into a stutter fest. If you've got 2GB stick to the one just below this, "High".

Way to miss the main thing that we've been talking about this entire time...

 

[Majcric]

I personally don't find playing below 40 fps acceptable. Each to their own I guess.

 

[Atreidin]

I personally don't find playing below 40 fps acceptable. Each to their own I guess.

*whoosh*

The point is that 3GB is required for ULTRA textures, not that 2GB isn't good enough to run at good speeds for lower quality levels.

It is fun reading demands for benchmarks in games that don't appear to be possible. If a game won't let you run with ultra textures with 2GB, then I guess the data being demanded will never exist, and certain people will never be proven wrong (in their heads). Just like how until I see a benchmark of Crisis 3 on a Voodoo II, I am going to assume that 8MB is more than enough memory for ultra textures.

 

[RussianSensation]

I personally don't find playing below 40 fps acceptable. Each to their own I guess.

If you read his system specs, he is not only GPU but also CPU bottlenecked.

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @4GHz

For a CPU limited game, this CPU will be a severe bottleneck even for a card like GTX760. If say this test was performed with an i7 2600k @ 4.5Ghz, then he may have been closer to 45-50 fps average.

The point is there may only be a 3-4 fps hit with Ultra textures vs. High, and GPUs such as 680/770 could have the power to run Ultra but because of the VRAM bottleneck, this setting wouldn't work. I am actually surprised that it took developers this long to exceed 2GB for modern games since even a $299 HD6950 already came with that amount ages ago.

I can't imagine AMD or NV releasing any next generation GPU more powerful than 780Ti with any less than 4GB of VRAM. Games like The Order 1886, Witcher 3 and the Division should have even better graphics. I don't feel like Watch Dogs is a next generation game from a graphical point of view. Soon 2GB cards will be relegated to low end GPUs only. Heck, a $249 R9 280 has 3GB.

 

[Majcric]

dp

 

[Majcric]

If you read his system specs, he is not only GPU but also CPU bottlenecked.

CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @4GHz

For a CPU limited game, this CPU will be a severe bottleneck even for a card like GTX760. If say this test was performed with an i7 2600k @ 4.5Ghz, then he may have been closer to 45-50 fps average.

The point is there may only be a 3-4 fps hit with Ultra textures vs. High, and GPUs such as 680/770 could have the power to run Ultra but because of the VRAM bottleneck, this setting wouldn't work. I am actually surprised that it took developers this long to exceed 2GB for modern games since even a $299 HD6950 already came with that amount ages ago.

I can't imagine AMD or NV releasing any next generation GPU more powerful than 780Ti with any less than 4GB of VRAM. Games like The Order 1886, Witcher 3 and the Division should have even better graphics. I don't feel like Watch Dogs is a next generation game from a graphical point of view.

I Guess we'll know soon enough with the 7970/7950 equivalent that both have 3gb Vram

 

[RussianSensation]

As I said he had a horribly slow AMD CPU. Therefore, his testing isn't even valid for showcasing the full potential of his 760. In CPU limited games, an over clocked modern SB/IV/HW would beat his CPU by 50-75%. we also need to be careful before assuming that AMDs CPU can match an i5/7, in which case we need other benchmarks.

Then again, soon a lot more gamers will simply move on from the 760/670/680/770/7950/7970 era GPUs since in the next 12 months we will have next gen games and they will push these mid-range GPUs to their limits even at 1080p.

 

[Techhog]

*whoosh*

The point is that 3GB is required for ULTRA textures, not that 2GB isn't good enough to run at good speeds for lower quality levels.

It is fun reading demands for benchmarks in games that don't appear to be possible. If a game won't let you run with ultra textures with 2GB, then I guess the data being demanded will never exist, and certain people will never be proven wrong (in their heads). Just like how until I see a benchmark of Crisis 3 on a Voodoo II, I am going to assume that 8MB is more than enough memory for ultra textures.

The point here definitely flew over his head.

Private message removed. Do not post private messages; the key word being "private." -Admin DrPizza

 

[BrightCandle]

Its down right guaranteed that VRAM usage will increase in the future, that is just a given. Historically as we know the cards have been mostly limited on compute performance for settings before VRAM was an issue. We have now had 3 games (Titanfall, wolfenstein and Watchdogs) in short succession where the games higher settings would run on the card if it wasn't for the 2GB of VRAM limiting them. That is definitely different to how this has worked in the past.

I don't know if these 3 games make an overall trend towards more VRAM usage for the top settings and the 680/770 end up being starved for VRAM but have enough compute performance or whether its just a few games. Because there have always been a few games off the trend, that had an option to use special features of one card or another (in this case you could argue this is a nod to the 7970/280 users). Its interesting though how this has changed in the last couple of months. Need to see a few more examples before we call the 680/770 genuinely problematic but its certainly enough to urge caution on 2GB cards.

I still think paying $60 for $10 worth of extra VRAM on a 680/770 isn't worth it. They are seriously ripping you off with the extra VRAM, I think its better to step up and go into 780/290 territory instead of paying half the upgrade for the extra VRAM on the mid upper range card. Mainly because very few people are going to own a 4GB 770, so a lot of games wont have good settings for you as your off the usual performance curve of the cards.

I am stilling waiting on 20nm, replacing a pair of 680s at this point isn't worth it for the marginal gains in performance just for getting VRAM, but it might mean I spend the next year on less than ideal textures and higher FPS than I might otherwise choose because the cards are VRAM starved. But its not like this was always true, its really a trend we are right at the beginning of and we have no idea if it will persist through the rest of the year or if its just a few games (admittedly very important ones).

 

[Gloomy]

Texture setting doesn't affect performance for me.

A 770 has close enough texture fillrate to a 290. So performance hit should be similar for it, if I'm not mistaken on the variables at play here.

Face it, you 2GB 680/770 guys got stiffed.

 

[BrightCandle]

Face it, you 2GB 680/770 guys got stiffed.

I think the 7970 guys were the ones that got screwed. Anyone who bought 2 of those 2 years ago had 1.5 years of severe microstutter, which was far worse than loosing ultra texture setting today. I got 2 lovely years of gaming out of a 680 and even now I am loosing texture quality only, that is pretty good. The 7970's would have been nearly unplayable right up until June last year so of the two cards at the top on offer when I bought them they have ended up being the better choice by far. Shame is I bought the 7970's first which cost me a small fortune and they were a disaster from the outset.

 

[Gloomy]

I think the 7970 guys were the ones that got screwed. Anyone who bought 2 of those 2 years ago had 1.5 years of severe microstutter, which was far worse than loosing ultra texture setting today. I got 2 lovely years of gaming out of a 680 and even now I am loosing texture quality only, that is pretty good. The 7970's would have been nearly unplayable right up until June this year so of the two cards at the top on offer when I bought them they have ended up being the better choice by far. Shame is I bought the 7970's first which cost me a small fortune and they were a disaster from the outset.

Two wrongs don't make a right

 

[skipsneeky2]

Wonder for the gamers on lower resolutions, will the 2gb still be a issue for ultra textures? Plenty of gamers on 720p televisions and some still rocking 1680x1050 monitors and some even game at 900p and the really old school guys sitting on 4:3 and 5:4 panels.

 

[Gloomy]

Wonder for the gamers on lower resolutions, will the 2gb still be a issue for ultra textures? Plenty of gamers on 720p televisions and some still rocking 1680x1050 monitors and some even game at 900p and the really old school guys sitting on 4:3 and 5:4 panels.

A smaller pixel grid resolves less detail, so the extra detail in larger textures is lost. Lower resolution monitors would make the difference between high and ultra smaller.

And it's pretty small already, I think (but noticeable).

 

[skipsneeky2]

A smaller pixel grid resolves less detail, so the extra detail in larger textures is lost. Lower resolution monitors would make the difference between high and ultra smaller.

And it's pretty small already, I think (but noticeable).

I think most gamers won't even think of the technical aspects of it,they got the game from Walmart and lets say rig with a 2gb 7850 and a 900p monitor and they want Ultra settings cause a gamer won't compromise settings most of the time. Technically are they blocked still from ultra despite a lower resolution?

 

[Majcric]

I think most gamers won't even think of the technical aspects of it,they got the game from Walmart and lets say rig with a 2gb 7850 and a 900p monitor and they want Ultra settings cause a gamer won't compromise settings most of the time. Technically are they blocked still from ultra despite a lower resolution?

From my understanding, they're not blocked.

 

[Gloomy]

They're not blocked, it just runs like this: http://i.4cdn.org/v/1401024702700.webm

 

[RussianSensation]

I think the 7970 guys were the ones that got screwed. Anyone who bought 2 of those 2 years ago had 1.5 years of severe microstutter, which was far worse than loosing ultra texture setting today. I got 2 lovely years of gaming out of a 680 and even now I am loosing texture ... and they were a disaster from the outset.

In fairness a lot of people here with 7970s paid $0 for them due to BTC mining. I would wager many who upgraded to R9 290s from 7970s also got those 'free'. Now that GPU script/BTC mining is no longer a factor but at the same time AMDs CF with 290s has improved dramatically. For future GPU upgrades, looking at VRAM will become more important since as you said future games will get a lot more intensive as developers start using XB1/PS4 as the lowest common denominator. I don't think I will upgrade to anything less than 4GB next time.

 

[Carfax83]

A smaller pixel grid resolves less detail, so the extra detail in larger textures is lost. Lower resolution monitors would make the difference between high and ultra smaller.

And it's pretty small already, I think (but noticeable).

I don't know about small. I posted some comparison shots in the Watch Dogs thread in the PC gaming section, and to me, the difference is significant. I'm pretty sure ultra uses 4K textures, and high uses 2K.

These aren't mine, but they show that most of the difference between high and ultra are in environmental textures. The AC unit in high is blurry, while in ultra you can see the detail. Wall textures are also more detailed in ultra than in high, and other smaller textures such as the old newspaper on the floor, the leaves all show differences.

And like you said, playing at a higher resolution would only accentuate the differences..

medium: http://i.imgur.com/lkkNIzo.jpg
high: http://i.imgur.com/5wiVh5H.jpg
ultra: http://i.imgur.com/vW8ohzn.jpg

 

[Techhog]

They're not blocked, it just runs like this: http://i.4cdn.org/v/1401024702700.webm

That's not enough. You need to have a recoring of the it running on the machine, filmed with a camera, using advanced tools to show the VRAM usage, and pictures and serial numbers of all of your parts, and then you have to write up a professional review with at least 20 different cards, CPUs, and RAM configurations and publish said review to a well-known website. Only then will some people consider that there's a 5% chance that 2GB isn't enough.

 

[Gloomy]

I don't know about small. I posted some comparison shots in the Watch Dogs thread in the PC gaming section, and to me, the difference is significant. I'm pretty sure ultra uses 4K textures, and high uses 2K.

These aren't mine, but they show that most of the difference between high and ultra are in environmental textures. The AC unit in high is blurry, while in ultra you can see the detail. Wall textures are also more detailed in ultra than in high, and other smaller textures such as the old newspaper on the floor, the leaves all show differences.

And like you said, playing at a higher resolution would only accentuate the differences..

medium: http://i.imgur.com/lkkNIzo.jpg
high: http://i.imgur.com/5wiVh5H.jpg
ultra: http://i.imgur.com/vW8ohzn.jpg

Wow, that is pretty big.

To be honest I didn't actually compare, I just loaded the game with with High textures once just to see what it looked like, then swapped back. Having to return to the main menu to switch textures really brought out the lazy in me

 

[Carfax83]

they want Ultra settings cause a gamer won't compromise settings most of the time.

You're right, and what they'll say is,"Ubifail screwed up and release and un-optimized game that won't run at ultra settings on my Core 2 Duo 4GB of DDR2 machine!"

Gamers are 90% more likely to blame the developer for their issues than their hardware it seems; even if it's the latter.

And sure there are going to be comparisons to Crysis 3, which uses 8K textures in some areas I believe but runs fine on 2GB cards.. However, Watch Dogs is a completely different type of game than Crysis 3.

It's way bigger, and has far more diverse and unique textures due to the setting being in a major American city. Also, Watch Dogs has no loading screen as far as I know, and streams all of it's data once you're in game.

Those three factors play a big part in it's high VRAM usage. Another thing too is that the engine has to stream data very fast to keep up with Aiden while he's in a vehicle or on a bike, so most of the data is being streamed from system memory which can result in excessive swapping (which leads to stuttering) if your VRAM size is too small.

System memory usage is also very high due to the 64 bit client. People have been reporting memory usage of 7 GB or more already after hours of gaming.

 

[RussianSensation]

I still think paying $60 for $10 worth of extra VRAM on a 680/770 isn't worth it. They are seriously ripping you off with the extra VRAM, I think its better to step up and go into 780/290 territory instead of paying half the upgrade for the extra VRAM on the mid upper range

The cheapest 770 4GB on Newegg is $350 but most hover in the $370-390 range.

But you can buy an R9 290X with one of the best coolers for $430.
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=14-131-548

In that case, the 770 4GB makes no sense as you said. I actually welcome developers moving beyond 2GB of VRAM. The faster developers realize that they can push 3-4GB easily since I believe XB1/PS4 have 4.5-5GB available, the quicker we should see games with more detailed textures.

 

[Techhog]

The cheapest 770 4GB on Newegg is $350 but most hover in the $370-390 range.

But you can buy an R9 290X with one of the best coolers for $430.
http://m.newegg.com/Product/index?itemnumber=14-131-548

In that case, the 770 4GB makes no sense as you said. I actually welcome developers moving beyond 2GB of VRAM. The faster developers realize that they can push 3-4GB easily since I believe XB1/PS4 have 4.5-5GB available, the quicker we should see games with more detailed textures.

That link doesn't work for me