[Gamepur] 2GB not enough for Watch_Dogs 1080p

[RussianSensation]

That link doesn't work for me

Works for me. Go on newegg and find this card:

PowerColor AXR9 290X 4GBD5-PPDH

It is $425 after 9% off and $30 MIR. I didn't want to derail the thread but the point is the move to 4GB of VRAM should cost $20-30 max. As mentioned by BrightCandle, NV's price to go from 2GB to 4GB was a rip off. Had NV simply launched the 680 as a 4GB card for $550 instead of 2GB for $499, consumers would have been better off in hindsight. Hopefully for Maxwell they won't be as greedy as they were for 570/580/670/680/770.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Performance on a single 2gb gtx770 sucks enough for me when vram comes close to 2gb, BF4 ultra 1080p is a prime example of this but drop it to high and all is fine. A 4gb gtx770 might make sense if someone goes sli but it does seem like 290 crossfire would still make more sense period for better overall performance for a little bit more.

 

[toyota]

Well I'm pretty happy I bought the 4GB GTX 770s last year over everyone's recommendation to buy the 2GB versions :whiste:

Of course now I would recommend a GTX 780 over a GTX 770 4GB, but last year when I bought mine, the GTX 780s were over 600 USD compared to 450 USD for the GTX 770 4GB. Just wasn't worth almost 200 bucks extra for the 780 as the 780 is only 18% faster on average than the 770 unless you're running at UHD resolutions or using 8x MSAA or something where the 780's extra bandwidth can come into play.

Just because a game is using all of your VRAM, doesn't mean it's using it for rendering. Like I've mentioned repeatedly, games will use extra VRAM to cache textures to reduce swapping to system memory even when the GPU isn't using them.

That's actually a good practice and should be encouraged as it reduces stuttering and load times. Memory is meant to be used after all.

I suspect Watch Dogs has a VRAM management issue with current drivers from both AMD and NVidia, but especially NVidia. The release day drivers should be much more optimized for Watch Dogs.

and where did I say anything about SLI?

 

[f1sherman]

I didn't want to derail the thread but the point is the move to 4GB of VRAM should cost $20-30 max.

Sure, if you expect them to resell you those 2GB free of charge.
In the real world $20-30 in BoM means $50+ in retail.

What do we have here... 50 bucks difference.

 

[Majcric]

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.

I'm with you RS, I personally welcome higher requirements and watching tech evolve i.e more Vram, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think Watch Dogs will be the game to do it. FWIW, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that 2gb Vram will run Watch Dogs on Ultra. (not talking fps but rather no Vram bottleneck)

 

[Gloomy]

I'm with you RS, I personally welcome higher requirements and watching tech evolve i.e more Vram, etc. Unfortunately, I don't the Watch Dogs will be the game to do it. FWIW, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that 2gb Vram will run Watch Dogs on Ultra.

Ultra graphics preset does not change texture quality. No preset does. The texture quality setting is separate from graphics quality in this game. So you're right, a 770 with 2gb will run Ultra... but not Ultra textures

 

[SirPauly]

I don't get it! There are nVidia choices with more ram and have been for some time! A solid bang-for-the-buck platform are GTX 760 4 gigs for Sli or Tri-sli!

 

[BrightCandle]

I don't get it! There are nVidia choices with more ram and have been for some time! A solid bang-for-the-buck platform are GTX 760 4 gigs for Sli or Tri-sli!

The companies that make these overcharge for the VRAM. For some reason from both AMD and Nvidia cards when you get a higher VRAM model for sale its got a big big premium, for what is basically $10 of parts you'll see prices $60+ more. Doesn't make any sense, its just a way to part people from their money. For much of the life of these cards (they are now over 2 years old) its been enough VRAM, now in their sunset period its not enough.

In many ways for AMD the extra VRAM on the 7970 wasn't a good idea, it cost them more money to produce the cards and they didn't use it for 2 years, that is pretty wasteful and hurt their profits. Might be better in the sunset period but theoretically at this point we should have been looking at 20nm, its only really technical issues with the new process that might make that extra VRAM worthwhile.

 

[SirPauly]

Depending on price-point! Enthusiast pricing usually carries more of a retail premium! The GTX 760, a lower price-point, carries a less retail premium over-all for a double-the-ram ability!

 

[Majcric]

Ultra graphics preset does not change texture quality. No preset does. The texture quality setting is separate from graphics quality in this game. So you're right, a 770 with 2gb will run Ultra... but not Ultra textures

I never said anything about presets.

 

[Attic]

Watch Dogs may not be the game to deliver, but I can see why it's generating a lot of buzz. We need a new powerhouse game, something to really push our rigs and make the endeavor of endless tweaking and upgrades to continue to be worthwhile.

I don't think Watch Dogs will be the game, but hoping to be surprised.

I don't think any of us would in 2007 with the release of Crysis believe that in 2014 we are where we are now in terms of graphics improvement.

Ultra textures for watchdogs will be needed obviously to have best experience, but ultra textures alone in Watchdogs isn't any kind of end all for the game or where we'd like to be for graphics fidelity today.

 

[Carfax83]

A 4gb gtx770 might make sense if someone goes sli but it does seem like 290 crossfire would still make more sense period for better overall performance for a little bit more.

Have the crossfire issues been truly licked? I know that SLI doesn't scale as well as crossfire, but it's very smooth and NVidia offer great support for the technology with SLI profiles often being released before a game ships, or on the day of release. Plus, they continually optimize the SLI profiles so performance and stability do increase over time.

 

[Carfax83]

and where did I say anything about SLI?

Well I never said you said anything specifically. I was just making a general comment to be honest..

When I said I had bought my GTX 770 4GB SLI last year, quite a few people were saying I had wasted my money and that I should return them and either get a pair of GTX 760s for cheap until the price of the GTX 780 came down when AMD's Hawaii GPUs became available, or just bite the bullet and go full GTX 780s..

I wish I could name names believe me, but member callouts aren't permitted..

 

[toyota]

Have the crossfire issues been truly licked? I know that SLI doesn't scale as well as crossfire, but it's very smooth and NVidia offer great support for the technology with SLI profiles often being released before a game ships, or on the day of release. Plus, they continually optimize the SLI profiles so performance and stability do increase over time.

Some games dont even support SLI. And supposedly Unreal Engine 4 itself will not support it and that will likely be one of the most common games engines down the road.

 

[Carfax83]

And supposedly Unreal Engine 4 itself will not support it and that will likely be one of the most common games engines down the road.

Got a source for that? I have a hard time believing that Unreal Engine 4 won't support SLI, or any other multi GPU tech, especially as Epic and NVidia have a very strong partnership..

 

[2is]

I'd like to see some official or at least credible information regarding that as well. Something other than random forum posts suggesting it.

 

[toyota]

Got a source for that? I have a hard time believing that Unreal Engine 4 won't support SLI, or any other multi GPU tech, especially as Epic and NVidia have a very strong partnership..

I'd like to see some official or at least credible information regarding that as well. Something other than random forum posts suggesting it.

https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/21746/does-the-ue4-engine-support-sli.html


The deferred rendering techniques used by UE4 rely on data from the previous frame to render the current frame and as a result are not SLI friendly. You could investigate which features are needed for SLI and potentially avoid them, however since that is not a usecase we have here at Epic, i'm not sure how well it will work as we keep extending UE4 with new functionality.

 

[2is]

https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/21746/does-the-ue4-engine-support-sli.html


The deferred rendering techniques used by UE4 rely on data from the previous frame to render the current frame and as a result are not SLI friendly. You could investigate which features are needed for SLI and potentially avoid them, however since that is not a usecase we have here at Epic, i'm not sure how well it will work as we keep extending UE4 with new functionality.

Thanks. Since this appears to affect AFR rendering, I wonder if nVidia can opt to use SFR for UE4 games. It's not as efficient as AFR but could be better than nothing at all for those of us with SLI setups.

 

[3DVagabond]

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.

Past crossfire issues are off topic. Currently though I sure wouldn't suggest anyone add a 2nd GK104 2gig for SLI because of lack of VRAM. Dual Tahiti though would be no problem.

Back on topic: People have been warning for a long time now that 2gig of VRAM was not going to be enough. Here we are with GK104 2gig cards still a current generation card and games are coming out now that it's being limited on because of vram even though the GPU is fine performance wise. GK110 will be next. It will still be a perfectly good card GPU wise, but it will be held back because of only 3gig of vram, which is what 2nd tier cards should come with now, not high end.

 

[Majcric]

Agreed. I wish I would have got the 580 3gb. The card still offers plenty of performance but sadly I'll be forced to reduce ultra texture quality as result.

 

[RussianSensation]

Well I never said you said anything specifically. I was just making a general comment to be honest..

When I said I had bought my GTX 770 4GB SLI last year, quite a few people were saying I had wasted my money and that I should return them and either get a pair of GTX 760s for cheap until the price of the GTX 780 came down when AMD's Hawaii GPUs became available, or just bite the bullet and go full GTX 780s..

I wish I could name names believe me, but member callouts aren't permitted..

Another reason the $450 770 4GB SLI was so awful at launch was because 7970 1Ghz cards dropped to $300-325 and 7970 GE was $350. That means the price difference on 2 cards skyrocketed to $200-300 for more or less similar gaming experience since AMD fixed CF issues for single monitors. At that time, if one spent $200-300 more over a $600 7970 1Ghz CF setup on 770 4GB SLI, there would be a 10% difference in performance before both setups were overclocked. Once OC, the performance would be neck and neck. So while 770 4GB looks good now over 770 2GB, the 7970 1Ghz CF smashed it bang for the buck while 780 SLI beat it substantially. The $900 770 4GB SLI then set in 'no mans land'.

The 18% difference over a 770 you noted was for a stock 780. If you overclocked 780 and 770 to 1.2-1.25 Ghz, the 780 would win by more than 18%. An overclocked 780 comes a lot closer to 780 Ti than an overclocked 770 does compared to a 780. An overclocked 760 4GB was $300 at the time but a $450 770 was nowhere near 50% faster. That made 770 4GB SLI one of the worst choices at that time among 760 4GB SLI, 780 SLI, 7970 1Ghz CF.

It is going to be hard to find 760 4GB SLI vs 770 4GB SLI specifically for Watch Dogs but I bet the latter setup won't be 50% faster either. the price difference at the time was 50% though.

 

[BrightCandle]

Buying 4GB cards was just never cost effective on Nvidia, the bus size they chose really favoured 2GB especially with the crazy markups on VRAM. For most of the last 2 years its been a theoretical issue having the 680 be 1GB less VRAM than the 7970 that it competed with, the 7970 has been wasting its additional VRAM for most of that time. The 7970 is a great piece of hardware that was ruined by its drivers but it was always the better hardware and I have never understood how Nvidia managed to compete with it so effectively. But it certainly wasn't worth buying a 4GB card 2 years ago and 6 months ago it was still in no mans land in pricing where a 780 was a better buy.

For me the main issue now is that a 780 or 290 isn't a worthwhile upgrade, I don't jump to refresh cards I stay on the silicon process change cards for my near 100% increase in performance jumps. However with that silicon process delayed I am going to be loosing texture quality in a game I care about. Its just one game, the other 2 have technical issues with frame rates marking them as lazy console ports but hopefully watchdogs doesn't suffer the same fate. 3 Games doesn't make a trend but its certainly indicative of a growing issue. 3 Months ago when we talked about this last the tests at the time on the early "next gen console" games was that 2GB was not going to be an issue and here we have a trio of games that show maybe it will be. They might be the only games this year like that however, we can't predict reliably how this will play out. Its always inevitable more VRAM will be used, but this seems somewhat premature based on the GPU hardware most people are using today.

One way I look at this however is that now there are cards with 6GB floating around and the game developers are trying to make some use of it. There are going to be plenty of games coming out with features like TXAA (Nvidia only), Mantle (AMD GCN 1.0/1.1 only) and now we have >3GB VRAM usage (High end Nvidia or mid range and above AMD only). We have a lot of features on the different manufacturers right now and its driving games to either choose one or the other if they are "real" PC games. So actually one way to class the VRAM usage is not so much that its game necessary but rather an attempt to use the hardware more fully. Without the new cards progress has slowed and now to get better visuals the game developers have to focus on particular hardware more to get more out of it rather than relying on progress from the next silicon process doubling the transistors. The end result is both more disparity in features and more usage of specific card models capabilities. So the refresh cards are getting games targeted at them and I can't think of a time in the last 1.5 decades where that happened. Maybe this time it really is different but its hard to know.

 

[dn7309]

Dont really know why the hype about the graphic requiring a power house pc for the game. An early review leak say this game look at best like GTA 5 from last gen for the majority of the game.

Granted, this is for the XBONE, but I'm not holding my breath for the pc version knowing how Ubisoft ports fare in the past.

 

[Carfax83]

Another reason the $450 770 4GB SLI was so awful at launch was because 7970 1Ghz cards dropped to $300-325 and 7970 GE was $350. That means the price difference on 2 cards skyrocketed to $200-300 for more or less similar gaming experience since AMD fixed CF issues for single monitors.

AMD did not fix the CF issues last year when I bought my cards, and even after they released the 13.8 frame pacing drivers, CF still wasn't as good as SLI all around. Sure, it scales better, but to deliver a solid gaming performance requires more than just high frame rates.

At that time, if one spent $200-300 more over a $600 7970 1Ghz CF setup on 770 4GB SLI, there would be a 10% difference in performance before both setups were overclocked. Once OC, the performance would be neck and neck. So while 770 4GB looks good now over 770 2GB, the 7970 1Ghz CF smashed it bang for the buck while 780 SLI beat it substantially. The $900 770 4GB SLI then set in 'no mans land'.

You're basically rehashing the same arguments you made last year, by trying to equivocate the GTX 770 4GB SLI to the 7970 GE CF, when they were by no means on the same level.. GTX 770 is faster, uses less energy, and has a bigger selection of additional perks and features.

The 18% difference over a 770 you noted was for a stock 780. If you overclocked 780 and 770 to 1.2-1.25 Ghz, the 780 would win by more than 18%. An overclocked 780 comes a lot closer to 780 Ti than an overclocked 770 does compared to a 780.

Yes, but at that time, the GTX 780 SLI would have been 300+ dollars extra, plus, as you mentioned, the GTX 770s can easily be overclocked to stock GTX 780 level and even at stock, the GTX 780s are brutally fast.

That said, I've found manual overclocking to be unnecessary on my cards. They are more than fast enough to deal with 1440p at very high IQ due to the turbo boost feature and the 7Ghz GDDR5. If I do decide to overclock, I overclock the memory as that gives bigger gains than overclocking the core.

An overclocked 760 4GB was $300 at the time but a $450 770 was nowhere near 50% faster. That made 770 4GB SLI one of the worst choices at that time among 760 4GB SLI, 780 SLI, 7970 1Ghz CF.

GTX 760s don't handle 1440p that well from what I've seen.. It's really more of a midrange GPU that's designed primarily for gaming at 1080p .. A GTX 770 on the other hand is the entry level GPU for NVidia's high end selection..

It is going to be hard to find 760 4GB SLI vs 770 4GB SLI specifically for Watch Dogs but I bet the latter setup won't be 50% faster either. the price difference at the time was 50% though.

When has a GPU's price ever scaled linearly with it's performance? IHVs know that people will spend money for the fastest part available regardless of price, just for bragging rights..

Just as with cars, financial investment in computer performance is heavily driven by ego..

 

[RussianSensation]

Sure, if you expect them to resell you those 2GB free of charge.
In the real world $20-30 in BoM means $50+ in retail.
What do we have here... 50 bucks difference.

I meant $20-30 cost to the consumer not BOM. Who in the world is paying $400 for that MSI Gaming 770 4GB card when the PowerColor PCS+ R9 290X is $425?

Right now a 2GB 770 should be $280-300, while 770 4GB should be $310-330. even that is too high compared to R9 290-
/290X pricing.