[Gamepur] 2GB not enough for Watch_Dogs 1080p

[OCGuy]

*snip*

Nobody has ever explained to me why or how these console ports would be written so that less than 5% of the potential customer pool can play the game without the issues you mention. When ~ 40% are still on 1GB, we are magically going to need 6GB tomorrow.

Like I have said before, show the data. Show 2GB cards performing tangibly worse than a horsepower peer @ 1080p. The GTX770 reviews have been done on multiple games, and 4GB is a pure waste.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

[blastingcap]

snip

I don't think anyone is saying you can't play at all with a GTX 560, or that 2GB isn't enough. It's just not "enough" to unlock the highest details in some games per the developers who coded it that way, and it may not be enough to get the ultra texture packs in other games.

You can probably still do fine playing with lower-texture packs with a GTX 560 2GB or whatever. But then you'd be compromising, and that's [A]dequate rather than [H]ard.

 

[OCGuy]

I don't think anyone is saying you can't play at all with a GTX 560, or that 2GB isn't enough. It's just not "enough" to unlock the highest details in some games per the developers who coded it that way, and it may not be enough to get the ultra texture packs in other games.

You can probably still do fine playing with lower-texture packs with a GTX 560 2GB or whatever. But then you'd be compromising, and that's [A]dequate rather than [H]ard.

Certainly there are examples supported by charts/data then....

 

[Techhog]

People don't know how to read VRAM usage, and GPU horsepower isn't in question, so multiple cards doesn't give you more memory.

Can't wait for reviews showing 60FPS on every mainstream card.

I know that. I'm saying that 4GB isn't enough for 4k, the Titan Black has 6GB, and a single card obviously doesn't have the gunt for 4k. I didn't think that would need to be clarified...

I also love how you trust sponsored reviews over actual players... Something about this is really making you angry, huh? Upset that the 770 might not be adequate? If people actually playing the game aren't getting 60FPS now, why would you suddenly expect vastly different results from reviewers? Face it, you're not gonna get ultra settings with your card. Denial won't change that. I have to deal with it too, though more due to lack of GPU power and the fact that this runs better on Nvidia cards.

 

[OCGuy]

I know that. I'm saying that 4GB isn't enough for 4k, the Titan Black has 6GB, and a single card obviously doesn't have the gunt for 4k. I didn't think that would need to be clarified...

I also love how you trust sponsored reviews over actual players... Something about this is really making you angry, huh? Upset that the 770 might not be adequate? If people actually playing the game aren't getting 60FPS now, why would you suddenly expect vastly different results from reviewers? Face it, you're not gonna get ultra settings with your card. Denial won't change that.

??? Yikes, strange post.

Anywho, I absolutely trust reviews over anecdotal evidence. Ubisoft has been very candid about how much system RAM is required, with a minimum of 6GB.

If you look at how much total available RAM there is on say a Xbox One, which is said to have the equivalent of PC "high" graphics, then add up the RAM specs and the outlandish VRAM specs being floated, you quickly run out of possible resources.

If you look at the recommended processor (3770) for a single card, you can easily see that CPU bottlenecks are going to be a problem for 3 Titan Blacks.

 

[OCGuy]

After doing some searching, this guy is playing on a 760/ultra settings and the game runs perfectly smooth, until he hits some poor optimization.

The comments include people with 3GB cards who have problems on medium settings.

Yea I would say it is too early to declare that you need Titan Blacks :biggrin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCqNPcMJIR4

Either way, this is a TWIMTBP game, and is optimized for NV cards. The graphics quality potential on the 770 is better than 3GB nin-NV cards

 

[Techhog]

??? Yikes, strange post.

Anywho, I absolutely trust reviews over anecdotal evidence. Ubisoft has been very candid about how much system RAM is required, with a minimum of 6GB.

If you look at how much total available RAM there is on say a Xbox One, which is said to have the equivalent of PC "high" graphics, then add up the RAM specs and the outlandish VRAM specs being floated, you quickly run out of possible resources.

If you look at the recommended processor (3770) for a single card, you can easily see that CPU bottlenecks are going to be a problem for 3 Titan Blacks.

High =/= Ultra. 2GB is definitely enough for high.

 

[2is]

Sounds like OCGuy is trying really hard to "will" his 2GB card to be enough for Ultra...

 

[Attic]

Either way, this is a TWIMTBP game, and is optimized for NV cards. The graphics quality potential on the 770 is better than 3GB nin-NV cards

From what we are seeing a 770 2gb can't enable ultra textures in Watch Dogs (or the new wolfenstein).

This breaks down more as 2gb vs 3gb+cards rather than nv vs amd. But the 3gb cards from AMD do have a nice bonus here vs the 2gb nvidia card, ie) 280x 3gb> 770/680 2gb in a case like Watch Dogs.

3gb cards can enable ultra textures. Provided cards with 3gb have enough performance to run Ultra the 3gb cards will be providing a better gameplay experience. If folks want blur filter of TXAA then that will benefit nVidia owners, i'm currently not aware of any other nVidia specific stuff besides TXAA in Watch Dogs.

But basically:
Ultra textures > High/Non Ultra Textures

Perhaps Ultra will be so minimally improving to gameplay that it won't matter, though we know it will be at least as good or better than high for gameplay experience.

Not sure what's unclear here unless 2gb cards can enable ultra textures and the reports saying they can't are wrong.

High should be fine, but Ultra is going to be better. It's a loss for 770/680 2gb owners, but this debate has been had on these boards many times, looks like the folks saying more VRAM is the best bet, ie) 280x > 770 2gb or if going 770/680 to get 4gb to be safe, were right. That's what these boards are suppose to achieve, little bit of banter (sometimes a lot) to get the right suggestion/result for other enthusiasts.

We also have confirmation that 2gb cards like the 770 are locked out of ultra textures in the new Wolfenstein and from [H] testing this doesn't appear to be an arbitrary lockout, 2gb's is not enough for ultra textures in wolfenstein.

 

[OCGuy]

Jonathan Morin @Design_Cave
Follow
@RaR_XPyr0X 90% of the dev team runs on Nvidia Geforce 670, that will run Ultra if you have the CPU to match.
6:38 AM - 19 May 2014

^ This is from someone who would know.

 

[Attic]

Jonathan Morin @Design_Cave
Follow
@RaR_XPyr0X 90% of the dev team runs on Nvidia Geforce 670, that will run Ultra if you have the CPU to match.
6:38 AM - 19 May 2014

^ This is from someone who would know.

Agreed.

I'd imagine he's talking about 1080P or better.

But if a 670 (gtx 760 class) will run this thing at ultra 1080P with playable frames (40+fps) then i'm a bit disappointed TBH. Perhaps he's talking about being able to enable ultra and not ultra and 40+fps average on 670 hardware.

 

[Gloomy]

Jonathan Morin @Design_Cave
Follow
@RaR_XPyr0X 90% of the dev team runs on Nvidia Geforce 670, that will run Ultra if you have the CPU to match.
6:38 AM - 19 May 2014

^ This is from someone who would know.

Texture quality setting is separate from the graphical presets. It's in the "Display" menu, not the "Graphics Quality" menu. And the presets don't change the texture quality setting. So what he said is perfectly true + accurate, but totally irrelevant.

^ This is from someone who would know.

 

[OCGuy]

Oh man.......haha.

There is video of it and a dev saying it runs it. Not good enough! :biggrin:

 

[Gloomy]

Oh man.......haha.

There is video of it and a dev saying it runs it. Not good enough! :biggrin:

I just told you the presets don't change the texture setting.

 

[2is]

Oh man.......haha.

There is video of it and a dev saying it runs it. Not good enough! :biggrin:

I don't have this game, but it's not hard to understand what people are saying. If you have a 2GB card, the game will not allow you to choose ultra textures. this isn't a random person telling you that it won't run well, it's the actual game that won't even provide you the option.

 

[Grooveriding]

Sounds like OCGuy is trying really hard to "will" his 2GB card to be enough for Ultra...

Yeah not seeing the reason to be so upset...

It's a good thing to see games moving forward. Gtx 770 is just a gtx 680 with a few frills anyways, it's a really old card at this point as far as gpu tech goes.

Hopefully the ultra settings justify the 3GB VRAM requirement. I've seen some screenshots on other forums from people who have acquired the game already somehow and some are really impressive. I'll reserve judgment until I fire it up next week.

I've seen performance claims of 30fps on 780ti with max settings, the ultra textures enabled and msaa. Also, apparently SLI is not working either, will probably be a beta driver released for the game on Monday if that's the case.

 

[fstime]

Big regret buying a 680. Nvidia really fooled a lot of people with this card, pretending it was high-end when it was really a mid-range card at $500. The card has a gimped memory bus/size.

 

[toyota]

Big regret buying a 680. Nvidia really fooled a lot of people with this card, pretending it was high-end when it was really a mid-range card at $500. The card has a gimped memory bus/size.

it fooled no one that actually pays attention to this stuff. and why blame Nvidia but not AMD too? AMD are the ones that came out with the 7970 which was 40-45% faster than the 6970 but also went up nearly 50% in price in launch price over the 6970 launch price. Nvidia probably just laughed cause all they had to do was bump their clocks on the mid range GK104 to match or beat the 7970.

 

[Daedalus685]

I've seen performance claims of 30fps on 780ti with max settings, the ultra textures enabled and msaa. Also, apparently SLI is not working either, will probably be a beta driver released for the game on Monday if that's the case.

If this is true why on earth do people care how the 770 does at it? With a billion GB of ram it would be a slide show...

A mid range card costs mid range money and gives a mid range experience. Days gone by "Ultra" meant "you better have one or two of the best cards around". We have just been spoiled by the utterly low bar games have set for the last half decade.

Maybe next year I'll actually have a reason to buy one of the higher SKUs again.

 

[3DVagabond]

it fooled no one that actually pays attention to this stuff. and why blame Nvidia but not AMD too? AMD are the ones that came out with the 7970 which was 40-45% faster than the 6970 but also went up nearly 50% in price in launch price over the 6970 launch price. Nvidia probably just laughed cause all they had to do was bump their clocks on the mid range GK104 to match or beat the 7970.

Well besides the obvious 384bit w/3gig vs 256bit w/2gigs, it would be pretty silly of him to blame AMD for his GTX 680, now wouldn't it.

 

[escrow4]

Hint, hint, was playing Wolfenstein over the past 2 days and vRAM usage hit 2.9GB on my 780 Ti GHz @ 1200p maxed out (no MSAA or any AA either) and RAM usage peaked at 4.3GB. This is a shooter not a fat open world game. All those tired old GPUs with 2GB RAM will be obsolete within 2yrs. Same with 4GB RAM. This isnt 2006 anymore. Cue the complaints come Dragon Age: Inquistion and Witcher 3 . . . . .

 

[Atreidin]

I'd be pretty surprised and disappointed if there was no benefit in any games to having over 2GB. That would mean pretty much every game designer, at the very least, had no passion for their job. You'd think at least a few of them would want to test the limits of what PC hardware can do by programming in graphical options that do so, as a test of personal skills as well as a point of professional pride. And, uh... that's what happens.

I suppose one could argue that they don't see a difference or that the difference isn't worth it, but that's a different discussion.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'd be pretty surprised and disappointed if there was no benefit in any games to having over 2GB. That would mean pretty much every game designer, at the very least, had no passion for their job. You'd think at least a few of them would want to test the limits of what PC hardware can do by programming in graphical options that do so, as a test of personal skills as well as a point of professional pride. And, uh... that's what happens.

I suppose one could argue that they don't see a difference or that the difference isn't worth it, but that's a different discussion.

I agree with you.

 

[Carfax83]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Atreidin]

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.

For sure, I see this as an equally valid reason to having more memory as increasing visual quality.

Add more memory and people figure out cool stuff to do with it, pretty much like every other resource.

And cards with 2GB or more memory have been available for a REALLY LONG TIME now (relatively), so I would hope a few people would figure out a few things to do with it.