[GGPU.RU] 3GB of VRAM for Titanfall on highest settings

[bystander36]

I can confirm that there is a VRAM bottleneck if you have less than 3gb video ram. I had a PNY GTX 770 2gb and playing on insane, I usually get 60 fps, but I had frequent stutters, and choppy gameplay at times due to the fact that the game is using 100% of my 2gb of vram. Lowering it down to high I get a constant 60 fps without any stuttering.

And I really do notice a difference from Insane to high. Insane is quite a bit more detailed in many places, and the game overall just looks a lot higher resolution. Some areas though, there isnt much difference, but its easy to tell in game.

I really am dissapointed, I just got this 300$ card and I can't even play a source engine game on max?... I am hoping they just haven't optimized the VRAM yet, because I only play at 1600x900, and I can play BF4 on max with a constant 70+ fps. Is there any chance that a driver optimized for the game would fix this?

Does that change at all with no AA, 2x MSAA, 4x MSAA, etc...?

 

[Rajadog20]

Does that change at all with no AA, 2x MSAA, 4x MSAA, etc...?

Not that I've noticed.

 

[OCGuy]

I can confirm that there is a VRAM bottleneck if you have less than 3gb video ram. I had a PNY GTX 770 2gb and playing on insane, I usually get 60 fps, but I had frequent stutters, and choppy gameplay at times due to the fact that the game is using 100% of my 2gb of vram. Lowering it down to high I get a constant 60 fps without any stuttering.

Doesn't seem to be universal:

Been playing Titanfall Beta and I'm on a GTX 760, and it runs flawlessly, even with Insane textures and 4xMSAA at 1920x1080. Not seen the GPU ram usage go over 1.4GB so far. Flat out 60fps (Though the game caps FPS at your screens refresh, regardless if vsync is on or off).

i5 3570K @ 4.4GHz
12GB DDR3-1600
Palit GTX 760 2GB
Windows 7 x64

And:

GTX 670 - 1440p all high 4xMSAA - 60 fps 90% of the time with drops to perhaps 45 fps.

There appears to be no visual difference between high and insane texture settings. Probably not implemented for the beta.

And:

Runs fine @ 1440p with a 2GB 770 Just been testing a card for someone. Tbh it runs identical to my 290x.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18580623&page=4

 

[Rajadog20]

Doesn't seem to be universal:



And:



And:



http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18580623&page=4

Thats strange.. The person did say that there was no visual difference between high and insane, so maybe he wasn't running the true insane textures?

Either that, or it's just not optimized correctly or there is a vram memory leak? I really don't know why mine would be maxing out on Vram causing stuttering, and someone elses identical card is only using 1.4 gb on a higher resolution.

This makes me wonder if proper drivers will fix it, or if it will be better optimized for release.

 

[mindbomb]

Titanflop.

I like how you eschewed the obvious Titanfail.

 

[selni]

This game really does use that much VRAM. There's no streaming solution in place as far as I can tell.

This is what I've gathered from complaints about not being able to run the game with textures on Insane from my friends. Everyone is complaining that it gets choppy after a while. In other words, a VRAM bottleneck.

I haven't tested it personally though.

Doesn't that sound a lot like a memory leak?

 

[f1sherman]

I'd love if every game used all 4GB on my R9 290.
And if I had GTX 770 2GB I'd want all 2GB to be used.
VRAM used is - VRAM U-S-E-D.
As opposed to being a waste of PCB space and just adding weight to my video card.

I have to say I'm surprised with someone using Source in big title, as well as the look of it.
Sorry, I think it looks good for the content it delivers. Not great, but acceptable.

Examples of "adequate" graphics IMHO:

COD, Titanfall: Fast pacing action.
Battlefield 3/4: Realistic military sim... but not really.
Arma 2/3: True realism, huge drawing distance, realistic color mapping

The biggest drawback with Titanfall graphics seems to be Source engine legacy - static shadows/AO/lighting.

Oh and I have no doubts that once the game is out HD 7850 1GB will play it just fine. Let alone 2GB cards.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Oh and I have no doubts that once the game is out HD 7850 1GB will play it just fine. Let alone 2GB cards.

Already does

 

[wand3r3r]

I'd love if every game used all 4GB on my R9 290.
And if I had GTX 770 2GB I'd want all 2GB to be used.
VRAM used is - VRAM U-S-E-D.
As opposed to being a waste of PCB space and just adding weight to my video card.

I have to say I'm surprised with someone using Source in big title, as well as the look of it.
Sorry, I think it looks good for the content it delivers. Not great, but acceptable.

Examples of "adequate" graphics IMHO:

COD, Titanfall: Fast pacing action.
Battlefield 3/4: Realistic military sim... but not really.
Arma 2/3: True realism, huge drawing distance, realistic color mapping

The biggest drawback with Titanfall graphics seems to be Source engine legacy - static shadows/AO/lighting.

Oh and I have no doubts that once the game is out HD 7850 1GB will play it just fine. Let alone 2GB cards.

Reading these threads it feels exactly like that.

People "want" the memory usage to be just right for them. Personally I prefer to utilize just under the max amount available, not quite full since then I will wonder what it's cutting back on since it's full. That's just an old preference learned from old PCs back in the day when you could never get enough.

If a game can use 3 GB, I have no doubt corners are being cut to fit it in 1/2 GB and personally I (often) pay a little extra to ensure I have a bit extra vs. too little, that applies to everything RAM/HDD/GPU/CPU (to some extent, not rip off "extreme" editions). Sure you can play it on a 1 GB card but it's guaranteed something is being cut or reduced. Lots of people have no issue with it and that's fine, I'm not going to try sell others on the idea that they need 6 GB or whatever but I certainly am not going to tell them that 1/2 GB is enough when clearly it's not.

I have no doubt a 1/2 GB will be capable of playing this, but will you receive the full experience? Clearly not. I think this is just the indication that 2014 is finally the turning point for VRAM usage (BF4 and now this) where 2GB will begin to age quickly. I'd be willing to bet the 20 nm mid range cards will be 3-4 GB as a baseline.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Seems the advoctes for more VRAM keep forgetting this game runs fine on very high settings with 1GB. And there is close to, if not zero visual difference between 1GB and 3GB.

People that play the game simpyl turn it down now. because all they get from insane setting is more GPU fan noise.

 

[arreat]

Hey guys ! I was just looking around for a topic like this , since I saw how insane the Vram usage of this game was .
I have a 2gb 770 and it consumes ALL of the ram . Strangely though it has no impact on the performance . I even made some tests in angel city map .

I'm forcing Vsync with Nvidia control panel , also I was capturing with ShadowPlay during the test . The biggest dip was 42 during one of the segments , but that was when 2 titans were shooting at me and the one I was in was exploding under me . (btw it's a fun game )
The way it consumes the vram is very strange . Like it pre-loads every possible texture before you even load anything . Right after the game starts in the menus it's consuming 1.2gb of vram (), once you get into the lobby it hits 2gb (max for me , probably more ).
Also I should note I'm running Windows 8.1 .

 

[Jaydip]

TBH I have doubts how accuratly these utilities report vram usage, I remember around 2.8GB of vram usage while I was playing "Remember Me" and that game had pretty mediocre graphics to boot.

 

[f1sherman]

Reading these threads it feels exactly like that.

People "want" the memory usage to be just right for them. Personally I prefer to utilize just under the max amount available, not quite full since then I will wonder what it's cutting back on since it's full. That's just an old preference learned from old PCs back in the day when you could never get enough.

But that's exactly what I meant. Utilize just little under available.
But then you get people go OMG ALL 2GB USED.
Same with OS-es. Like someone is stealing their RAM. They have 16GB but they want it all FREE lol.

Data in RAM is data not having to be read from disk.
So preload anything and everything, and do it in intelligent, hierarchy manner knowing when to release for more important data.

 

[wand3r3r]

Seems the advoctes for more VRAM keep forgetting this game runs fine on very high settings with 1GB. And there is close to, if not zero visual difference between 1GB and 3GB.

People that play the game simpyl turn it down now. because all they get from insane setting is more GPU fan noise.

Ok ... then.

Clearly you didn't read my post. Are you stating you are an advocate for less VRAM?

Feel free to turn down settings in any case since all they do is "make fan noise".

That is quote worthy. Just turn down the settings since there is zero difference except fan noise.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ok ... then.

Clearly you didn't read my post. Are you stating you are an advocate for less VRAM?

Feel free to turn down settings in any case since all they do is "make fan noise".

That is quote worthy. Just turn down the settings since there is zero difference except fan noise.

Feel free to point out the differences in this post between the 2 modes:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36072639&postcount=7

Then tell me if you think its worth it.

Its not hard using much memory if thats your only goal, I could easily make skyrim require 8GB VRAM for example. To make it worthwhile is a whole other thing.

 

[hawtdawg]

But that's exactly what I meant. Utilize just little under available.
But then you get people go OMG ALL 2GB USED.
Same with OS-es. Like someone is stealing their RAM. They have 16GB but they want it all FREE lol.

Data in RAM is data not having to be read from disk.
So preload anything and everything, and do it in intelligent, hierarchy manner knowing when to release for more important data.

I think what concerns people about this situation, is that Titanfall isn't anything visually impressive enough to seem like it would even need half of the VRAM that it uses. So now people are scared that this is a sign of things to come with the new generation of games made for the XB1 and PS4 and that their new 500 dollar 780 is already being maxed out in some way.

I do admit, I'm a little concerned that the mismatch of ram/vram in comparison to the computing power of these new consoles will make developers lazy in this regard.

 

[moonbogg]

So, the 2gb argument is basically dead, finally. And now we move on to the 3gb argument which apparently started and died in a single day. So, 4gb or bust I presume.
Personally I wouldn't spend a dime on a 780 or anything with less than 4gb or ram at this point. All I gotta say is, damn, Nvidia sure knows how to force upgrades each cycle.

 

[Xarick]

Or you can just turn a few settings down that have little visual impact and enjoy your card without upgrading. Most of us do that for many years.

 

[realibrad]

Or you can just turn a few settings down that have little visual impact and enjoy your card without upgrading. Most of us do that for many years.

The issue is not whether or not the game can be played, its that there is not a valid understanding of why the game at 1080p would require so much vram usage.

Yes, you can turn down settings, but some want to understand why its necessary when the game appears to be average looking.

 

[moonbogg]

I am personally not concerned about this game as it doesn't appeal to me. It could require 5gb at 720p for all I care. The game looks bad to me.

 

[Xarick]

Why is titanfall getting so much attention when hawken has been out for a long time.

 

[Galatian]

Why is titanfall getting so much attention when hawken has been out for a long time.

It's not out for a long time. As of February it's still listed as early access in Steam and still in a beta state and as thus similar to Titanfall, which is scheduled for release in March.

That being said I want a new single player Mechwarrior game!

 

[Gloomy]

Why is titanfall getting so much attention when hawken has been out for a long time.

Microsoft is climbing it like a mast on the sinking ship that is the Xbox Done. And they're pushing it pretty hard.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I can confirm that there is a VRAM bottleneck if you have less than 3gb video ram. I had a PNY GTX 770 2gb and playing on insane, I usually get 60 fps, but I had frequent stutters, and choppy gameplay at times due to the fact that the game is using 100% of my 2gb of vram. Lowering it down to high I get a constant 60 fps without any stuttering.

And I really do notice a difference from Insane to high. Insane is quite a bit more detailed in many places, and the game overall just looks a lot higher resolution. Some areas though, there isnt much difference, but its easy to tell in game.

I really am dissapointed, I just got this 300$ card and I can't even play a source engine game on max?... I am hoping they just haven't optimized the VRAM yet, because I only play at 1600x900, and I can play BF4 on max with a constant 70+ fps. Is there any chance that a driver optimized for the game would fix this?

The real problem appears when BF4 looks better and runs faster using less memory. Even crysis 3 uses less memory and looks way above that "insane" setting. Further when you turn AA OFF or down to like 2x and get no difference in VRAM usage, that screams a problem with the game code.

Well, the One has at least 5 GB of memory available for games so I don't think it's a stretch to think that 2 GB cards will become inadequate pretty quickly.

Of DDR3...for a GPU. It only has a small amount of esram that is really fast. So it has to constantly dump small chunks in and out of the esram to get any performance. Hence why many games are limited in resolution and such right now.

 

[OCGuy]

So, the 2gb argument is basically dead, finally. And now we move on to the 3gb argument which apparently started and died in a single day. So, 4gb or bust I presume.
Personally I wouldn't spend a dime on a 780 or anything with less than 4gb or ram at this point. All I gotta say is, damn, Nvidia sure knows how to force upgrades each cycle.

*facepalm*