Mirror's Edge Catalyst 'Hyper' Settings Made Possible by 8GB VRAM

[Sweepr]

5% slower than a speed that isn't sustainable on the founders edition gpu is way too close.

Why do you talk so much about FE, are you buying one? Just admit that you were proven wrong, referencing Geforce GTX 1070 numbers like their were from a Geforce GTX 1080 in two pages is embarassing.

In a typical case the 1080fe would be slower than the 980ti in this test.

Wait, so FE can't sustain the listed clockspeeds and it's still comfortably >30% faster (close to 40% @ 4K) than a 1.23 GHz Geforce GTX 980 Ti? Nice to know, waiting for custom 2 GHz+ results now.

 

[dark zero]

So... that game is trying to overcharge the VRAM with new effects?

Wondering if that are worthy or not.
If not... sorry to say this, but what a waste of resources ¬¬.
The eye candy can be cool, but it needs to be well made.

 

[richaron]

So... that game is trying to overcharge the VRAM with new effects?

Wondering if that are worthy or not.
If not... sorry to say this, but what a waste of resources ¬¬.
The eye candy can be cool, but it needs to be well made.

Of course it's overusing RAM, so people who spent a lot of money on their card can feel like it's worth the investment. Kinda like Farcry or Crysis back in the day, part of the appeal was to feel like you were really pushing your system.

VRAM needs are basically arbitrary, there's a certain minimum level for modern graphics fidelity but the maximum is whatever the Dev's feel like. FUD spreaders and threads like this are here to pretend minimum (& high end) needs are much higher than reality.

And of course it's only the highest setting which "needs" so much VRAM.

 

[Bacon1]

Why do you talk so much about FE, are you buying one? Just admit that you were proven wrong, referencing Geforce GTX 1070 numbers like their were from a Geforce GTX 1080 in two pages is embarassing.



Wait, so FE can't sustain the listed clockspeeds and it's still comfortably >30% faster (close to 40% @ 4K) than a 1.23 GHz Geforce GTX 980 Ti? Nice to know, waiting for custom 2 GHz+ results now.

Wait what? Obviously it can use those clocks for the 30 seconds they spent running their benchmark.

What it can't do is sustain them for any length of time while run inside a case.

People are returning their cards because they throttle so badly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4mlfme/so_about_those_1080s/

 

[selni]

Wait what? Obviously it can use those clocks for the 30 seconds they spent running their benchmark.

What it can't do is sustain them for any length of time while run inside a case.

People are returning their cards because they throttle so badly.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/4mlfme/so_about_those_1080s/

Something is pretty obviously not working as intended even for the reference cooler there - what he's reporting is much worse than has typically been described. 60°C idle?

 

[Bacon1]

Something is pretty obviously not working as intended even for the reference cooler there - what he's reporting is much worse than has typically been described. 60°C idle?

Thats the top card in SLI. Since the cards were built for cases and SLI, sounds like bad design.

 

[Good_fella]

The game looks significantly worse than Starwars Battlefront (perhaps other than the lighting), but runs like a complete dog.

7970Ghz/280X easily got > 60 FPS at 1080p
R9 390 got > 60 FPS at 1440p
http://www.techspot.com/review/1096-star-wars-battlefront-benchmarks/

970 beating Fury X in Frostbite? Looks legit.

Looks like another AAA title ruined by GameWorks/NV Partnerships. Anyone keeping track of GameWorks success vs. fail/gimp ratio? I guess on the positive side it makes it very easy to know which games to buy for $5 or less when they have the GWs stamp on them.

But you are totally ok when 290X reaches 980Ti thanks to AMD Partnership. Double standards?

----

Interesting how Fury X can't run Hyper settings. Gaming Scientist Richard Huddy said "4 GB HBM exceeds the capability of 8GB or 12GB of memory". :sneaky:

 

[richaron]

Interesting how Fury X can't run Hyper settings. Gaming Scientist Richard Huddy said "4 GB HBM exceeds the capability of 8GB or 12GB of memory".

Valid point.

And a Ferrari can't hold as many people as a school bus... Argument won.

 

[amenx]

Thats the top card in SLI. Since the cards were built for cases and SLI, sounds like bad design.

Like 290/290x reference when released.

 

[Riek]

But you are totally ok when 290X reaches 980Ti thanks to AMD Partnership. Double standards?

----

Interesting how Fury X can't run Hyper settings. Gaming Scientist Richard Huddy said "4 GB HBM exceeds the capability of 8GB or 12GB of memory". :sneaky:

I think you misunderstand Russian.
He doesn't say its ok that one brand bunks compared to another, his statements are towards the overal quality and playability of the game.

In this case most games where AMD is doing well, nvidia is also doing well. Besides that the game plays excellent for both vendors, the quality is equal or better.

On the other hand the games where AMD bunks (gw inserted or nvidia code added) the game is less playable on AMD or nvidia Kepler while providing lower quality in images and gameplay.

 

[Bacon1]

Like 290/290x reference when released.

Yep, and those are universally known to have shitty coolers. Yet people seem to praise Nvidia over their $100 premium cooler which is garbage. Why can people not accept that the FE cards are shitty and heavily overpriced? That doesn't mean the 1080 is a bad chip, but the FE is a scam.

 

[kondziowy]

Interesting how Fury X can't run Hyper settings. Gaming Scientist Richard Huddy said "4 GB HBM exceeds the capability of 8GB or 12GB of memory". :sneaky:

It CAN run Hyper settings 1080- it works on my R9 Fury, but stutters a lot, and on all Hyper 1080p, Ultra Post proces and Mesh, SSAO, playable on over 60fps but there is heavy stutter a least once per 2 minutes. High Fps but lots of stutter. 1440p is painfull.

A month ago in BETA there was no GTX1080 and no Hyper settings. Now we have GTX1080 and Hyper settings If only visual quality was worth it... but it isn't. Hell no. Can's see the difference- it requires special screenshot analysis to find those details.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

What's conspicuously missing from this thread are screenshots and videos demonstrating how incredible hyper settings are.

Nope, instead all we got was "Battlefied 1 is going to run crap on AMD." Okay.

 

[selni]

Thats the top card in SLI. Since the cards were built for cases and SLI, sounds like bad design.

It's still completely insane - 60°C and 50°C idle temps in a 20°C room surely can't be normal, even for SLI and a weak cooler. Something is very wrong with power management or the cards in question. Does the 1080 just straight up turn the fan off until a temperature cutoff or something?

 

[mohit9206]

I can see all 4GB cards really struggle with new games on high settings over the next year.

I wonder where's that guy who said 4gb will be enough for this console generation.

 

[antihelten]

It ran, just had stability problems.

From the review, right under the chart that shows the 970 and Fury X at 0:

"The Fury X and GTX 970 refused to run with any stability – we think that's a VRAM limitation – and so the chart only shows the 390X, 1080, 980 Ti, and 1070."

If you really do run out of VRAM, the game will essentially be a slideshow. This happened to me when I tried maxing out Far Cry 4 with AA @ 4K using DSR, just to see what would happen. It was difficult to even get to the menu to quit...

Refusing to run outright or refusing to run with any stability is basically the same in this case. The point is that the game should run perfectly stable, but as a slideshow.

If we could actually get ME to run on the 4GB cards, then we could actually tell just how big the impact of hyper settings is (even if it's a slideshow, that would still be an interesting data point).

 

[iiiankiii]

I can't believe a game actually takes 8 freakin' GB of VRAM on 1080p. That is freakin' ridiculous. The sad part is, visually, it looks like garbage. Man, I really hate GameWorks. They're introducing crap that hardly looks any better at some insanely disproportional GPU requirement. This planned obsolesce thing is REAL.

 

[antihelten]

I can't believe a game actually takes 8 freakin' GB of VRAM on 1080p. That is freakin' ridiculous. The sad part is, visually, it looks like garbage. Man, I really hate GameWorks. They're introducing crap that hardly looks any better at some insanely disproportional GPU requirement. This planned obsolesce thing is REAL.

It doesn't take 8GB of VRAM, 6GB is plenty as evidenced by the 980 Ti. The only question that remains is how big the performance impact is when going from 6GB to 4GB, but since the game can't currently be tested with 4GB we have no way of knowing.

 

[flopper]

Will future DICE games (Battlefield 1) also benefit/need 8GB+ VRAM VGAs to run at max settings?

The trend has been towards more ram.
How dice will balance BF1 is unknown atm.

 

[Silverforce11]

If there's IQ comparisons done and it looks much better, then well done for using the extra vram to enhance IQ.

 

[BSim500]

So, can we expect no visual difference like what is usual with these kinds of modes, or have they actually managed to give us something actually noticeable and better?

Glad to see at least somebody who gets the point.

Agreed, though many of us have been getting it since the almost punch-drunk obsession with "can it run Crysis 3" thing. And the Crysis 2 thing before that. (Takes a bunch of pretty charts brand fanboys just love to argue over, screws them up and throws the whole lot in the bin). What are the actual visual differences. "Show me". Everything else is just repeating someone else's "rat race" sales pitch...

All I've seen in the links so far is this:-
http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2016/game-bench/me-catalyst/me-catalyst-bench-course.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stori...rrorsEdgeCatalyst_2016_04_22_21_05_07_098.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stori...rrorsEdgeCatalyst_2016_04_22_21_09_11_179.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Slider/MEC/1/3.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Slider/MEC/1/6.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Slider/MEC/2/6_1.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Slider/MEC/3/7_1.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Slider/MEC/4/8_3.jpg
http://www.gamegpu.com/images/stories/Test_GPU/Slider/MEC/4/8_4.jpg

Unless I've got sucked into a parallel universe, or am looking at completely the wrong game, what in God's name could justify straining even a 2GB VRAM card at 1080p with those visuals? If you 'need' 8GB VRAM and up to 10GB RAM for a "blur-saturated outdoor equivalent of Portal 1", then your game is catastrophically unoptimised... :thumbsdown:

Edit 2: Seriously, I can't believe people are cheering on the "need" for + $600 GFX cards for this (min vs med vs max / min vs med vs max). What am I supposed to be looking at? Am I really seeing Skyrim + 2K textures get higher fps on an i3-4170 + 750Ti looking like this, than an i7 + GTX 970 does in Mirrors Edge Catalyst looking like this on "Максимальное качество" ("Maximum Quality")?

 

[faseman]

There's so little difference between the screenshots posted above that there's no way it requires 4GB more ram between graphics levels.

Any higher res shots out there?

 

[3DVagabond]

Whatever it is the fact is we can't do anything about it. Those who already have 4GB cards it's okay you can still enjoy games for a long time. But anybody buying a 4GB card in 2016 is just being stupid even for 1080p.

A month ago 4gig Fiji was enough for 4K. Are people really this gullible to think all of a sudden an 8gig card is really the minimum for max settings at 1080p?

This is pure marketing BS. lol

I am curious, how many of you guys buys into this?

I'm glad someone else gets it.

 

[Thinker_145]

A month ago 4gig Fiji was enough for 4K. Are people really this gullible to think all of a sudden an 8gig card is really the minimum for max settings at 1080p?

This is pure marketing BS. lol



I'm glad someone else gets it.

Who said it was enough? I never did. Just because something is enough for current games doesn't mean it's a good buy.

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

[3DVagabond]

Yep, and those are universally known to have shitty coolers. Yet people seem to praise Nvidia over their $100 premium cooler which is garbage. Why can people not accept that the FE cards are shitty and heavily overpriced? That doesn't mean the 1080 is a bad chip, but the FE is a scam.

Shhh! Don't tell them. :sneaky: