@spartanhoplite: You've got 1.5gb there, listed under Video Adapter then Memory.
I recommend waiting until the game is out and seeing how people with comparable systems can run the game before stressing too much about it, these numbers are often padded or just downright wrong. However, your GPU is over three years old at this point, so I think running modern games at medium to high is probably still pretty good.
It won't determine the overall quality of the settings, just the texture quality in this game. This game is also an outlier in this regard. Except The Evil Within.
If people don't mind me piggybacking on to this thread since I'm completely computer illiterate, will my 6990M be good enough for this game? I'm especially lost regarding vram, as I'm really not sure how to check. I'm also not sure about my i7-2720QM, I think it beats out the minimum requirements, but I feel like it's the weakest part of my system.
If people don't mind me piggybacking on to this thread since I'm completely computer illiterate, will my 6990M be good enough for this game? I'm especially lost regarding vram, as I'm really not sure how to check.
Google your GPU's name. The first result is usually some specification-page. Googling Radeon 6990M gave me this page which describes the VRAM as 2048 MB, meaning medium settings for you.
@vierastalo: Thanks. I did see that page, but I wasn't sure about it since running dxdiag lists the card's memory at 4095MB, but that might be a different thing for all I know.
Anyone who bought a Titan, Titan Black, GTX 780 6GB, 7970 6GB or R9 280x 6GB (also a TItan Z I guess... but no one in their right minds paid for one of those). Keep in mind people that this is exclusively a recommendation based on the texture setting, the 6GB is recommended for running 4K uncompressed textures. High quality textures can make a game look a million bucks and is basically free from a performance standpoint... as long as you have the memory for it.
@mb: FWIW my 580 has still been able to run all the recent PC games I have tried on high (Dark Souls II and Project CARS for example). Won't do Ultra or necessarily get 60fps anymore but does a surprisingly good job.
@mb: FWIW my 580 has still been able to run all the recent PC games I have tried on high (Dark Souls II and Project CARS for example). Won't do Ultra or necessarily get 60fps anymore but does a surprisingly good job.
That is pretty awesome for an "old" GPU. Are you planning on picking up Mordor? If you do I'd love to hear how it ends up running on your system.
Really hoping my GTX 760 will run this okay, tempted to grab it on pre-order since it'll be a good chunk cheaper but my PC is odd, it'll run Dead rising 3 on high without too much issue but refuses to run assassin's creed 4 at anything stable even on low. I just wonder if it's my old HDD or the AMD FX-6300 I have that's causing the issues.
Do people use Can You Run It? It reckons my PC is beyond the minimum requirements, but below the recommended settings, I'm assuming that's trustworthy?
I wonder how much of a visual difference ultra textures will have compared to medium or high. I really want to get a 970 but if it'll only be able to run games at high settings for the foreseeable future then I'll have to wait until there's a SKU with more VRAM on board.
I wonder how much of a visual difference ultra textures will have compared to medium or high. I really want to get a 970 but if it'll only be able to run games at medium settings for the foreseeable future then I'll have to wait until there's a SKU with more VRAM on board.
A 970 will easily max games out in everything else at 1080p. Unless you are playing at an absurd resolution the difference between high quality textures and ultra won't be that noticeable.
The uncompressed textures is for crazy people who are running SLI setups.
I wonder how much of a visual difference ultra textures will have compared to medium or high. I really want to get a 970 but if it'll only be able to run games at high settings for the foreseeable future then I'll have to wait until there's a SKU with more VRAM on board.
It's kind of silly to base your decision based on a screenshot from one menu option for a game that isn't quite out yet. Unless you want stuff the run in 4k the 970 will run 99% of games coming out in the foreseeable future maxed.
People with 6gb of vram are still myths at this point.
I wonder how much of a visual difference ultra textures will have compared to medium or high. I really want to get a 970 but if it'll only be able to run games at high settings for the foreseeable future then I'll have to wait until there's a SKU with more VRAM on board.
It's kind of silly to base your decision based on a screenshot from one menu option for a game that isn't quite out yet. Unless you want stuff the run in 4k the 970 will run 99% of games coming out in the foreseeable future maxed.
People with 6gb of vram are still myths at this point.
2 3GB+ cards in SLI. It's not that insane but it's still pretty crazy.
I may have thought about buying a second 970 for that very reason...
I wonder how much of a visual difference ultra textures will have compared to medium or high. I really want to get a 970 but if it'll only be able to run games at high settings for the foreseeable future then I'll have to wait until there's a SKU with more VRAM on board.
It's kind of silly to base your decision based on a screenshot from one menu option for a game that isn't quite out yet. Unless you want stuff the run in 4k the 970 will run 99% of games coming out in the foreseeable future maxed.
People with 6gb of vram are still myths at this point.
2 3GB+ cards in SLI. It's not that insane but it's still pretty crazy.
I may have thought about buying a second 970 for that very reason...
SLI doesn't work that way. If you have two 3gb cards in SLI, you still have 3gb of total VRAM, not 6. Besides driver issues, this is one of the primary reasons why it is almost always preferable to have one more powerful card instead of a multi-GPU setup.
@corevi: MB beat me to it, but that's not how it works. When you run two cards in sli/crossfire you're using the two cards as one virtual card with the same VRAM.
With that said, has there ever been an option/feature to run two cards together to instead increase VRAM rather than just splitting the workload?
@rahulricky: I do sometimes. It's not completely accurate (either up or down) but it can give you a good idea.
@pyrodactyl: The reason these recent games in question seem outrageous is only because the recommended settings seem to be at ultra settings which some will be have 4k and other high end- not common- stuff. It's (maybe) not really what the recommended should be, but with people complaining about PC ports being lies (like Watch Dogs and Colonial Marines) I suspect publishers (or whoever sets the requirements) is being a bit over zealous. Or maybe it's because they want the games to seem better? It's hard to tell which is the real reason.
I'm sure both this game and The Evil Within will run and look fine on most computers on high settings, it may just struggle on Ultra or whatever. That is assuming they are better ports than DR 3 is. On PC they have higher resolution textures and what not that are more compressed on consoles. That's why the VRAM requirements are so high from what I can tell.
Premature guess here, but I think it's just bad communication. I assume, anyway, that it will work itself out.
We'll see, though. It seems more to me like they want these new generation games to seem like they have high benchmarks so they remain relevant longer- as hardware advances. It feels normal to me- much like what happened with last gens games. What's odd is how high the recommended requirements are, but even then I remember the original AC having insane requirements and still being fine on the PC I had at the time.
My fear of this just stems from DR3's port apparently being bad, but that's not necessarily relevant to all developers.
Here's a video of the PC version from TotalBiscuit, he addresses some of the VRAM issues and goes through the menu settings and options before about 50 minutes of gameplay.
Just keep in mind that YouTube is still limited to 30 fps, so it clearly won't show the same 60 fps video that the game is being captured at.
PC gaming huh? How come these games can run on these low to mid range PCs called PS4 and Xbox One and not actual high end PCs?
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the game can't run on high end PCs...the 6gb VRAM is a recommendation for the optional Ultra texture pack, and that's all. From what TB was saying in the video I linked above, the Ultra texture pack isn't even available yet (or at least wasn't when he was reviewing the game) which leads me to believe that the console versions are running on the equivalent of PC Medium or High. Until some better comparisons come out from the likes of Digital Foundry or a similar outlet, I wouldn't assume anything about the similarities between the console and PC versions.
I'm downloading the game right now and will be able to provide more information later when it finally finishes.
I ran the benchmark this morning on my 2 GB 770, and at medium I had: max fps 293, average fps 75, & lowest fps 48. Then I bumped it to high: max fps 273, average fps 65, & lowest fps 32.
One thing I did notice going from medium to high quality textures doesn't seem too noticeable visually. My guess it has more to do with bump and specular mapping layers being enhanced. Ultra textures seem like they just might be raw texture data for all layers considering the amount of VRAM they're asking.
I ran the benchmark this morning on my 2 GB 770, and at medium I had: max fps 293, average fps 75, & lowest fps 48. Then I bumped it to high: max fps 273, average fps 65, & lowest fps 32.
One thing I did notice going from medium to high quality textures doesn't seem too noticeable visually. My guess it has more to do with bump and specular mapping layers being enhanced. Ultra textures seem like they just might be raw texture data for all layers considering the amount of VRAM they're asking.
How much RAM is in your system and what's your processor? And I take it that when you say "medium" and "high" that setting is consistent across all the options? Good timing, btw, I just posted in another thread about wondering how a 2gb 770 would perform.
Installing the HD pack didn't seem to change anything performance wise for me. I was able to run it with a 970 with everything maxed at 76fps. When I turned the textures up to Ultra it dropped down to 75.This is at 1080p.
I wonder how much of a visual difference ultra textures will have compared to medium or high. I really want to get a 970 but if it'll only be able to run games at high settings for the foreseeable future then I'll have to wait until there's a SKU with more VRAM on board.
It's kind of silly to base your decision based on a screenshot from one menu option for a game that isn't quite out yet. Unless you want stuff the run in 4k the 970 will run 99% of games coming out in the foreseeable future maxed.
People with 6gb of vram are still myths at this point.
Oh I haven't made a decision yet, I'm planning on waiting to upgrade my GPU until black friday anyway. I'm just concerned about whether this is going to be a continuing trend in PC games. I'm going to wait it out and see what the expert opinion is from places like Tomshardware and Digital Foundry and maybe even Tested. If I'm going to buy a brand new video card I expect it to play games maxed out for at least a year and on high settings for the following two years.
@rollingzeppelin: It's not a "trend" yet...it's an overstated recommendation. Developers do this all the time. There are already people on GB reporting in with the PC version who have 3gb cards and are running Mordor with nearly everything on Ultra except the optional textures back and getting 1080p/60 no problem.
I think everyone just needs to take a deep breath and wait and see how the game runs on various configurations before they start reconsidering their entire hardware strategy for the next several years based on what one developer claimed about one setting in one game.
@mb: Hm, I kind of think it is a trend. Whether it's a good or logical one is a different question of course but I think there could be a bump in top end VRAM "requirements" for PC games.
@mb: Hm, I kind of think it is a trend. Whether it's a good or logical one is a different question of course but I think there could be a bump in top end VRAM "requirements" for PC games.
Nope...one setting on one game that recommends 6gb is not a trend. Unless I'm missing all of the other games that are recommending 6gb of VRAM. Saying that there could be a bump in the amount of VRAM requirements for PC games is a reasonable thing to say, but calling that hypothesis a trend based on one game doesn't fly.
If you guys are worried about the RAM req just don't download the texture pack and play on ultra. Unless you plan to play at 4k you're not really missing much playing with the compressed textures. I'm doing just fine one ultra with my 770 2 gig
@bonorbitz: Reran the test, bumped up Ambient Occlusion to High as well. Took a minor hit. Remember this is just the benchmark test, it's not indicative of gameplay shenanigans.
@mb: Hm, I kind of think it is a trend. Whether it's a good or logical one is a different question of course but I think there could be a bump in top end VRAM "requirements" for PC games.
Nope...one setting on one game that recommends 6gb is not a trend. Unless I'm missing all of the other games that are recommending 6gb of VRAM. Saying that there could be a bump in the amount of VRAM requirements for PC games is a reasonable thing to say, but calling that hypothesis a trend based on one game doesn't fly.
Yeah I'm not saying it's a trend yet, that's why I'm waiting to see what happens in the near future.
@mb: That's because it's not 1 game. idTech 5 games (Woflenstein New Order, The Evil Within) want 4, Watch_Dogs wanted 3. It's true the others don't say they need 6 but there has been a definite increase in recent times. CoD Ghosts preferred 4GB as well.
Most GPUs (except the highest end and brand new ones, especially on the Nvidia side) still use 2.
@hassun: Which again is why I'm skeptical about these recommendations, because my 3gb 780 Ti handled Wolfenstein at 1080p/60 with everything maxed out with no problems whatsoever. The VRAM usage never even went above 2.5gb...so I'm not sure where they are even getting their 4gb from.
I'm finding that the ambient occlusion settings give me more of a hit than the texture size. The game had a patch this evening and it seems to have improved my performance with everything on Ultra - I'm pretty sure I had 45fps in the benchmark this morning and now it's 68.
Knocking AO back to High bumps this to 78 and putting the textures on High gives me ... 78. Yep, that's with the pack installed and the game rebooted and I'm on a 3GB 780.
The benchmark also seems kinda rough (which is a good thing) because my average framerate actually playing the game is always hovering around 90. Not tried anything but the benchmark with the Ultra textures yet: that might show some performance dips.
All in all, I think it's an excellent PC port.
EDIT - As I figured, playing the game with Ultra textures on a 3GB card gives me framerate drops but never anything below 50. I'm gonna stick with High textures (can't see much difference at 1080p anyway) and solid 90...
@mb: Yeah I definitely think they are exaggerating those numbers. But at the same time New Order did not even give me the option for certain graphics settings just because my GPUs have 2GB VRAM. So I would still say that is problematic. A GTX780Ti is also an extremely high-end card of course.
@mb: Yeah I definitely think they are exaggerating those numbers. But at the same time New Order did not even give me the option for certain graphics settings just because my GPUs have 2GB VRAM. So I would still say that is problematic. A GTX780Ti is also an extremely high-end card of course.
Yeah...I'm still downloading the game, I'm planning on installing the ultra textures pack to see how it runs at 1080p vs 1440p with the high textures.
So torn on whether to purchase this or not. running a 560ti and Phenom II x4 955 3.2ghz which actually is just below the minimum. Somehow I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't at least run low to medium decently well considering I have been able to play the likes of witcher 2, skyrim, AC black flag, etc on high settings
@bonorbitz: Reran the test, bumped up Ambient Occlusion to High as well. Took a minor hit. Remember this is just the benchmark test, it's not indicative of gameplay shenanigans.
CPU: Intel i5 2500k OC 4.0 Ghz
RAM: 16 GB (4x4GB) Corsair Vengeance DDR3
GPU: Asus GTX 770 DCu II 2GB OC @1250Ghz
Gallery
Thanks for posting that; it's encouraging. I hope you have a great time with the game!
Has anyone else experimented with forcing various types of AA through the Nvidia Control Panel or Catalyst? I'm up to 8x CSAA and 2x MSAA now with no noticeable performance hit in the in-game benchmarks using a 780 Ti. Still downloading the HD Textures Pack, though.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment