Rowr's forum posts

#1 Posted by Rowr (5480 posts) -

@nethlem said:

@colourful_hippie: No performance fix will give you "Ultra textures" running on a decent framerate with those 770's and their 2 GB vram, sorry but there is nothing Ubisoft could possibly "patch" about you simply not having enough memory.

@unilad: You are right in that Watch Dogs is no Crysis, as these games don't even share the same genre, but it is a "Crysis" in the regard that it's making use of 3+ GB vram setups and HT CPU's. '

What made Crysis so "special" during it release that it basically killed every GPU you threw at it (Sounds familiar?) and you best brought a multi core CPU to the ride if you wanted to have any decent fun.

The game works well on medium settings on most setups, that's where "mass market" is actually located on the performance spectrum. But when the "mass market" expects to max out any new game, regardless of the actual performance of a setup, then the "mass market" has to be gotten pretty damn stupid and clueless.

@mb said:

@nethlem: I think you're overestimating the impact the PS4's GDDR5 is going to have on games...the new consoles are SOC's. No amount of GDDR5 in the world is going to make up for having a weak SOC GPU that needs to run on low power and be ultra quiet versus a discrete, fully powered graphics card.

Not overestimating at all, at the end of this current console gen (PS4/Xbox One) the average vram on gamer GPU's will be around 6+ GB, i'm willing to bet money on that (and most likely will lose as this console gen could also end up crashing and burning pretty soon). I already quoted Epic and Sebastien Vierd, in the above linked article, also goes into details about this, it's all about streaming from the memory.

A SOC might never be able to compete with the raw computing power of an dedicated GPU, as the SOC has to dedicate some of it's performance for tasks that are usually handled by a dedicated CPU in a PC.

But what you ignore is that an SOC is removing another bottleneck, the one between CPU and GPU, that's also why the large unified memory is so important. The PS4 basically preloads all the required assets into the memory, without having the need to "compute" them just in the moment it needs them.

And while a gaming PC might have 8+ GB dedicated system memory, it's only DDR3 which is kind of slow compared to GDDR5, in that regard a PC architecture also has a lot of more possible bottlenecks (System ram -> CPU -> GPU -> Vram (with all kinds of bridges between them) vs SOC -> System ram/vram) that's why it's easy to underestimate how much actual "CPU power" SOC's can produce, while still managing to keep a lot of free performance for GPU tasks.

Look, it's not like i'm claiming something unthinkable or never before suggested here: The long lasting 360/PS3 console gen has had PC gaming hardware requirements bottlenecked for quite a while, that's also the reason PC gaming got especially "cheap" these past years. Games that made "full use", out of the box, of the available high-end hardware just for "shiny stuff" had been very few these last years. Sure you can always crush your hardware by throwing impossible amounts of anti aliasing at it to kill your GPU with any game, but that's not really an useful benchmark for the actual performance increases (in term of new hardware and how much it actually had been better) we've had these past years.

This new console gen is way more "PC like" than many think, that's why in turn we get higher PC requirements as the "base console version" will be more demanding from the very start, so an appropriate PC version will end up even more demanding compared to 360/PS3 ports (reminder: 256 MB vram), it's the only logical course of things that in turn the "base performance" of gaming PC's has to rise over time until it hits another pseudo imposed "console ceiling".

@rowr said:

Seriously.

Condescending is one word for it.

Mr fucking know it all is pretty happy to talk all day telling us things we know and that there's obviously a single upgrade path we all should of taken, when the simple matter is like you say, that is should run better than what it is.

When i'm telling things that "we know", how come you did chose a shitty upgrade path? There also is not "a single upgrade path we all should of taken", there simply have been choices made in the past which had been the wrong ones. Look, i also frequent some hardware related forums and over there it's always been the same story with "Need help with gaming build!" threads. They result in discussions over the amount of vram required for a setup and people always skimping out on the extra vram because "no game ever uses it".

Now is the time when mainstream AAA games actually start using said extra vram, without using any third party mods, and people with the cheaper and smaller vram versions get angry at software for filling their smaller memory too fast, while the people with the extra vram are happy they can finally fill it up with something like ultra textures, it's all kind of ironic.

o my fucking god will you listen to yourself.

#2 Edited by Rowr (5480 posts) -

Rome was pretty disapointing, as was company of heroes 2.

I skipped on BF4 so I don't know.

Otherwise aside from watchdogs, I don't feel like it's been that bad of late, much better than it was a few years ago.

Crysis 3 was poorly optimisedthough?

Although that game might have been hard on systems, it looks fucking amazing so it seems fine that it would require some meat to run it on higher settings. As opposed to something like watchdogs that looks worse than AC4 but runs like shit.

I mean take a look at Crysis one. You wouldn't say it was poorly optimised, it threw everything it could at the time into the game to take advantage of systems in the future.

There is a difference between being poorly optimised and just having heavy system requirements because they threw in some really high end options for graphics settings.

@extomar said:

Yes but no one was opined "Man, what is with these unoptimized games on the PS3?" did they. Or if they did it was in the context of the idiotic console wars.

Lets re-frame the issue: Why is no one going "Man, what is with unoptimized games on the XBox One?" The "wave" has been hitting that thing for awhile now but people just seem to accept it on a more expensive and more complex piece of hardware.

So whatever. I fully expect in a couple of a couple of months someone is going to ask this again while ignoring the problems with games "looking real rough" on whatever console and no one blinks. It turns out that a game is "unoptimized" because it is a complex piece of software.

This is good news, i might head back and check that game out again.

#4 Edited by Rowr (5480 posts) -

@nethlem said:

@rowr: If you want this discussion to be dead serious: Yes the GTX 690 had been the "cheaper" choice, if one wanted to have the "kick ass gaming rig" where "money doesn't matter" one would have bought two 680's with 4 GB vram and ran them in SLI, such an setup would easily eat Watch Dogs. Multi-GPU cards are a pointless waste of money and power, unless you want to go quadruple or higher SLI/CF there is absolutely no reason at all to buy these overpriced monstrosities, these cards are more about prestige than actual performance or price/performance ratio.

SLI/CF support has always been notoriously dodgy, people who buy these cards (or SLI/CF two single cards) and expect "double the performance" didn't do their homework and thus shouldn't be allowed to waste such obscene amounts of money on hardware.

2GB cards won't be "worthless" now, but don't expect to run "Ultra" setting or Anti-Aliasing on any HD resolutions with tolerable FPS in any newer releases. People have gotten too used to "just cranking it up to max" without taking any care about what their rig is actually capable of performing, now when this won't work anymore people simply start blaming software for their own cluelessness. How many of the people complaining did actually check where their hardware is bottlenecking? Is the CPU too slow? The GPU? Does any memory fill up too much? Is the GPU throttling due to thermal issues? What kind of medium is the game running from, SSD or HDD?

Nobody gives a crap or checks for these things, even tho it's exactly those things that tell the true story about the performance of the game and what's responsible for it performing badly. Knowing these things helps one making the right upgrade choices and tweaking the right settings to get the game running at desirable framerates with the best possible look.

I did my homework, at the time i bought it the single 690 was the better option than two 680's. I don't know how you came to the conclusion its the cheaper option since it would of cost me almost exactly the same amount. I'm pretty sure it beat it out in benchmarks and there were a few aesthetic reasons i forget now such as noise. Obviously there was nothing pushing two gb vram enough that it would be a worry then, and i still don't feel there is anything legitimate that is now.

I'm realistic about the performance i expect to get, especially since im running across triple monitors. So quit making shitty assumptions. I'm not getting my panties in a knot over the fact my machine doesn't destroy this. But this game doesn't look nearly as good to justify any of the performance hit and it's goddam fact across the board that this isn't running as well as expected given what they released as requirements and what the game defaults to.

All this talk about the cpu and ssd bottlenecking or whatever else, i understand your obviously annoyed at people who just throw money at a system and don't know how it works, but in this case it's been narrowed down to the few specific issues with vram usage.

You seem to be intent to make this an issue with peoples expectations to having cheaper rigs and i guess thats a fair assumption to make and for a large percentage that might be true. But the fact is this game has performance issues across all of the newest hardware completely out of line with what you are actually getting thus why these threads actually exist and why websites have gone as far as publishing stories regarding poor performance, and why ubisoft has come out and recognised it as an issue.

Your reply was to a guy asking if he needed to worry about his 690 or upgrade. The answer is fucking no, don't be so fucking ridiculous to argue it and put ideas in someones head that they need anything more than a gtx 690 right at the minute.

#5 Posted by Rowr (5480 posts) -

I'd really like to see this sort of money divided up somehow over the course of the year than blown all in one go on a handful of teams. There is still a big preconception all pro players are rich, which is hardly the case. The next biggest prize pools for comps this year are 250,000 and then it drops down to like 10,000-50,000 for most.

It all sounds like a lot, but when you divide it up among 5 plus a manager, over the course of months, it's not looking better than an average paying job.

Though most of them are young so they still probably have a living situation sorted with their family and few other responsibilities.

Definitely an awesome thing for e sports though, valve are really fucking good at this, that compendium is well worth the money for the content it provides.

#6 Edited by Rowr (5480 posts) -

@nethlem said:

@rowr said:

@mrbubbles said:

@mb: Thanks for the advice. I could probably get enough for that 690 (it was $1000 new) to cover the cost of a 780. I've had 4gb for my last 2 cards and just worry about missing that extra gigabyte. Is that a genuine worry or would I be fine with it?

I also have a 690 and I honestly don't think it is a genuine worry jut yet. I run triple monitor setups and generally max everything no problem, this game has unfortunately got some issues in this department.

The x80's are always going to be the best price point for performance as well as support unfortunately. I ended up getting the 690 purely because it was basically the same cost as buying two 680's for sli at the time. I too didn't realise until later that the vram was actually capped at 2gb.

I would say don't worry too much about your 690 at this stage over this one piece of shit game, and maybe hold out for a 880 when it comes out. But then also 690's have not dropped in price very much at all in the last few years, so if you were looking at selling it, it could be better sooner than later.

This won't be an issue isolated to Watch Dogs, people are ignoring that this is the direct result of the new console gen hardware.

People wanted PC games with better high res textures and beefier requirements, now they get them.

Titanfall and Watch Dogs are just the beginning, both these games in high/ultra setting will kill any rig with less than 3 GB Vram, regardless of it being multi-GPU. Expect the same behavior from any future AAA release with special "Ultra" settings for the PC version.

A lot of cheap rigs will pretty soon end up being outdated, especially for those people who tried to save a couple of bucks, by going 2 GB instead of 4 GB on their vram. New consoles with their bigger unified memory have lead to developers just dumping large uncompressed textures into memory (that's also why those games are so huge).

People who saved on their CPU will also feel the pain, as newer games are having better support for hyperthreading, like Titanfall and Watch Dogs, while also demanding higher CPU speeds.

Both of these are things where people had to make choices, when buying their hardware these past years, and a lot of people made the cheaper choices, those cheap choices are now taking their toll.

Yeh because a GTX 690 is the cheaper choice.....This is still one of the most expensive cards on the market. Do your research.

Sorry mate, but I'm not buying it. This will be true to some small degree over the next few years perhaps, but I doubt its hardly suddenly a fact of "o sorry all 2gb cards are worthless now".

There is just too wide a gap between how this looks and plays compared to recent better looking games, and its ubisoft. They have pulled this with literally every Assassins Creed release.

It's not just magically next gen now so by default every new game runs bad, it doesn't work that way.

It's probably worth noting that while we are complaining about performance based on our rigs, we are still getting performance resolution and framerate better than the next gen consoles. So there is really no point in anyone coming in here and dooming it up under that agenda.

#7 Posted by Rowr (5480 posts) -

I felt the second one just kind of harped on the things that made the first one great a little too much.

#8 Posted by Rowr (5480 posts) -

Burn the disc and pretend you never played it.

Never look back.

#9 Posted by Rowr (5480 posts) -

Yeh this mission can get rough. Fortunately I had a sweet army left over from previous missions, but had a lot of troubles dealing with the rebel threat.

#10 Posted by Rowr (5480 posts) -

This thread is off to a good start but we still need more reggie.