20 replies to this topic

[Nick Rarang]

Just noticed after playing Forest Colony that Video Ram memory was at 2866 mb. Also I noticed that GPU utilization is pretty steady above 97% and fps dips have been less noticeable. This is of course at dx11 1080p all very high settings msaa on and VSync off. Average was fps and did not dip lower than 34fps. I use to experience 20fps dips when GPU utilization dipped but now that seemed fix. Thank you PGI for fixing the graphics for AMD FX8350/hd7970.

[Catamount]

Wow. This is why I tell people don't buy 2GB video cards, not if you can help it. They're adequate for 1080P gaming, but already there's potential for them to run into problems, to say nothing for down the road.

3GB is good for 1080P, probably more or less passable for 1440p, but I wouldn't want less than that, or less than 4 higher resolutions. I'm already worried about my 7970, since I intend to go Crossfire for higher resolutions.

[ninjitsu]

Catamount, on 26 June 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Wow. This is why I tell people don't buy 2GB video cards, not if you can help it. They're adequate for 1080P gaming, but already there's potential for them to run into problems, to say nothing for down the road.

3GB is good for 1080P, probably more or less passable for 1440p, but I wouldn't want less than that, or less than 4 higher resolutions. I'm already worried about my 7970, since I intend to go Crossfire for higher resolutions.

Just because video ram usage is high, doesn't mean you need more. at 1080p and below, with a single monitor, I really don't feel there's much benefit to tons of vram. I've got a 1gb 6950 that handles this game fine. The vast majority of the time I'm at 50-60fps. Sometimes I go up to 70. I hit upper 30's when my hud starts flashing red from damage but I think that's more coding issues than anything else.

My VRAM usage and GPU usage are maxed out during game but I'm not suffering from horrible FPS.

Edited by ninjitsu, 26 June 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[Goose]

You're running MSAA why?

[Nick Rarang]

Goose, on 26 June 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

You're running MSAA why?

I'm running MSAA because that was the only way for me to get a consistent 97% and above gpu utilization, and the 7970 can still handle it because I'm getting average 45fps.

Catamount, on 26 June 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Wow. This is why I tell people don't buy 2GB video cards, not if you can help it. They're adequate for 1080P gaming, but already there's potential for them to run into problems, to say nothing for down the road.

3GB is good for 1080P, probably more or less passable for 1440p, but I wouldn't want less than that, or less than 4 higher resolutions. I'm already worried about my 7970, since I intend to go Crossfire for higher resolutions.

I know. I use to envy people with gtx 760/770 but now hmmm. PGI upped their game graphics wise and I can definitely notice the difference in graphics texture quality. It's a far cry from DX9 days where i get 10fps dips and 30% gpu utilization. I suspect that eventually, PGI would further increase the texture quality and my 3gb Vram would be maxed out. I was also planning to Crossfire my 7970 as used card prices are going down in the $150 range, but I suspect that by next year 3gb won't be enough due to further texture increase. I might wait for the 20nm chips from AMD and just do single card.

[Catamount]

It seems like you're working awfully hard to cap out VRAM. I think a more realistic number for MWO is 1-1.5 gigabytes. Still, moving forward, I'm still not convinced 2GB will be ideal. Having less VRAM than a game can use is a performance drain. If it wasn't, GPUs would just pack like a megabyte, or none at all. It's just a matter of how much performance loss one takes from not having enough, which is probably dictated by just how bad the shortage is. My 512MB 4870 suffered badly in some games, and this was like 2008/2009 that games were running way past that limit, and this was with a 1680x1050 monitor, too.

[The FreyMan]

Where are you getting these figures that you basing your assumptions on regarding VRAM and system performance?

Regards,

[ninjitsu]

The FreyMan, on 26 June 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

Where are you getting these figures that you basing your assumptions on regarding VRAM and system performance?

Regards,

you can use gpu-z to record vram usage, along with a bunch of info.

[Lordred]

I regularly push north of 3500mb Vram useage, @ 2560x1600

[Deathlike]

I should probably monitor my game more often with GPU-Z. Continual memory strain is not good for me (1GB of DD5 VRAM here on a GTX650).

[Nick Rarang]

Catamount, on 26 June 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

It seems like you're working awfully hard to cap out VRAM. I think a more realistic number for MWO is 1-1.5 gigabytes. Still, moving forward, I'm still not convinced 2GB will be ideal. Having less VRAM than a game can use is a performance drain. If it wasn't, GPUs would just pack like a megabyte, or none at all. It's just a matter of how much performance loss one takes from not having enough, which is probably dictated by just how bad the shortage is. My 512MB 4870 suffered badly in some games, and this was like 2008/2009 that games were running way past that limit, and this was with a 1680x1050 monitor, too.

Not really. The reason I set the graphical detail to the highest possible settings that my monitor could display is because if I set it any lower, the GPU utilization drops below 97% and I get more noticeable FPS dips.If I take out MSAA, most maps would be around 1 to 1.5gb as you mentioned but my FPS dips are the same, so lowering down my average fps by cranking up the graphics detail not only smooths things out, but also brings out the extra eye candy.

[Lordred]

The mighty 4gb 680 still has more to give, only 2932mb out of 4096 used on Crimson Strait

Spoiler

Dishonerable display, Timberwolf running from an Orion useing Single Heatskins.

Edited by Lordred, 26 June 2014 - 10:50 PM.

[Nick Rarang]

Lordred, on 26 June 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

The mighty 4gb 680 still has more to give, only 2932mb out of 4096 used on Crimson Strait

Spoiler

Dishonerable display, Timberwolf running from an Orion useing Single Heatskins.

Crimson Strait, River City, and Forest Colony are texture rich and consumes a lot of vram. It's just good on getting good hardware from the get go and it lasting you a few upgrade cycles.

[Odins Fist]

How about a 6-GB GTX 780..???

http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814487040

Two of those bad boys could run a triple monitor setup nicely.
Although the price, but... Would be nice...

[xWiredx]

Odd, at the same resolution with everything at Very High using DX11 and TXAA I never ran above 1571MB of VRAM used (GTX 660Ti 2GB SLI). Probably an indication of something others have speculated about - a VRAM memory leak.

[Patzer]

i have had no issues at all. i guess my HP rocks.

[Nick Rarang]

xWiredx, on 27 June 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

Odd, at the same resolution with everything at Very High using DX11 and TXAA I never ran above 1571MB of VRAM used (GTX 660Ti 2GB SLI). Probably an indication of something others have speculated about - a VRAM memory leak.

Probably a vram memory leak, as I haven't noticed this quite regularly. Forest Colony is normally in the 2100 mb in my system but that particular session was just brutal, probably because of the full on brawl that transpired.

Normally, txaa is not as texture rich like msaa, because txaa uses blurring to remove the aliasing whereas msaa multi samples the image and this might explain as why it's not so much of a memory hog.
http://m.hardocp.com.../9#.U675wcnn_qB

[xWiredx]

FWIW, I tested using MSAA as well. 2 things: I don't see any difference in VRAM usage (still in the 1500-1600MB range) and I don't see any real difference in performance. I did clear the shader cache before testing each, too. I guess I'll just leave it at MSAA.

[Nick Rarang]

xWiredx, on 28 June 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

FWIW, I tested using MSAA as well. 2 things: I don't see any difference in VRAM usage (still in the 1500-1600MB range) and I don't see any real difference in performance. I did clear the shader cache before testing each, too. I guess I'll just leave it at MSAA.

If you read the link that I shared from hardocp, it did confirm that txaa blurs out the image and should be avoided.

[Catamount]

You mean ANOTHER Nvidia exclusive technology has turned out to be a flop? Say it ain't so!

That article was interesting. I actually wasn't aware of SMAA, which means I'm definitely falling behind the times. This must be corrected :/

Edited by Catamount, 28 June 2014 - 05:06 PM.