Game barely using VRAM

[Observer 3ff3ct]

This game doesn't have the best graphics and yet it seems to require a gtx 960 to run. WTF. Smells like bad port. I was playing using MSI afterburner to check RAM VRAM CPU and GPU usage and noticed that the VRAM reaches 500MB max. Generally games will use more than this. I can get 60 fps but with some settings on low, I wonder if the game would use VRAM properly i could get more performance. Also neither GPU or CPU seems to reach beyond 75% usage.
SPECS:
I7-7500U
GT940MX 4GB GDDR5
8GB DDR4 RAM

And yes i set in Nvidia control panel to force the game run with my dedicated video card

[Erebus]

1. GTX 960 is a low-end card.
2. VRAM doesn't work how you think it does.
3. CPU "usage" is misleading and not a super useful metric.
4. Laptop hardware is leagues weaker than desktop hardware.

tl;dr: you have a toaster

[Lobstersaurus]

Minimum Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 or comparable

Recommended Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 or comparable

[cpwarrior88]

The issue is that you need to throw coal in that thing to fire it up. Maybe you ran out of coal, or the coal you're using is bad quality.

[AskingForTrouble]

You have a decent PC, but Megadimension simply isn't going to run at 60 fps on your system. Whether or not that's a result of poor hardware specs or poor porting is up to debate, but I assure you that your situation isn't uncommon.

Also, a game doesn't need to use up all your available VRAM before it starts slowing down. The amount of data in your VRAM, to oversimplify things, behaves as a cache for readily available textures and other bits of info. Jamming more data in there won't necessarily improve performance, in fact having more data to sift through could do the opposite. The game will begin to slow down once it's pushed the shader units (and other on-board modules) faster and heavier than, say, a 940MX can sustain.

I don't always like to rely on manufacturer reccommended specs, since sometimes they're either overpowered or underpowered (hardcore enthusiasts who spent thousands to play Crysis at sub-console settings will confirm this). Megadimension, however, will likely benefit significantly from a more powerful GPU (the reccommended GTX 960 desktop variant is at least four-six times more potent than your 940MX). Since you're using a laptop and unlikely to upgrade anytime soon, the answer is to just bite it and take the performance as it is. In these situations, usually a reliable 30+ fps rate is considered superb (read: good enough).

TL;DR: Your GPU is low-mid tier (overall PC is good, though), Megadimension (perhaps unfairly) mandates higher system specs, forcing the use of additional VRAM wouldn't necessarily imporove performance, & 30+ fps is the best you (and most others) could hope for.

Literally the nicest post you'll likely ever get on this topic.

[Erebus]

Originally posted by AskingForTrouble:

You have a decent PC, but Megadimension simply isn't going to run at 60 fps on your system. Whether or not that's a result of poor hardware specs or poor porting is up to debate, but I assure you that your situation isn't uncommon.

Also, a game doesn't need to use up all your available VRAM before it starts slowing down. The amount of data in your VRAM, to oversimplify things, behaves as a cache for readily available textures and other bits of info. Jamming more data in there won't necessarily improve performance, in fact having more data to sift through could do the opposite. The game will begin to slow down once it's pushed the shader units (and other on-board modules) faster and heavier than, say, a 940MX can sustain.

I don't always like to rely on manufacturer reccommended specs, since sometimes they're either overpowered or underpowered (hardcore enthusiasts who spent thousands to play Crysis at sub-console settings will confirm this). Megadimension, however, will likely benefit significantly from a more powerful GPU (the reccommended GTX 960 desktop variant is at least four-six times more potent than your 940MX). Since you're using a laptop and unlikely to upgrade anytime soon, the answer is to just bite it and take the performance as it is. In these situations, usually a reliable 30+ fps rate is considered superb (read: good enough).

TL;DR: Your GPU is low-mid tier (overall PC is good, though), Megadimension (perhaps unfairly) mandates higher system specs, forcing the use of additional VRAM wouldn't necessarily imporove performance, & 30+ fps is the best you (and most others) could hope for.

Literally the nicest post you'll likely ever get on this topic.

His CPU is actually low tier as well.

It's an "i7" yes, but it's a dual-core super-low TDP laptop "i7".

[AskingForTrouble]

Originally posted by Erebus the Inexorable:

Originally posted by AskingForTrouble:

TL;DR: Your GPU is low-mid tier (overall PC is good, though)

His CPU is actually low tier as well. It's an "i7" yes, but it's a dual-core super-low TDP laptop "i7".

I don't know why you're brining up his CPU quality, but it shouldn't be bottle-necking his system. Even in a worst-case scenario, he's using a CPU that would out-perform the minimum required
i5 @ 2.3GHz (and at that clockspeed, it's either a laptop or really old gen desktop i5 CPU).

I'm also looking at various benchmarks; while I'm always wary of synthetic benchmarks, the plain fact is that the i7-7500U is a mid-tier CPU at worst.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Kaby-Lake-Core-i7-7500U-Review-Skylake-on-Steroids.172692.0.html

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7500U-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ/m171274vsm34954

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7500U+%40+2.70GHz

[Erebus]

Originally posted by AskingForTrouble:

Originally posted by Erebus the Inexorable:

His CPU is actually low tier as well. It's an "i7" yes, but it's a dual-core super-low TDP laptop "i7".

I don't know why you're brining his CPU quality up, but it shouldn't be bottle-necking his system. Even in a worst-case scenario, he's using a CPU that would out-perform the minimum required i5 @ 2.3GHz anyway (and at that clockspeed, it's either a laptop or really old gen desktop i5 CPU).

I'm also looking at various benchmarks; while I'm always wary of synthetic benchmarks, the plain fact is that the i7-7500U is a mid-tier CPU at worst.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Kaby-Lake-Core-i7-7500U-Review-Skylake-on-Steroids.172692.0.html
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7500U-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700HQ/m171274vsm34954
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7500U+%40+2.70GHz

Those links are all comparing to mobile hardware, which is a pale shadow of desktop hardware and more prone to thermal throttling.

It's a low tier CPU, and it will impact performance. It's not the whole cause of performance, but the fact is OPs comp is low-tier across the board.

[Lobstersaurus]

Minimum Processor: Intel i5 2.3 GHz or comparable

Recommended Processor: Intel i5 3.3 GHz or comparable

His CPU is under the Recomended Specs, but above the minimum, same deal as his graphics card.

[Erebus]

Originally posted by Lobstersaurus:

Minimum Processor: Intel i5 2.3 GHz or comparable

Recommended Processor: Intel i5 3.3 GHz or comparable

His CPU is under the Recomended Specs, but above the minimum, same deal as his graphics card.

His GPU is below the minimums, his CPU in theory meets the minimums (but only because the listing is vague and doesn't specify much).

[Lobstersaurus]

Originally posted by Erebus the Inexorable:

Originally posted by Lobstersaurus:

Minimum Processor: Intel i5 2.3 GHz or comparable

Recommended Processor: Intel i5 3.3 GHz or comparable

His CPU is under the Recomended Specs, but above the minimum, same deal as his graphics card.

His GPU is below the minimums, his CPU in theory meets the minimums (but only because the listing is vague and doesn't specify much).

ur waifu a ♥♥♥♥

[Doctor Eggman]

Why didn't you get an ultimate, more powerful laptop that I bought years ago for barely more than you'd pay for a micro-sized, energy efficient, ultrabook (seems that way) that can barely run quality modern titles in any decent form.

Ultra-books aren't designed for gaming and seeing as that setup is the bona-fide Ultrabook setup, you're spitting at nothing but yourself.

Its a gimped, out of date GPU with just under 400 shader units, resemblent of a desktop GPU from 2009, the CPU is a dual core when most demanding gaming applications this day and age require a quad core... not to mention you're playing a game ported directly from the PS4.

Basically your GPU is slower than the GPU offered in the Nintendo Switch, and you're wondering why it can't play the game at max settings with fluid frame rates...

Ultimately its trying to get blood out of a stone.

[Ineri]

My graphics card barely reaches the Minimum requirement as well. (I have a GTX 645)

Still, i was able to play this game on 60 FPS, with no frame drops whatsoever. My CPU and RAM are both at very good standards, just saying.

I think the specs description is a bit overkill. You read that GTX 960 requirement on every game they published since V2:

- MegaTagmension Blanc
- Trillion
- FFF: Advent Dark Force
- Monster Monpiece

It's fail information. You still need good specs (atleast for the PS4 ports, they're a bit more demanding), but many PCs nowadays should be able to handle this.

Btw, in preparation to 4GO, don't get your hopes up. Because this one is on a whole new level in terms of specs. You better think now about an upgrade or you buy a PS4.

[Erebus]

Originally posted by Nonoka ★:

My graphics card barely reaches the Minimum requirement as well. (I have a GTX 645)

Your GPU is probably leagues better than OPs if it is a desktop card, even if low-end and older.

Originally posted by Nonoka ★:

My CPU and RAM are both at very good standards, just saying.

Def going to put you leagues ahead of OP's ultrabook dual-core.

Originally posted by Nonoka ★:

I think the specs description is a bit overkill. You read that GTX 960 requirement on every game they published since V2:

Specs are typically based off what a company tested, or a rough outline of what they support. Requirements frequently will have a decent amount of "wiggle room" (assuming you aren't one of those "MAX RES ULTRA GRAPHICSSSSS AAA GAEMS" nutjobs), since companies don't have the time or resources to test every possible GPU & CPU and companies need to draw a 'line in the sand' as far as what they will or won't provide support for.

By listing say a desktop GTX 960 as the minimum, the support staff answering emails or tickets can save a lot of effort on integrated GPU and mobile GPU complaints/issues.

[AskingForTrouble]

@Erebus you really have a hard-on for making clear the OP's PC is ♥♥♥♥-tier by a factor of "leagues".

[Erebus]

Originally posted by AskingForTrouble:

@Erebus you really have a hard-on for making clear the OP's PC is ♥♥♥♥-tier by a factor of "leagues".

Sorry but I'm not going to sugarcoat it so you and OP don't get offended.

The ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you've spouted in this thread is what gives people false hopes, lets them get suckered into ♥♥♥♥ like "optimization apps", and gives them the wrong idea about whats going on. Ignoring reality isn't going to make OP's computer a better gaming machine. Buying into "omg it's a i7!!!!1" marketing isn't going to change the fact it's an ultra-low power dual-core with battery efficiency being top priority.

Does it make OP a "bad person" that his computer is ♥♥♥♥? Not at all, it's simply a fact. So, take your snowflake ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ elsewhere.