Is 4GB VRAM Sufficient?

[Sturmgewehr_44]

With the release of that Shadow of Mordor game, I find it very disturbing. I have no interest in the game, but that does not matter. It's Ultra texture pack raises the question if the amount of VRAM in consumer-level Graphics Cards is enough. My GTX 980 has 4GB, as do all other 980s.

Is this enough? Ubisoft unoptimised titles can take as much as 3.8 GB of VRAM when maxed out at 1080p. And then, there is that texture pack. Apparently, if I am not misunderstanding the rage, it calls for a "minimum" of 6GB of VRAM. That is absolutely absurd. But is it true? I've heard mixed reception. It seems some users can run it on a 980 or 970, whilst others are reporting the VRAM usage at over 5GB at 1080p. What is there? Is the recommended 6GB an overestimate?

In the next few months, will 4GB VRAM be sufficient, or will it get drained away by a new SKU with 6 or 8GB? I find this bothersome, considering the amount of lazy, unoptimised work, and on top of the Console's unified memory. Didn't this same issue happen with the GTX 580 and it's 1.5GB of VRAM?

[Eltia]

I'm on GTX 980. SoM on HD Texture with everything max'd used about 4083 MB of VRAM in 1080p. I don't recall it uses more than that amount during gameplay.

[Brewskie]

The 6GB requirement is ONLY for the Ultra texture pack which has to be downloaded seperately. You won't actually get Ultra textures until you install that content.

[InvadingOreo]

I have not had any trouble running at 1080p on my GTX970. I'm not sure exactly on how much VRAM im using, but I optimized graphics with the latest NVIDIA driver set for the game and I pull 80+ FPS on average with all settings on Ultra or likewise maxed.

[Eltia]

I read this game does hit 6GB VRAM usage with HD texture, but only if you run it in 4k. For 1080p 4GB is just enough.

For GTX 970 you are most likely using 3.5GB for the first 30 mins and then slowly grow to 4GB usage after.

[Sturmgewehr_44]

Originally posted by Brewskie McKillgore:

The 6GB requirement is ONLY for the Ultra texture pack which has to be downloaded seperately. You won't actually get Ultra textures until you install that content.

I am aware of that. I am referring to the texture pack, and it's incredibly rediculous requirements.

Can anyone post a screenshot or something with the VRAM usage visible? I would love to see for myself how much VRAM these "Ultra" textures actually take up. Are they even that high quality? I know for a fact that 4K textures aren't all that stressful on VRAM. In Skyrim, I am running most of the game with 4K textures and rarely hit over 2GB of VRAM (this is an estimate. I have no way to actually tell because I am running an ENB). If these actually do consume more 6GB, they are terribly optimised on the dev's part, and uncompressed.

[Sturmgewehr_44]

Originally posted by Eltia:

I read this game does hit 6GB VRAM usage with HD texture, but only if you run it in 4k. For 1080p 4GB is just enough.

For GTX 970 you are most likely using 3.5GB for the first 30 mins and then slowly grow to 4GB usage after.

So the recommendations were for 4K? It definitely makes more sense, but 6GB even then still seems unreal.

That's interesting. I heard that. Why would they do that?

[Eltia]

Originally posted by Sturmgewehr_44:

So the recommendations were for 4K? It definitely makes more sense, but 6GB even then still seems unreal.

That's interesting. I heard that. Why would they do that?

As I said, I have GTX 980 and I have yet to see VRAM usage goes over 4GB in 1080p with HD texture and everything max'd. I played SoM from beginning to end on that setting.

I did read reports that say under 4k (or even 1440p), SoM could reach 6GB.

[Sturmgewehr_44]

Originally posted by Eltia:

Originally posted by Sturmgewehr_44:

So the recommendations were for 4K? It definitely makes more sense, but 6GB even then still seems unreal.

That's interesting. I heard that. Why would they do that?

As I said, I have GTX 980 and I have yet to see VRAM usage goes over 4GB in 1080p with HD texture and everything max'd. I played SoM from beginning to end on that setting.

I did read reports that say under 4k (or even 1440p), SoM could reach 6GB.

Could you take a screenshot and post it here? I would like to see that.

[Eltia]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387156801
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387157126
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387156770

[Sturmgewehr_44]

Originally posted by Eltia:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387156801
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387157126
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=387156770

Very well. So the 6GB is either 4K or a major overestimate? What about the rest of the texture quality? Are they also overestimated or from a higher resolution than 1080p?

Still, from a well optimised game such as this, even 4080 MB is a lot. But, I guess it is about the raw power and exclusivity of using nearly 4.1GB of VRAM, and doesn't "need" to be optimised. The 980 has 4096 MB of VRAM. This comes dangerously close to ruining the experience of the game.

[Eltia]

Not too sure how optimize this game is. I feel the texture aren't compressed that's why it takes up so much VRAM. The quality of the HD texture isn't that noticable as well.

So I don't know how you want to extrapolate this result. If you want another reference data point, Titanfall @ 1080p with Insane texture and everything maxed (MSAA x 8) uses around 3.2GB VRAM. The difference in texture in Titanfall is more noticable than SoM.

[Sturmgewehr_44]

Originally posted by Eltia:

Not too sure how optimize this game is. I feel the texture aren't compressed that's why it takes up so much VRAM. The quality of the HD texture isn't that noticable as well.

So I don't know how you want to extrapolate this result. If you want another reference data point, Titanfall @ 1080p with Insane texture and everything maxed (MSAA x 8) uses around 3.2GB VRAM. The difference in texture in Titanfall is more noticable than SoM.

What I'm concerned about, if you didn't know already, is that I see that trend, on very high VRAM usage. It's rediculous. AC Unity can use 3.8GB easily. It's a pile of ♥♥♥♥ port, but no ♥♥♥♥♥♥ port from a year ago went that far.

It would be extremely aggravating if I were to wake up and my 980 would suddenly be bottlenecked by a generic game because of the textures being ported too carelessly and not being compressed. I hope this is just an isolated thing, and not becoming widespread. I have not heard of texture packs from a year or two ago using DOUBLE the amount of VRAM most users have. The Skyrim HD Texture Pack I believe reccommended two, but never used that much and it was an acceptable amount.

I read that the textures are using more than 4GB, but the 980 is swapping them to the Ram, and loading them back in to conserve VRAM as it begins to dry up. Could this be the reason you only get 4GB out of a recommended 6?

[Eltia]

I'm on Windows 7, so I don't think that VRAM to RAM swap option is available. (I believe it is a feature in Windows 8 and 10.)

If developers continue to port console games with poor optimization, they could in theory jack up the VRAM usage easily to 6-8GB. But nothing prevent you to tune down your graphic setting. So you can either: play their games and buy more hardware or trade off some image quality (and create fewer electronic garbage).

Choice is up to you. At this point, however, how much VRAM is "enough" is everybody's guess. DX12 and Mantle are going to allow stacking of VRAM in SLI / Crossfire. e.g. two GTX 980 would give you 8GB VRAM. But the prerequisite? Games have to use this feature.

So we are back to Square One: it's up to the developers to optimize their PC games. Some developers would optimize others would not.

[RvB Churchaboose]

I'm running the ultra textures with a 780Ti and I get a solid 60 fps, so only 3GB vram is fine.

[Mr_Faorry]

i have 2gb vram and i can run it fine