Store Page
Rise of the Tomb Raider
All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos News Guides Reviews

Rise of the Tomb Raider

Store Page
View Stats:
Global Achievements
Dweller Beyond the Threshold Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:13pm
What on earth??? 6128 mb VRAM usage in game???
And I'm playing in 1080P! This has got to be pure madness. The game started to use 6000mb from the London cutscene and stayed there ever since. I've never seen any game using anywhere close to this figure. Except for FXAA, everything else is at max. But this is still crazy. My Witcher 3 ultra uses a stable 1800mb, GTA 5 at ultra uses about 4GB, and a heavily modded Skyrim uses about 4,7 GB, but 6GB? Not in my wildest dream. True this game looks a lot better, but still...GTA 5 is full of people, traffics and buildings.

Thank god I have a GTX 980Ti, the game has been running a stable 60FPS (but I'm still far from reaching the Russian base.

Can anyone confirm that this is the VRAM usage that they are getting as well?
Last edited by Dweller Beyond the Threshold; Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:17pm
< >
Showing 1-15 of 31 comments
john1231 Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:14pm 
only with ultra textures.. they seem to be very huge indeed.
#1
The Keeper Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:15pm 
I also have a 980 Ti and I'm sort of used to hitting 6GB in games these days at 2560x1440. I wonder if VRAM is an actual bottleneck in the end though, as I've never heard a 970 owner complain that their 3.5GB is holding them back in games where I'm using 4+GB.
#2
Dweller Beyond the Threshold Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:16pm 
Originally posted by john1231:
only with ultra textures.. they seem to be very huge indeed.

LOL this is crazy! I didn't even think it's possible to have 1080P games using that much VRAM right now...
But then how come the performance isn't affected? Some games even though only using half the available VRAM, your FPS would drop like crazy.

Last edited by Dweller Beyond the Threshold; Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:19pm
#3
Dweller Beyond the Threshold Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:19pm 
Originally posted by Ser Olly:
I also have a 980 Ti and I'm sort of used to hitting 6GB in games these days at 2560x1440. I wonder if VRAM is an actual bottleneck in the end though, as I've never heard a 970 owner complain that their 3.5GB is holding them back in games where I'm using 4+GB.

Well yeah 1440P is another story. But dayum I'm in 1080P...what would the VRAM usage be like if I keep the settings and bump up the resolutions?
#4
john1231 Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:23pm 
Originally posted by daijobunanodesu:
Originally posted by john1231:
only with ultra textures.. they seem to be very huge indeed.

LOL this is crazy! I didn't even think it's possible to have 1080P games using that much VRAM right now...
But then how come the performance isn't affected? Some games even though only using half the available VRAM, your FPS would drop like crazy.
well its affected on my GTX970 - it stutters as it has not enough VRAM to stream the textures fast enough
#5
Dr.Abscondus Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:24pm 
Batman Arkham Knight uses that much VRAM when maxed out. Turn of super sampling. Everyone used to complain that devs were not releasing games to use the PC's potential. Now they are and you still complain.
#6
XDark_HonorX Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:32pm 
Good thing my AMD Radeon 390x has 8GB of Vram everything works great here.
#7
BLIZZARD-XXL Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:33pm 
Originally posted by daijobunanodesu:
And I'm playing in 1080P! This has got to be pure madness. The game started to use 6000mb from the London cutscene and stayed there ever since. I've never seen any game using anywhere close to this figure. Except for FXAA, everything else is at max. But this is still crazy. My Witcher 3 ultra uses a stable 1800mb, GTA 5 at ultra uses about 4GB, and a heavily modded Skyrim uses about 4,7 GB, but 6GB? Not in my wildest dream. True this game looks a lot better, but still...GTA 5 is full of people, traffics and buildings.

Thank god I have a GTX 980Ti, the game has been running a stable 60FPS (but I'm still far from reaching the Russian base.

Can anyone confirm that this is the VRAM usage that they are getting as well?

Using SLI Titan X's, I'm using about 7-9gb of vram at 4k according to MSI afterburner. My issues is the game seems to crash after about an hour
#8
TheFluff Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:02pm 
Same issue here. 6GB+ of my GTX 980 ti on Soviet Installation map. Also FPS are kind of messy.
#9
trek554 Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:03pm 
hmm I cant get the game to work with Afterburner...
#10
Buck (Banned) Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:07pm 
Welcome to the march of technology. You want more resolution, triangles, colors, etc? Well then more hardware resources are required to get them.

#11
ilgeek Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:07pm 
Originally posted by Blizzard:
Originally posted by daijobunanodesu:
And I'm playing in 1080P! This has got to be pure madness. The game started to use 6000mb from the London cutscene and stayed there ever since. I've never seen any game using anywhere close to this figure. Except for FXAA, everything else is at max. But this is still crazy. My Witcher 3 ultra uses a stable 1800mb, GTA 5 at ultra uses about 4GB, and a heavily modded Skyrim uses about 4,7 GB, but 6GB? Not in my wildest dream. True this game looks a lot better, but still...GTA 5 is full of people, traffics and buildings.

Thank god I have a GTX 980Ti, the game has been running a stable 60FPS (but I'm still far from reaching the Russian base.

Can anyone confirm that this is the VRAM usage that they are getting as well?

Using SLI Titan X's, I'm using about 7-9gb of vram at 4k according to MSI afterburner. My issues is the game seems to crash after about an hour


Check your ram usage, on my rig I've seen so much as 9gb of ram been used by the game o. O
#12
Frannz Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:14pm 
It seems the game uses 4kx4k resolution textures on very high (at least that's what I read on Nvidia's guide.)

Here: "On Very High texture resolutions can reach 4K x 4K, adding an extra degree of detail. Here, we can observe an improvement on the wet rocks around Lara."

Probably that's why.
#13
McShave07 Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:14pm 
Originally posted by Dr.Abscondus:
Batman Arkham Knight uses that much VRAM when maxed out. Turn of super sampling. Everyone used to complain that devs were not releasing games to use the PC's potential. Now they are and you still complain.

I can't agree with this enough. For years PC users have moaned about consoles holding back PC games, about how graphics are so bad because games have to be made to play on consoles and PCs. Yet when a PC game pushes the limits (even just a little bit) oh god this game game is the worst game ever / worst port / worst optimized game ever etc.etc.

I can only imagine how bad it would be if Crysis was released today with the hardware limitations it had at the time (oh wait I don't have to imagine ARKHAM KNIGHT). But really when Crysis came out it was great to have a game like that, the makers said it was made for powerful graphics cards that weren't even out yet. It gave PC users something to aim for.

Now......wah my four year old card can't run this at 144hz. Do any of you wonder why anyone would want to make games for the PC anymore?
#14
Frannz Jan 28, 2016 @ 11:18pm 
Originally posted by Dr.Abscondus:
Batman Arkham Knight uses that much VRAM when maxed out. Turn of super sampling. Everyone used to complain that devs were not releasing games to use the PC's potential. Now they are and you still complain.
They are not using the full potential.
The guys that port the games from consoles are still having difficulty in adapting the games to pcs.
The new consoles have almost 8gb of RAM wich is shared with the video.
PC has divided memory, system RAM and VRAM, and most games are not being ported to take advantage of that. That's why so many problems with console ports requiring so much vram.
#15
< >
Showing 1-15 of 31 comments
Per page: 1530 50

Rise of the Tomb Raider > General Discussions > Topic Details
Date Posted: Jan 28, 2016 @ 9:13pm
Posts: 31

Discussions Rules and Guidelines