hmm interesting. After our last 10gb future proof debate with Alien et al, I tested this game on my pg348 with the 2080ti on max (since we were also discussing bad ports and bad launches). I only peaked at 6.8gb. Wonder if allocation is also dependant on AMD vs Nvidia? :S
Small talk & Chit chat
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
hmm interesting. After our last 10gb future proof debate with Alien et al, I tested this game on my pg348 with the 2080ti on max (since we were also discussing bad ports and bad launches). I only peaked at 6.8gb. Wonder if allocation is also dependant on AMD vs Nvidia? :S
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Then again. Not checked on latest patch so ill look at it again.
Yeah most engines will request as much VRAM as they can fill, and often they will fill VRAM with many GB's of assets predicatively or opportunistically in a way that will have little impact to the end user, the DirectX requested VRAM allocation reported by software, say filling the VRAM with assets that may be way out of your render distance just so it doesn't have to again later, so doesn't tell you anything about how much the game needs to avoid performance drops or anything like that, most games will request several times more than they practically use/need, if it's available.
trawetSluaP
Member
Is there anyway of reading the actual usage of VRAM rather than allocation?
Not in terms of consumers getting raw numbers, because the allocation can still be filling memory in a physical sense, the question is how much of the data at a given point is really useful for your current or foreseeable rendering process, which there's no way to really know or check software wise and sort of comes down to human judgement.
But of course, a consumer can check how much VRAM a game needs to run well, by limiting the VRAM availablee until the game has performance hits. Iirc there's a way to limit VRAM in software easily by reallocating it for other use, I guess like Warchilds previous post of using it as a RAMDISK.
Fwiw, I played Warzones with a 2GB card at 1080p without issue for a bit and have played it with a 4GB card at 1440p since, and my friend plays it with an 8GB card at 1440p, in that case it will always claim to allocate about 200mb-500mb less than you have we find (Presumably it's always filling your VRAM with all its giant assets from across the open world map till VRAM almost full).
But of course, a consumer can check how much VRAM a game needs to run well, by limiting the VRAM availablee until the game has performance hits. Iirc there's a way to limit VRAM in software easily by reallocating it for other use, I guess like Warchilds previous post of using it as a RAMDISK.
Fwiw, I played Warzones with a 2GB card at 1080p without issue for a bit and have played it with a 4GB card at 1440p since, and my friend plays it with an 8GB card at 1440p, in that case it will always claim to allocate about 200mb-500mb less than you have we find (Presumably it's always filling your VRAM with all its giant assets from across the open world map till VRAM almost full).
Last edited:
I think the only way to know for sure is for developers to admit what they have designed their engine to do. It comes down to the developers.
Would have been nice to see a graph in rivatuner showing allocation vs usage.
trawetSluaP
Member
Yeah, that'd be brilliant.
lol Playstation are about to break a 25 year long tradition for their Japanese consoles.
https://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/series/rt/1280705.html
The O will no longer be used to confirm selections in menus. It will now be A just like MS XBox/PC games or X on europe PS consoles.
Its a minor thing for some, but a big deal for others I suppose.
https://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/series/rt/1280705.html
The O will no longer be used to confirm selections in menus. It will now be A just like MS XBox/PC games or X on europe PS consoles.
Its a minor thing for some, but a big deal for others I suppose.
Last edited:
trawetSluaP
Member
Oh nice. Will have to give that a proper read when I finish work! Thanks!
AlienALX
Well-known member
Ahhh, India. The country that keeps on having these great ideas no one else thought of, regardless of the legality.
He did it all legally. Just Sony were too slow. I assume he tried to make easy cash trying to sell it back to them.
AlienALX
Well-known member
They will just steamroll him into the dirt. As people found out when trying the same on Disney etc.
Oh definately. Especially when he intended to take the TM for this reason.
Small companies that maybe had PS5 trademark from years back and are a regular company etc... those cases will get the small company rich. This guy doesnt have a chance in hell.
Tolemac
Active member
g0ggles1994
Active member
Looks like a love child between the normal Strix and the Prime, I actually kinda dig it.
On a completely unrelated note, as someone who loved Thomas as a little kid, this angers me beyond anything I could ever imagine https://toybook.com/thomas-gets-reimagined-season-25/
trawetSluaP
Member
My daughter loves watching Thomas.
Missus puts anything Thomas on for her but I only ever put the original on.
Missus puts anything Thomas on for her but I only ever put the original on.
