rtwjunkieYou are ignoring that games progress. Nothing stands still in the gaming world. Gaming, more than anything has consistently forced the advancement of computer parts to bigger, better, faster as requirements increase.

It's a constantly moving finish line, and the natural evolution of things. It's unrealistic to think or hope that requirements will stand still.

Uplink10Programs should consume resources in a smart ways and because they need to. Just take a look at textures, distributors do not compress textures to lower piracy, it isn't working. Why would they make COD to eat up all the RAM, so the consumers will buy more/costlier components? Time will tell, but till it does I suggest people turn to better coded games on PC like Witcher 3.

Uplink10I suggest people turn to better coded games on PC like Witcher 3.

ShihabyoooIIRC Windows' been doing similar stuff since XP and Vista (Prefetcher and Superfetch, respectively), and I can't count the times I had to disable the latter because it was screwing up the system.

You are right. Running a game from ram is better, but that still wouldn't justify caching data for segments that won't be needed for minutes/hours to come, or ones that aren't needed any more. What matters is what's being displayed now and what will be in the very near future (for the game), in other words: what the game "needs". Then it's simply a matter of balancing when to cache newer data and when to scrub older ones.

ShihabyoooI'll take your word for now. My experience with programming hasn't reached d3d yet >_>

rtwjunkieFirst I agree with you that people should go play a better game, like The Witcher 3. But that's not the issue.

Look back on the history of gaming. There have always been games that pushed the envelope, and thus pushed the advancement of hardware. I am all for any game that pushes that envelope. Others will follow suit, and I am glad. Otherwise, hardware would stagnate where it is.

Forward thinking has gotten us where we are today, and I don't wish to see it stop there.

rtwjunkieLook back on the history of gaming. There have always been games that pushed the envelope, and thus pushed the advancement of hardware. I am all for any game that pushes that envelope. Others will follow suit, and I am glad. Otherwise, hardware would stagnate where it is.

AquinusFailworks? O rly? There are a lot of things I would called Witcher 3. A great game, a lot of fun, looks pretty good, but, I wouldn't call it the pinnacle of well coded games. It has its issues like many others.

RejZoRBecause if those are the specs, not many people can actually run that. I mean, I have 32GB RAM so I don't care, but graphic card is still "just" 4GB (GTX 980). If you want to target the broadest target public, you can't have specs like this. Or it has to look like nothing we've seen to date. Frankly, I doubt that will be the case...

deemonnoone said you have to play the game with maximum textures. That's why they gave us game settings, so you can SET things right for your hardware. Simple really. I am quite sure you can play this game with 2GB VRAM also with low textures and 1080p.

rtwjunkieFirst I agree with you that people should go play a better game, like The Witcher 3. But that's not the issue.

Look back on the history of gaming. There have always been games that pushed the envelope, and thus pushed the advancement of hardware. I am all for any game that pushes that envelope. Others will follow suit, and I am glad. Otherwise, hardware would stagnate where it is.

Forward thinking has gotten us where we are today, and I don't wish to see it stop there.

rtwjunkieMy point is simply the number of people butt-hurt in general because System requirements are increasing. It is simply not realistic to think games and hardware should stagnate forever. If people had always thought that way, we would still be riding horse and buggy.

rtwjunkieIt is simply not realistic to think games and hardware should stagnate forever.

rtwjunkie@Vayra86 I'm not defending the game. Perhaps I'm being misunderstood, because there have been precisely 3 good CoD games: CoD, Cod 2, and CoD 4- MW.

My point is simply the numver of people butt-hurt in general because System requirements are increasing. It is simply no realistic to think games and hardware should stagNate forever. If people had always thought that way, we would still be riding horse and buggy.

Vayra86You mentioned it yourself, TW3, a great example of a game that uses the hardware well and has understandable performance hits from different kinds of graphics settings - nobody is complaining about 30-40 fps in that game and rightly so, people aren't that stupid.

AquinusI wouldn't call TW3 that stable and for how much VRAM it uses and how it looks, I would actually expect it to run better. Farcry 4, another games that isn't the best of coded games but, it looked great and ran smoothly in surround on my machine, using almost 4GB of VRAM all the while. You run TW3 in surround and it sucks beyond belief (all the while, around 2GB VRAM used.) There have also been instances where despite a frame rate cap, TW3 will consume 100% of my GPU even though it's running at a flat 60FPS, almost like it's just throwing away extra rendered frames. Either way, people should stop using TW3 as an example of a good game because 3D performance for what the game is, is crap. The only reason why TW3 is good is because the game itself doesn't blow. I can deal with poor performance if the game is good but, most won't care if a game looks good if everything else about it is crap.

So if we're talking about just the rendering engine and not the game itself, TW3 is actually pretty mediocre in comparison. It caters to GPUs that have a lot of pixel pumping power because a lot of it is effects, not texturing.

Vayra86A great example because it is also very transparent in terms of VRAM usage in the options menu.

64KIf it's loading up RAM just because it's there then no problem. If it's loading up RAM and the engine has to start using storage because the RAM is loaded with unnecessary data then that's not ok. That's why the game stutters. The following isn't about RAM but it seems that their game engine wastes resources anyway. Take a look at this concerning VRAM usage

Spoiler: VRAM Usage

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_Titan_X/33.html

Crysis 3 using 2 GB max and COD Advanced Warfare using 7.3 GB

This game is running on new gen consoles that only have 8 GB RAM total where 4-5 GB is available for the game. I understand that PC gamers always need better hardware to run the same game as on a console but this much? 12 GB RAM? This game isn't breaking new ground for PCs. It's just sloppy coding.

rtwjunkieYou may have some valid points from what I've read by users. However, if you'll note in my edit from above that I did earlier, people started thier outcry about higher requirements BEFORE anyone had the game after the TPU staff put forth the real-world requirements. Think about that a second and let it digest.

People were butt-hurt in general about hardware requirements increasing. That kind of backward thinking will allow consoles to have more performance than the PC eventually if everyone starts expecting that hardware requirements will never increase.

Backward thinking like that did not get us such massively improved PC's in the last 15 years.

rtwjunkieYou may have some valid points from what I've read by users. However, if you'll note in my edit from above that I did earlier, people started thier outcry about higher requirements BEFORE anyone had the game after the TPU staff put forth the real-world requirements. Think about that a second and let it digest.

People were butt-hurt in general about hardware requirements increasing. That kind of backward thinking will allow consoles to have more performance than the PC eventually if everyone starts expecting that hardware requirements will never increase.

Backward thinking like that did not get us such massively improved PC's in the last 15 years.

AquinusI don't have GTA V so I can't speak for experience but, if my memory serves me correctly, that game uses extra VRAM for caching so it could very well be just like TW3 in that respect, so I wouldn't go making any assumptions to that end.

I've played TW3 maxed out without Hairworks. In fact I didn't find Hairworks to impact performance by all that much, I feel that it's just a slow engine for what it is doing. I don't have GTA V so I can't talking about it but, there was a discussion several months ago about how it appeared that GTA V was caching stuff in VRAM if it was available and wasn't reflective of how much memory is being actively used at any given time.