Wednesday, September 4th 2019

Control Can Use Up to 18.5GB of Video Memory

"Control" by Remedy is the season's hottest AAA release, not just because it's an above-average story-driven action RPG, but also because it's an eye candy-shop. With the ability to use NVIDIA RTX real-time raytracing across a multitude of features, the game is particularly heavy on graphics hardware. Tweaktown tested the game's stability at extremely high display resolutions, including 8K, and found that the game can use up to 18.5 GB of video memory, when running in DirectX 12 with RTX enabled. There's only one client-segment graphics card capable of that much memory, the $2,499 NVIDIA TITAN RTX, which ships with 24 GB of GDDR6 memory. Its nearest client-segment neighbor is the AMD Radeon VII, but it only packs 16 GB of HBM2.

When a game needs more video memory than your graphics card has, Windows has an elaborate memory management system that sheds some of that memory onto your system's main memory, and the swap file progressively (at reduced performance, of course). Video memory usage drops like a rock between 8K and 4K UHD (which is 1/4th the pixels as 8K). With all RTX features enabled and other settings maxed out, "Control" only uses 8.1 GB of video memory. What this also means is that video cards with just 8 GB of memory are beginning fall short of what it takes to game at 4K. The $699 GeForce RTX 2080 Super only has 8 GB. The RTX 2080 Ti, with its 11 GB of memory has plenty of headroom and muscle. Find other interesting observations in the source link below.
Source: Tweaktown
Add your own comment

38 Comments on Control Can Use Up to 18.5GB of Video Memory

#26
xorbe
4K -> 8K is a 95MB increase in the frame buffer. But vram usage jump from 8.1 to 18.5GB. That suggests there are 112 full frames in-flight during rendering. With 2 frames in progress, perhaps 56 full frames to create each scene.
Posted on Reply
#27
efikkan
xorbe4K -> 8K is a 95MB increase in the frame buffer. But vram usage jump from 8.1 to 18.5GB. That suggests there are 112 full frames in-flight during rendering. With 2 frames in progress, perhaps 56 full frames to create each scene.
No way. Even with frame pacing, double buffering or triple buffering (with VSync), only one frame will ever be actively rendered at any time, the other will only take up one framebuffer (so up to ~5 in total).
There must be something else causing the increased memory usage, or simply poor coding from the developers.
Posted on Reply
#28
xorbe
efikkanNo way. Even with frame pacing, double buffering or triple buffering (with VSync), only one frame will ever be actively rendered at any time, the other will only take up one framebuffer (so up to ~5 in total).
There must be something else causing the increased memory usage, or simply poor coding from the developers.
You're talking about frames in time. I'm talking about framebuffers used in the computation of a single output frame. I don't know though. I'm just trying to figure out the jump from 8.1 to 18.5 GB due to 4K to 8K. What I'm guessing is that it suggests a lot of scratch space being used. Perhaps someone else knows why 8K needs an extra 10.4GB vram.
Posted on Reply
#29
efikkan
xorbeYou're talking about frames in time. I'm talking about framebuffers used in the computation of a single output frame. I don't know though. I'm just trying to figure out the jump from 8.1 to 18.5 GB due to 4K to 8K. What I'm guessing is that it suggests a lot of scratch space being used. Perhaps someone else knows why 8K needs an extra 10.4GB vram.
Using that many framebuffers for multiple render passes seems unlikely, and if this was performed with raytracing, the need for such multi-pass "tricks" should decrease, not increase. ~100 pass rendering is unusual, ~3-5 pass is more typical, above 10-12 pass is unusual.
I suspect that either the comparison is not "apples to apples", the game is buggy/"unpolished" or the game is doing something very unusual.
Edit: I also want to remind that Titan RTX with its massive 672 GB/s memory bandwidth only leaves about 11.2 GB/s per frame at 60 FPS (for example), so I doubt that all of this is "scratch space".
Or let me put it another way; if a game is using >10GB of "scratch space" in a single frame, just writing it once and then reading it once during the fragment shader part of the rendering would result in a maximum ~10 FPS on a Titan RTX. So you will be bottlenecked by memory bandwidth long before capacity if you intend to use this much in a single frame.
Posted on Reply
#30
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
And how much of that 18.5GB is textures that aren't even being used?
Posted on Reply
#33
Ruru
S.T.A.R.S.
robbvram is the least of your worries if trying to play games maxed at 16x the resolution of 1080p. no game running at settings that needs that much vram would be playable anyway on modern gpus.
You totally missed my point here, what I meant was that I'm in trouble already with 4GB at 1080p, and here we see VRAM consumption where none consumer-grade card has enough VRAM. And no, I don't count Titans as consumer cards.
Posted on Reply
#34
xorbe
newtekie1And how much of that 18.5GB is textures that aren't even being used?
I can take a totally uninformed stab at answering that. 18.5-8.1 = 10.4 active extra, total *1.3333 = 13.9, so 18.4-13.9 = approx 4.5GB textures / static alloc in the move from 4K to 8K.
Posted on Reply
#35
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Chloe PriceYou totally missed my point here, what I meant was that I'm in trouble already with 4GB at 1080p, and here we see VRAM consumption where none consumer-grade card has enough VRAM. And no, I don't count Titans as consumer cards.
And W1z's analysis confirms that while the game will use 4GB at 1080p, it doesn't actually need 4GB. The 3GB 1060 performs pretty much identically to the 6GB 1060, even at 1440p. It isn't until 4k that the 3GB 1060's performance takes a nose drive to about half of the 6GB 1060. So at some point between 1440p and 4k, we cross the mark where the game actually uses more than 3GB of RAM.

I'll have to find it again, but there was a good video on why the programs that report VRAM usage aren't accurate because they report the amount of VRAM allocated not the amount actually utilized.
Posted on Reply
#36
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
eidairaman1@fullinfusion @INSTG8R @AlienIsGOD @FordGT90Concept

hbcc anyone?
Absolutely, I max the HBCC slider out to the max and leave it there. The system will only use whatever is needed for extra vram when called upon. If it doesn't need it, it doesn't touch it. Besides I've never had an issue leaving HBCC enabled at all.

There was a time in early beta testing that hbcc didn't work properly, but that's been a long time and it isn't an issue anymore.

Turn it on, max out the slider and call it a day and forget about it. ;)
Posted on Reply
#37
vacavalier
Well, the DV's for Control have really hemmed themselves in from making any profits on this title if these hardware requirements are indeed correct for playable frames. This is not to mention, top-tier CPU and RAM requirements to-boot to keep things in line from bottlenecking.

Not ready for prime-time...
Posted on Reply
#38
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
vacavalierWell, the DV's for Control have really hemmed themselves in from making any profits on this title if these hardware requirements are indeed correct for playable frames. This is not to mention, top-tier CPU and RAM requirements to-boot to keep things in line from bottlenecking.

Not ready for prime-time...
For the average user still gaming at 1920x1080 (the largest group still), this game will be totally playable. They make the hardware requirements sound worse than they actually are.

Remedy will be just fine. They’ve never been about having overwhelming sales. Rather, having technically impressive games that transcend physics, etc has been their thing.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 07:24 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts