24 Gb video RAM is worth for gaming nowadays?

[Dragam1337]

How else do you suggest testing whether a game is CPU-dependant or not? FPS means nothing in this case, as it's only an indication of how well the game runs on YOUR system, not about the game in general.


Just because I'm not gonna buy it for a whopping 60 quid (I'll wait until it drops to 10 or 15), it doesn't mean arguing about it isn't fun.

Are you actually being serious with this post? It smells an awful lot like trolling...

 

[AusWolf]

Are you actually being serious with this post? It smells an awful lot like trolling...

I'm always serious.

Frame rate is not an indication of how CPU-intensive a game is because your GPU will always make a difference. You need another metric. CPU usage is not a good one because different cores get loaded differently by different game engines. Power consumption is the closest I can think of.

As for the second statement, argument is a way of learning. If we all agreed on everything, we would still be the same dumb $h!ts 10 years from now that we are right now.

 

[Dragam1337]

It doesn't matter if you care or not - I said it's the heaviest in terms of CPU and it is, both in terms of %usage and power draw - nothing comes close to TLOU. 6 core CPUs struggle with it. Even the 7600x drops to 75 fps in heavy scenes.

I've sold my 13900k and went back to the 12900k but I don't see how this is relevant.

Oh ok, so you evaluate your cpu based on usage and power draw, but other cpu's you rate on fps, because it conveniently fits into your narrative... ok then.

And you seem to have gotten the part about cpu usage completely backwards... the higher usage, the better. The oppersite situation (like in witcher 3) is exactly what you don't want, where the fps is drastically lower due to the game bottlenecking on just 2 cores. Had this game just hammered 2 threads like witcher 3 does i dread to think how much crying there would have been about the cpu limitation to performance. Your cpu would barely have been able to scrape 60 fps.

I'm always serious.

Frame rate is not an indication of how CPU-intensive a game is because your GPU will always make a difference. You need another metric. CPU usage is not a good one because different cores get loaded differently by different game engines. Power consumption is the closest I can think of.

As for the second statement, argument is a way of learning. If we all agreed on everything, we would still be the same dumb $h!ts 10 years from now that we are right now.

/facepalm

Ok, how do they evaluate cpu performance in reviews ? Do they look at wattage and conclude which is the faster ? No...

They ensure that the gpu isn't the limiting factor, and see how much fps the cpu is able to pull...

It's pretty facking simple, and your post is honestly rather ****** stupid.

 

[AusWolf]

Oh ok, so you evaluate your cpu based on usage and power draw, but other cpu's you rate on fps, because it conveniently fits into your narrative... ok then.

I think the post was about evaluating how CPU-intensive a game is, and not about evaluating a certain CPU. And you think I'm trolling...

And you seem to have gotten the part about cpu usage completely backwards... the higher usage, the better. The oppersite situation (like in witcher 3) is exactly what you don't want, where the fps is drastically lower due to the game bottlenecking on just 2 cores. Had this game just hammered 2 threads like witcher 3 does i dread to think how much crying there would have been about the cpu limitation to performance. Your cpu would barely have been able to scrape 60 fps.

That depends on how strong those 2 cores are.

 

[Dragam1337]

I think the post was about evaluating how CPU-intensive a game is, and not about evaluating a certain CPU. And you think I'm trolling...


That depends on how strong those 2 cores are.

Either you are trolling, or you are... well, can't say unless i wanna get banned.

Either way, welcome to my ignore list !

 

[AusWolf]

/facepalm

Ok, how do they evaluate cpu performance in reviews ? Do they look at wattage and conclude which is the faster ? No...

They ensure that the gpu isn't the limiting factor, and see how much fps the cpu is able to pull...

It's pretty facking simple, and your post is honestly rather ****** stupid.

But the GPU is always a limiting factor unless... oooh, I forgot you've got a 4090! I see where your exclusive interest in frame rates comes from.

 

[JustBenching]

Oh ok, so you evaluate your cpu based on usage and power draw, but other cpu's you rate on fps, because it conveniently fits into your narrative... ok then.

And you seem to have gotten the part about cpu usage completely backwards... the higher usage, the better. The oppersite situation (like in witcher 3) is exactly what you don't want, where the fps is drastically lower due to the game bottlenecking on just 2 cores. Had this game just hammered 2 threads like witcher 3 does i dread to think how much crying there would have been about the cpu limitation to performance. Your cpu would barely have been able to scrape 60 fps.

Ηow else would you evaluate whether a game is heavy or not? For example hogwarts uses around 40-50w and maxes out 2 cores. Performance is abysmal because of that, but it's not a heavy CPU game - it's just atrociously badly optimized. TLOU is HEAVY.

 

[AusWolf]

Either you are trolling, or you are... well, can't say unless i wanna get banned.

Either way, welcome to my ignore list !

You seem to have an incredible talent in misreading online posts. Keep it up, mate! Just let me know how many people have landed on your ignore list in the next month, OK?

Edit: To stay on topic, using two cores on a 1st gen Core i7, and two cores on a 5800X3D is not the same. If that's trolling for you, so be it.

 

[Dragam1337]

Ηow else would you evaluate whether a game is heavy or not? For example hogwarts uses around 40-50w and maxes out 2 cores. Performance is abysmal because of that, but it's not a heavy CPU game - it's just atrociously badly optimized. TLOU is HEAVY.

You see at what point (aka fps) you are cpu limited - it really is that simple -_-

And yes, alot of games are very much limited by the main render thread, like hogwarts and witcher 3 remaster. It doesn't load all the cores alot, but it is still exceptionally cpu demanding - just only on the main 2 threads. For that reason most people will be limited by cpu performance, particularly the single thread performance of their cpu. And for that reason hogwarts and witcher 3 remaster are cpu demanding titles - whether it is due to bad optimization or not is entirely irrelevant in this regard.

 

[AusWolf]

You see at what point (aka fps) you are cpu limited - it really is that simple -_-

Right... you load up a game. It runs at 89 FPS. How do you know if it's CPU-limited or not?

And yes, alot of games are very much limited by the main render thread, like hogwarts and witcher 3 remaster. It doesn't load all the cores alot, but it is still exceptionally cpu demanding - just only on the main 2 threads. For that reason most people will be limited by cpu performance, particularly the single thread performance of their cpu. And for that reason hogwarts and witcher 3 remaster are cpu demanding titles - whether it is due to bad optimization or not is entirely irrelevant in this regard.

That actually makes some sense, and brought me to another idea: you can test how CPU-limited a game is on your system by checking GPU usage with Vsync off. It still doesn't tell you how CPU-heavy it is in general, unless you have an extremely strong CPU with an extremely weak GPU and GPU usage still isn't 100%.

 

[JustBenching]

Right... you load up a game. It runs at 89 FPS. How do you know if it's CPU-limited or not?


That actually makes some sense, and brought me to another idea: you can test how CPU-limited a game is on your system by checking GPU usage with Vsync off. It still doesn't tell you how CPU-heavy it is in general, unless you have an extremely strong CPU with an extremely weak GPU and GPU usage still isn't 100%.

You drop resolution - make it CPU bound - and see what's going on

 

[AusWolf]

You drop resolution - make it CPU bound - and see what's going on

Testing resolutions that nobody uses (how about 320x240?) to draw conclusions that don't matter... I like it!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

from the outside looking in (like i said previously I don't have this game) it does seem to have been rushed and could have been optimized better so those are roles of the publisher and port studio. I'm not knocking their hard work, just their timeline and grasp of the situation (happens all the time in business). From what you are saying and from the few things I have read, patches and driver updates have been released or are on the way to making the game enjoyable which is great for gamers. Also, many of the earlier FPS issues seem to impact play only on the ultra settings as per techspot;

Using slightly dialed-down quality settings, The Last of Us Part I appears quite easy to run, and provided you can manage the game's VRAM requirements, you shouldn't have any issues. It's remarkable how well a previous generation GPU such as the Radeon RX 6800 plays this game, it's buttery smooth and that's probably not something you'd expect to find after all the online controversy.


What I clearly despise is all the early on people who use this poorly optimized port (not the first game its happened to) upon its release to rush out and justify their hardware. Seeing comments like it can't play on a six core CPU or you need 10GB of v-ram are all meaningless comments since none of that talks about performance just one aspect of a piece of hardware design.


I never knew how many of my friends had law and medical degrees until I saw their posts in facebook threads about covid and politics

From my point of view, in my experience, it was never a "poorly optimized port" as much as one that ran at 40-60 FPS on even 3 gen old hardware with 8GB VRAM and yes, a 6 core CPU too. Even when frames dipped to 40 on patch 1.0.1.0, I didn't have the stutters and crashing many droned on about, and so when you see testimonials like that AND pro reviews from sites like Techspot say it CAN indeed run well on a variety of hardware, it's clear the game only needs a bit of refinement.

In other words I don't think it's damage control that they kicked out these patches, I think it's concern for polishing the game as best as it can be, and also that the likely reason those running it on anything lower than Ultra (as long as their spec was within reqs for the settings chosen), were experiencing lots of stuttering, was due to their not letting shaders compile before playing.

As you said, some of us here are speaking from actual experience playing the game. All we ask is that you try it yourself before you judge it, and there's no reason not to since they've removed the 2 hr refund limit.

 

[AusWolf]

All we ask is that you try it yourself before you judge it, and there's no reason not to

My reason is its price. 60 quid for a port of a several year-old game is steep. But I'll have an eye out for sales.

 

[LabRat 891]

Ηow else would you evaluate whether a game is heavy or not? For example hogwarts uses around 40-50w and maxes out 2 cores. Performance is abysmal because of that, but it's not a heavy CPU game - it's just atrociously badly optimized. TLOU is HEAVY.

Frametimes across resolutions.

also CPU-load and clocks/voltages, as monitored by like Ryzen Master.

All we ask is that you try it yourself before you judge it, and there's no reason not to since they've removed the 2 hr refund limit.

A. There's still lots of reasons. ex. Star Wars: Squadrons was so loaded down by EA and not-Origin problems, even @ "Free" it was an awful deal. I felt scammed spending my time on it.

B. This attitude is a red flag, to me. Some of the worst (and longest to crystalize) consequences in my life have been associated with a simple "try it yourself before you judge".
Speaking topically, trying World of Warcraft is my easiest example. My feelings on that game actually became even more severely negative after actually trying it.

 

[AusWolf]

Frametimes.

That can be an indication of many other things (running out of RAM or VRAM, asset loading issues, slow storage, thermal issues, unoptimised drivers, background programs, cloggy OS...).

also CPU-load and clocks/voltages, as monitored by like Ryzen Master.

If you combine that with storage usage (to eliminate background apps) and thermal data (to eliminate throttling), I guess that's a way.

Edit: It's just that you can't use that as a single piece of scientific data, more like a subjective judgement - but I guess that can be said about any system bottleneck.

Speaking topically, trying World of Warcraft is my easiest example. My feelings on that game actually became even more severely negative after actually trying it.

Thank heavens I'm not the only one!

 

[LabRat 891]

That can be an indication of many other things (running out of RAM or VRAM, asset loading issues, slow storage, thermal issues, unoptimised drivers, background programs, cloggy OS...).

It's a datapoint to cross-ref w/ others. Including multiple runs @ diff. resoloution. Not all engines will, but usually CPU-related issues are more pronounced @ lower res.

If you combine that with storage usage (to eliminate background apps) and thermal data (to eliminate throttling), I guess that's a way.

Edit: It's just that you can't use that as a single piece of scientific data, more like a subjective judgement - but I guess that can be said about any system bottleneck.

Yeah, you get it!

Thank heavens I'm not the only one!

Nope! (Hopefully it wasn't your SO at the time, as was my case. Needless to say, she got even more fed-up w/ my bitching @ WoW after I tried it.)

 

[mrnagant]

One thing to note about VRAM usage on benchmarks, these are clean systems or systems with very little on them. They don't have multiple applications open that consume a wide range of GPU resources. I don't have any games open, but a lot of windows and different applications installed that consume GPU resources. My VRAM utilization right now is 4.3GB. Now, if I close everything or restart it will go to 1~1.5GB. But why would I do that? I have seen my VRAM usage go as high as 6GB. I typically only have 10~12GB of available VRAM for video games for 4k output. I would absolutely love to have 24GB of VRAM. 16GB is absolute minimum for 4k and maybe even 1440p. I think I'd only go for a 12GB card if I had a 1080p monitor though 12GB would only leave 6~8GB of VRAM which I guess is good enough for 1080p? Been a super long time since I have played at that resolution.

Now if all your system is used for is strictly gaming, you close your browser when you start a game, and the only other application you have installed is something like Discord, then you could get buy with less.

 

[dirtyferret]

Speaking topically, trying World of Warcraft is my easiest example.

I actually enjoy the "classic" version of the game from a nostalgia point. The retail version is more like an amusement park ride but to each their own.

 

[Dragam1337]

I really dont get how understanding what a cpu bottleneck is, and how to trigger it, is so hard for "some" people. But as you correctly said @fevgatos you just lower resolution, until you don't see an fps increase by lowering resolution any further... and that is your cpu performance level.

4k - 82 fps

1440p - 121 fps, but only 92% gpu load, so really we already know that it is cpu limited

1080p - as expected didn't increase fps any further. So in this particular scene, with a 11700f cpu, the cpu performance level is 120 fps.

Then one could argue that a game is cpu heavy if you aren't able to obtain a satisfying fps, and the cpu bottleneck (aka gpu load is below 100%) is apparent all the time - in other words that the cpu performance (or lack) is the culprit of the poor performance in the game.

Judging cpu performance in a game on anything else than the game performance seems rather ridiculous.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Frametimes across resolutions.

also CPU-load and clocks/voltages, as monitored by like Ryzen Master.


A. There's still lots of reasons. ex. Star Wars: Squadrons was so loaded down by EA and not-Origin problems, even @ "Free" it was an awful deal. I felt scammed spending my time on it.

B. This attitude is a red flag, to me. Some of the worst (and longest to crystalize) consequences in my life have been associated with a simple "try it yourself before you judge".
Speaking topically, trying World of Warcraft is my easiest example. My feelings on that game actually became even more severely negative after actually trying it.

I don't see the sense of holistically avoiding opportunities to literally try a WHOLE playthrough free, with no risk whatsoever, using totally unrelated games as an example. If you're arguing you're time MIGHT be wasted, I don't buy that excuse. Why, because here you are anyway, spending time on a forum of a game you apparently don't feel will be to your liking.

 

[dirtyferret]

CPU optimization
CPU utilization
CPU bottlenecks
CPU performance

are different things, obliviously there is overlap but that entire discussion is a verbal version of watching pong

 

[Frag_Maniac]

My reason is its price. 60 quid for a port of a several year-old game is steep. But I'll have an eye out for sales.

Except it now looks like it isn't several years old, so that totally depends if you've already played it, and what version. That's my take on it anyway. I had only played a few small parts of it on my friend's PS4 years ago, and it's still totally worth it to me, especially if the hardest two modes are noticeably harder.

The gameplay feels a bit easier than I thought it would, especially only having to kill one Bloater (2 if you count the one Ellie kills that goes down a bit easier), not needing to use many of the weapons, and not needing a lot of the upgrades with the ending being such an easy scenario of sneak killing, ending with an uber easy sneak.

That said, I'm hoping Survivor and Grounded modes will make up for the lack of challenge on Hard, because compared to games like Dead Space and The Evil Within 1, it feels more like adventure horror than survival horror so far. It kind of does the reverse of most horror games, where the story is the most compelling thing about it, though the story is really good.

 

[Dragam1337]

CPU optimization
CPU utilization
CPU bottlenecks
CPU performance

are different things, obliviously there is overlap but that entire discussion is a verbal version of watching pong

For the end user that is entirely irrelevant tbh. Only the performance matters.

Alot has been said about the game being unreasonably cpu heavy, and i don't see that being the case. My 11700 isn't exactly the fastest cpu, and the performance is stellar.

 

[dirtyferret]

because here you are anyway, spending time on a forum of a game you apparently don't feel will be to your liking

wait until you spend day two on a tech/gamer forum and we discuss hardware people feel won't be to their liking