Control Can Use Up to 18.5GB of Video Memory

[Space Lynx]

you are laughably clueless. this is at 8k and with ray tracing and max settings. and AGAIN plenty of games can use this much vram at 8k on max settings. I can already max all 11gb of my vram in some games at 5k so what do you think would happen at well over twice the pixels to push?

sure thing buddy, welcome to my ignore list. regardless of vram my point still stands this might be a next gen test game still because it is one of the few that does RTX well too. /shrug no need to be so negative. luckily I will never see another post you make

 

[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.

 

[efikkan]

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.

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.

 

[xorbe]

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.

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.

 

[efikkan]

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.

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.

 

[newtekie1]

And how much of that 18.5GB is textures that aren't even being used?

 

[eidairaman1]

@fullinfusion @INSTG8R @AlienIsGOD @FordGT90Concept

hbcc anyone?

 

[INSTG8R]

@fullinfusion @INSTG8R @AlienIsGOD @FordGT90Concept

hbcc anyone?

Don’t touch it, because I know it can do that.

 

[Ruru]

vram 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.

 

[xorbe]

And 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.

 

[newtekie1]

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.

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.

 

[fullinfusion]

@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.

 

[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...

 

[rtwjunkie]

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...

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.