12Gb GPUs already obsolete, brand new game takes up to 18Gb Vram at 1440p

[64K]

Im having a great time with this game, just as i did with the last of us

Probably should have disclosed that you were running a RTX 4090 in your post.

How many gamers are running a 4090? According to the Steam Hardware Survey 1/4 of 1% are running a 4090. Mainstream gamers are probably running a 3060 or 2060 or something around that level of performance.

 

[R0H1T]

Just lower your settings FFS, ain't that hard your know

Spoiler

 

[JustBenching]

Probably should have disclosed that you were running a RTX 4090 in your post.

How many gamers are running a 4090? According to the Steam Hardware Survey 1/4 of 1% are running a 4090. Mainstream gamers are probably running a 3060 or 2060 or something around that level of performance.

Last of us played badly even on a 4090. It was extremely CPU bound and frametimes were a mess.

 

[Dragam1337]

What a beta comment man. This site is all about performance and nothing about price. Some people here will upgrade to latest and greatest every release because they are true alphas.

But being serious, its a real issue regarding poor optimization and that the result requires having to spend much more for a GPU rather than devs properly optimize their games. 8GB should be enough but it just ain't now because of devs.

Is 8gb what the current gen consoles have ? No ? Then no, it isn't and "should" not be enough...

 

[64K]

Is 8gb what the current gen consoles have ? No ? Then no, it isn't and "should" not be enough...

That's not how it works on consoles. Part of the 16 GB is taken up by the OS, the game engine and the game itself.

 

[Bomby569]

drama sells, gets views and click

 

[Dragam1337]

Probably should have disclosed that you were running a RTX 4090 in your post.

How many gamers are running a 4090? According to the Steam Hardware Survey 1/4 of 1% are running a 4090. Mainstream gamers are probably running a 3060 or 2060 or something around that level of performance.

Are you unable to look at my system specs, or what?

And what gpu im using is entirely irrelevant, as that isn't the limiting factor - it aint in the clickbait vid either. Cpu and vram is.

A 3060 (12gb model) will be having a great time with this game at 1080p. A 2060 wont, unless it happens to be the obscure 12gb version...

Last of us played badly even on a 4090. It was extremely CPU bound and frametimes were a mess.

I didn't have any issues.

That's not how it works on consoles. Part of the 16 GB is taken up by the OS, the game engine and the game itself.

That is indeed not how it works on console, which has already been covered on the previous pages.

The fact is though that the consoles dedicate 10gb of the ram to the gpu, and at the same time are able to stream assests / textures at a very high rate, due to their dedicated decompression chips, meaning that they can effectively use assets and textures that would require much more than 10gb vram, had they not had them.

 

[JustBenching]

I didn't have any issue

You just weren't picky enough to notice. From the first chapter, the warehouse area is a notorious example, you can upload us a video with a framerate graph to see how you had no issues

 

[Dragam1337]

The bottom line for me is image quality. After all, why do we need VRAM if not to push textures so we get better image quality, right?

Well here are some facts. The 3060ti I have on my 2nd PC plays hogwarts at 3440x1440p DLSS Quality with everything Ultra except textures, those are at high. Framerate was constantly above 60 except cutscenes, it dropped to the 55 range in those. With those settings, and according to Hardware Unboxed's video where basically he says that DLSS Performance (!!!) looks better than native and better than FSR Quality, there is not a single non Nvidia card that delivers a better image quality than my poor man's 3060ti in Hogwarts. You can have 4x7900xtx in Crossfire overclocked to hell, and you won't be able to beat a 3060ti in terms of image quality.

Now please, tell me all about how nvidia is evil and skimps on VRAM, lol

You seem to have missed the actual point of HUB video on the topic. When you use more vram than you have available in hogwarts, it just doesn't load in the high quality textures, or does it much delayed.

DLSS Q + textures high looks better on hogwarts for example than native + textures ultra. Therefore nvidia cards play the game with better image quality, as is the case with most games. That's why I buy nvidia. I care about image quality

/facepalm

 

[JustBenching]

You seem to have missed the actual point of HUB video on the topic. When you use more vram than you have available in hogwarts, it just doesn't load in the high quality textures, or does it much delayed.

That happened in latest patches. I played the game day one when vram issues caused stuttering. I had them on the 3060ti when I tried ultra textures and RT.

 

[Dragam1337]

You just weren't picky enough to notice. From the first chapter, the warehouse area is a notorious example, you can upload us a video with a framerate graph to see how you had no issues

Or maybe im just not a fool who runs with uncapped fps.

 

[JustBenching]

/facepalm

So you are using hwunboxed while simulatenously you are saying they are wrong? Cause they are the ones suggesting that DLSS PERFORMANCE looks better than native, LOL

Or maybe im just not a fool who runs with uncapped fps.

I don't run uncapped fps either, the problem is still there. Framepacing is horrible and apparently you are not picky enough to notice.. I envy you

 

[freeagent]

This site is all about performance

I remember those days.. I used to upgrade every 6 months

I will upgrade again soon, I’m just being old

 

[Dragam1337]

So you are using hwunboxed while simulatenously you are saying they are wrong? Cause they are the ones suggesting that DLSS PERFORMANCE looks better than native, LOL


I don't run uncapped fps either, the problem is still there. Framepacing is horrible and apparently you are not picky enough to notice.. I envy you

Either you literally didn't understand what they said, or you are trying to twist their words towards your own agenda...

What they said is that when you are limited by your vram, it looks better to play with dlss and a lower tier texture setting, as that makes textures load in correctly... so what you said only applies for 8gb vram gpus.

If you have sufficient vram then obviously native and ultra textures looks better...

As for the last part, i use AB frametime graph, and no, i didn't have horrible framepacing. Sounds like an e-waste core issue to me.

 

[Speedyblupi]

FSR not so much but DLSS comes with a non trivial VRAM cost, meaning if you struggle with performance and you also don't have a lot of VRAM you're gonna have a bad time.

View attachment 293324

This graph clearly shows lower VRAM usage with DLSS enabled.
RT uses more VRAM than traditional rendering, but RT+DLSS uses less VRAM than just RT with no upscaling.

You then claim, "I didn't say it increases VRAM consumption, I said it's cost is non trivial", but that is very obviously not what "DLSS comes with a non trivial VRAM cost" means. "VRAM cost" means you think it costs (i.e. uses more) VRAM. Perhaps you mis-typed your original comment and didn't mean to say that, but as it is written, it means that you think enabling DLSS increases VRAM usage.

 

[JustBenching]

Either you literally didn't understand what they said, or you are trying to twist their words towards your own agenda...

What they said is that when you are limited by your vram, it looks better to play with dlss and a lower tier texture setting, as that makes textures load in correctly... so what you said only applies for 8gb vram gpus.

If you have sufficient vram then obviously native and ultra textures looks better...

As for the last part, i use AB frametime graph, and no, i didn't have horrible framepacing. Sounds like an e-waste core issue to me.

No, that's not what they said at all.

In this video, Tim compared - among other things - DLSS Quality and DLSS Performance to native and fsr in Hogwarts. He said that DLSS Performance is equal to Native, therefore it follows that DLSS Quality > Native.

As for the last part, i use AB frametime graph, and no, i didn't have horrible framepacing. Sounds like an e-waste core issue to me.

Yeah, sure, show us..


The 12900k runs better than the 7800x 3d in this game, so please, go ahead.

 

[sepheronx]

I remember those days.. I used to upgrade every 6 months

I will upgrade again soon, I’m just being old

Me too gramps. I used to upgrade every year and had a whole arsenal of GPUs.

 

[Dragam1337]

No, that's not what they said at all.

In this video, Tim compared - among other things - DLSS Quality and DLSS Performance to native and fsr in Hogwarts. He said that DLSS Performance is equal to Native, therefore it follows that DLSS Quality > Native.

Talk about mixing apples and oranges...

Before you claimed they said that dlss performance looked better than native, but now it's dlss quality...

But yes, Tim did say that dlss quality looks better than native in that video, but i don't agree with him. The lower internal render res of dlss makes stuff like reflections and shadows look a fair bit worse - alot more noisy.

 

[JustBenching]

Talk about mixing apples and oranges...

Before you claimed they said that dlss performance looked better than native, but now it's dlss quality...

But yes, Tim did say that dlss quality looks better than native in that video, but i don't agree with him. The lower internal render res of dlss makes stuff like reflections and shadows look a fair bit worse - alot more noisy.

Well just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he is wrong

 

[Dragam1337]

Well just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he is wrong

What looks better is entirely subjective. Except for higher quality textures - those are objectively speaking higher quality.

I'm not a fan of the sharpening applied with dlss either... unless when i play at 8k, then it becomes unnoticable.

 

[redeye]

View attachment 293509View attachment 293510

funny thing, the spec’s “state” the the seriesX should blow the door off of the ps5… 52CU vs 36CU!…
but it is not so!...
to use my favourite Archaic game (GTAV) i can not see the difference in ps5’s 60fps mode, vs everything vh/ultra (no msaa) at 1800p (FSR) on a amd 6750xt ….

Me too gramps. I used to upgrade every year and had a whole arsenal of GPUs.

thankfully you did not use “boomer” lol.


edit : should be “GTAV … i can NOT see the difference “.

 

[JustBenching]

What looks better is entirely subjective.

Is it? So if I said textures on low look better than ultra therefore 8gb cards are fine, you can't say im wrong can you?

 

[sepheronx]

funny thing, the spec’s “state” the the seriesX should blow the door off of the ps5… 52CU vs 36CU!…
but it is not so!...
to use my favourite Archaic game (GTAV) i can see the difference in ps5’s 60fps mode, vs everything vh/ultra (no msaa) at 1800p (FSR) on a amd 6750xt ….

thankfully you did not use “boomer” lol.

Because I'm probably not far off from his age so I would be insulting myself

 

[64K]

funny thing, the spec’s “state” the the seriesX should blow the door off of the ps5… 52CU vs 36CU!…
but it is not so!...
to use my favourite Archaic game (GTAV) i can see the difference in ps5’s 60fps mode, vs everything vh/ultra (no msaa) at 1800p (FSR) on a amd 6750xt ….

thankfully you did not use “boomer” lol.

Freeagent isn't a Boomer.

I am though.

 

[Dragam1337]

Is it? So if I said textures on low look better than ultra therefore 8gb cards are fine, you can't say im wrong can you?

Talk about a selective quote...