STALKER - RAM eating fatty!

mrk · 7 Dec 2007 at 22:31

Can someone tell me why STALKER uses almost 2GB of ram? I mean in DX9 mode Crysis with very high settings via mod doesn't even use that!

I now know why it ran so pants when I had 2GB ram and a 320MB GTS!

Oh and I thought Patch 1.0005 was meant to have multicore support!

HangTime · 7 Dec 2007 at 22:51

Looking at your CPU usage graph, it definitely looks like multicore is enabled.

Bear in mind that due to the nature of games, different threads (rendering, physics, sound, AI, networking, input etc) typically use wildly different amounts of cpu time. Hence you get diminishing returns the more cpus/cores you have. It's actually pretty hard to make a game where you could have 3 or 4 threads all wanting loads of power, typically the rendering will hog as much as all the others combined.

mrk · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:05

Ah I guess that makes sense!

Well the performance boost from going to a 512MB GT and 2 more GB ram has been astonishing, from 15fps in static lighting "higH" settings to over 50fps with dynamic lighting and max everything.

Lashout_UK · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:13

I think it's more down to the nature of STALKER itself - each 'zone' contains an awful lot occuring at the same time, enemies, stalkers, wildlife, weaponary that's been dropped, active tasks, spawn points - things like that - all constantly occuring, changing and interacting.

The zones are also quite large, which probably doesn't help

Indy500 · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:19

Is this in XP? :eek:

Can you show us the game .exe and what that alone is using?

mrk · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:23

sr4470 said:
Is this in XP? Can you show us the game .exe and what that alone is using?

At that point 1.4GB, Windows always uses 1GB so just minus the diff

Vista by the way.

Indy500 · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:24

mrk said:
At that point 1.4GB, Windows always uses 1GB so just minus the diff

Vista by the way.

Thought so. You'd be fine with 2GB in XP

mrk · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:24

Pfft, XP!

Actually I had the same issue on XP as when I first got the game I was on XP, I actually hoped it would be faster on Vista but it was exactly the same so it was defo a hardware "issue"

Indy500 · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:26

mrk said:
Pfft, XP!

Actually I had the same issue on XP as when I first got the game I was on XP, I actually hoped it would be faster on Vista but it was exactly the same so it was defo a hardware "issue"

So it still used 2.4GB total regardless? :confused:

Maybe I'm just good at making the most of **** PCs, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

Trill · 7 Dec 2007 at 23:37

Is the right screen your wallpaper? If so, where did you get it?

Hobgoblin · 8 Dec 2007 at 00:44

i get 1.8GB with the witcher :S

mrk · 8 Dec 2007 at 00:57

sr4470 said:
So it still used 2.4GB total regardless? Maybe I'm just good at making the most of **** PCs, but that doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't understand!

http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/temp/Future.jpg
^ Wall btw

Indy500 · 8 Dec 2007 at 00:59

mrk said:
I don't understand!

http://robbiekhan.co.uk/root/temp/Future.jpg
^ Wall btw

Was the RAM usage still 2.4GB in XP?

titaniumx3 · 8 Dec 2007 at 01:10

mrk said:
Well the performance boost from going to a 512MB GT and 2 more GB ram has been astonishing, from 15fps in static lighting "higH" settings to over 50fps with dynamic lighting and max everything.

You can't be serious, even my old 9800 pro got better than that with static lighting and quite frankly I wasn't suprised, because the game looks pants with static lighting.

mrk · 8 Dec 2007 at 01:18

On XP I don't know what the ram usage was as I never checked due to not being able to run it on max everything.

titaniumx3 said:
You can't be serious, even my old 9800 pro got better than that with static lighting and quite frankly I wasn't suprised, because the game looks pants with static lighting.

Oops, I meant OBJECT dynamic, not static dynamic (just checked). Static got me 80+ fps on the GTS 320 but of course it looks like ass. Full dynamic with even grass shadows and npc lights + shadows and everything else all the way up runs flawlessly.

knowledge123 · 8 Dec 2007 at 08:23

Lashout_UK said:
I think it's more down to the nature of STALKER itself - each 'zone' contains an awful lot occuring at the same time, enemies, stalkers, wildlife, weaponary that's been dropped, active tasks, spawn points - things like that - all constantly occuring, changing and interacting.

The zones are also quite large, which probably doesn't help

Exactly! 2GB RAM is just not enough these days, need at least 3GB

Open world games (bar Crysis, as that was superbly coded, but also not quite as open to make it an 'open-world game') tend to use increasingly ginormous amounts of RAM. High res textures eat memory for breakfast. :cool:

mrk · 8 Dec 2007 at 08:38

The funny thing is in Crysis RAM usage is about 600-700MB in DX10 mode even on VERY_HIGH and up to double that usage in DX9 just on HIGH mode so DX10 is clearly way more efficient but DX10 hardware is just not /as/ efficient in the current generation of cards.

You don't even need more than 2GB ram with Crysis DX10 I'd say (since Vista uses 1GB idle anyway) but of course more ram is always better

I cannot wait until Gen2 DX10 cards are out come Feb~ time, I will replay Crysis with a 9800 based card and laugh as it glees in DX10 and hopefully by then Crytek will have released a patch to unlock those hidden uber visuals people have unlocked using the editor.

Tefal · 8 Dec 2007 at 10:02

use the tweak guide and turn on global lighting a a small amount of motion blur, makes it look superb

mrk · 8 Dec 2007 at 10:05

Tweak guide ?

knowledge123 · 8 Dec 2007 at 10:16

mrk said:
Tweak guide ?

linkage