Wolfenstein: The new order breaks 2gb

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 00:36

http://hardocp.com/article/2014/05/21/wolfenstein_new_order_performance_review/4#.U36I9yjcgnw

As you can see, both cards are more than playable at 2560x1600 with "High" settings enabled. Once again, the NVIDIA GPU is faster in this game compared to the AMD GPU. Note though that only the AMD Radeon R9 280X could be turned up to "Ultra" settings at 2560x1600 and 1920x1200, and it was playable. The GeForce GTX 770 could not do it simply because it had less VRAM, 2GB, which limits the graphics settings in this game.

So it would seem this game is not playable on a gtx770 2gb at 1200p max details due to vram limitations. There's been a few arguments around 2gb cards and them being enough but it would seem in this game it's not.

Orangey · 23 May 2014 at 01:42

Had a quick glance and it appears to be legit settings and not res scaling like BF4 that is causing the VRAM overflow. Interesting.

Heeere we goooo agaaaaaiiinnnn...

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 01:52

Yea theres been a good few threads where people have used the when 2gb is not enough the 3gb cards will be out of gpu grunt so it wont matter. In this case there is enough gpu power on both the gtx770 and 280x but not enough vram on the Nvidia card.

Strife212 · 23 May 2014 at 02:02

I don't know what is physically using it because the textures don't look that high res.

Rroff · 23 May 2014 at 02:14

Strife212 said:
I don't know what is physically using it because the textures don't look that high res.

Theres 33GB of textures in the game heh... due to the way the game works which I have mixed feelings on the whole level is painted on like a canvas rather than using a set number of textures and tiling them to cover larger spaces like a traditional game - which means that from a distance the game can look really nice but to cover the whole level at high res would require close to a TB of texture data :S

EDIT: Also the default settings for the game is medium and its actually a little obscure if your not paying attention as to how to turn it up to ultra.

Deceptor · 23 May 2014 at 02:48

Considering how the game looks this shouldn't be the case, it doesn't look terrible but Crysis 1 looks better (a lot better).

Stas823 · 23 May 2014 at 03:00

Just wait for patches and driver updates and we'll see.

triss · 23 May 2014 at 03:19

TheRealDeal said:
http://hardocp.com/article/2014/05/21/wolfenstein_new_order_performance_review/4#.U36I9yjcgnw

So it would seem this game is not playable on a gtx770 2gb at 1200p max details due to vram limitations. There's been a few arguments around 2gb cards and them being enough but it would seem in this game it's not.

Asking a silly question is it hitting the vram wall or simply hiting the restrictive settings coded into the game, Eg the game engine doesnt allow 2gb and ultra

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 03:23

I believe the game does not allow the 2gb card to choose the ultra settings due to 2 gb of vram not being enough.

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 07:05

TheRealDeal said:
http://hardocp.com/article/2014/05/21/wolfenstein_new_order_performance_review/4#.U36I9yjcgnw

So it would seem this game is not playable on a gtx770 2gb at 1200p max details due to vram limitations. There's been a few arguments around 2gb cards and them being enough but it would seem in this game it's not.

Orangey said:
Had a quick glance and it appears to be legit settings and not res scaling like BF4 that is causing the VRAM overflow. Interesting.

Heeere we goooo agaaaaaiiinnnn...

Lol.

Bring on the usual suspects to try and weasel out of this one...again.

TheRealDeal said:
I believe the game does not allow the 2gb card to choose the ultra settings due to 2 gb of vram not being enough.

Ha. That's one way to settle the debate. Just restrict those 2gb users.

Spook187 · 23 May 2014 at 07:11

Just as well i got 4 gb then

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 07:11

Spook187 said:
Just as well i got 4 gb then

4gb master race.

Spook187 · 23 May 2014 at 07:13

LtMatt said:
4gb master race.

Indeed, 2gb is so yesterday

andybird123 · 23 May 2014 at 07:14

At 2560x1600 ultra big whoop, hi res starting to need more than 2GB, on high it is still fine, and a 770 performs better, significantly, than a 280X, so by the looks of things neither would be playable on ultra

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 07:25

andybird123 said:
At 2560x1600 ultra big whoop, hi res starting to need more than 2GB, on high it is still fine, and a 770 performs better, significantly, than a 280X, so by the looks of things neither would be playable on ultra

Nvidia GeForce / ION Driver Release 337.81

AMD Catalyst 14,4

pgi947 · 23 May 2014 at 07:26

So because ultra has been removed by an in game filter it immeditaly means its not playable and definitely does lack the vram to drive it? I'm not saying it isn't true but simply has a serious lack of backing. "We can't set this setting so obviously the card can't run it" is laughable. Back to the drawing board hardocp, figure out how to bypass the limitations and test it for real.

I remember similar things coming from gta4 and mp3, both had artificial vram limiters that meant sod all in the real world. :norestrictions anyone?

Edit: Matt's bottom graph backs up my point wonderfully, 1.5gb usage over 1200p.

whyscotty · 23 May 2014 at 07:34

Well, I didn't break 2gb last night and that was using 4K

andybird123 · 23 May 2014 at 07:34

Yeah, hang on, so it barely uses more than 2GB at 4k, but we are supposed to believe that is stiil the case at 1600p lmao

Dodgy console port with lots of issues, not exactly great proof of anything, but nice attempt at a troll thread and when look at [H] and say 770 faster than 280X matt throws up results that show different, so which is it, do we trust [H] results or not?

triss · 23 May 2014 at 07:36

Sounds like it locking out gpu's for no reason then , One could even be suspicious and think there was a motive behind it

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 07:37

I approve of this limiting though. Force them down to high settings lmao.