Wolfenstein: The new order breaks 2gb

shankly1985 · 23 May 2014 at 11:52

PhysicsMan94 said:
You lack comprehension of the way it actually works if you think this is the case. A lot of games that people call "console ports" are actually produced using console development kits. Of course one still physically uses a PC to build the game but just because it is built and debugged on a PC does not mean that it is built for the PC, hence the fact that they're called "console ports".

The term console port is used when a pc game lacks pc enabled features like FOV slider etc
This game was built on a pc not on a console so therefore it's a pc game.

ubersonic · 23 May 2014 at 11:57

jupiter_man said:
such a big game, yet graphics are not that great and crossfire is not working, FPS locked to 60fps...

In that case he is running ultra settings with the textures custom lowered to high, that's not ultra settings lol.

llamadal · 23 May 2014 at 11:58

Umm no. It's when it's cheaper to modify rather than recreate for the specific system.

andybird123 · 23 May 2014 at 11:59

shankly1985 said:
The term console port is used when a pc game lacks pc enabled features like FOV slider etc
This game was built on a pc not on a console so therefore it's a pc game.

So a complete lack of AA options doesnt scream console port to you? And the fact that it is buggy as hell on Pc but runs ok on console

Sliver · 23 May 2014 at 12:06

andybird123 said:
And the fact that it is buggy as hell on Pc...

What's wrong with it ? Game works fine for me and I don't recall anybody claiming bugs in the thread here -- > http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18518139

Maybe you've just been unlucky and have some specific issue regarding your PC.

Rusty0611 · 23 May 2014 at 12:06

shankly1985 said:
The term console port is used when a pc game lacks pc enabled features like FOV slider etc
This game was built on a pc not on a console so therefore it's a pc game.

No.

shankly1985 · 23 May 2014 at 12:07

andybird123 said:
So a complete lack of AA options doesnt scream console port to you? And the fact that it is buggy as hell on Pc but runs ok on console

No because I never use the silly term.

Rusty0611 said:
No.

Great post.

Silent_Scone · 23 May 2014 at 12:13

What's the big problem here?

2GB is practically a minimum these days for top settings as it is.

bru · 23 May 2014 at 12:20

Well interesting.

Couple of things that stand out to me.
One. On the argument of console or pc ports, if the game is developed for the console and then tweaked for the pc why on earth is it demanding so much memory, none of the consoles have that much available to them, or are you suggesting that out of the 5Gb or so that are usable on this latest generation of consoles 3Gb is going to used up by textures alone.

Two. There definitely seems to be something very wrong with the game that I'm sure drivers will sort out, looking at the minimums on the benches matt posted up.

LtMatt said:
Nvidia GeForce / ION Driver Release 337.81

AMD Catalyst 14,4

A 7850 is beating a 680 at 1200p, That doesn't seem right.

Three. Using more than 2GB, maybe it is. Maybe it is the first game that will be unplayable at the very highest settings, I don't like the idea that it wont even let you choose those setting though. I assume that is the same on AMD and Nvidia cards?

One last thing, it just me being pendantic I suppose, but why in the chart above is the average FPS bars for the 770 and 680 which are both at 60 shorter than the rest that are at 60?

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 12:28

Because their minimums drop below 60 Bru.

JonSmith · 23 May 2014 at 12:32

The 580 beats the 680 too despite 1.5GB VRAM, doesn't look right tbh.

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 12:34

JonSmith said:
The 580 beats the 680 too despite 1.5GB VRAM, doesn't look right tbh.

Compute related maybe?

LegendaryDread · 23 May 2014 at 12:36

So, the R9 270's 60 fps are worth more than the GTX770's 60 fps?

Interesting :rolleyes:

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 12:37

LegendaryDread said:
So, the R9 270's 60 fps are worth more than the GTX770's 60 fps?

Interesting

Its because the 770 has lower minimum fps. That's how they do their graphs. Seems pretty simple to me.

Jono8 · 23 May 2014 at 12:38

LtMatt said:
Strange graphs

What odd results. 580 faster than a 680? :confused:

opethdisciple · 23 May 2014 at 12:39

It's a nonsense graph. Becuase it also says VHQ - but as has been mentioned above, 2Gb cards do not have that option. So which is it. Are all those cards running high or ultra settings? :confused:

Jono8 · 23 May 2014 at 12:43

That 2gb 7870 looks like it is doing fine as well...

LtMatt · 23 May 2014 at 12:43

opethdisciple said:
It's a nonsense graph. Becuase it also says VHQ - but as has been mentioned above, 2Gb cards do not have that option. So which is it. Are all those cards running high or ultra settings?

Our video cards were tested at resolutions of 1920x1200, 2560x1600 and 3840h2160 at maximum graphics quality settings allowed Wolfenstein The New Order. Multichip game configuration is not supported. As well, Wolfenstein The New Order has an internal limit FPS, equal to 60 frames.

To ensure the test mode all video cards "Compression VT" was included in all cases. Game blocks visualization of virtually all monitoring programs and the only way to display FPS FRAPS is to run after the start of the game.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/wolfenstein-the-new-order-test-gpu.html

Rusty0611 · 23 May 2014 at 12:44

shankly1985 said:
Great post.

It's not my fault you don't understand.

LtMatt said:
Its because the 770 has lower minimum fps. That's how they do their graphs. Seems pretty simple to me.

Indeed. It's a two pronged graph to illustrate that minimums of 57 and average of 60 is a better experience than 52/60. It's fine in my eyes.

JediFragger · 23 May 2014 at 12:48

So much for the new consoles bringing us better looking PC games eh