Wolfenstein: The new order breaks 2gb

ubersonic · 23 May 2014 at 14:20

tommybhoy said:
You need to input the AA commands every time you launch the game

You can just put them in a config file.

tommybhoy · 23 May 2014 at 14:26

If that works, even better.

Ian Evey · 23 May 2014 at 14:32

I'm a bit confused, Does this game run out of vram at 1080 or 1200 using a 2gb card according to the reviewer? or is there some kind of mistake happening?

Silent_Scone · 23 May 2014 at 14:38

GoogalyMoogaly said:
So using this logic:

it is therefore a PC game.

It'll be rendering at the speed of a snail.

I saw a bit of work on one of the older PS3 lego games being rendered on a quadro workstation. Was like it wasn't even moving.

oweneades · 23 May 2014 at 14:48

bru said:
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.

IIRC this is certainly a possibility (no idea if it applied here though). Titanfall on the Xbone has the highest level texture detail available to it and all of it (for the current map) is loaded into the main pool of memory. It was one of things that Bluepoint (who ported the game to the 360) commented on as they didn't have the luxury of larges amounts of available memory thus had to rely on texture streaming).

andybird123 · 23 May 2014 at 15:15

Ian Evey said:
I'm a bit confused, Does this game run out of vram at 1080 or 1200 using a 2gb card according to the reviewer? or is there some kind of mistake happening?

No, not at 1080, at 1600p, and even that seems to contradicted by other sources and testing

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 15:47

andybird123 said:
No, not at 1080, at 1600p, and even that seems to contradicted by other sources and testing

No Hardocp are saying at 1200p and 1600p. It's in the op.

Sin_Chase · 23 May 2014 at 15:51

Why are we even looking at benchmark results on this game?

It's frame locked to 60FPS, it's worthless. 60FPS is HALF of the FPS I would be wanting to run on a 120Hz monitor. 60FPS is also SIGNIFICANTLY less than the minimums I would want to be running also.

JonSmith · 23 May 2014 at 15:56

It's certainly not a compute issue, as the 7850 is faster than the 6970 despite the latter having more powerful compute.

Either they've done the test wrong or it's some kind of driver support issue.

MOOGLEYS · 23 May 2014 at 15:59

Plays fine for me with a 680 2gb @ 1440p ? Not the greatest game to be fair.

GHazy · 23 May 2014 at 16:01

Moogleys doesnt like many games

Can't comment on this as not got it myself!

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 16:02

MOOGLEYS said:
Plays fine for me with a 680 2gb @ 1440p ? Not the greatest game to be fair.

I don't think you are able to run the highest quality due to it not letting you. Even custom max is not max on a 2gb card are you will be running the compressed textures. max is uncompressed textures from what i gather and heavy on the vram. The game actually got some decent reviews but have not played it myself.

MOOGLEYS · 23 May 2014 at 16:05

GHazy said:
Moogleys doesnt like many games Can't comment on this as not got it myself!

I like some I think..

I don't think you are able to run the highest quality due to it not letting you. Even custom max is not custom max on a 2gb card are you will be running the compressed textures. max is uncompressed textures from what i gather and heavy on the vram. The game actually got some decent reviews but have not played it myself.

I have set all the options as high as they go. It looks the same as with my 280x. No idea why it needs that much Vram it's not the best looker out there.

VTCACHE SIZE - ULTRA
VT COMPRESS - DISABLED
MAX PPF - 64
SHADOW RES - 8192

If that is what is max ? Same options with my 280x. It runs pretty horrid on both even dropping to 1080 it still has frame drops and stutters. Dropping the settings down makes little difference. It just seems a crappy engine to me. A lot of resources for a mediocre looking game.

Rroff · 23 May 2014 at 16:13

ubersonic said:
You can just put them in a config file.

Its resetting r_multisamples for me even if put in a config file I have to manually enable it each time from the console after starting the game :|

MOOGLEYS said:
I like some I think..
If that is what is max ? Same options with my 280x. It runs pretty horrid on both even dropping to 1080 it still has frame drops and stutters. Dropping the settings down makes little difference. It just seems a crappy engine to me. A lot of resources for a mediocre looking game.

Shame in a way as from a distance scenes can look really nice in a painted canvas kind of way but up close it just doesn't cut it in this day and age especially with the LOD popping - if it was streamed instantly with no popping/fades and had full texture res (which would need about 1TB of textures :|) it would look amazing (aside from some of the geometry just doesn't work right especially vehicles and organic stuff can look a bit like its sculpted out of concrete).

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 16:20

MOOGLEYS said:
I like some I think..

I have set all the options as high as they go. It looks the same as with my 280x. No idea why it needs that much Vram it's not the best looker out there.

VTCACHE SIZE - ULTRA
VT COMPRESS - DISABLED
MAX PPF - 64
SHADOW RES - 8192

If that is what is max ? Same options with my 280x. It runs pretty horrid on both even dropping to 1080 it still has frame drops and stutters. Dropping the settings down makes little difference. It just seems a crappy engine to me. A lot of resources for a mediocre looking game.

I only know what i have been reading so can't really answer.

From hardocp

Graphics Options linked to VRAM Capacity - This game suffers from having its graphics options linked to VRAM capacity. On video cards with 3GB of VRAM, or more, the "Ultra" setting and optional customize graphics to maximum values are present. If you have a video card with 2GB of VRAM, "Ultra" is no longer there. We can imagine if you have less than that, it will decrease optional settings even more.

When a game like this sets itself by VRAM, rather than performance, what ends up happening is exactly what we've experienced. All the performance, for every video card, will be close to that 60 FPS framerate cap because one cannot push the settings higher and sacrifice performance for higher in-game settings. It's an imposed limit that forces a certain level of performance dependent on VRAM capacity, and not what the GPU is actually capable of accelerating.

MOOGLEYS · 23 May 2014 at 16:23

I can select Ultra on a 2gb card.

No idea ?? Maybe switching drivers it thinks it's a 280x ?

opethdisciple · 23 May 2014 at 16:26

MOOGLEYS said:
I can select Ultra on a 2gb card.

No idea ?? Maybe switching drivers it thinks it's a 280x ?

Isn’t it the vtc cache settings that is different? (i.e. the texture settings)

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 16:28

MOOGLEYS said:
I can select Ultra on a 2gb card.

No idea ?? Maybe switching drivers it thinks it's a 280x ?

AMD Radeon R9 280X and GeForce GTX 770. You will find the GeForce GTX 770 to be faster, but it will be limited to "High" settings due to VRAM. The R9 280X will be able to run at "Ultra" at 1080p and even 2560x1600, though that might be a little too graphics demanding. The best setting for the 280X will be 1080p and "Ultra" settings. The GTX 770 can run at 1080p at "High" settings, or 2560x1600 at "High". 280X can also run 2560x1600 at "High".

It's weird that you have the option. The only difference is they are using a gtx770.

MOOGLEYS · 23 May 2014 at 16:28

opethdisciple said:
Isn’t it the vtc cache settings that is different? (i.e. the texture settings)

I can have it disabled and on ultra with 2GB Vram. Tbh it looks the same with the compression enabled to me anyway.

TheRealDeal · 23 May 2014 at 16:30

Ignore