• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AC4 Nvidia pop at AMD...

Endless threads with Amd V Nvidia. Who cares if joe blogs is happy to pay more for Nvidia or less for Amd. Its their money let them buy what they want. I would like to buy Nvidia but cant afford it. Thank god for Amd or I would be out of Pc gaming. I cannot buy Nvidia because, in my opinion, their cards are too expensive, its that simple. :)
 
One would have to remember that just because a game fills out the memory of a graphics card doesnt mean that it wouldnt be able to get the same results with lower amount of vram. Some things might just be beneficial to keep in the memory if there is any left after the critical things has been loaded.
 
opethdisciple said:
Love how even in the most innocuous of places, Nvidia love to take pops at AMD.

Was just reading this:

And had a little giggle when I read this part:

"Texture Quality: Adjusts the clarity and quality of textures game wide. With 2GB of Video RAM, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag should remain playable at 2560x1440 with every setting maxed out, and with 4x MSAA enabled. As Metro: Last Light and Assassin’s Creed IV show, with the right coding an engine doesn’t have to consume massive amounts of VRAM to power a top-quality title." :p

Thats basically saying there is no need to buy a GPU with 3Gb of ram. :p
Click to expand...

opethdisciple said:
The reason why I believe this even less, is because Titanfall runs really well even on meagre hardware. It was made like that. So saying it can utilise over 2Gb of ram at 1080p I find hard to believe.
Click to expand...

iPlml2a.jpg


LuLDBny.jpg


It still does not change the fact it is using all available RAM on the Nvidia card,just like with the UE4 based Daylight. Both the AMD and Nvidia 2GB cards perform fine in both games,as they are hardly pushing graphical boundaries.

Certain engines use all available VRAM,just because they can - so that Nvidia dig is rather silly if it is a dig in the first place. The first two are Nvidia sponsored games too.

Now lets look at AC4:

http://i.imgur.com/UDAQWRU.jpg

UDAQWRU.jpg


Lets look at the AMD sponsered Crysis3:

http://i.imgur.com/Jnfsrq1.jpg

Jnfsrq1.jpg


Oh! Wait!!

According to GameGPU AC4 uses between 2.2GB to 2.4GB of VRAM at 2560X1600 at VH settings with MSAA and Crysis3 2.2GB to 2.5GB of VRAM at similar settings.

Even the GTX780 6GB shows the same performance as the standard 3GB version:

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/69713-palit-geforce-gtx-780-jetstream-6gb-sli/

But it is a funny statement especially since the high end Nvidia cards have 3GB of VRAM,which is the same as some of the AMD cards.

Maybe the companies should have made the GTX780 and R9 290,2GB cards so that we can all buy them cheaper!!

They could have as my GTX660 has 2GB of VRAM on a 192 bit bus(when it should be 1.5GB or 3GB),just like the GTX660TI.

But the thing is having more VRAM is more about the future,since PC games should get a kick up the back once more and more games target the PS4 and XBox One as the primary consoles. 8GB of RAM in both of them is a massive upgrade over the 512MB the main consoles have ATM,and many games are still coded with the PS3 and XBox360 in mind as the base spec.

However,2GB is fine unless you are running games at very high resolutions,with loads of AA and/or mods.

Don't worry,since if the GTX880 has 4GB of VRAM as standard and the AMD R10 380X has 3GB,I am sure Nvidia PR will say AMD is suxxors since they have less VRAM,just like AMD PR is probably doing too ATM.
 
Last edited:
For the record I don't believe any method we currently have of monitoring VRAM usage is reliable. Which is why we keep having this debate.
 
Orangey said:
For the record I don't believe any method we currently have of monitoring VRAM usage is reliable. Which is why we keep having this debate.
Click to expand...

Best way of doing it is to play the game and see for yourself.

GTX 690 on BF4 maxed @1600p - no problems.

GTX 690 on RTW2 maxed @1600p - like hitting a brick wall, terrible and totally unplayable.:eek:
 
There is a limit to what you can do with 2gb, as I posted above RTW2 maxed @1600p is totally unplayable and I can only see things getting worse as newer games are released.

Having said that 99% of games are fine @1600p maxed with 2gb of VRAM but the writing is on the wall.
 
Kaapstad said:
There is a limit to what you can do with 2gb, as I posted above RTW2 maxed @1600p is totally unplayable and I can only see things getting worse as newer games are released.

Having said that 99% of games are fine @1600p maxed with 2gb of VRAM but the writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt at that res and beyond. But from a personal perspective I bought my second 2Gb card and expect it to last at least another year or slightly beyond at 1200p.

---

I think the problem with this thread, is that it is impossible to put in to context what I was thinking about when I posted this. I was looking at settings for a 690 for AC4 to see how my SLI'd 670's would cope, and just found it interesting (and amusing) to see Nvidia say that at my res (and slightly beyond) 2Gb will be enough.... maybe wrongly I thought it was an attack on AMD and their habit of putting more vram on their cards than Nvidia do.

Why is that any way? AMD where the first to put 2Gb on their cards, and now AMD have 4Gb where Nvidia go with 3Gb.
 
Last edited:
3 to 4gb is going to fast become the norm for most games and mid range systems to have a fighting chance. By this time next year it's possible, albeit not definite that 2gb will be entirely entry level.

That said with DX12 (and Mantle just to keep the patriots happy) giving access to memory paging and various other aspects it's possible developers can squeeze more out of limited memory. Or it might go entirely in the other direction and the more liberal approach will force vendors to equip their cards with even more.
 
You can "optimize" a game to run on what you want, although it may look, feel and play totally different of course. Anyway, ArmA 3 looks and runs much better than AC 4, just to give a fast example (and I thought that one wast a poorly coded game). A lot of low res texture and not that great assets can be used if you wanna fit a memory budget. Still remember how good Stalker was especially due to those high res texture.

PS: Crysis (the 1st one) still looks better in 64bit mode... and runs better! :D
 
So when Asus, Sapphire, Gigabyte etc, do they make the Nvidia cards to a higher quality than the AMD cards, I do see a lot of people saying Nvidia are better made?
 
rs155 said:
So when Asus, Sapphire, Gigabyte etc, do they make the Nvidia cards to a higher quality than the AMD cards, I do see a lot of people saying Nvidia are better made?
Click to expand...

No they don't, they are all made to the same standards.
 
LtMatt said:
It's a gameworks title but it does not use any of the gameworks libraries luckily. Or at least it does not/did not initially, a quick google suggests that will change soon. (or maybe has changed already??)

One thing worth noting is the 290X has an extra gb of vram vs the 780TI so there may be some caching going on in those benches.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what it is doing Matt. It will cache any memory it can and pull from it. Daylight is suprising as its quite demanding even though its not the best looking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom