Supposedly, it does.
It's pretty much impossible for some of us to disable pagefile in the long term though, especially if you do anything else besides gaming on the PC.
-
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.
Battlefield 3 total system resource benchmarks.
- Thread starter ALXAndy
- Start date
Supposedly, it does.
It's pretty much impossible for some of us to disable pagefile in the long term though, especially if you do anything else besides gaming on the PC.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
You mean the 29th March patch?
Why are you so keen on megatextures?
I think most people here don't understand just how astoundingly hard it is to make a game like BF3 or Skyrim.
Yes, Bethesda doesn't have the calibre of graphics engineers as does Crytek, but it still takes teams of insanely brilliant people to code these games (not to mention all the artists, gameplay tweakers etc.). The compromises, the optimisations, the arranging of how textures fit into the cache of each GPU, etc. are mind boggling... Take a look at the instruction sets that GCN/Kepler etc. perform -- you'll find that they are simply massively parallel vector/matrix engines. Now try and understand how you can build a world you can get lost in on something that just does those operations billions of times a second...
Each second of gameplay, your system is easily performing more calculations than all of mankind had prior to 1900 many times over. On a chip smaller than a stamp that's made of billions of little switches that are a few of atoms in width.
It's sad when gamers call developers/GPU architects/driver engineers lazy
Is that when it was released? You mean the one it installed when I loaded up the game for the first time in over a month today?
Who knows?
They may have fixed the low memory crash in a patch before that?
Unless of course their update notes include that this patch fixes it?
If that's the case and this has only just been fixed (which I doubt, given that I posted right at the beginning saying I had found out they fixed it) then maybe the guy who is crashing is using a hacked version?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
yeah 29March patch is the latest patch and my game is patched with this version.
Why are you so keen on megatextures?
I think most people here don't understand just how astoundingly hard it is to make a game like BF3 or Skyrim.
Yes, Bethesda doesn't have the calibre of graphics engineers as does Crytek, but it still takes teams of insanely brilliant people to code these games (not to mention all the artists, gameplay tweakers etc.). The compromises, the optimisations, the arranging of how textures fit into the cache of each GPU, etc. are mind boggling... Take a look at the instruction sets that GCN/Kepler etc. perform -- you'll find that they are simply massively parallel vector/matrix engines. Now try and understand how you can build a world you can get lost in on something that just does those operations billions of times a second...
Each second of gameplay, your system is easily performing more calculations than all of mankind had prior to 1900 many times over. On a chip smaller than a stamp that's made of billions of little switches that are a few of atoms in width.
It's sad when gamers call developers/GPU architects/driver engineers lazy
Oh come on man. Surely even you can understand that the single player games released these days are simply foreplay for a multiplayer game? A four hour tease at best?
So surely you can also understand that when I paid £35 for Modern Warfare 2 and it was all over in four hours I wasn't best pleased?
I don't play multiplayer games. Explained it earlier.
I mean you have to remember, I have been graced with games such as Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim. Each lasting at least seventy hours on the first playthroughs.
I know MW2 is a warfare based game. However, doesn't take Einstein to work out that Half Life 2 is about a thousand times bigger and better?
I just find it annoying that a corporation try too hard and try to make something for everyone. All they did by selling me MW2 was make me never want to hand them another penny. The single player game was an insult, and they shouldn't have even bothered. See also - BF3, and you can add co op to that too.
I had far more fun with Duke Nukem Forever. Because as much as they do woo me at times graphics do not a good game make. And I also feel that they are dragging us backwards due to their limitations.
See also - BF3 GET BACK TO THE GOD DAMN PLAY AREA AS IM TOO SMALL FOR WANDERING OFF.
That is either down to them not bothering to make a decent single player game for me to play, or graphical restraints because they made it look so pretty.
Both of which I will happily forget all about if a game is a good enough romp. it doesn't need to look like that to be a good game
I see. That would be the whacking great big one it made me install today
Not sure if that actually stops the crash though.. Maybe the chap that did run into the crash can let us know what version he was running? or maybe it is literally system specific?
It was the most recent patch that was supposed to fix the low memory crash:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1237480/bf3-is-pretty-ram-intensive-still
More information on it there.
That being said, what I said before was correct all along.
Oh come on man. Surely even you can understand that the single player games released these days are simply foreplay for a multiplayer game? A four hour tease at best?
So surely you can also understand that when I paid £35 for Modern Warfare 2 and it was all over in four hours I wasn't best pleased?
I don't play multiplayer games. Explained it earlier.
I mean you have to remember, I have been graced with games such as Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim. Each lasting at least seventy hours on the first playthroughs.
I know MW2 is a warfare based game. However, doesn't take Einstein to work out that Half Life 2 is about a thousand times bigger and better?
I just find it annoying that a corporation try too hard and try to make something for everyone. All they did by selling me MW2 was make me never want to hand them another penny. The single player game was an insult, and they shouldn't have even bothered. See also - BF3, and you can add co op to that too.
I had far more fun with Duke Nukem Forever. Because as much as they do woo me at times graphics do not a good game make. And I also feel that they are dragging us backwards due to their limitations.
See also - BF3 GET BACK TO THE GOD DAMN PLAY AREA AS IM TOO SMALL FOR WANDERING OFF.
That is either down to them not bothering to make a decent single player game for me to play, or graphical restraints because they made it look so pretty.
Both of which I will happily forget all about if a game is a good enough romp. it doesn't need to look like that to be a good game
As I said earlier, I haven't played Battlefield yet. Why? Because it's a multiplayer game first and foremost. I knew this which is why I haven't bought it and why I wasn't disappointed. I'm a single-player sort of person, which is why I'm lost in Skyrim at the moment.
I wouldn't go after DICE for not making the game I want
And besides, even if they did want to put more time into making the single player better, they probably had some suit yelling at them to hurry up to make the holiday season and pushing for multiplayer over single player because of 'market research'.The devs make games for the love of it (well I like to think so, at least) but they are paid by businesses and ultimately the suits call the shots!
I think tbh it's more of them trying to make the game that I wanted to play, thus I bought it.
And I'm incredibly disappointed tbh.
Won't be making the same mistake again. Just can't get into Skyrim, so I'm sort of lost. Not really into the whole magic and spells thing. Much more a rotten skin nuclear fallout kind of person
And I'm incredibly disappointed tbh.
Won't be making the same mistake again. Just can't get into Skyrim, so I'm sort of lost. Not really into the whole magic and spells thing. Much more a rotten skin nuclear fallout kind of person
bhavy asked me to post this here:
It's a different game but shows how hitting the VRAM limit in Civ 5 does not affect the overall performance.
So now that he is unable to post completely irrelevant things you are doing it on his behalf?
What does this have to do with Battlefield 3 and disabling your paging file to see if it improves performance or hinders matters because of a lack of vram?
Best to ask him when he's back.
I don't need to ask him because that picture you put up on his behalf says it all.
He runs two 1gb cards, seems the poor dear got upset because the thread is about BF3 and vram usage.
Yet, for all the banal ramblings he failed to run a BF3 benchmark.
Says it all really.
It really was very simple. Run a benchmark, disable your paging file, run it again and see what happens.
Maybe he did, and didn't like what he found?
The last I read bhavv doesn't even own a copy of BF3
Hey that's OK because Nvidia do.
And, they have written a huge comprehensive guide to getting BF3 running smoothly.
And, you'll never guess what?
http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide/#5
At the Low setting, 150MB is allocated to the texture pool; Medium = 200MB; High = 300MB; and Ultra = 500MB. Keep in mind however that your VRAM also stores a range of other game information, and that an average multiplayer level in BF3 can have 1.5GB or more of textures, so it can't all be stored on your GPU at once. Thus setting this option too high may result in stuttering or visible texture streaming. The Ultra Texture Quality setting for example is designed specifically for GPUs with 1.5GB or more of VRAM.
Well what would you know.
No no, don't tell me, Nvidia are wrong. Gibbo is a liar and tries to rip people off with fake benchmarks, and Nvidia are a clueless bunch of idiots who don't know their way around how vram works?
ALXAndy, just in case you misunderstood my "
Yeah no sweat man I know
At least he can now see that rumour for the past six months has been absolutely bang on.
Users on this forum have basically posted plenty of info to prove that 1.5gb is the minimum needed to run it on ultra with 4XFSAA.
Having that put down on paper by Nvidia just absolutely puts it to bed tbh.
Still, I am still genuinely very interested to see how it performs on cards with 1.5gb and up with the paging file disabled.
I think what Nvidia call "streaming" is basically using a page file for textures. And highly probably why Kepler very cleverly avoids it and can cache from physical ram.
What's that got to do with op's BF3 results?Nothing at all to do with what Andy's post set out to achieve!
Why didn't bhavv post it himself anyway?
Andy, not really worth pointing that out because it was already ignored by bhavv and certain others ages ago in the other thread and no doubt bhavv will ignore it again: