• 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.

XCOM 2 memory shock

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,943
Location
Dalek flagship
I saw an article on another forum where they tested performance on a Fury X and GTX 980 Ti and I noticed the performance on my TitanX was much better maxed @2160p

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/xcom_2_pc_performance_review_-_amd_vs_nvidia/9

Below is the reason why I think

jfRWrTt.jpg


Check out the memory usage.:eek:
 
MSAA maxed out hits it hard. Similar experience here, at 3440 x 1440, with everything maxed minus MSAA it stays around 3.5 GB Vram use. As soon as I notch MSAA on it shoots up to about 6.5GB. Though the FPS tank's far before :p

We need SLI :D
 
Kaapstad said:
I saw an article on another forum where they tested performance on a Fury X and GTX 980 Ti and I noticed the performance on my TitanX was much better maxed @2160p

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/xcom_2_pc_performance_review_-_amd_vs_nvidia/9

Below is the reason why I think

jfRWrTt.jpg


Check out the memory usage.:eek:
Click to expand...

Memory filled may not be the same as memory needed for a certain level of performance. A general principle in many areas of software is that you don't flush the cache until you need it for something else. But that doesn't mean what's in the cache is in use. For example, there was an article on Tweaktown comparing Fury X with Titan X and despite the huge discrepancy in memory, they were close to equal in many areas and the Fury X even took the lead in a couple of places. But if the memory usage on the TitanX had been measured, there's a good chance that double the 4GB that the FuryX was cheerfully running on would be filled on the TitanX.
 
Well nobody in their right mind would ever play with 8xMSAA :P Game is totally playable with Fury X with 4GB memory, just gotta now where to drop thing or two. Still funny to see 10GB usage :)
 
You would need to test the VRAM usage on the other cards. Just because it uses 10 of 12 on a Titan X does not mean it tries to use 10 on a 4/6GB card.

It is an interesting talking point given the performance issues the game has though. Needs more investigation.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Memory filled may not be the same as memory needed for a certain level of performance. A general principle in many areas of software is that you don't flush the cache until you need it for something else. But that doesn't mean what's in the cache is in use. For example, there was an article on Tweaktown comparing Fury X with Titan X and despite the huge discrepancy in memory, they were close to equal in many areas and the Fury X even took the lead in a couple of places. But if the memory usage on the TitanX had been measured, there's a good chance that double the 4GB that the FuryX was cheerfully running on would be filled on the TitanX.
Click to expand...

yashiro said:
You would need to test the VRAM usage on the other cards. Just because it uses 10 of 12 on a Titan X does not mean it tries to use 10 on a 4/6GB card.

It is an interesting talking point given the performance issues the game has though. Needs more investigation.
Click to expand...


Check the performance of the Fury X and GTX 980 Ti in the link in the OP.

I am getting nearly 3x the fps (on a single TitanX) the GTX 980 Ti gets at maximum settings.

I would say that neither the Fury X or GTX 980 Ti have enough memory to max the game.

SLI or CF support on the GTX 980 Ti or Fury X with max settings will probably do very little and if anything will make things worse.
 
In this game 4K makes no sense, Hell there's just about a visual difference going from 1080P to 1440P, Going to 4K is just wasted performance.
 
I play the game without AA at 2560x1440 everything else maxed out.
The Nano holds around 61fps in battles and close ups.
Only goes low when the game builds the upcoming map where the cpu load gets skyhigh

And i have freesync so all is smooth. (Except above)
 
varkanoid said:
The figures dont look right.

GPU Load shows 0% but Memory load still showing 10gb ? Bit of a delay freeing up memory ?
Click to expand...

He has tabbed out, so GPU usage drops down as will everything else but clicking the tab shows min and max usage while GPU-Z was running.
 
The game is poorly optimised. Without even looking I can probably guess Kaap is using 8X MSAA. The words to describe this situation aren't worth the report button clicks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom