Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
-
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
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,694
So is it still worth getting now or better to wait for some patching?
It's a great game and definitely playable by reducing one or two settings as needed.
It's great that game makers now pushing visuals hard in great desireable games - this is exactly what's needed for the industry to drive demand for dGPUs: in turn that would help R&D to push forward, otherwise GPUs can turn to be like modern Intel CPUs - new "gen" with 5% increase.
Turn based game doesn't mean 2D crap graphics nowadays...
The XCOM 2 graphics are better than 2/3 of the games that came out last year
Not the best screenshot (and heavily compressed by Photobucket but can email you the uncompressed originals at 2560x1440 which are 5-6MB each ) but believe me when comes to the graphics, looks stunning at max out settings with No AA
FYI it consumes max 3927MB of the GPU VRAM according to MSI AB.
Yeah, does look awesome admittedly. Looks good enough to be an FPS to be honest.
I have noticed that a lot of you guys are now saying "Should go for Cards with minimum 12GB VRAM with next generation etc..." But do you also not think that devs will write games with less efficiency if we all fall into that way of thinking? Do you see what I am getting at here?
Also it will give AMD and NVIDIA a great excuse to keep bumping up those price levels.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,694
Cheers mate, will check it out a.s.a.p.! Haven't played a RTS for a couple of ages - literally. How's the single player aspect?
I do think the VRAM usage will get better with coming patches; the OP's usage isn't normal IMHO.
Last edited:
Is turn based game, not RTS.
Yeah, does look awesome admittedly. Looks good enough to be an FPS to be honest.
I have noticed that a lot of you guys are now saying "Should go for Cards with minimum 12GB VRAM with next generation etc..." But do you also not think that devs will write games with less efficiency if we all fall into that way of thinking? Do you see what I am getting at here?
Also it will give AMD and NVIDIA a great excuse to keep bumping up those price levels.
Much admit, the high resource consumption on this game is because is PC exclusive. If it was console port, could have had crappier game play but better optimization.
However, I rather get better gameplay as is the case with XCOM 2 (or TW Attila for example) than "optimization" because it was a console port.
most reviews put it as best PC game this year, with a very long life span...if you like RTS
Last edited:
It is not RTS. Is turn based.
I am a big civilization fan, so will deffo give this a look.
i put gamespot review on my last post to give you an idea about the game
ok TBS then
, i call all strategy games RTSPS : since we are talking games, you have a freebie at Origin, Need for Speed Most wanted for free this month
Last edited:
As others have said it's a turn based game. The game has a tacked on multiplayer aspect but in reality it's a single player game and it's terrific. This sequel has proper mod support as well so expect to see some decent community content coming out with time.
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
Check out the memory usage.
Its using that because it can but i have no doubt something like this really needs more than 4GB, which i think is what you are saying?
I can well believe it, Star Citizen already needs 3.8GB at 1080P and my GTX 970 knows it!
This in Crusader, what is commonly known as the "Baby PU" (Public Universe) IE its Alpha and tiny compared to what it will grow into.
We are going to start needing those 8GB cards in the midrange.
Using the settings I was using a GTX 980 Ti or Fury X can not run as they are memory limited and the fps tank.
Check out the link to OC3D in the OP for the 980 Ti and Fury X results @2160p maxed.
Using a TitanX I get 3x the fps that they got with the 980 Ti as the TX is not limited by memory.
This is one game that definitely needs loads of memory. If it's predecessor is anything to go by we should get SLI support in the next month or so.
Anyway I have to go as there is a bunch of aliens that need some careers advice at the point of a plasma cannon.
Does your 970 have any issues in Star Citizen when it reaches 3.8GB? I've a friend who's set on a 970, so would like to give him up to date information for this game.
Yes, it slows performance, Star Citizen doesn't run great anyway as its Alpha but it is markedly worse and consistently so once the V-Ram gets to around and passes 3.5GB. occasional hitching seems to be an issue too.
the more above 3.5GB the worse the whole thing seems to get, it ends up unplayable.
I don't run it at Very High settings for that reason, High is as much as i can go to run it reliably for extended periods.
The 8GB 390 is the way to go for Star Citizen.
Last edited:
Anyway I have to go as there is a bunch of aliens that need some careers advice at the point of a plasma cannon.
Thanks for the information. There are some people arguing that the 970 can use the full 4GB without slowdown, so always nice to get information directly from someone who currently owns the card and is testing it in current games etc.