This topic contains 28 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  PeanutsRevenge 9 years, 9 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #6348

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    Just found this in my rss feeds and just started reading..

    As we are approaching the stage and significatly this thread has touched many a time on 4GB ram, I believe this should be of interest.

    I have been getting information from this site for many years and altho they do make mistakes or say things I disagree with, on the whole, they are very good.

    BTW, its like one of Rommels longer posts, so will require an investment of time… just hopefully not scorching time.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

    #50118

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    <<< ponders whether he on the verge of just flooding now, but…
    Just found a plugin for riva tuner that shows total video memory currently in use (im trying to find one that shows GPU usage, but this is as close as I have found)

    Given it a shot in scorched and with some videos (media player classic), its enlighten me as to the need for 512MB VRAM.

    Standard .avi – 15MB
    Full HD .avi – 20MB
    Scorched @ 1680×1050 with full detail 390-450MB
    Scorched @ 1280×1024 with full detail 370-410MB
    Scorched @ 800×600 with full detail 286-300MB

    Scorched @ 1280×1024 shader and shadows off 360 (it barely changed with diff maps)

    Nexuiz (a cross platform linux, mac, windows fps game based on the quake engine @ 1680×1050 with lots of detail 400-430MB

    Crysis (a system crippling fps) @1680×1050 650MB (using 155MB of system memory to assist)

    So, I dont think I can suggest 256MB gfx cards anymore… this was shocking even to me and I already understood that 256 is pushing it, especially at high resolutions, but now I KNOW that its not enough!

    God help us when they increase the texture detail in scorched, OUCH @ the texture sizes then.

    #50119

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    So, I dont think I can suggest 256MB gfx cards anymore… this was shocking even to me and I already understood that 256 is pushing it, especially at high resolutions, but now I KNOW that its not enough!

    God help us when they increase the texture detail in scorched, OUCH @ the texture sizes then.

    No. I don’t think it works like that.

    The card I’m on now has 128MB of video memory, and has no trouble at all at 1600×1200 with full settings.

    Using it isn’t the same as needing it.

    I’m not entirely sure, but I think v RAM is refreshed as needed. (probably just doesn’t clear ’til it’s full).

    No disrespect here, but Scorched seems a very long way from cutting edge. There’s no way it’s ever going to need 512MB of video RAM. (or even 256)

    So long as the textures are ready as and when the GPU wants them, the amount of v RAM is irrelevant, isn’t it? I mean, that’s what hard drives and main memory are for.

    #50120

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    Indeed Mr Cat, needing and wanting are very different and I was using a 128MB card until I got this one.
    However, system memory is not ideal for gaming, it has to pass through the FSB and is not as quick anyway, plus the system memory is there for orther tasks.

    As for HDD… I do hope you are joking, if not, then you have just lost the small amount of respect that I had left for you when it came to computers!

    Viking (and anyone reading this that is looking to do the same thing), if a game or application wants to use that much memory, supply that much memory, otherwise you will end up with some pretty poor performace, especially when spending £1000 / $2000 for a gaming / multimedia PC and expecting it to eat most tasks you throw at it!

    #50121

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    @laptops Daddy wrote:

    So long as the textures are ready as and when the GPU wants them, the amount of v RAM is irrelevant, isn’t it? I mean, that’s what hard drives and main memory are for.

    Yeah, if you want your hard drive spinning all day and causing loading delays.

    #50122

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    Ever hear the proverb about the curious cat who got prodded once too often? (old adage involving a large metal rod, peanut butter, a hole, and various acts of unnecessarily excessive violence).

    Ok, I wasn’t going to bother. I think we need to be careful to not mislead people. (and we did the discussion on amounts of vram and stuff already).

    Anyone unsure of how much video ram they need should do their own research. Never take Internet people at face value.

    It’ll be obvious to some that I’m not an expert here. And Peanuts certainly isn’t, with his blah blah blah. I do have access to a fair bit of hardware, and the points I made were more than supposition.

    For what it’s worth, Scorched 3D doesn’t need anywhere near that much graphics memory, probably never will. (has nothing to do with the resolution you’re playing in). And hard drive speed has very little to do with game load time.

    Now unless you have a genuine understanding (I guess one or two on this site would), please stfu and stop contradicting me with your bullshit guesswork advice. (That goes for all of you).

    Next one to pull a peanuts gets his nuts cracked.

    Ps:
    Peanuts, quit it, I’m not your rival. And ffs be objective.

    If you don’t agree with something I’ve said, be specific about what. Chances are you missed the point/are just idiot, but if not, and I’m wrong, I’m happy to have it known and will post an edit or something.

    #50123

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Now unless you have a genuine understanding (I guess one or two on this site would), please stfu and stop contradicting me with your bullshit guesswork advice. (That goes for all of you).

    Next one to pull a peanuts gets his nuts cracked.

    A bit touchy aren’t we? You’re contradicting him just as much as he contradicts you, you know.

    #50124

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    i know. i really don’t mean to quash peanuts’s efforts. it’s a matter of quality control.

    ‘Water is blue, the sky is blue, therefore the sky is made of water’.
    all very plausible in magical peanut land. and the conclusion may even have some truth to it. but if you’re gonna start advising my friends to avoid blue, lest they get wet, i need to step in and question it.

    sometimes it’s good to have wet friends. (and i like blue)

    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    …system memory is not ideal for gaming, it has to pass through the FSB and is not as quick anyway, plus the system memory is there for orther tasks.

    we’re really at the stage with some of that crap where anyone this thread’s relevant to would be insulted to think the ‘bullshit’ element needed highlighting. so, apologies if that applies.

    maybe i shouldn’t have bothered.

    peanuts, it’s cool to share your experiences, but go careful with the conclusions you draw if you don’t really understand the mechanics.

    #50125

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Maybe we should just leave this topic alone since we seem to be talking to each other instead of helping Viking with some things.

    If it’s ok with everyone, I’d like to delete the last few posts (including a few of mine) that don’t really help out Viking any. That way we can help keep on track with the subject.

    #50126

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Laptops Daddy:

    I think I’m going to heed Deathbal’s warning on this one … @laptops Daddy wrote:

    i know. i really don’t mean to quash peanuts’s efforts. it’s a matter of quality control.

    ‘Water is blue, the sky is blue, therefore the sky is made of water’.
    all very plausible in magical peanut land. and the conclusion may even have some truth to it. but if you’re gonna start advising my friends to avoid blue, lest they get wet, i need to step in and question it.

    sometimes it’s good to have wet friends. (and i like blue)

    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    …system memory is not ideal for gaming, it has to pass through the FSB and is not as quick anyway, plus the system memory is there for orther tasks.

    we’re really at the stage with some of that crap where anyone this thread’s relevant to would be insulted to think the ‘bullshit’ element needed highlighting. so, apologies if that applies.

    maybe i shouldn’t have bothered.

    peanuts, it’s cool to share your experiences, but go careful with the conclusions you draw if you don’t really understand the mechanics.

    … except to say:

    “Daddy, whis is the sky blue?”
    “I don’t know, to match your pretty eyes?”
    “Not even close! bla bla bla … ultra-viloet rays … bla bla bla”
    “Who told you that?”
    “MOMMY!”

    From one of my favorite advertisments. It’s promoting education.

    Very entertaining rebuttal and although the topic isn’t comedy, I enjoyed your analogy tremedously, good job. 😉

    Rommel

    #50127

    Rommel
    Participant

    Other than the following caveat, I have no objection with removing anything, you as a moderator, find objectionable:@deathstryker wrote:

    Maybe we should just leave this topic alone since we seem to be talking to each other instead of helping Viking with some things.

    If it’s ok with everyone, I’d like to delete the last few posts (including a few of mine) that don’t really help out Viking any. That way we can help keep on track with the subject.

    The warning by Laptops Daddy about stateing assumptions as fact seemed well intentioned. It’s very easy for someone to get hurt following bad advice. Often times free advice is worth about what you pay for it and occassionaly it conceals a very heavy price that you are forced to pay later. Surely there is nothing wrong with bringing this to everyones attention in light of the topic.

    Sincerely,

    Rommel

    #50128

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    The warning by Laptops Daddy about stateing assumptions as fact seemed well intentioned. It’s very easy for someone to get hurt following bad advice. Often times free advice is worth about what you pay for it and occassionaly it conceals a very heavy price that you are forced to pay later. Surely there is nothing wrong with bringing this to everyones attention in light of the topic.

    Sincerely,

    Rommel

    That’s true but what makes his “facts” carry more weight than anyone else’s “facts”?

    You can preach about it until you’re blue in the face but does anyone really take the time to back up their claims when they just “know” they are right? Nope. I don’t. He doesn’t. Nobody does.

    I guess we could ALL be talking bullshit for all we know. My beef is that he doesn’t seem to be using this piece as a well-intentioned warning to all. He’s using it to leverage himself against the rest of us. Where is his mention that he could be a victim of the BS factor as well, because he certainly is just as big a part of it as peanut.

    Now, I’m going to split this thread because we’ve gotten way off topic.

    #50129

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @deathstryker wrote:

    That’s true but what makes his “facts” carry more weight than anyone else’s “facts”?

    You can preach about it until you’re blue in the face but does anyone really take the time to back up their claims when they just “know” they are right? Nope. I don’t. He doesn’t. Nobody does.

    I guess we could ALL be talking bullshit for all we know. My beef is that he doesn’t seem to be using this piece as a well-intentioned warning to all. He’s using it to leverage himself against the rest of us. Where is his mention that he could be a victim of the BS factor as well, because he certainly is just as big a part of it as peanut.

    Quit referring to me in the third person, it makes me uncomfortable.

    Deathstryker, I agree. It’s a ‘who you gonna believe’ angle.

    I was trying to avoid flaming Peanuts. It’s boring, and some of the technical aspects of video memory usage are beyond my scope. I’m not gonna interweb ’cause I don’t care to.

    @deathstryker wrote:

    …for all we know…

    That’s the point, I’m not sure anyone’s gonna care. Do I really need explain the reasoning? Pointing out holes in sieves isn’t helpful, ‘specially when you’re trying to choose a colander.

    And you’re getting all Peanuts on me (won’t, come. off ; ). be specific. what facts are you questioning. I guess you’re talking about the video ram thing.

    ; / I really don’t care enough.

    the reason for having such huge amounts of video ram in the latest cards is to keep the gpu supplied with textures and stuff, right? It’s not an issue of fitting textures into ram in the first place. so long as the gpu isn’t waiting around for it, everything’s cool. Adding more graphics memory won’t improve performance any if you already have enough, and making use of system ram isn’t something to try and avoid, it’s just the way computers work. (all has to go through main ram anyway).

    Scorched textures don’t really change throughout a level. So even if the textures weren’t miniscule, there’d be no way the gpu would be held up. Trust me, 128MB is plenty for Scorched.

    Opinion (not fact : ):

    Games just don’t need 512MB yet. They’re only just starting to make proper use of 256. Sure you can push a card to its limits, ultra high resolution, lots of aa and af, but that’s not realistic of game requirements.

    Advice:

    512MB+ is cool on a high-end card if you can afford it. long as you can afford the high-end cpu to go with it. system balance is very important, and all the video ram in the world won’t help you if the gpu is waiting around for all the other bits.

    Ps:
    @deathstryker wrote:

    …what makes his “facts” carry more weight than anyone else’s “facts”

    My facts are bigger.

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce_780i_sli.html

    #50130

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Before I give my opinion on this I want to clarify something:

    You are saying that 512 MB memory is not a requirement but you aren’t denying that it gives better performance at least in some situations, right?

    If that is what you’re saying, then I agree. If you are saying you don’t get better performance out of a 512 vs 256 at all, I’d have to disagree.

    But I also agree that for a game like Scorched, you probably wouldn’t get any better performance out of a 512 vs 256.

    #50131

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @deathstryker wrote:

    Before I give my opinion on this I want to clarify something:

    You are saying that 512 MB memory is not a requirement but you aren’t denying that it gives better performance at least in some situations, right?

    If that is what you’re saying, then I agree. If you are saying you don’t get better performance out of a 512 vs 256 at all, I’d have to disagree.

    But I also agree that for a game like Scorched, you probably wouldn’t get any better performance out of a 512 vs 256.

    ty for asking. : ) and it’s v diplomatic of you to check before jumping on me, moderator man, man, i should do that more myself.

    we’re talking specifically, modern, consumer, retail graphics cards. yes? and we’re in a balanced pc, so we’re all: pci express, modern main ram and hard drives. we haven’t just slapped a £200 g card in a pc from the 90’s.

    @deathstryker wrote:

    You are saying that 512 MB memory is not a requirement but you aren’t denying that it gives better performance at least in some situations, right?

    sure, why not.

    it would be cool to reach a consensus on this. : ) not sure we’re going to.

    i think a key point is that you only need enough video memory to satisfy the gpus requirements. (did i say that already?) so we’re talking high-end. anything more than 256 is entirely wasted on current mid-range cards. (can we agree that any mid-range card with 512 may as well be a 256 wearing a badge? (2007))

    no doubt any game could use up however much memory is available. it’s down to the programmer. i think this is fundamental though, it’s a matter of convention. games conform with the hardware available. i know, detail levels are all scaleable, lots of exceptions to the rule, but generally, in terms of what most people have access to, 256mb of video ram is still a lot, and any game designed to require more, is outside of the mainstream.

    edit (rambling : ): point, 512mb goes beyond what the game developers expect you to have.

    you can push any game beyond it’s intended limits. 2650×1600 resolution, 16x aa, whatever. but i think you need to assume that going beyond the game designer’s intended environment for the game, negates any optimisations intended to keep the game playable. (did i just say that?). i mean, if the programmers expected you to be running the game at such high res (for example), they’d probably write the game differently. (and if they were expecting people to have loads more video ram than is normal, they’d probably find a better use for it than ultra high res/anti a anyway).

    it’s not like the amount of video ram is a limiting factor in establishing game quality. (even graphics/texture quality).

    anyway, noticed how some of the latest games have big, seamless levels? that’s a cool development.

    resolutions for context (feel free to correct if wrong):

    dvd: 720×576
    hd plasma tv: 1024×768
    playstation 3 game: 1280×720
    19″ lcd pc monitor: 1440×900
    22″ lcd pc monitor: 1680×1050
    hd 1080p: 1920×1080

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.