ez. stop buying stuff you do not need with money you do not have to impress people who do not care about you.
you quickly realize you have plenty of money left over for whatever gpu you want.
usually buy 4 gpu at a time and pay in full when the cc bills comes due. vega is next up.
all these need more vram scenarios.
at least include game setting and average/min fps.
so one can differentiate between actual gameplay scenarios or imaginary benchmarking scenarios.
your post #19 you stated your single fury at 4k could barely maintain average 60fps (forget whatever min fps is) at high setting (forget ultra setting) without any aa.
no point in further jacking up vram by cranking up texture to ultra or cranking up aa or both. smh.
will give it another poke. then you are on your own after this.
also need to stop confusing vram required and vram cache.
as for vram required. rest assure that when you take into consideration playable enjoyable gameplay (aka fps). you will not bust 4gb vram required on 4k on any...
same explanation for both.
another VRAM thread with the same folks regurgitating the same false information like gospel. in example - 1060 3gb is not enough vram for 1080p. smh.
first is stop confusing FPS limitation with VRAM limitation.
today's gaming scenario and non benchmark scenario...
stop losing sleep over a non issue.
given the current games. a single furyx over 4k. you will never ever saturate 4gb in a "real" gaming scenario. even furyx x2 you will be fine.
otoh. if all you care about is benchmarking to see how high u can jack up vram. even a 12gb titan x pascal...
the fps question is about fluidity. fluidity comes from frame times.
"IF" frame time is excellent. 60fps is fluid. no need for higher fps.
OTOH "if" frame times is a mess. even 144fps is a stutter fest.
triple dell u3014. quad 290x can barely maintain 60fps+. dips are hitting the low 50's. this is with 2x msaa. 4x msaa bumps into the 4gb vram wall.
as soon as vega10 come out. will get 4 of those. no gp102. sli bridge needs to die.
this issue has to do with how windows (and it's program developers) manages memory. they all write programs to "utilize" as little physical memory as possible, while "storing" everything else in virtual memory on turtle media.
only way to alleviate this lag is to force virtual memory into...
there is no memory leak. battlefield 4 just loves virtual memory.
btw. this machine with 64gb of physical memory does sports quad gpu (290x x4) on triple monitor (7680x1600). if resolution has anything to do with this excessive virtual memory usage.
just for contrast. on another machine...
by default. photoshop and bf4 and other programs are too stupid to fully utilize all available physical memory. and insists on paging to no ends. those instances where it has to page from the ssd is getting old quick.
thanks for sharing that photoshop does allow user to allocate physical...
hate virtual memory with a passion. it is slow and pathetic. okay with that said and done.
there are some programs out there (like photoshop and bf4) that demands virtual memory. since there is no way around this pathetic ness. is there? anyway thinking of making a ram drive. and then...
you missing the point again.
nightmare texture are not across 100% of the game.
those particular screenshots (you took) is the same across all settings. that particular spot simply does not have the nightmare texture.
that is why frames did not tank.
nightmare texture are only available where...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.