TR Forums

Hiya everyone,
OK I just installed Shadows of Mordor along with the Extra Hi Res Texture pack. I am running my 2600k at 4700 MHZ and running 2 SLI'ed EVGA 4gb GTX 770 Classifieds in SLI at Stock speeds and voltage with a 115% power target so the cards are running at 1280mhz on the cores with no offset on the core speeds.

I ran the benchmark and if i recall correctly max frame rate was around 256fps, min was around 19fps and my average was 59fps. It looked pretty wicked+ slick and pretty silky smooth.
I also ran a instance of GPUz for each card at the same time and checked my Vram usage and i was very surprised to see both cards used 4033mb of Vram leaving only 63mb of Vram left before the card would be maxed at 4gb or 4096mb. I have to say this is the first game that i have seen use more then 2.5gb of Vram. I heard it used a lot of Vram but this did take me off guard. i wonder how a pair of 2gb 770's would have performed?

Has Anyone else Installed Shadows of Mordor and if so what hardware are you using along with what kind of performance you are getting in the benchmark along with your memory usage. I am curious to see what other hardware performs with different levels of vram etc.

Shadows of Mordor wouldn't be the first to use a lot of vram on the max setting. See Titanfall's in game recommendation of 3GB of vram. Usually from what I've seen in games is when you have less vram, you see more ram swapping and randomly reloading textures from their low res placeholders.

Ari Atari wrote:

Shadows of Mordor wouldn't be the first to use a lot of vram on the max setting. See Titanfall's in game recommendation of 3GB of vram. Usually from what I've seen in games is when you have less vram, you see more ram swapping and randomly reloading textures from their low res placeholders.

Mordors max setting uses 6GB of VRAM, which is a first.

Welp, looks like I only read half of every sentence sorry...

Anyways, would there even be a way to see if could use more than 6GB? Last time I checked only nvidia cards had 6GB of ram per card and even those were few and far between.

Ari Atari wrote:

Welp, looks like I only read half of every sentence sorry...

Anyways, would there even be a way to see if could use more than 6GB? Last time I checked only nvidia cards had 6GB of ram per card and even those were few and far between.

There's a $400 280X on Newegg with 6GB, other than that there's only $1000 and up cards.

Ari Atari wrote:

Anyways, would there even be a way to see if could use more than 6GB? Last time I checked only nvidia cards had 6GB of ram per card and even those were few and far between.

Force Super-Sampled 8xAA with the game at the highest graphics and texture settings. That will easily sail past 4GB at least at 1080P, possibly even 6?

To see it recorded as actual memory usage though, I'm not sure? I've had Watch_Dogs stress my video RAM on the 290X's, but Afterburner only shows the VRAM usage per card hitting 4GB and never more. The game needs more, but it can't use what's not there so I can't see it recorded anywhere. It might use PageFile, but I'm not sure???

A 6GB video card is expensive, and apparently rare outside of Titan's from a quick Google...

Geek I think I read it uses system memory and /or pagefile...Also i wonder if we will see 8GB tonga XT cards that have the 384 bit memory bus, it sure looks like graphics cards Vram is going go up dramatically in the next year. I would not be surprised to see some 8gb 980s in a few months.The board has the space for the memory...or they could double stack it.But I recall seeing open memory spaces on the 980 boards.

And I thought 2 SLI'ed 770's with 4gb of vram would be better off then 2 780's with 3gb Vram for Vram heavy games....I wonder If 4gb hot clocked 770s perform better then 2 3gb 780s in SoM?
EDIT: last night I realized SLI is not yet operational in Shadow of Mordor, cannot believe I was so distracted by Vram usage I did not look at GPU usage on my second card, But it still used 4066mb of Vram on the second card. So I disabled SLI and cranked my card to 1380 core and 1980 mem, did not make a whole lot of difference.

Well 4gb is going to have to last me since the next thing i am buying is a 34" 3440-1440 21:9 ips monitor.

I think 4k monitors for computers are a waste unless you need them for medical imaging. Plus 3840-2160 is 16:9 with 8.3 million pixels per FPS to push plus at 27-30" I just do not see the point. Now the 21:9 3440-1440 has only 4.85 million pixels per FPS to push. About 40% less and it still has a sharp picture and good peripheral vision for good immersion. Plus 5ms response time is fast enough for me. Plus i hear the AOC model can overclock to 70hrtz...it's not much but it is better then 60 fps.

4k has its place though......I think it is great for 50+ inch TV's

Honestly you need 2 GTX 980's to get good frame rates at 4k....just look at the 4k frame rates for games with 780TI's in SLI and 290x crossfire setups, they are not even hittin 60 fps in most cases. Edit: If they want to replay Half Life 2 and Left for Dead 2 in 4k frame rates should be pretty good LOL.

So here's another datapoint- I've been RPG-starved lately, so I picked this guy up, even though I wasn't really in the mood for more LOTR filler.

And it runs damn fine, while looking damn fine, at 2560x1600 with a single GTX670 2GB on whatever the default settings are. Gameplay chops a little while remaining absolutely playable, and the in-game cutscenes are smooth as butter.

got the game as well i can say this the first map in not at all taxing on the card when i got to the second map my avg fps dropped by about 10-15 i think it used to be above 55 mostly but now it drops to 40 as well due to insane amount of vegetation, turning the vegetation draw distance down from ultra to high gives me 25 more fps approx but has huge visual impact as well kinda sad it make a huge difference from ultra to high i play it all ultra none the less manage about 45+ after an modest 1150 core overclock

my vram starts from 2.8gb and then pretty much max out to 3.9 as i play which is good i guess no stuttering at all loading textures these are with high texture details dint bother with the ultra ones idk why ppl force tht ultra on anything less then 6gb gpu's... maybe some sort of self satisfaction

and the built in benchmark is a joke i managed avg 87 fps there but that's nowhere near true... sits around 57 in first map and 45-50 i guess in second map

I installed SOM in my i3 2120 HTPC with a HIS iCooler HD7750 w/1GB GDDR5 Oced to 1200 core and 1400 memory and it gives me 50-60fps at 1080p with the low setting except vegetation I have set to medium. It plays nice and smooth also it looks great for low settings. I am sure I would see a difference if I could see them side my side but my 4gb 770 SLI setup is in a different room.

But all in all my little i3 2120 with my 50-60 watt HD7750 does a fine job at 1080p with low settings. I have to admit I did not think it would look half as good let alone give me smooth playable frame rates. I also have to admit I stink at the game....I think i promoted around 20 super orcs by now in the whole 2-3 hrs I have played the game. I keep forgetting to wraith wounded Orcs and power up.
I do enjoy fighting mounted on those Worg like monsters....can kill many more Orcs while mounted plus my mount enjoys chewing on them very much.

Runs quite nice and looks quite nice for me on my 660 Ti 2GB at 2560*1440. I'm using whatever defaults the game chose, because they look good and the framerate has been consistent and good.

Also keep in mind that OP is using all video RAM (that last 64MB is almost certainly reserved), but that SoM is very good about using up whatever it can get but not more. How would it run on a 2GB card? Same as on a 4GB or 8GB card, it just loads fewer/lower resolution textures.

Also, with SLI or Xfire, memory contents are duplicated from card to card, so 1 4GB card, 2 4GB cards, 10 4GB cards, they all load the same 3.99GB of textures/geometry.

This is why I'm waiting for 8 gig 970's. I've long thought that with the new consoles carrying 8 gigs of shared vram (6 Gb Usable) would mean that PC's would have to get that much to keep ahead of the texture sets that the newer games are keeping in vram all at once. I'm also thinking this new wealth of vram on the console side is making the dev's a little lazier about managing memory (less garbage collection when textures aren't visible, etc.)

yokem55 wrote:

This is why I'm waiting for 8 gig 970's. I've long thought that with the new consoles carrying 8 gigs of shared vram (6 Gb Usable) would mean that PC's would have to get that much to keep ahead of the texture sets that the newer games are keeping in vram all at once. I'm also thinking this new wealth of vram on the console side is making the dev's a little lazier about managing memory (less garbage collection when textures aren't visible, etc.)

Being that it's shared RAM, and system overhead eats a couple gigs before a game is even loaded, I find it doubtful that console GPUs are ever given access to more than 4GB of VRAM. That said, game devs are still being given a huge increase in available memory, so there's probably some truth to your thoughts. I just don't that I would demand 8GB at this point, unless you're planning to use a 4k display. If that's the case, you'll probably want better than a single 970.

The first patch deletes save files- I'm not sure how much I lost or if it can be remedied, but it's pretty annoying.

with the new AMD drivers i find this game using more then 4gb vram mostly it used to sit around 3 before now there are the very rare stutters when it reaches 4000mb vram maybe it might be cause the second map seems more demanding, using high textures not ultra either

Airmantharp wrote:

The first patch deletes save files- I'm not sure how much I lost or if it can be remedied, but it's pretty annoying.

Didn't mine so it must be somewhat specific.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/241930/di ... 224375905/

Q: I’ve lost my save data. What do I do?
A: This is an issue we’re actively looking into, but need your information. Please contact http://support.wbgames.com/, and provide them with as many details as you possibly can.

killadark wrote:

with the new AMD drivers i find this game using more then 4gb vram mostly it used to sit around 3 before now there are the very rare stutters when it reaches 4000mb vram maybe it might be cause the second map seems more demanding, using high textures not ultra either

Hey killadark,
I do not know if you have the power supply for it but Newegg has the SAPPHIRE TRI-X OC R9 290 vidio card you have for $289.99 after a $10 mail in rebate, $299.99 without the MIR.
If you ever want to run crossfire it looks like now is the time to get that perfect match of a card to crossfire your rig. I think it is a heck of a good deal for a r9 290 with a fantastic cooler...but I am sure you know that since you probably paid a bit over $400 for your original TriX.

Also I do not know what you use to overclock your current AMD based card but Sapphires TRIX AMD only software works great on my low profile ASUS HD6570 letting it run at 900mhz for gaming instead of the standard 600, I run it at 800 core 24/7 because MPCHC with MADvr will use 100% of the card at 600mhz..800mhz lets it run at 85-90% usage with madVR. This is in my 229$ refurbished Gateway i3 2120 h61 based system with 6 GB 3x2gb 1066 memory a 500GB 7200 HDD and a 1tb 7200 HDD with the ASUS low profile HD6570 that I had to add a Thermaltake USB powered 80mm fan that is adjustable with a little aluminum knob to the outside of the side panel to keep the chipset and video card cooler. All powered by a pathetic slim tower OEM silver 220 watt PSU and after well over 2 years everything is working great except for my ASUS GPU fan it makes loud noises on occasion but Luckily I keep all my PC's on 24/7 so it does not get cooled off:)

Also HIS ITURBO works well with AMD cards only making my HIS iCooler HD7750 1gb GDDR5 run 50% + faster then stock going from 800 core to 1200+ and it really shows when gaming. Kind of amazing since it has no PCIE 6 pin power connector and it is in a Gateway Refurbished $329 i3 2120 h67 rig with 8gb of 1333 memory and the weakest 300watt PSU you ever saw. I think it may have 1 available 4 pin molex connector open and between the optical drive and 2 7200rpm 1tb HDD's I have no more SATA power connectors left. Also luckily the extra 120mm 120mm Enermax magma 120mm fan I added in the front of the case is powered buy a 3 pin y cable hooked to the motherboard fan header that also runs the 80mm exhaust fan that came in the rear of the case. I have to admit it is a super quiet PC with the 80mm fan not above 70%.

Then there is afterburner that works with AMD or Nvidia. They all work well it pretty much is whatever your preference is.

The Egg wrote:

Being that it's shared RAM, and system overhead eats a couple gigs before a game is even loaded, I find it doubtful that console GPUs are ever given access to more than 4GB of VRAM.

That's not the biggest difference though, on a PC you have to take a significant performance hit when moving data from RAM to VRAM. On the new-ish consoles unified memory, you don't have that problem (consoles doesn't really have VRAM, they just have RAM). Therefore it is much more important on PC to have a large amount of VRAM not to get that performance hit all the time. Now, *how much* VRAM you need on PC depends on many things. What resolution do you run? What texture quality? Do the game engine use some kind of texture compression? Etc. More is always better as per usual, but it will probably differ from game to game.

vargis14 wrote:

killadark wrote:

with the new AMD drivers i find this game using more then 4gb vram mostly it used to sit around 3 before now there are the very rare stutters when it reaches 4000mb vram maybe it might be cause the second map seems more demanding, using high textures not ultra either

Hey killadark,
I do not know if you have the power supply for it but Newegg has the SAPPHIRE TRI-X OC R9 290 vidio card you have for $289.99 after a $10 mail in rebate, $299.99 without the MIR.
If you ever want to run crossfire it looks like now is the time to get that perfect match of a card to crossfire your rig. I think it is a heck of a good deal for a r9 290 with a fantastic cooler...but I am sure you know that since you probably paid a bit over $400 for your original TriX.
.

ya my powersupply cant handle that since its based on the old 4 rail system its a 850w though i have tried stressing my gpu and cpu together pc shuts down not that any game put that much load on it anyways and since i live in saudi arabia my option to buy online are pretty much non existent i paid 2350SR for my tri x that is north of 620$ back in feb (locals here like to hike prices over normal :/)

i have been using the trixx software got the card to 1200mhz with 100% fan i dnt mind the noise just turn up the speakers its a great card but there are games that wont run maxed even at 1080p kinda sad but wtevr