Jump to content

How much VRAM do you REALLY need?


BigBadBeef
 Share

Go to solution Solved by Giciel,

Recommended Posts

I don't really know, it really depends on your graphics quality.
With everything at high and with the view distance at 256 my I have like 3Go of VRAM, 60-70% of GPU usage and about 2Go of RAM usage.

Cranking up the view distance at 512 does have a significant impact on the CPU usage with 80-90%, but no real difference in VRAM. It also doubles the CPU usage (tho very low overall). The RAM did go up a little by 500Mo. (Ryzen 7 5800H, RTX 3060 Laptop)

I did those test idle so everything is subject to rise as you load more and more chunks.

You gotta play with the graphics settings to find a balance. Also depending on graphic card going higher than 512 might cause issues.

Hope it helps 👍

Edited by Giciel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 4GB of VRAM and I was hoping for more than 512 tiles view distance, Because from high ground, it really doesn't seem all that much of a view.

Well, okay, its adequate, but the pc putting out 90fps solid with god rays. I tried more view distance but the frames start spiking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've redone some test at 512 view distance while moving around and saw that the game uses 4.2Go of RAM and about 3.8Go of VRAM.
It's not impossible that the VRAM utilisation goes even higher than that. Could explain your frames drop when going higher than 512.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Giciel said:

I've redone some test at 512 view distance while moving around and saw that the game uses 4.2Go of RAM and about 3.8Go of VRAM.
It's not impossible that the VRAM utilisation goes even higher than that. Could explain your frames drop when going higher than 512.

As soon as I select anything above 512

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone to 1024 view distance before as a test. It didn't run great (25-30 FPS) but it didn't crash or anything. Was at 1440p too, which requires more VRAM than 1080p.

Given that I have a nearly 10 year old midrange CPU and a nearly 5 year old midrange video card, I can't say if the performance drop was due to lack of raw power, or due to lack of VRAM, or due to a combination.

(i5-4670K, GTX 1060 6GB)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can look with the Task Manager in Performance to see what is your VRAM usage and all.

For my part on High Graphics 1080p the game ate all my 16Go RAM and 6Go VRAM slowing down my GPU, made also the CPU usage go up to 20% (i have around 7-8% on 256 view distance). It's stayed in the 50-60 fps.

So for your case I'd say a significant lack of VRAM, GPU and CPU power, tho the VRAM might have the biggest impact here.

Edited by Giciel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Giciel said:

You can look with the Task Manager in Performance to see what is your VRAM usage and all.

For my part on High Graphics 1080p the game ate all my 16Go RAM and 6Go VRAM slowing down my GPU, made also the CPU usage go up to 20% (i have around 7-8% on 256 view distance). It's stayed in the 50-60 fps.

So for your case I'd say a significant lack of VRAM, GPU and CPU power, tho the VRAM might have the biggest impact here.

I've been doing some tinkering. It would seem that the issue is frametime spikes when you set the view distance above 512, this is at 640 view distance:

32578197_Screenshotfrom2022-10-2320-59-33.png.2e04a89cbded21b28abd0115fbb648cd.png

It makes for constant twitching when moving in a certain direction, so I've dropped the resolution to 75% and enabled FXAA. These two have cancelled each other out and increased performance aside from a barely noticeable fuzziness of the grass at long range, but it almost looks more like ambient blur than any pixel resolution issues.

Then I took the view distance down a peg to 608. The spikes have reduced by 90% and now I have a rock solid 45 - 65 fps with vSync and memory optimization Turned completely OFF.

It would seem that there is a rule of thumb in regards to view distance that it consumes roughly the view distance multiplied by 8MB at 100% resolution scale.

So at 512 view distance x8 = 4GB of VRAM, which is exactly what my old faithful GTX 980 has.

Regardless, I have now successfully achieved a bit more than that with an acceptable level of performance loss. This game is HUNGRY for vram at high settings!

Edited by BigBadBeef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.