ada lovelace NVIDIA's RTX 4070 will allegedly boost to 2.8GHz offering the same compute power as an RTX 3090 Ti

[WereCat]

2 hours ago, pas008 said:

you have a link to this?

I was trying a lot but I can't find my claims for DOOM Eternal regarding RTX 3070 and 3070ti not even being able to launch at 4k with RT and no DLSS... I know I saw it either on Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed or LTT but I just am unable to find it.

 

At the same time, I can't find any benchmark with RTX 3070 using these settings in DOOM Eternal as well.

 

I defintely want to find it though because I swear I saw multiple instances of this but now I just can't find anything...  

(this is the only thing indirectly confirming my claim... from Hardware Unboxed with RTX 2080 vs RTX 3080 where they confirmed the 8GB of VRAM on 2080 is a limitation and it makes RTX 3080 look much better in comparison performance wise)

 

 

 

 

But regardin Forza Horizon 5, I am speaking from personal experience.

This is what happens (or happened when I used to play) at 1440p on Extreme after playing for a while. The game runs fine until you travel a huge chunk of map, then this starts to happen to textures when you run out of VRAM (RTX 3060ti 8GB).

Mind you, I get around 80-90FPS on Extreme so its perfectly playable, just graphical glitches. Maybe they fixed it with an update? Havent played for quite a while. This is from the 1st month of game release.

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[pas008]

14 minutes ago, WereCat said:

I was trying a lot but I can't find my claims for DOOM Eternal regarding RTX 3070 and 3070ti not even being able to launch at 4k with RT and no DLSS... I know I saw it either on Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed or LTT but I just am unable to find it.

 

At the same time, I can't find any benchmark with RTX 3070 using these settings in DOOM Eternal as well.

 

I defintely want to find it though because I swear I saw multiple instances of this but now I just can't find anything...  

(this is the only thing indirectly confirming my claim... from Hardware Unboxed with RTX 2080 vs RTX 3080 where they confirmed the 8GB of VRAM on 2080 is a limitation and it makes RTX 3080 look much better in comparison performance wise)

 

 

 

 

But regardin Forza Horizon 5, I am speaking from personal experience.

This is what happens (or happened when I used to play) at 1440p on Extreme after playing for a while. The game runs fine until you travel a huge chunk of map, then this starts to happen to textures when you run out of VRAM (RTX 3060ti 8GB).

Mind you, I get around 80-90FPS on Extreme so its perfectly playable, just graphical glitches. Maybe they fixed it with an update? Havent played for quite a while. This is from the 1st month of game release.

 

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

 

thx for posting

I know as a triplehead(before surround)/surround gamer I have ran into issues of vram but very rarely for games i play, if i did usually my card/s wasnt powerful enough to begin and/or just turned aa down and/or off

also I know how easy it can be to screw up comparisons too considering nvidia's control panel and game's video settings

cant remember which games but but changing in nvidias control panel made them look prettier in my eyes but that could be placebo though too

 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Levent said:

I know DVMT is the name I can remember. Technology exists on AMD side of as well, AMD just keep renaming it. I dont even know what Nvidia calls it.

Nvidia doesn't have anything like DVMT.

DVMT is a technology from Intel that dynamically allocates system memory for use as VRAM, for their iGPUs since they don't have any dedicated VRAM.

AMD probably has something similar because they also make iGPUs that don't have any dedicated memory.

 

4 hours ago, Levent said:

You are wrong there, DVMT or whatever AMD and Nvidia is called is used when dedicated VRAM is ran out. (Launch your task manager and see Shared GPU memory under GPU, that is DVMT/Shared memory).

Nvidia does not have it since all their GPUs have their own VRAM.

Nvidia GPUs, and all GPUs for that matter, uses system memory as a cache. The GPUs don't have much control over it though. That's what the "shared GPU memory" section in the task manager is for.

However, unlike DVMT, the "shared GPU memory" section is not controlled by the GPU. It is controlled by the CPU. Nvidia has developed a way around this which they called "pinned host memory", but it's a CUDA specific feature. It works by having the GPU driver instruct the CPU to keep GPU-related data in specific memory locations. As a result, the GPU can fetch data directly from memory without having the CPU handle the transaction. But it's off-topic and not relevant to what we are discussing.

 

Anyway, that shared GPU memory section in task manager? That's the memory that would be used in case you were running out of VRAM. It's where the CPU places data as it needs to be pushed to and pulled from the VRAM.

 

"Shared GPU memory" is not the same as DVMT.

 

 

4 hours ago, Levent said:

Which is exactly what I said, I recommend you to read again.

Quote

(A lot of programming languages and operating systems for the last 20/30 years have checks in between to reduce crashes due to running out of memory but doesnt mean it eliminates performance issues that will arise from them.)

 

DVMT/Shared memory saves that from happening when dedicated VRAM less than what app is trying to allocate. That is how most older graphics cards are able to run titles that use far more VRAM than they got. That is also why pagefile/swap is critical on low RAM applications.

I have no idea what you are on about. I think you are throwing around terminology you don't fully understand, and are getting things mixed up.

You're right that modern systems do not crash if they run out of memory (system or VRAM) anymore. It's not because of DVMT though, and that is not the same type of "running out of memory" I was talking about when I said reaching 100% VRAM usage does not necessarily mean you will get stuttering.

 

The "memory" usage metrics you see in task manager and other programs is usually inaccurate. That is what I am trying to say. It includes a lot of data that is no longer in use, but hasn't been cleared because the OS thinks "why clear RAM when I am in no danger of running out". The same thing applies to VRAM.

 

 

That racing game you play that sits at around 8GB of VRAM usage? If you got a GPU with 24GB of VRAM then I wouldn't be surprised if the game suddenly started using 11GB of VRAM even at the same settings. Not because "the game actually needed 11GB of VRAM to begin with", but because the game will have more assets cached, regardless of whether they are needed or not.

 

 

4 hours ago, Levent said:

Garbage collection depends on the game engine and the use case. It is not misleading. Map size, render distance and asset size is the defining factors. I will admit I havent wrote my own game engine but as with everyone in this industry I had my share at developing shitty basic games.

It is misleading. Garbage collection also depends on the amount of available resources. The more you got, the less it will be done, in general.

Unreal engine is a pretty widely used game engine, right? Here is what it has to say about how it handles garbage collecting:

Quote

The garbage collection system automatically runs every 30-60 seconds (or less depending on how much free memory remains on the system)

I want you to pay very close attention to the part in the parenthesis. The frequency of how often the garbage collector is run is directly dependent on how much free memory exists. The less free memory, the more often the garbage collector will run.

 

Want an example from Unity?

Quote

Unity uses a garbage collector to reclaim memory from objects that your application and Unity are no longer using. When a script tries to make an allocation on the managed heap but there isn’t enough free heap memory to accommodate the allocation, Unity runs the garbage collector. When the garbage collector runs, it examines all objects in the heap, and marks for deletion any objects that your application no longer references. Unity then deletes the unreferenced objects, which frees up memory.

The garbage collector in Unity only runs when it runs out of memory.

 

 

As far as I know, all modern game engines works this way. The more free RAM (and VRAM) you got, the less frequently it will clean up unused memory. That is why the task manager is not an indicator of how much memory something needs. Because it pretty much always includes a ton of unused data that could be cleared without any performance penalty.

 

 

5 hours ago, Levent said:

If you make the game load only 3e+9 bytes worth of assets sure you wont benefit from having 1e+10 bytes of VRAM.

Again, saying "3e+9 bytes" instead of 3GB does not make you sound smarter or more knowledgeable. 

 

You are missing my point. If the game only requires 3GB of data in VRAM to render for example a level in a game, then having 3GB of unused data from the previous level stored in VRAM does not magically increase performance. But that might be exactly what you are looking at when you open task manager and see "oh, this game uses 6GB of VRAM". No, it might use 3GB of VRAM and then have 3GB of unused assets loaded, but those 3GB of unused assets will be deleted at no loss in performance if necessary. As long as you don't run out of memory, clearing out old assets is a waste.

 

 

5 hours ago, Levent said:

Yes it would, just because it is able to mitigate lack of resources by caching into pagefile so fast that you are not able to notice doesnt make swapping magically have no impact.

It doesn't cache into the pagefile...

Do you know what the pagefile is? Because I am starting to doubt it. It's not used for VRAM caching. The pagefile is used for caching main memory. There is a big difference.

 

And you would only get stuttering if the active data set is larger than the available VRAM. My point is that the task manager does not show how big the active data set is. It only shows how much data is stored in VRAM. How much data is stored in VRAM is a very different metric compared to "how much data is actively being worked on".

 

 

5 hours ago, Levent said:

More VRAM I got means more assets I can keep it in VRAM, higher quality assets I can keep in VRAM, instead of having to stream them from disk. I love how you act like asset streaming stutters were not a thing. Game engines got smarter about asset streaming but it doesnt take much for user notice stutters when assets are streamed (especially nowadays when 100hz+ gaming is common).

I am not pretending that stuttering isn't a thing. You are completely missing my point.

All I have said is that the task manager does not accurately show how much VRAM is actually actively being used. It is often showing way more, because the more you got the more old data it will keep around. Then you started throwing around a bunch of words you clearly don't understand to try and sound smart and made the conversation very muddy.

 

 

To summarize, the task manager (and programs like MSI afterburner) will only show you how much data is stored in VRAM. It does not show how much of that data is actually needed.

For example, task manager might show 6GB of VRAM used while playing a certain game. That does not mean the game requires 6GB of VRAM.

The level you are playing might only contain 3GB of data, but the game engine decided to keep the 3GB of data from the old level around. Because why waste resources to find and delete the 3GB of unused data if it can keep that data around and still have let's say another 6GB of VRAM to spare?

 

But if you didn't have a a 12GB VRAM graphics card, if you instead had an 8GB card, the game engine would more quickly delete those 3GB from the previous level and your VRAM usage would be the (correct) 3GB.

 

 

5 hours ago, Levent said:

According to you there is no reason to get anything more than 4e+9 byte cards for gaming then?

No, that is not what I said and I think you are being ridiculous setting up such a poor strawman.

 

My objection was to you, and many other, using task manager to try and gauge how much VRAM is needed for game X and Y. Task manager is not an accurate tool to measure it. If you get stuttering, then you might have a VRAM issue. But the stuttering is the evidence for this, not the task manager showing 100% VRAM usage. The task manager can show really high VRAM usage and it isn't an issue. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't.

[Sir Beregond]

5 hours ago, Levent said:

4e+9 byte cards

I think this is literally the first time in 2 decades of being involved with computers I've ever heard someone speak like this. 

 

Believe it or not, it does not make you sound smarter.

[Levent]

3 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

I think this is literally the first time in 2 decades of being involved with computers I've ever heard someone speak like this. 

 

Believe it or not, it does not make you sound smarter.

Wasnt the point, that was just to annoy one person. I was originally going to talk about addressable memory space It wasnt supposed to be left in there but someone in their mind assumed that I used that to I tried to sound like a smartass so I just used every chance I got.

[Sir Beregond]

1 hour ago, Levent said:

Wasnt the point, that was just to annoy one person. I was originally going to talk about addressable memory space It wasnt supposed to be left in there but someone in their mind assumed that I used that to I tried to sound like a smartass so I just used every chance I got.

OK, fair enough. 

[porina]

11 hours ago, WereCat said:

But regardin Forza Horizon 5, I am speaking from personal experience.

This is what happens (or happened when I used to play) at 1440p on Extreme after playing for a while. The game runs fine until you travel a huge chunk of map, then this starts to happen to textures when you run out of VRAM (RTX 3060ti 8GB).

Mind you, I get around 80-90FPS on Extreme so its perfectly playable, just graphical glitches. Maybe they fixed it with an update? Havent played for quite a while. This is from the 1st month of game release.

That's odd. So it is the funny coloured textures? I would have expected if you run out of vram then performance would tank, but it would not impact the correctness of rendering. I have to wonder if there is something else going on here. Unless they start dropping high res textures once they don't fit, and the lower quality ones cause this somehow.

 

Is there a really quick and easy way to reproduce this? I think I got access to FH5 as part of gamepass but I'm more a Gran Turismo person when it comes to racing games so never got into it. If I understand your claim so far, 8GB GPUs can show this. 12GB GPUs don't. Is there any info on 10GB or 11GB GPUs?

[WereCat]

19 minutes ago, porina said:

That's odd. So it is the funny coloured textures? I would have expected if you run out of vram then performance would tank, but it would not impact the correctness of rendering. I have to wonder if there is something else going on here. Unless they start dropping high res textures once they don't fit, and the lower quality ones cause this somehow.

 

Is there a really quick and easy way to reproduce this? I think I got access to FH5 as part of gamepass but I'm more a Gran Turismo person when it comes to racing games so never got into it. If I understand your claim so far, 8GB GPUs can show this. 12GB GPUs don't. Is there any info on 10GB or 11GB GPUs?

Well, considering thegame itself was throwing a pop-up with NOT ENOUGH VRAM during the gameplay, I would say that it should be easy to reproduce. But as I said, this happened after you traveled a big chunnk of map, it's not something that happens instantly as you get into the game.

 

The popup looks like this (from YT video, in my case it was not over the VRAM but exactly at 8GB as is my VRAM so it was not using DRAM or just very little)

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

I've also tried some of the suggested "fixes" or workarounds I found online but nothing worked for me besides lowering texture settings and some enviromental details.

[LAwLz]

14 hours ago, WereCat said:

This is what happens (or happened when I used to play) at 1440p on Extreme after playing for a while. The game runs fine until you travel a huge chunk of map, then this starts to happen to textures when you run out of VRAM (RTX 3060ti 8GB).

Mind you, I get around 80-90FPS on Extreme so its perfectly playable, just graphical glitches. Maybe they fixed it with an update? Havent played for quite a while. This is from the 1st month of game release.

Are you sure those graphical glitches were caused by a lack of VRAM?
It might just be a glitch that wasn't related to inadequate VRAM.

 

 

Edit: Disregard what I said above. I just saw your second post about it. 

Although, it could still be a bug and a symptom is that the VRAM gets filled with trash data (hence the missing textures). That does not necessarily mean having more VRAM would fix the issue.

[Sir Beregond]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are you sure those graphical glitches were caused by a lack of VRAM?
It might just be a glitch that wasn't related to inadequate VRAM.

 

 

Edit: Disregard what I said above. I just saw your second post about it. 

Although, it could still be a bug and a symptom is that the VRAM gets filled with trash data (hence the missing textures). That does not necessarily mean having more VRAM would fix the issue.

Agreed. I'd be curious if anyone on a 6800/6800XT/6900XT/6950XT are seeing similar errors.

[Dr_Whom]

I played FH5 a month or two ago pretty extensively when I got a game pass trial. 1440p max settings (144Hz monitor, usually 141-143 capped FPS to stay in G-Sync range). Sessions would last 1-2 hours or more and crossed the map pretty frequently. Never experienced any issues on my 10GB 3080. Doesn't really tell us much though, doesn't mean the increased VRAM is responsible for me not having issues. Could have been a game bug that's been fixed, driver issue that's been fixed, maybe their game files were corrupt (unless they tried redownloading), who knows.