CoD Black Ops III - 12 GB RAM and GTX 980Ti not enough

[Morgan MLGman]

everything since ghosts was a shit port that artificially inflated ram usage

I played the BO3 beta with a FX-8350 + GTX 970 and managed an average of around 100FPS, minimum I noticed was 86, with 140 maximum with maxed out settings, I do not get what issues with performance can people have ;-; Indeed it took around 9-10 gigs of RAM along with the system and the VRAM usage was full 4GB but there was no stuttering or anything like that

[Morgan MLGman]

Currently praying that my 770 can stand up to the task :unsure:

But a bit more on topic to the thread, who the fuck uses 12GB of RAM nowadays, 99% of people either have 8, 16, or 32GB configurations lmao

There are some laptops sold with 12 GB of RAM. 8GB is not a sweet spot for gamers anymore imo as it might be not sufficient for some games already

[Swndlr]

There are some laptops sold with 12 GB of RAM. 8GB is not a sweet spot for gamers anymore imo as it might be not sufficient for some games already

Ik... Ive been an advocate for 16GB for quite some time now

[Sauron]

I played the BO3 beta with a FX-8350 + GTX 970 and managed an average of around 100FPS, minimum I noticed was 86, with 140 maximum with maxed out settings, I do not get what issues with performance can people have ;-; Indeed it took around 9-10 gigs of RAM along with the system and the VRAM usage was full 4GB but there was no stuttering or anything like that

 

the thing is, the textures in cod are nowhere near good enough to justify more than 2gb of vram usage

[ashypanda]

BO3 really needs to get some patches quickly, i tried to play it earlier and had to tweak the config ini just to get past the menu, as it was really laggy, and was stuck at 100% on cpu, but even on mid-high 1080p it was only using 1.6gb on my R9 270, i'm not sure what treyarch has done to the engine but it's strange as CoD usually runs really well on most hardware as toasters could probably run it without a major issue.

[jaggysnake57]

jim (fucking) sterling (son) has upped a vid and it runs like arse....shock

[VagabondWraith]

I guess there's a fix I found on Reddit for people who are having issues with performance.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops3/comments/3roias/fix_for_pc_fps_drops

 

"try this, i think it is cpu related

Go into install directory steam, steamapps, common, Call of Duty Black Ops III, players folder and open the config.ini file scroll down a little to :

//Thread count for handling the job queue WorkerThreads = "4" // 2 to 4

and change the "4" to a "2"

Baaaam worked for me.

fixed freezes and hitches"

 

It seems to have worked wonders for many. Hopefully this will help someone out there.

[79wjd]

I guess there's a fix I found on Reddit for people who are having issues with performance.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/blackops3/comments/3roias/fix_for_pc_fps_drops

 

"try this, i think it is cpu related

Go into install directory steam, steamapps, common, Call of Duty Black Ops III, players folder and open the config.ini file scroll down a little to :

//Thread count for handling the job queue WorkerThreads = "4" // 2 to 4

and change the "4" to a "2"

Baaaam worked for me.

fixed freezes and hitches"

 

It seems to have worked wonders for many. Hopefully this will help someone out there.

Supposedly there was an issue people with i5's were reporting (and a patch was pushed out a couple hours ago). So it's possible that patch changes that setting. 

 

Edit: It looks like the .ini file (at least that one line) hasn't been changed. 

[Doobeedoo]

But not really. By developing it for consoles they can optimize games to run as best as they can on consoles, and then port it over to PC. Doing it the other way around would improve PC performance at the expense of console performance (which again, would be bad). 

By porting it to PC it's needed to add things and visuals since PC can handle more, but bad optimization lately sure is issue. And there would not be console performance issues when dumbing the game down from PC to console since it's easier to nerf it for lower hardware. Also, even games made for consoles are showing issues on latest consoles.

[patrickjp93]

It's a memory leak. Someone wasn't careful with their tail recursion algorithms. The same 16 byte structure is ending up all over the place in the map of the heap memory with missing references (source: personal valgrind testing). Oddly enough the final executable ships with all the debugger info included. What a waste of memory...

[VagabondWraith]

The game is running a stable 60fps for me besides the occasional stutter. Stable about 90% of the time. Mainly cutscenes where frame drops occur. I had to lock FPS to 60 instead of 144 as the frame rate was all over the fuckin place. System ram usage is 9gb. VRAM at 4.5gb.

Besides that, the biggest problem is cpu usage at 100% on all cores at times, and game crashes about every new level loading cutscenes. I won't say it's unplayable, but there's work to be done. Seems to be a memory leak issue so I don't know how it will run for those who have 8gb system ram.

[79wjd]

It's a memory leak. Someone wasn't careful with their tail recursion algorithms. The same 16 byte structure is ending up all over the place in the map of the heap memory with missing references (source: personal valgrind testing). Oddly enough the final executable ships with all the debugger info included. What a waste of memory...

Now there's an idea....I never thought to run Valgrind on a video game. 

 

The game is running a stable 60fps for me besides the occasional stutter. Stable about 90% of the time. Mainly cutscenes where frame drops occur. I had to lock FPS to 60 instead of 144 as the frame rate was all over the fuckin place. System ram usage is 9gb. VRAM at 4.5gb.

Besides that, the biggest problem is cpu usage at 100% on all cores at times, and game crashes about every new level loading cutscenes. I won't say it's unplayable, but there's work to be done. Seems to be a memory leak issue so I don't know how it will run for those who have 8gb system ram.

They fixed the memory leak it looks like; I'm now able to max out the game at 80~ fps 100FOV with no stuttering or crashing. 

 

/Before the fix I just had to lower settings -- at all low settings 100FOV 1080p I was using about 6.5gb of ram (now after the fix I'm using about 6.5~gb of ram at ultra everything). 

[VagabondWraith]

Now there's an idea....I never thought to run Valgrind on a video game. 

 

They fixed the memory leak it looks like; I'm now able to max out the game at 80~ fps 100FOV with no stuttering or crashing. 

 

/Before the fix I just had to lower settings -- at all low settings 100FOV 1080p I was using about 6.5gb of ram (now after the fix I'm using about 6.5~gb of ram at ultra everything). 

Hmm... that's very odd. Seems everybody is experiencing something different. Still getting crashes in my end and frame drops to boot. All I can do is wait until they patch it I guess.

[Godlygamer23]

Does that cache even help with game performance at all?

 

"Let's cache as much as we can in VRAM!" "Does it do anything to improve performance?" "We have no idea!"

[79wjd]

Hmm... that's very odd. Seems everybody is experiencing something different. Still getting crashes in my end and frame drops to boot. All I can do is wait until they patch it I guess.

Did you download the update that was pushed out about 7~ hours ago? my frame variances are consistently at 20~ms with FPS being very stable around 80fps. 

[Morgan MLGman]

the thing is, the textures in cod are nowhere near good enough to justify more than 2gb of vram usage

True, that doesn't mean that people should experience "stuttering" with a 980Ti and 12 Gigs of RAM...

[VagabondWraith]

Did you download the update that was pushed out about 7~ hours ago? my frame variances are consistently at 20~ms with FPS being very stable around 80fps. 

I would assume steam downloaded automatically as I was installing from disc. How do I check that?

[Belgarathian]

source: https://www.techpowerup.com/217308/black-ops-iii-12-gb-ram-and-gtx-980-ti-not-enough.html

142g1.jpg

 

---

 

I'm not knowledgeable if Treyarch is working with nVidia or even if CoD: BO3 is a GameWorks title but, this could be a serious blow to AMD users, specifically to the Fury (series) owners with it's 4GB of VRAM

if you recall, the previous CoD did also used a lot of VRAM via pre-cashing; now they are jumping to the next level - 8.4GB is a lot

 

memory1.gif

 

That's not a blow to AMD, that's a blow to everyone including Nvidia. No card aside from the Titan X and workstations have more than 8GB of RAM. Heck, the next card down the slow is 8GB on the 390, and 390X followed by the 980Ti and then all the 4GB cards (970 not included). 

[Sauron]

True, that doesn't mean that people should experience "stuttering" with a 980Ti and 12 Gigs of RAM...

 

someone with that setup might want to do more than 1080p though...

[gonnog]

Another bad consol to pc port?

[79wjd]

Another bad consol to pc port?

No, launch day glitches like literally every game launched, ever.

[Morgan MLGman]

someone with that setup might want to do more than 1080p though...

To be perfectly fair, I play @1200p, which is around 11% higher resolution than 1080p, not that much of a difference but a little one? sure.

[Sauron]

To be perfectly fair, I play @1200p, which is around 11% higher resolution than 1080p, not that much of a difference but a little one? sure.

 

fair enough, a 980ti is better suited for 1440p, 1080p surround or even 4k

[Toddwjp]

sounds like there's just a shit amount of memory management (eg none) my guess would be it loads as much as it possible can into the vram and ram when alot of it could be streamed from the hdd no problem

[Morgan MLGman]

fair enough, a 980ti is better suited for 1440p, 1080p surround or even 4k

Agreed, it's a little overkill for 1080p ^^ Still, don't know what issues could people have, maybe the Beta version wasn't that demanding yet cause it wasn't a full game and when I buy full game it's going to run like crap - we'll find out