That vram usage is *woah*. Does it really use such tremendous textures or did someone screw up the port? 5gb at 1080p, i mean, fack.:3eyes:

That vram usage is *woah*. Does it really use such tremendous textures or did someone screw up the port? 5gb at 1080p, i mean, fack.:3eyes:

Probably the same thing mordor did, cached stuff that doesn't even gets used.

Have you set "Shader Preload During Cutscenes" to OFF? If not, cinematics can stutter.

Yes its set to off, it seems my fx9590 is capped out during the cinematic cut scences, (while loading the game ). its running at 100% on all cores when the stuttering occurs. I am only running this on WD caviar black HDD not on SSD maybe thats why

Impressive performance, been waiting for vga benchmark of this game!

The game just uses as much Vram as it can see, just like all the latest games.It's fully playable with 2GB cards at max settings.

Hilbert out, peace.

Did you recently join a street gang? :P On topic i've been skipping on COD since MW2 because of how bland the series has been. Anyone know if this is sufficiently different to be worth playing? Or am I gonna go around with the equivalent of the M16 and headshot ppl in the face while turning random corners

I cant play this game now, doesn't support 21:9 ratio so everything is stretched :lmaa:

Almost 5.5gbs of vram on a titan @1080p /sigh. It used 4059mb on my 770s. I can also confirm the random drop to 25 fps mentioned in the article, even in sli.

Its called allocating memory it does not need that much, the game engine fills up what you have, no problem with 780ti sli maxed @1440p. Though I didnt mess with supersampling except for 2x briefly.

Its called allocating memory it does not need that much, the game engine fills up what you have, no problem with 780ti sli maxed @1440p. Though I didnt mess with supersampling except for 2x briefly.

It's surprising how many people don't bother to read the review. This whole needing 100gb cards is getting out of hand.

Anyone else noticed this copypasting?

Call of Duty Ghosts will NOT make it into our regular benchmark suite for videocards. As stated in the intro, there are too many things odd and off. As such we recommend you to look at the performance benchmarks you've just read with a grain of salt as I have been at the verge and threshold of asking myself the question whether or not to post these results. One test run will result on 50 FPS, the second 46 FPS and another 53 FPS. These means that the results shown today are indicative, not a precise measurement.

[QUOTE=http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/call_of_duty_advanced_warfare_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html ]Call of Duty Advanced Warfare will NOT make it into our regular benchmark suite for videocards. As stated in the intro, there are many things odd and off. As such we recommend you to look at the performance benchmarks you've just read with a grain of salt as I have been at the verge and threshold of asking myself the question whether or not to post these results. One test run will result on 50 FPS, the second 46 FPS and another 56 FPS. This means that the results shown today are indicative, not a precise measurement.