iSkylakerYou couldn't be more wrong with that statement, Ultra doesn't necessarily means having x8 of MSAA, which is what taxes the most the performance of a game when you setup the "Ultra" preset of a game. I'm pretty sure the sample quality isn't part of a developer goal when targeting the final visual results in a video game, anything above x2 MSAA, heck even above any post-processing Anti Aliasing technique is pretty much a complement for more sharpness in the image.

ShihabyoooAnd why are you comparing these two, exactly?
The game may be ridiculously unoptimized, doesn't mean it has 2007 graphics.

Filip GeorgievskiSounds to me like an Nvidia based game.....

RejZoRThat's a load of bollocks @yogurt_21 and you know it.

Firstly, MSAA did exist long before 2005. I didn't bother to do that much extensive search, but GeForce 3 back in 2001 had MSAA support. Not to mention the fact that "anti-aliasing" has been used even long before that. I know my GeForce 2MX and GeForce 2 Pro had anti-aliasing which I extensively used even back then. Probably year 2000 or so.

Secondly, providing superior visual fidelity by not using ANY optimizations is just stupendous wasting of resources if you can barely tell the difference in the end or even worse, if you can't tell the difference at all! That's why Far Cry used poly-bumpmapping which gives player the illussion you're using 3 million polygons on a model, but in reality, you're only using 3000. Sure some took it a bit too far which resulted in square-ish heads in stills, but frankly, in-game, you've rarely noticed it even on such far end extremes.

And this isn't the only optimization. Megatextures, texture streaming, LOD, tessellation etc, all this stuff means you can spend resources on things that matter and cleverly obscure those that are less important. It's why we can have wast worlds because engine is cleverly balancing graphic card capabilities for things that matter and things that don't. If you spend all resources on a character you can't even admire properly, you've just wasted resources that could be spent on 500 trees in the distance. Sure there are people who say faking something is not the same, but when faked effect is nearly impossible to be distinguished from the reference one, does it even matter at that point?

Besides, Ultra setting often doesn't mean you're disabling optimizations, it just means you're pushing the settings to start tessellating items sooner and using distance LOD later. Which is logically more demanding...

yogurt_21But chewing up 12GB of ram isn't a feat these days and as good as a single 980 ti is, you can still go better (sli, tri-sli, sli titan-z's)

btarunrOnce we installed 16 GB RAM in the system, the game ran buttery-smooth with our GTX 980 Ti.

Ikarugaany AAA game should use as much resources as it can, it's actually a good thing to fill up the system and the video memory as much as possible.

Pill MonsterDrivers map system memory into GPU address space, but in W7/8.1 it's a bit broken, as there's no Dynamic Resources or reclaim.
This basically means the maximum available is mapped into the GPU adress space...usually equvilant to the VRAM on your card.

ShihabyoooAny game should use as much resources as it needs.
Scaling in resource requirements should be downwards to work on less powered machines (by reducing render elements/quality, etc). Scaling upwards should always be capped by what the game can offer. Go higher and it's a case of poor optimization.



I thought this was fixed with Windows 7 (and d3d10/11)

ZeppMan217Crysis came out in 2007 and it was unique in many ways. It's 2015, BLOPS3 is not breaking any grounds, aside from sales.

GhostRyderI thought I read it stutters on the GTX 980ti but that disappears with the Titan X?

Oh I missed that bottom comment about 16gb of ram and the GTX 980ti working fine... Ok so we now have 6 Cards that can run it efficiently on Ultra.


Eh yea, I actually like the Black Ops/WaW games just for the zombies personally as the multiplayer got to boring and pretty easy if you know the right ways to play it (Meaning right guns, positions, etc).

P4-630Let's hope Bethesda's Fallout 4 does better

Sephil SlyfoxI do think it looks cool however I also liked it when it was Call of Duty 2 dunno why:p

ShihabyoooAny game should use as much resources as it needs.
Scaling in resource requirements should be downwards to work on less powered machines (by reducing render elements/quality, etc). Scaling upwards should always be capped by what the game can offer. Go higher and it's a case of poor optimization.

IkarugaAbsolutely not. Windows should cache as much as it could and the game engine should also cache/prefetch/prebake/etc as much as it could on any given system. Loading up stuff from storage vs having it in RAM or VRAM is an easy choice.

IkarugaAbsolutely not. Windows should cache as much as it could and the game engine should also cache/prefetch/prebake/etc as much as it could on any given system. Loading up stuff from storage vs having it in RAM or VRAM is an easy choice.

Pill MonsterHere's some info on DX if you want to read ....

msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dn899121(v=vs.85).aspx

rtwjunkieI have to laugh...several people have talked of patches to fix the amount of RAM used....why do you assume there will be patches for that? Why do you assume Activision thinks it is a bug? You use up that much system RAM with a game because it was DESIGNED that way.