Thursday, November 5th 2015

Black Ops III: 12 GB RAM and GTX 980 Ti Not Enough

This year's installment to the Call of Duty franchise, Black Ops III, has just hit stores, and is predictably flying off shelves. As with every ceremonial annual release, Black Ops III raises the visual presentation standards for the franchise. There is, however, one hitch with the way the game deals with system memory amounts as high as 12 GB and video memory amounts as high as 8 GB. This hitch could possibly be the reason behind the stuttering issues many users are reporting.

In our first play-through of the game with its highest possible settings on our personal gaming machines - equipped with a 2560 x 1600 pixels display, Core i7 "Haswell" quad-core CPU, 12 GB of RAM, a GeForce GTX 980 Ti graphics card, NVIDIA's latest Black Ops III Game Ready driver 385.87, and Windows 7 64-bit to top it all off, we noticed that the game was running out of memory. Taking a peek at Task Manager revealed that in "Ultra" settings (and 2560 x 1600 resolution), the game was maxing out memory usage within our 12 GB, not counting the 1.5-2 GB used up by the OS and essential lightweight tasks (such as antivirus).
We also noticed game crashes as little as 10 seconds into gameplay, on a machine with 8 GB of system memory and a GTX 980 Ti.

What's even more interesting is its video memory behavior. The GTX 980 Ti, with its 6 GB video memory, was developing a noticeable stutter. This stutter disappeared on the GTX TITAN X, with its 12 GB video memory, in which memory load shot up from maxed out 6 GB on the GTX 980 Ti, to 8.4 GB on the video memory. What's more, system memory usage dropped with the GTX TITAN X, down to 8.3 GB.
On Steam Forums, users report performance issues that don't necessarily point at low FPS (frames per second), but stuttering, especially at high settings. Perhaps the game needs better memory management. Once we installed 16 GB RAM in the system, the game ran buttery-smooth with our GTX 980 Ti.
Add your own comment

168 Comments on Black Ops III: 12 GB RAM and GTX 980 Ti Not Enough

#151
jmcslob
Vayra86 said:
Oh I agree on that. We should also be careful not to jump on the bandwagon too quickly, but in the case of CoD, where there's smoke, there's fire. Even more so, because CoD is one of the (Many) reasons PC games have *not* seen themselves improve vastly over the past console generation. We have just had one of the longest periods of standstill, and todays' console grunt is hardly anything to write home about.
CoD is the reason why PC games haven't what?
Oh no LOL...
I'd say that several game studios are far behind what CoD does.
CoD has some of the best mechanics hands down.
It is a visually good game..yes it could be better.
Online play needs improvement but it is in the top 5 best....for what you're able to do.

No...Most studios need to catch up to CoD...
I don't have BlOps 3 yet but did play the Beta and I can say with certainty that the biggest problem people have with the game is not being able to play in an almost 3D environment.
They don't like it and struggle but its still good.
Posted on Reply
#152
Fx
hat237 said:
just memory leak no need to worry it will be fine
The game might have a memory leak, but it isn't the primary culprit. I have my settings set as high as possible at 1080p. I have a EVGA 980ti FTW card and 12GB of memory.

The game crashes as soon as the campaign begins.

jmcslob said:

No...Most studios need to catch up to CoD...
I don't have BlOps 3 yet but did play the Beta and I can say with certainty that the biggest problem people have with the game is not being able to play in an almost 3D environment.
They don't like it and struggle but its still good.
That isn't my problem with the latest games in the series. For me, the problem with Ghost was that they made normal mode feel like it was pseudo hardcore; you ended up dying too fast. Secondly, they took out CTF mode which is what I play 98% of the time.

For Advanced Warfighter, I simply didn't like all of the air boosting.

My favorite games in the whole series is MW2, MW3 and BO2.

Unfortunately, people cry and whine for change, and consequently the devs gave us change. I really never wanted change except for maybe new maps and enhanced graphics. The realistic 3D environment does make the game feel different and is harder, but I am fine with that.
Posted on Reply
#153
NC37
BWAHHAHAHA!!

"Games won't go over 4GB in 1080," people said...."a 970 is all you'd need," they said..."the 3.5GB limit is a non issue," they said...."8GB VRAM is overkill for 1080," they said...

Who's laughing now!! Oh right, me! HA HA HA!

Man how many times I told people...memory pool size does not = resolution. There is no set limit. Games never settle on limits for long. I've seen this for years and people still profess that,"you'll never need more than..." this amount or that amount.

Sure the game is likely badly coded and buggy right now but still, give it time. Limits are meant to be broken. Game complexity increases. Even 8GB will be surpassed. Heck they're already looking past 16GB for next year. Even if it's high end cards...if they make it, devs will try to take advantage of it. Specially since PC gaming is often times not very optimized and can be sloppy.
Posted on Reply
#154
Vayra86
jmcslob said:
CoD is the reason why PC games haven't what?
Oh no LOL...
I'd say that several game studios are far behind what CoD does.
CoD has some of the best mechanics hands down.
It is a visually good game..yes it could be better.
Online play needs improvement but it is in the top 5 best....for what you're able to do.

No...Most studios need to catch up to CoD...
I don't have BlOps 3 yet but did play the Beta and I can say with certainty that the biggest problem people have with the game is not being able to play in an almost 3D environment.
They don't like it and struggle but its still good.
Gun mechanics? CoD didn't invent those at all or set any kind of standard in that regard besides the use of iron sights for aiming, and that was already many, many versions of the game ago. If you really want to talk about mechanics, let's look at UT'99 and you will see how archaic the whole shooter formula really is. It is a type of games that has seen almost zero changes in over ten years. What CoD does, better be good because if it isn't in this day and age, the developer is a complete failure. Shooters are as old as PC's and CoD as a shooter hasn't brought anything new to the table, ever, at all. CoD:AW is also just riding the bandwagon of the return to arena-styled shooters, a returning trend that refers strongly to the upcoming UT4.
Posted on Reply
#155
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
RejZoR said:
But in all honesty, while Crysis is still super demanding, it looked spectacular at time and is in a way still a benchmark for visual fidelity. Mostly because it's SO old but looks like it was released a year or two ago...
AND you could run it on quite weak systems if you lowered the settings, and it still looked good. I played the multiplayer beta on an Athlon 3000+ and a x1950 pro with most settings on High (1280x1024).
Posted on Reply
#156
RejZoR
I had the same setup back then and while it looked pretty good even at lower settings, once you check it at highest setting, there is hard to go back.

I usually crank up settings all the way up and then remove non-essential settings that hardly affect visuals, but give good performance. Though, these days, I just crank up everything to max with any game and never look back.
Posted on Reply
#157
Slizzo
So installed the game on Monday, played a round of Zombies with some friends and did notice some framerate issues. Went back to playing Fallout 4...
Posted on Reply
#158
Prima.Vera
Too much hate on this thread. To be honest, this latest COD has THE BEST graphics in the market right now. Is only natural that the older cards are having issues playing this, because of EVOLUTION. The game is using all available RAM and VRAM, not because of bad coding, but actually because of good coding. Yes is caching all available memory because this is what it was coded to do. And is good. I had big stutter on my 780Ti card with 3GB of VRAM on 1080p, but I fixed that only be disabling the textures from Ultra to High. Now it runs like butter with all other details maximised. With averaging 70FPS across everywhere, I still think is a good game especially considering the graphics. And no other bugs noticed so far.

Peace.
Posted on Reply
#159
Uplink10
I haven't played it so I can't comment about the graphics but the story is very bad. I mean seriously do they just sit around and try to make the most unbelievable and impossible game they can think of?

I'd put this game into psychological sci-fi category because the story fits it. It felt like a bad sci-fi movie with all the mind scenes and the combat looked more Crysis armour-mode like - going out with armour mode and shooting everything and everyone up.

Good thing I watched a game movie and didn't buy the game and I find it hard to believe that Black Ops 3 is selling like hot cakes. Does no one appreciate the story anymore? It is all flash, no photo for me.
Posted on Reply
#160
Prima.Vera
Yeah, story is pretty bad and unbelievable, and technical facts are ridiculously stupid...
Posted on Reply
#161
ManofGod
The PC Whiny Master Race Strikes again! :D Just upgrade your ram already since it is so cheap. It you do not do so, then it is your own fault when you cannot play something on Ultra smoothly. I cannot understand why anyone uses less than 16GB of ram and claims to be a PC Master Race expert. :rolleyes::laugh:
Posted on Reply
#162
Prima.Vera
Stuttering is not because of system RAM, but mostly because of Video RAM on GPUs...
Posted on Reply
#163
Her3tic
Currently my PC is set like this:
VGA : GTX 680 MSI Twin Frozer III
CPU : Core i7 3770k
Ram: 8gig
Windows 10 - Latest Direct X and VGA drivers are installed.

After playing like 10 minutes, Memory usage reach 800mb and goes up like 1400 mb on Cod. The problem is that task manager shows system using up to 2200mb near COD. and im not sure why.
Is it the games problem that causes this, or something else is wrong.

Graphic setting High on Texture quality and texture filtering and mesh quality. Dynamic shadows on , Subsurface on, Rest Medium.
Posted on Reply
#164
johnspack
Get a 980ti, only thing that will run this. My 970 will run circles around your 680, but I'd need a 2nd one to run this game.
Turn your settings down is all you can do. I'll wait for an affordable pascal card before I get this game.
Posted on Reply
#165
xXDS_K1ll3rXx
This is NOT true at all! I have got 16 GB RAM, an intel i7-4790k and a gtx 970. I have played the game for about 300 h on steam and i have NEVER had any lag or framedrop. The game takes about 50-60% CPU, 5-7 GB RAM and 2.5-3.3 GB vram on 1080p and max settings. I never had less than 60 FPS. Maybye the 980ti isn' t good enough beacause it was used for bitcoin mining or something like that. And alsow it has got 6 GB vram. Or maybye just some cod hater wrote this. NOT TRUE AT ALL!!
Posted on Reply
#166
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
xXDS_K1ll3rXx said:
Maybye the 980ti isn' t good enough beacause it was used for bitcoin mining or something like that.
So let me get this straight, without knowing that the site owner W1zzard does all the GPU testing (and his testing methods are respected around the world), you assume that this respected man was bitcoin mining on his 980Ti, and THAT might be why it wasn't good enough?

Hold on....:roll::roll::roll::roll:

Wow, talk about reaching. :roll::roll::roll:
Posted on Reply
#167
Estaric
xXDS_K1ll3rXx said:
This is NOT true at all! I have got 16 GB RAM, an intel i7-4790k and a gtx 970. I have played the game for about 300 h on steam and i have NEVER had any lag or framedrop. The game takes about 50-60% CPU, 5-7 GB RAM and 2.5-3.3 GB vram on 1080p and max settings. I never had less than 60 FPS. Maybye the 980ti isn' t good enough beacause it was used for bitcoin mining or something like that. And alsow it has got 6 GB vram. Or maybye just some cod hater wrote this. NOT TRUE AT ALL!!
Well there is also things called updates that increase performance. At the time this was posted this was the case it may very well have been patched.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment