do you mind checking how much vram elite consumes when you crank up the galaxy background resolution to 4096?
i only have 1GB of vram, so i've already pretty much reached the limit.
Push graphic quality to the limits
- Thread starter IIIIIII
- Start date
- Status
do you mind checking how much vram elite consumes when you crank up the galaxy background resolution to 4096?
i only have 1GB of vram, so i've already pretty much reached the limit.
64-bit Intel and AMD CPUs are still x86 architecture CPUs, the AMD64 (and "Intel 64") designs simply extended and added to the base x86 design.
Those diehards still running a 32-bit OS are almost guaranteed to be doing so on a 64-bit CPU, as pretty much all chips from Intel and AMD over the last 5 years have been x86-64 (Atoms are not intended for a gaming PC implementation, and the current gen Atoms are x86-64 anyway). So, all that would be required to get a 64-bit E: D client running on most (if not all) "diehard" PCs is to change the OS to a 64-bit version, which is a hassle because that is a flatten and reinstall proposition (you cannot in-place upgrade 32-bit to 64-bit), but eminently possible. It would however create bad feelings in the community from anyone who is still using a 32-bit OS, because there is a cost implication in getting a Windows 64-bit license.
Note that the Mac client can be natively 64-bit, AFAIK all OSX versions are 64-bit anyway so there is very little point deliberately making a 32-bit client for Mac. Hopefully FDEV will use the Mac client development as a learning experience for shifting common code to a 64-bit friendly state, and then utilise that effort in creating a 64-bit client for Windows as well. We'll see, I guess
So where the hell did I hear that they were similar to the 270 then? I must be going mental in my old age, sorry.
Looking through the GPU database there, I reckon the Radeon R7 265 is the better match, given it looks spookily similar to the PS4 GPU stats, and the XBox One compared to the PS4 loses 6 compute units, and gains ~50MHz clock speed.
That is because it is from a decade ago: VO launched in 2004.
There's a pretty clear difference between those two pics and I'm not exactly 20/20 vision. Though granted I'm short-sighted so it wouldn't be an issue anyway.
Steam is indicative yes, of people who game on PCs. Like I said, almost half of Steam gamers have 4GB or less RAM. That's just too much of the market to simply abandon for the sake of lazy memory management.
Personally I had to run it through gimp difference filter to notice the differences, yes where they are I notice, but other then that...
Difference between the two images.
You haven't fixed it, you're making the same comment as the guy I'm talking to and drawing incorrect conclusions. The Steam survey sample includes more than enough people to cover pretty much every type of gamer and their equipment. It would only be relevant comment if Steam players and by extension participants in the survey existed in their own bubble seperate from the rest of gaming, but they don't. There isn't any evidence to suggest the Steam survey is not a representative sample.
It does not matter in stats if you don't collect data from every possible sample within the area you want to collect data from, only that it's been collected without bias, that the number of participants is high enough to reasonably be an average sample and the correct post survey investigation has been performed without errors.
There's a reason why most studies and surveys don't cover all the people from a possible sample population, because there simply is no need to as long as it's statistically robust.
It does not matter if gamers amount to 100 million, of which only 10 million are on Steam and only 100,000 participate in the survey. It's a large enough sample that has been collected randomly and blindly so without bias so that statistically it presents the average.
Any comments about mobiles, tablets and laptops is trying to obsfuscate the issue as well. Laptops and tablets can run the full Steam client so can and will have been included in the sample so contribute to the argument that the majority still have 64bit OS. Not only that, but given the context of the discussion, namely memory size and 64bit, tablets and majority of laptops cannot run the games that would be improved by 64bit and increased memory size anyway.
I'd also like to point out that larger memory sizes in games are becoming common due to decreased restrictions in cross platform. As much as some of you would like to equate that to meaning unoptimised software, it's simply the continous growth in spec requirements. It's always happened and always will.
Last edited:
My only point is that the claim that a survey of a subset of Steam users is also representative of non-Steam users in general is false. Clearly.
As the saying goes - we are entitled to our own opinions but we aren't entitled to our own facts.
In any case I don't need to keep saying it. Mainly I am here because of the OP.
The topic for a 64 bit client has already been discussed in length here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=5902&page=47
Pros and cons aside, a 64 bit client will only be provided if Frontier determine there is a good enough reason to do so.
Pros and cons aside, a 64 bit client will only be provided if Frontier determine there is a good enough reason to do so.
- Status