| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
26
   |
Posted - 2013.01.02 22:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, apparently, EVE requires 128MB of dedicated display memory to work properly. After reviewing various sources out there on the interweb, I have run across at least one instance of an accusation that the big video chipset manufacturers have pressured the gaming companies to actively scan for dedicated memory above 64mb, as their competitor, Intel, has a dedicated memory setting of, typically, 64mb, thereby causing issues with whatever games you are playing.
Even though I have nearly 2gb of display memory available, which is much more than my desktop's 785mb of display memory, my laptop graphics stop responding and resets on most session changes wherein the graphics changes (e.g. undocking, jumping through a gate, jumping to a cyno, et.al.).
I would hope that the accusation isn't true, and that CCP has a good reason for not using your available display memory and instead require a set amount of dedicated memory.
If there is not a good reason to require a minimum amount of dedicated display memory, and you have succumbed to the pressures of the chipset makers, please reconsider your stance and allow those of us that have sufficient total video memory to utilize EVE-Online's graphics as everyone else can.
Thanks. |
Zanzbar
Legion of Tears
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 00:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
I can assure you that no integrated graphics chip has 2GB of dedicated video memory, what you are seeing is that the Intel graphics component of your CPU is set borrow up to 2 GB of your main RAM to use for your display. This is much different then a graphics card having 2GB of onboard VRAM as its not designed for the constant rapid throughput of info on the scale that a graphics card is capable of.
Integrated graphics have come a long way but they are still no match for a dedicated cards ability to handle large texture buffers and mass processing capability. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 03:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Zanzbar wrote:I can assure you that no integrated graphics chip has 2GB of dedicated video memory, what you are seeing is that the Intel graphics component of your CPU is set borrow up to 2 GB of your main RAM to use for your display. This is much different then a graphics card having 2GB of onboard VRAM as its not designed for the constant rapid throughput of info on the scale that a graphics card is capable of.
Integrated graphics have come a long way but they are still no match for a dedicated cards ability to handle large texture buffers and mass processing capability.
this basically....
not all graphics cards are created equal. Our architect has a nice rig we got him last year. The graphics card setup alone is more than what most pay for a whole gaming box. It will run eve worse than my DIY rig at home for sure. Not a bad thing....its graphic card was not meant to shatter FPS records.
Laptops are even less equal. By and large they are spec'd from the factory for general use graphics wise. They won't win FPS records for the most part. Even the gaming laptops don't impress me tbh. |
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 06:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thanks for the replies. I obviously realize the difference between dedicated memory and shared memory, or I wouldn't be posting this. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 07:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Somatic Neuron wrote:Thanks for the replies. I obviously realize the difference between dedicated memory and shared memory, or I wouldn't be posting this.
manufacturers lie to you lol. they call it a nicer term ofc, marketing.
Unrelated but if you ever get into car audio, many amp makers will show some pretty numbers to show power output. Most of these are theoretical numbers possible only if lightning strikes to push the voltage real high (you sure as hell weren't getting them off a normal car battery for sure) . Welcome to marketing lol. |
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 14:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
This isn't a discussion about marketing, but thanks for the reply. |
Zanzbar
Legion of Tears
101
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 21:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Somatic Neuron wrote:Thanks for the replies. I obviously realize the difference between dedicated memory and shared memory, or I wouldn't be posting this.
You also state that the game requires 128 mb dedicated to run correctly but the graphics circuit onboard your Intel chip caps at 64 mb dedicated, so it seems to me you already know you are running below what the game needs to work correctly so I'm not sure understand what your problem is. |
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 21:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Zanzbar wrote:Somatic Neuron wrote:Thanks for the replies. I obviously realize the difference between dedicated memory and shared memory, or I wouldn't be posting this. You also state that the game requires 128 mb dedicated to run correctly but the graphics circuit onboard your Intel chip caps at 64 mb dedicated, so it seems to me you already know you are running below what the game needs to work correctly so I'm not sure understand what your problem is.
My point, is that I have almost 2gb of display memory available...who cares what amount is "dedicated" as long as at least 128mb is always available (which it is, by far).
|
Zanzbar
Legion of Tears
102
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 01:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
It could also be a problem unrelated to the fact that its not dedicated memory, but rather just limits of a graphics solution that was never intended to run high end games in the first place. From my experience the game is sometimes capable of running bellow the minimum requirements in some cases. The only hard enforced rule to the system requirements I know of is the need for pixel shader 3.0 which is an unavoidable result of upgrading the games graphics to what can be achieved now. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
204
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 01:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Thst 2gb you have available is several times removed from the GPU, and doesn't have the same local speed or bus speed either (DDR5 is the standard on newer cards). Anything that takes up a lot of bandwidth will bottleneck just sending data from one chip to the other, regardless of how much ram or how fast the GPU can process it.
Try turning down your texture detail, shaders, resolution, and post-process effects in that order. Run at fullscreen with a lower res, or fixed window at the same res as your desktop. If you're getting a classic bottleneck issue, that should show a lot of improvement. It probabaly won't cure it even then, but it should get noticaby better. If there's no improvement from that, then it's another fundamental issue altogether and you need to start troubleshooting your hardware. |
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 02:17:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thanks Ines, I've already gone through the support channels with the GMs with the various settings. I'm not asking for technical support help, or I'd be in a different forum topic. |
AnJuan Jackson
SHUN THE NON BELIEVER
Li3 Federation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.04 06:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Since I have a friend who plays EVE on an HP laptop with intel integrated graphics, I can tell you your problem is not so much memory but it's that your hardware does not support the right level of Transform and Lightning. Unfortunately, CCP can't do much about this, the technology for T&L is about 10 years old now and if a video card doesn't have it, the card just isn't meant for games.
A lot of laptops (and some desktops) worse don't even have an upgrade option, which sucks because there isn't much else to do.
I can say, that I've found turning off all the turret effects helps and all the other effects, but those cards seem to crash the most when jumping systems. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |