Eyes-on with PC Shadow of Mordor's 6GB ultra-HD textures

"The PC version of Monolith's Shadow of Mordor features an optional, ultra-HD texture pack that requires a graphics card with a colossal 6GB of memory for best performance. It's an option that restricts the game's absolute high-end experience to a tiny minority of PC gamers - so the question is, to what extent are the graphics compromised for everyone else? And how does the console version fit in?

First of all, it's worth pointing out that as of this writing, actually gaining access to the texture pack itself is an involved, convoluted procedure that we only discovered thanks to the legwork done by German site, You need to access this Steam URL, hit the launch or install buttons, then when it errors out, head into your Steam client, right-click on Shadow of Mordor in your Steam library, select DLC, tick the HD texture pack and then force an update (or verify the files). If there are any problems with the last part, restarting the Steam client should sort it out."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ravensly1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

6gb vram was overkill. look at the comments an gtx 970 can run it at 4k +50fps at high setting. i think my gtx 660 will probably run it at 1080p 60fps high settings.

" It only uses 3.5GB VRAM on ULTRA on 1440P. That's everything ultra not just textures runs at 45+fps for me on an OC 970. If I reduce shadows and ambient occlusion to high it is pretty much 55-60+ 6GB was for a 4k Downscale. You guys are totally overplaying it. Look at the videos on youtube of it ultra on EVERYTHING at 60fps constant on a 980. the 6GB VRAM was an overshoot and was an estimate for 4K. Look at the steam forums even people with the minimum specs and below are running it better than expected. In fact people running it on high with a 4k downsample on a 970 are getting 50+ FPS ".

Psychotica1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

Yeah I am running it with high settings on my GTX 670 FTW with just 2GB. I haven't noticed any difference at all and the benchmark showed just 2 frames less on average from using the medium settings. I am also using Steam In-Home streaming to my laptop without any problems

mattdillahunty1479d ago

i have a Gigabyte HD 7970 with 3GB vram. any idea what kind of performance i can get on max settings without the 6GB texture pack?

ATi_Elite1479d ago

My specs

Nvidia GTX660ti sli 2gb vram ultra 4k 50 fps

AND HD7970 CFX 3gb vram ultra 4k 65 fps

And once Amd and Nvidia have a new driver release my performance will improve.

6gb was a stupid over estimate and may have been done just to get some free Press.

impet251479d ago

Im running the game wit my gtx 780ti 3gb vram on ultra with the texture pack and on a 1440p screen and get 50 to 60 fps with no issues.

FastRedPonyCar1479d ago

My 2 gig 680 gtx can run the game locked at 60fps @ 1440p with everything set to max settings except textures at high instead of ultra.

If I set textures to ultra, frame rate drops 45 fps avg.

If I send the output over to my 1080p tv, with ultra textures, I get around 8 or 9 more fps but not a locked in 60.

I doubt more Vram would give me the FPS, a faster GPU would though.

Paprika1479d ago (Edited 1479d ago )

I'm not a massively tech headed guy, but 6gb of vram needed... isn't the average around 2/4gb cards? And I know people have excess vram due to being op... but surely you'd expect better results from a game this thirsty for power.

Sounds like poor optimization tbh. Or are newer cards just going to go crazy 6/8gb vram. Next gen truly starts when we hit those levels as an average, especially if you consider consoles have to use around 2gb for the os alone "from memory". Pushing their output for games wayyyyy down. But thank fully consoles and optimization works magic!

mandf1479d ago (Edited 1479d ago )

Please explain to me, Pc gamers have been asking for games that push the envelope, and you finally get one and it's the developers fault for bad optimization. What gives?

Paprike just a question. I'm not signaling you out.

Paprika1479d ago

Its just to me, pushing forward, especially with these requirements would be something seriously epic. These are entering the big $$$ heights of gaming. I'm not complaining, its a good sign to see things move ahead for PC gamers, consoles caught up a little, so the true next gen on PC needs to excel a further. Further still than this, IMO. I'm no tech dude, I just go by what I can see.

xtremexx1479d ago

PC gamers do like games that push the envelope. the only thing is that this 6GB vram thing seems like a large overshoot. Look at Star Citizen requirements, those are requirements that are pretty fair to the game since it actually does push the envelope.

mandf1479d ago


Thanks for the sound reply. Pc gpus are being pushed finally and all I hear is complaints. Pc gamers should be happy. I know a lot of them don't want to hear they just got pushed to a mid range gpu.

GundalfDeGrej1479d ago

People have been complaining because the textures are good but not 6 GB of VRAM good.

As it turns out you actually don't need that much anyway so it's not really a problem. I have the game myself and to me it seems like a pretty good port. I have a gtx 770 (2 GB) and I'm playing on high settings at locked 60 fps, 1080p.

JsonHenry1479d ago

There is a difference between pushing the GPU and just sloppy coding. IF this game looked better than 99% of other games out there PC gamers would LOVE an excuse to buy a higher end card.

However this game looks mediocre and older games from 2+ years ago look better than this game and use less resources.

So that is why. There is nothing about the way this game looks that it should be using so much Vram.

Somebody1479d ago

Yes, PC gamers do want something that push the limit of their hardware but it also must be within the realm feasibility. The standard for current graphic cards is 2GB of vram with 4GB appearing to replacing it.

Then suddenly we have a game that requires 6GB. Out for the blue, with no warning for any PC users. It feels like the dev is just dumping the textures they were experimenting with their multi-Titan cards onto the mainstream PC gaming crowd.

Allsystemgamer1479d ago

Because while it looks good it's not THAT good. The reason it's pushing hardware is sloppy coding. Not because it looks great.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1479d ago
Kenshin_BATT0USAI1479d ago

Only a handful of graphics cards have 6gb vram, because generally you won't find any games that need them with that high tier of graphics cards(we are talking about the titan series here for example).
So PC community is super skeptical about all of this. Seems like 6gb vram is for
4k, ultra everything and still over 60fps.

mandf1479d ago

Most high end cards just became mid range cards.

Show all comments (23)
The story is too old to be commented.