Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM

Steam now offers minimum system specifications for Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (thanks VG247), though it's not clear how much of this computational power is to realistically bump-map Kevin Spacey in the upcoming military shooter sequel. For the moment, at least, these indicate the game will require a minimum of 6 GB of RAM. Here's word on what it will take to run the game, which is shown off in a new cinematic launch trailer released yesterday:
MINIMUM:
OS: OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit / Windows 8.1 64-Bit
Processor: Intel® CoreTM i3-530 @ 2.93 GHz / AMD PhenomTM II X4 810 @ 2.80 GHz or better
Memory: 6 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTS 450 @ 1GB / ATI® Radeon™ HD 5870 @ 1GB or better
DirectX: Version 11
Network: Broadband Internet connection
Hard Drive: 55 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX-compatible
View : : :
70 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
70.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 20:57
70.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 20:57
Oct 21, 2014, 20:57
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 17:53:
.The guy you're responding to doesn't seem to understand how consoles work. It's actually kind of frightening how many people post authoritative opinions on development without ever having worked for a developer and understand the processes software goes through as it's developed, how it changes over time, and how consoles manage significantly more out of less hardware than PCs do.

Uhm you are a moron for believing this shit, PC's have been way ahead, perhaps you should go read what John carmack had to say about PC hardware here.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134829/carmack_on_rage.php

Here's JC's comment :"Because what I look back as one of the biggest mistakes I made in this generation, was at the beginning, five or six years ago, looking and saying, "Consoles are basically as good as PCs," at the time, and developing the workflow so it worked across both of them.

Looking back now, we have PCs that are an order of magnitude more powerful, and if our workflow is instead focused on explicitly on just... you build and develop on the PC, and you decimate things into a target for the consoles. There are things that I would do very differently.

And part of that stuff is, the three legs of this that we have now, is we have massive numbers of cores -- I have 24 threads on my desktop machine. Massive amounts of memory -- 24 gigs, and we can throw a lot more in. And we've got solid state drives -- you can put a half of a terabyte in there. And if I take that as the baseline of what I want all our developers to use, I will build a very different system.

My marching orders to myself here are, I want game loads of two seconds on our PC platform, so we can iterate that much faster. And right now, even with solid state drives, you're dominated by all the things that you do at loading times, so it takes this different discipline to be able to say "Everything is going to be decimated and used in relative addresses," so you just say, "Map the file, all my resources are right there, and it's done in 15 milliseconds."

You guys are retarded if you think Titanfall can't be easily run on a core 2 system + 8800 GTX considering its target platform was the xbox 360.

Who should we believe, someone who programs games for a living, or retarded anonymous gamer comments from people who don't know how computers work?
69.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 17:53
69.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 17:53
Oct 21, 2014, 17:53
 
shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 17:11:
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 16:35:
shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 13:29:
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware.

You do know, you computer illiterate that Titanfall was released for the Xbox 360 which is beneath a Core 2 duo E6600 and 8800 GTX in horsepower, don't you? Your post is so full of lies and fail I'm laughing at just how much bullshit you bullshitters are spewing.

I was talking about the PC version. I know nothing about the console version nor do I care.

Optimizations which go into console versions are vastly different in nature, because they have more direct access to fixed, predictable set of hardware which is increasingly mastered and used more efficiently as it approaches the end of its life.

That's how they managed to squeeze Quake 2 onto the PS1.


The guy you're responding to doesn't seem to understand how consoles work. It's actually kind of frightening how many people post authoritative opinions on development without ever having worked for a developer and understand the processes software goes through as it's developed, how it changes over time, and how consoles manage significantly more out of less hardware than PCs do.
68.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 17:11
68.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 17:11
Oct 21, 2014, 17:11
 
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 16:35:
shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 13:29:
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware.

You do know, you computer illiterate that Titanfall was released for the Xbox 360 which is beneath a Core 2 duo E6600 and 8800 GTX in horsepower, don't you? Your post is so full of lies and fail I'm laughing at just how much bullshit you bullshitters are spewing.

I was talking about the PC version. I know nothing about the console version nor do I care.

Optimizations which go into console versions are vastly different in nature, because they have more direct access to fixed, predictable set of hardware which is increasingly mastered and used more efficiently as it approaches the end of its life.

That's how they managed to squeeze Quake 2 onto the PS1.
67.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 17:10
UHD
67.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 17:10
Oct 21, 2014, 17:10
UHD
 
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 16:36:
UHD wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:08:
Calm down bro, it's just video games.

When people start trying to fake "understanding" about how computers work and pushing their little bullshit gaming lies, I get pissed and so should other people. Spreading disinformation about how computers actually work is exactly why we have the cult of steam, people believing games couldn't work without steamworks or steamworks isn't DRM (which it is).

Ok I was going to serious post but now I'm not so sure if you're trolling so I'm going to just let you be angry about video games all you like.
66.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 16:36
66.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 16:36
Oct 21, 2014, 16:36
 
UHD wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:08:
Calm down bro, it's just video games.

When people start trying to fake "understanding" about how computers work and pushing their little bullshit gaming lies, I get pissed and so should other people. Spreading disinformation about how computers actually work is exactly why we have the cult of steam, people believing games couldn't work without steamworks or steamworks isn't DRM (which it is).
65.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 16:35
65.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 16:35
Oct 21, 2014, 16:35
 
shihonage wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 13:29:
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware.

You do know, you computer illiterate that Titanfall was released for the Xbox 360 which is beneath a Core 2 duo E6600 and 8800 GTX in horsepower, don't you? Your post is so full of lies and fail I'm laughing at just how much bullshit you bullshitters are spewing.
64.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 13:29
64.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 13:29
Oct 21, 2014, 13:29
 
The whole "Titanfall on dual core machines" scenario is hilarious. Titanfall runs like shit on anything but very modern hardware. Because it is unoptimized and overrated garbage, and by now is quite likely dead.

Quake Wars was an amazing game which had Titanfall built-in and oh-so-much-more depth than an average online FPS. I wish it was still kicking.
63.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 10:39
63.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 10:39
Oct 21, 2014, 10:39
 
nin wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:25:
Wow...

No shit!
Some people takes their video games way too seriously, especially when it comes to CoD I guess.
Steam: SpectralMeat
Avatar 14225
62.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 10:25
nin
62.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 10:25
Oct 21, 2014, 10:25
nin
 
UHD wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 10:08:
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 08:52:
ViRGE wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:13:
Actually you present almost the exact scenario the Titanfall devs were dealing with: slow dual-core machines. What they found was that their code would hammer away at 2 threads on a PC, but if they used compressed audio that would become 3 threads.

And this son proves you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, the fact that you are throwing the idea of "threads around" for audio! And that audio "takes up its own core" shows you don't understand a god damn thing.

The xbox 360 is a much less powerful system then a core 2 duo with an 8800 GTX. Shows how much you don't know jack shit about computers. Go load up your favorite mp3 player, press ALT-CTRL-DELETE and notice that your mp3 doesn't even take up 1% of the CPU's power. THE IDEA that the audio cant work on a "slow" core 2 duo is laughable! It's downright fantasy you dumb uneducated computer illiterate retard.

Calm down bro, it's just video games.

Wow...

61.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 10:08
UHD
61.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 10:08
Oct 21, 2014, 10:08
UHD
 
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 21, 2014, 08:52:
ViRGE wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:13:
Actually you present almost the exact scenario the Titanfall devs were dealing with: slow dual-core machines. What they found was that their code would hammer away at 2 threads on a PC, but if they used compressed audio that would become 3 threads.

And this son proves you have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, the fact that you are throwing the idea of "threads around" for audio! And that audio "takes up its own core" shows you don't understand a god damn thing.

The xbox 360 is a much less powerful system then a core 2 duo with an 8800 GTX. Shows how much you don't know jack shit about computers. Go load up your favorite mp3 player, press ALT-CTRL-DELETE and notice that your mp3 doesn't even take up 1% of the CPU's power. THE IDEA that the audio cant work on a "slow" core 2 duo is laughable! It's downright fantasy you dumb uneducated computer illiterate retard.

Calm down bro, it's just video games.
60.
 
removed
Oct 21, 2014, 08:52
60.
removed Oct 21, 2014, 08:52
Oct 21, 2014, 08:52
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Oct 21, 2014, 18:42.
59.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 02:35
59.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 02:35
Oct 21, 2014, 02:35
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:02:
And I said that where? Oh, right, I didn't. What I did say was misusing a platform in a manner other than intended was stupid.

Further, there is zero proof that SSDs are in any way, shape or form more "durable" than HDDs. Look, if you want to jerk off over your Samsung 850 Pro, that's fine. I have one, too, and they are in fact awesome. However, let's not spread your opinionated bullshit as fact. The BEST case I have seen for SSD durability is from The Tech Report right here. However, that's only 1.5PB of reads and writes. That's it. Even then, 66% of the drives are dead and only one of the two is still going strong with showing no signs of errors whatsoever.

On the flip side, I have a single 4TB drive that has written more than 10 times that amount and read more than 20 times that amount in two months and guess how many write delays I've had, let alone anything more serious like read failures, seek failures or sectors flagged as bad? ZERO! That's right, none!

By your claim, the HDD should be a flaming wreck whereas an SSD would be smiling from on high like a beneficent deity. Too bad real world testing and application blows your opinion out of the water.

Your numbers look highly suspect. But throw a few more masturbation references in there, maybe that'll fix 'em.

Oh, you mean the statement where I was intellectually honest and said "Now, I grant that most people aren't going to have that kind of storage available. However, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping the average person from owning a 2TB drive"? That statement?

I saw that statement. However your situation naturally predisposes you to a wasteful attitude when it comes to hardware, which permeates your worldview as clearly seen in your replies.

If the owner of said 2TB hard drive is a mouth breathing retard who doesn't understand the concepts of "uninstall" and "delete", then sure, you are going to fill that up pretty fast.

The average user doesn't just play games. They have digital media which also fills up the space pretty fast.

All in all, the value of a 2TB drive is greatly diminished when "every mouth breathing retard" starts releasing bloated games, and apologists like yourself enable them to do so.

Pretty much like shitting in a toilet and never flushing it. Mouth breathing retards do that, too.

Boy, you sure... showed 'em!

Or something.

The minute you said "essentially", you lost any sort of intelligent response capability.

I care greatly about your word fetishes.

I don't see 3% of a standard hard drive size to be anything less than "reasonable". You are free to return to the glory days of DOS and 3.5" 1.44MB floppies. That way you can bitch and moan when anything takes up larger than 10MB as that's half your hard drive space.

When all else fails, reductio as absurdum.

(slow clap)

Those of us who live in 2014 and use equipment that was not purchased at Walmart for $199 have large drives, brutally fast components and systems that don't even blink when you dump 200 gigs on them, let alone a paltry 55GB.

If that makes me an "apologist" for not giving a flying fuck about the system resources I purchased to be used actually being used, then I apologize profusely for using my systems EXACTLY in the way they were designed and built to be used.

See that's the thing I mentioned earlier about your setup influencing your views. Thanks for making it so clear, you elitist douchebag.

You clearly have zero real world technical knowledge on the use of large data stores and it's glaringly obvious when you try to pontificate on resource utilization. If you're running an embedded system on bespoke hardware that's microsized, then you'd have tenuous leg to stand on. But we aren't and it isn't and you don't.

Optimization is a universal virtue when done within reason. Obvious and blatant lack of any optimization, on the other hand, is both stupid and irresponsible.

You are well-acquainted with both those concepts.

Agreed, which is why someone like you should never, ever try to pontificate on effective and efficient usage of large storage pools, arrays or volumes. Leave space calculation and "reasonable" judgements to those who do understand and don't shit their panties over a mere 3% usage case.

Chlorella is greatly beneficial to colon/bowel environment. Start taking it and perhaps your mind won't always be so preoccupied with fecal matter.
58.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 21, 2014, 02:17
58.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 21, 2014, 02:17
Oct 21, 2014, 02:17
 
NKD wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 22:19:
I think you misunderstand the concept of "magical". Everyone knows that quality lossy compression exists. Some of those compression methods are actually quite decent. (JPEG is not one of the decent ones BTW). But many are extremely computationally expensive and only save you another 7 or 8% of space over a method that takes 1/10th the computation. They are not suitable for real-time graphics.

You're missing the point. When you need 55gb for a COD game, a large chunk of your game data, be it textures, level data or audio, is not using any compression whatsoever. Nor is there any intelligent handling of redundancy.

There's no way around that. Textures are already compressed using very effective industry standard methods. There are no huge gains to be made there.

How do you know that when it comes to COD? And what about the audio?

Indeed. That's why it's requiring 6GB system RAM, and only 1GB of VRAM.

6GB requirement is monstrous for unambitious scripted linear corridor shooter that is COD. Especially considering that technically superior in every way games, like Crysis series, i.e. games with actual LEVELS and top-of-the-line graphics, ran perfectly fine on 4GB.

Everything becomes known in comparison.
57.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 22:40
NKD
57.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 22:40
Oct 20, 2014, 22:40
NKD
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 21:02:

On the flip side, I have a single 4TB drive that has written more than 10 times that amount and read more than 20 times that amount in two months and guess how many write delays I've had, let alone anything more serious like read failures, seek failures or sectors flagged as bad? ZERO! That's right, none!

Are you confused on the units of measurement being used here or something? A 4TB drive accruing 15 Petabytes of writes over 2 months would be nearly 3 Gigabytes per second 24/7. Last I checked, no 4TB drive exists that can read 3GB a second, let alone write it.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Avatar 43041
56.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 22:19
NKD
56.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 22:19
Oct 20, 2014, 22:19
NKD
 
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:

First, there ARE magical compression algorithms which drastically reduce image size with minimal quality loss. You may be familiar with the general concept of such compression in form a JPEG file.

I think you misunderstand the concept of "magical". Everyone knows that quality lossy compression exists. Some of those compression methods are actually quite decent. (JPEG is not one of the decent ones BTW). But many are extremely computationally expensive and only save you another 7 or 8% of space over a method that takes 1/10th the computation. They are not suitable for real-time graphics.

The point is that if you're designing Game B in such a way that it has twice as much texture data as Game A, you're probably going to be hard pressed to find a way to maintain quality while saving a meaningful amount of space. For all intents and purposes, Game B is going to take roughly twice the space for its assets if it has twice as many assets.

There's no way around that. Textures are already compressed using very effective industry standard methods. There are no huge gains to be made there.

shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
Optimization involves knowing when inactive textures can be swept into slower system memory. CoD series is hardly known for amazing open vistas with complex geography that you can explore up-close.

Indeed. That's why it's requiring 6GB system RAM, and only 1GB of VRAM. I'm not only talking about CoD here by the way.

shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:

How does this any of this apply to CoD games? They have neither super cool AI routines, nor large autonomous areas with freeform gameplay.

Their pathfinding is rudimentary, and all the cool stuff is rigidly pre-scripted.


It doesn't apply to CoD. At least not this title in particular. CoD appears to be asking for a really low end processor, the Core i3 530. These are just peeves of mine that people generally bitch about that I get tired of seeing.

This comment was edited on Oct 20, 2014, 22:40.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
Avatar 43041
55.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 21:13
55.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 21:13
Oct 20, 2014, 21:13
 
Suppa7 wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:15:
ViRGE wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 17:53:
Respectfully, you make a few assumptions here that are just flat-out wrong.

Uncompressed Audio: I'm assuming you're referring to Titanfall here? Titanfall's audio was shipping uncompressed because low-end PCs can't handle compressed audio. The consoles? They have dedicated audio decoders and can decompress audio until the cows come home.

I'm sorry but you are both fucking wrong! God the tech illiteracy of the new generation of gamers astounds me. The reality is these games are pushed out unfinished and devs are giving you excuses for their unfinished games.

No PC within the last 6 years would break a sweat processing audio, audio has been cheap since Core 2 duo for fuck sakes. The idea that PC's are the ones holding gaming back is laughable.
Actually you present almost the exact scenario the Titanfall devs were dealing with: slow dual-core machines. What they found was that their code would hammer away at 2 threads on a PC, but if they used compressed audio that would become 3 threads. Which means they either had to make the minimum system requirement a Core i5 (as opposed to a Core i3), or use uncompressed audio. They chose the latter.

Note that the PS4 and XB1 versions of the game shipped with compressed audio. Only the PC version did not. Which makes the claim of it being "unfinished" kind of odd, because they had the compressed audio just sitting there...

shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:
First, there ARE magical compression algorithms which drastically reduce image size with minimal quality loss. You may be familiar with the general concept of such compression in form a JPEG file.

Second, with SSDs becoming more popular, HD space is at a premium again. And even if it wasn't, 55 gigabytes is a massive amount of information for such a game regardless. It is insane, in fact, and clearly compression and intelligent asset reuse were neglected on several levels.

The list goes on and on.

No, it doesn't.
Every form of compression available to the PC is already in use and available on the consoles. Both support the latest audio, texture, and video compression technologies including BC6/BC7 and H.264.

Now you make a point about SSDs, but keep in mind that these games are designed from the start to be played from an HDD (which is what the consoles have). You don't need an expensive SSD to run a game; the HDD you already have is likely already faster than the HDD in the consoles.
54.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 21:02
54.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 21:02
Oct 20, 2014, 21:02
 
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:

1) Space issues aside, SSDs are more durable than HDDs now. So the Ferrari's "wear out" example isn't valid.

And I said that where? Oh, right, I didn't. What I did say was misusing a platform in a manner other than intended was stupid.

Further, there is zero proof that SSDs are in any way, shape or form more "durable" than HDDs. Look, if you want to jerk off over your Samsung 850 Pro, that's fine. I have one, too, and they are in fact awesome. However, let's not spread your opinionated bullshit as fact. The BEST case I have seen for SSD durability is from The Tech Report right here. However, that's only 1.5PB of reads and writes. That's it. Even then, 66% of the drives are dead and only one of the two is still going strong with showing no signs of errors whatsoever.

On the flip side, I have a single 4TB drive that has written more than 10 times that amount and read more than 20 times that amount in two months and guess how many write delays I've had, let alone anything more serious like read failures, seek failures or sectors flagged as bad? ZERO! That's right, none!

By your claim, the HDD should be a flaming wreck whereas an SSD would be smiling from on high like a beneficent deity. Too bad real world testing and application blows your opinion out of the water.

shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:

2) You have about 30 times more storage than an average user, so your entire perspective is heavily skewed. And a 2TB drive can fill out pretty fast with space-hungry games made by stupid people.

Oh, you mean the statement where I was intellectually honest and said "Now, I grant that most people aren't going to have that kind of storage available. However, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping the average person from owning a 2TB drive"? That statement?

If the owner of said 2TB hard drive is a mouth breathing retard who doesn't understand the concepts of "uninstall" and "delete", then sure, you are going to fill that up pretty fast. Pretty much like shitting in a toilet and never flushing it. Mouth breathing retards do that, too. Should we plan mean use case scenarios to be based around the small percentile of mouth breathing retards or the wider demographic which knows to delete dead data and uninstall unwanted programs? I'm going to guess the latter is probably more common.

shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:
Essentially, apologists like you are enablers for poor programming and design. The core problem here is insufficient level of technical understanding necessary to estimate just how much space/resources taken by a specific product should be considered "reasonable".

The minute you said "essentially", you lost any sort of intelligent response capability. However, I'll answer. I don't see 3% of a standard hard drive size to be anything less than "reasonable". You are free to return to the glory days of DOS and 3.5" 1.44MB floppies. That way you can bitch and moan when anything takes up larger than 10MB as that's half your hard drive space. Those of us who live in 2014 and use equipment that was not purchased at Walmart for $199 have large drives, brutally fast components and systems that don't even blink when you dump 200 gigs on them, let alone a paltry 55GB. If that makes me an "apologist" for not giving a flying fuck about the system resources I purchased to be used actually being used, then I apologize profusely for using my systems EXACTLY in the way they were designed and built to be used.

You clearly have zero real world technical knowledge on the use of large data stores and it's glaringly obvious when you try to pontificate on resource utilization. If you're running an embedded system on bespoke hardware that's microsized, then you'd have tenuous leg to stand on. But we aren't and it isn't and you don't.

shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:51:
The most dangerous kind of idiot is the idiot that knows just enough.

Agreed, which is why someone like you should never, ever try to pontificate on effective and efficient usage of large storage pools, arrays or volumes. Leave space calculation and "reasonable" judgements to those who do understand and don't shit their panties over a mere 3% usage case.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
53.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 21:01
RaZ0r!
 
53.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 21:01
Oct 20, 2014, 21:01
 RaZ0r!
 
I know it's popular to hate on CoD especially if you are old school like me, but I rode the CoD horse all the way to Ghosts. I really liked Black Ops 2 and decided to push my luck with Ghosts. Bad move, Ghosts sucks.

I might look at the next Treyarch developed CoD title, but otherwise I'm out.
I pwnz j00!
Avatar 8127
52.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 19:51
52.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 19:51
Oct 20, 2014, 19:51
 
Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 19:07:
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:

Second, with SSDs becoming more popular, HD space is at a premium again. And even if it wasn't, 55 gigabytes is a massive amount of information...

While I care little for the pissing contest going on about this, this small part I take an exception to and here's why:

There's no reason you should be using a single SSD as anything more than a boot drive. It makes no sense to use it as your storage device for infrequently used executables (infrequently being whenever you load it up and not running constantly). It is like buying a Ferrari so you can haul dirt and take the kids to the market. Outside of morons, who does that?

Further, 55GBs is nothing. I have 56 TB of storage available at my command. 56TB. Now, I grant that most people aren't going to have that kind of storage available. However, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping the average person from owning a 2TB drive. A quick check on Newegg and Amazon shows them to be less than $100. So, since 1000GB = 1 TB, that means that installing this game takes up a whopping 3% (rounded up from the actual 2.75%). 3%. Why, I'm practically agog at how much space that is!

Even if you're running an SFF box like a Shuttle (which one of my machines is), you STILL have the ability to have two hard drives and an optical drive so physical mounting space isn't even a real explanation for having an SSD only build.

If someone's storage drive is a small SSD, then the fact is that they are idiots, plain and simple.

1) Space issues aside, SSDs are more durable than HDDs now. So the Ferrari's "wear out" example isn't valid.

2) You have about 30 times more storage than an average user, so your entire perspective is heavily skewed. And a 2TB drive can fill out pretty fast with space-hungry games made by stupid people.

Essentially, apologists like you are enablers for poor programming and design. The core problem here is insufficient level of technical understanding necessary to estimate just how much space/resources taken by a specific product should be considered "reasonable".

The most dangerous kind of idiot is the idiot that knows just enough.
51.
 
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM
Oct 20, 2014, 19:07
51.
Re: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Requires 6GB of RAM Oct 20, 2014, 19:07
Oct 20, 2014, 19:07
 
shihonage wrote on Oct 20, 2014, 18:51:

Second, with SSDs becoming more popular, HD space is at a premium again. And even if it wasn't, 55 gigabytes is a massive amount of information...

While I care little for the pissing contest going on about this, this small part I take an exception to and here's why:

There's no reason you should be using a single SSD as anything more than a boot drive. It makes no sense to use it as your storage device for infrequently used executables (infrequently being whenever you load it up and not running constantly). It is like buying a Ferrari so you can haul dirt and take the kids to the market. Outside of morons, who does that?

Further, 55GBs is nothing. I have 56 TB of storage available at my command. 56TB. Now, I grant that most people aren't going to have that kind of storage available. However, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping the average person from owning a 2TB drive. A quick check on Newegg and Amazon shows them to be less than $100. So, since 1000GB = 1 TB, that means that installing this game takes up a whopping 3% (rounded up from the actual 2.75%). 3%. Why, I'm practically agog at how much space that is!

Even if you're running an SFF box like a Shuttle (which one of my machines is), you STILL have the ability to have two hard drives and an optical drive so physical mounting space isn't even a real explanation for having an SSD only build.

If someone's storage drive is a small SSD, then the fact is that they are idiots, plain and simple.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
70 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older