Jump to content


Photo

CTD at 3.1GB


  • Please log in to reply
471 replies to this topic

#31 JudgmentJay

JudgmentJay

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:49 PM

Mod List:


But you should note that I haven't DDSopted anything besides HRDLC. I'm pretty sure the major culprits for me are Interesting NPCs and Detailed Cities, though I haven't spent much time determining memory usage of each since it sounds like a huge pain.


That's alot of mods, but I think I have more. Honestly I don't think textures are your problem. As you can see my VRAM usage is more than yours, but my RAM usage is considerably lower... over 1GB lower. That's huge. Personally, I would start with a fresh vanilla Skyrim and install mods a little at a time and monitor RAM usage to find out which ones add the most. I recently went through my list and got rid of the ones that I figured I could live without in an attempt to make my game stable with uGrids=7. Unfortunately that proved futile. The engine just can't handle it.

I find my VRAM usage to be insane as well even using only 2048 textures and pretty routinely get close to 3gb usage... this is an issue I'm struggling with myself.

I've only DDSOpted the big TeX packs though so we'll see as I go along.


I routinely go over 3GB VRAM usage as well, but as long as physical usage stays below ~2.5GB I'd say you're golden.
  • 0

#32 Neovalen

Neovalen

    Talos

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:55 PM

Yeah problem is I'm not golden. Performance is perfect but after ~40 minutes... ram is done and ctd.
  • 0

#33 JudgmentJay

JudgmentJay

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:00 PM

Such is the life of heavy Skyrim modding :(
  • 0

#34 viking

viking

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

That's alot of mods, but I think I have more. Honestly I don't think textures are your problem. As you can see my VRAM usage is more than yours, but my RAM usage is considerably lower... over 1GB lower. That's huge. Personally, I would start with a fresh vanilla Skyrim and install mods a little at a time and monitor RAM usage to find out which ones add the most. I recently went through my list and got rid of the ones that I figured I could live without in an attempt to make my game stable with uGrids=7. Unfortunately that proved futile. The engine just can't handle it.

I am aware that my count of mods is not that high, but some of them use a ridiculous amount of memory. I wasn't certain before starting this thread that there is a (relatively) hard 3.1 GB ram limit, but now that it seems pretty certain, I may go back and do just what you suggest. I think I will still gain a bit from ddsopting the textures I've got and will start with that, because, unfortunately, I have already cut my non-texture mods just about to a minimum for me.
  • 0

#35 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,312 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

Reading through this thread, I am not convinced that this is a RAM issue at all (and I echo Neovalen's JudgmentJay's comment about system RAM allotted to TEXV.exe being higher than 1.8 GB). Something strange is happening if people are getting system RAM usage that high from this single process.

Are we certain about these RAM allocations being specifically tied to TESV.exe?

Skyrim does not allocate much VRAM to RAM until it runs out of VRAM. Even then, it is not so much that it could additively boost my Skyrim RAM use to more than 3 GB. My benchmarks are pretty detailed in this regard.

Furthermore, is it a fact that this "bleed over" VRAM is in fact charged against the TESV.exe-allocated RAM usage?

Sounds like ATTK could help out here (not), regardless, but I would also not rule out a setup issue at this point. I have had 300+ mods installed in Morrwind, Oblivion and Skyrim, and I have never had CTDs related to RAM caps ... they were always related to setup issues.

(also, try using Process Hacker. It is even better than Process Explorer)

#36 JudgmentJay

JudgmentJay

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:01 PM

Skyrim does not allocate much VRAM to RAM until it runs out of VRAM.


That's certainly not my experience.
  • 0

#37 z929669

z929669

    Ixian Inventor

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,312 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

Skyrim does not allocate much VRAM to RAM until it runs out of VRAM.


That's certainly not my experience.

The proof is in the pudding if you look at the benchmarks I point to up there.

Would anybody getting these huge spikes mind replicating a couple of these benchmarks on their systems? I'd like to see the diffs of Vanilla versus bench after section G versus bench after section M using the intro sequence. This will be more solid evidence of the dynamics between VRAM and RAM on your systems. Others have similar benchmarks on their user pages (see Kelmych and techangel85), and I have not seen anything that is inconsistent with my own... yet.

#38 JudgmentJay

JudgmentJay

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:39 PM

I'm not going to go through all the trouble of doing a spreadsheet, but I can show the difference between vanilla and vanilla+TPC as far as VRAM/RAM usage goes. Unfortunately GPU-z doesn't seem to support dynamic memory monitoring on GTX680s. What could I use instead?
  • 0

#39 viking

viking

    Prisoner

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:44 PM

Reading through this thread I am not convinced that this is a RAM issue at all (and I echo Neovalen's comment about system RAM allotted to TEXV.exe being higher than 1.8 GB). Something strange is happening if people are getting system RAM usage that high from this single process.


I'm not sure which of Neovalen's comments you are referring to. Also I'm not sure why it would be strange for this single process to use a lot of ram. I would be very happy if this is not a ram issue.
 

Are we certain about these RAM allocations being specifically tied to TESV.exe?


Yes? I'm not sure where you are coming from. I tracked the RAM (not VRAM) usage using Process Explorer (which you are familiar with); it was tracking only TESV.exe. VRAM, which was system wide, was tracked using GPUz.
 

Skyrim does not allocate much VRAM to RAM until it runs out of VRAM. Even then it is not so much that it could additively boost my Skyrim RAM use to more than 3 GB. My benchmarks are pretty detailed in this regard.


I haven't had a chance to read through your benchmark, but I will. I am more than happy to do any tests you are interested in, because I would much rather find a setup issue than reduce mod count. Unfortunately I won't have a chance until this weekend to do any real tests (meaning redoing step from scratch). I'd like to point out that my numbers, and all of my experiences with ctds, were all using attklt.

As for whether the "bleed over", as you called it, goes into the same address space, it would seem that it does; however we have no real "proof" beyond some anecdotal evidence and the microsoft directx patch details linked to earlier in this thread.


  • 0

#40 JudgmentJay

JudgmentJay

    Thane

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 431 posts

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:58 PM

Did a run from Helgen cave to Riverwood. Not the most accurate thing in the world, but it correctly depicts what I've found in my testing.

Vanilla:
Posted Image

Vanilla+TPC:
Posted Image

So with ONLY Texture Pack Combiner being added, I see an increase of ~500MB VRAM and 430MB physical RAM.
  • 0

#41 Neovalen

Neovalen

    Talos

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,679 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:18 AM

Did a run trying to watch the Process Hacker... private memory got over 3gb and then as expected... boom! As with the others... VRAM / RAM seemed to be pretty much 1:1 (give or take slightly).
  • 0

#42 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,623 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 12:25 AM

I would expect this behavior at closer to 4GB because of the game being 86x architecture (4GB limitations), but not 3GB. However, searching on Google for a bit revealed similar cases on 86x architecture with failures around 3.5GB. This 86x architecture limitation could very well be the issue unless it's been ruled out...I haven't read the whole thread.

#43 Salvador

Salvador

    Guard

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:12 AM

Lets say Skyrim engine has a 3GB limit in mem. If it reaches the limit it should ask windows to allocate page memory. Or is this limit intrinsic in the engine and therefore no page memory is allocated? I find all this rather strange, even very old 32bit programs can use a lot of mem, but simply load the overhead in page. Take an old firefox for example, and load as much as you can. Page file becomes useful I can promise. Same goes with 32bit photoshop or autocad etc. Now I know a game engine is different, but there must be something wrong within the engine itself if it fails to address more than 3GB of memory. I disable my page file on disk, this means page will be allocated in RAM instead! Since I have plenty of RAM I don't care, however, if you have limited RAM this is naturally not a good idea. I am curious now, if you disable your page file, does ram allocation change at all? will you still crash at 3GB? Does Skyrim actually get Page mem allocated? What happens with page mem usage? If it is a engine issue, it can only be fixed by Bethesda. I am curious as of what causes the serious hard cap at 3GB... Even 32 bit program ought to be able to reach ~3.5GB..
  • 0

#44 TechAngel85

TechAngel85

    Akatosh

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,623 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:31 AM

Lets say Skyrim engine has a 3GB limit in mem. If it reaches the limit it should ask windows to allocate page memory.
Or is this limit intrinsic in the engine and therefore no page memory is allocated? I find all this rather strange, even very old 32bit programs can use a lot of mem, but simply load the overhead in page. Take an old firefox for example, and load as much as you can. Page file becomes useful I can promise. Same goes with 32bit photoshop or autocad etc. Now I know a game engine is different, but there must be something wrong within the engine itself if it fails to address more than 3GB of memory. I disable my page file on disk, this means page will be allocated in RAM instead! Since I have plenty of RAM I don't care, however, if you have limited RAM this is naturally not a good idea. I am curious now, if you disable your page file, does ram allocation change at all? will you still crash at 3GB? Does Skyrim actually get Page mem allocated? What happens with page mem usage?

If it is a engine issue, it can only be fixed by Bethesda.

I am curious as of what causes the serious hard cap at 3GB... Even 32 bit program ought to be able to reach ~3.5GB..

All good questions, but I would expect a game to crash or freeze if it had to start using page memory. VRAM is fast. RAM is much slower and causes stuttering in-game. However, page memory is extremely slow (especially on HDD)...slow enough that if RAM causes stuttering, a crash or freeze wouldn't come as a surprise for a game that called for something that was stored in page memory.

#45 Salvador

Salvador

    Guard

  • Mod Authors
  • PipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:47 AM

Lets say Skyrim engine has a 3GB limit in mem. If it reaches the limit it should ask windows to allocate page memory.
Or is this limit intrinsic in the engine and therefore no page memory is allocated? I find all this rather strange, even very old 32bit programs can use a lot of mem, but simply load the overhead in page. Take an old firefox for example, and load as much as you can. Page file becomes useful I can promise. Same goes with 32bit photoshop or autocad etc. Now I know a game engine is different, but there must be something wrong within the engine itself if it fails to address more than 3GB of memory. I disable my page file on disk, this means page will be allocated in RAM instead! Since I have plenty of RAM I don't care, however, if you have limited RAM this is naturally not a good idea. I am curious now, if you disable your page file, does ram allocation change at all? will you still crash at 3GB? Does Skyrim actually get Page mem allocated? What happens with page mem usage?

If it is a engine issue, it can only be fixed by Bethesda.

I am curious as of what causes the serious hard cap at 3GB... Even 32 bit program ought to be able to reach ~3.5GB..

All good questions, but I would expect a game to crash or freeze if it had to start using page memory. VRAM is fast. RAM is much slower and causes stuttering in-game. However, page memory is extremely slow (especially on HDD)...slow enough that if RAM causes stuttering, a crash or freeze wouldn't come as a surprise for a game that called for something that was stored in page memory.

Yes exactly, that is why I disable page on disk. It automatically allocates in RAM instead (However, you should only do this if you have plenty, and never run out of RAM). Together with page any large address aware 32 bit process should certainly be able to reach the 4GB on 64bit OS. VRAM is not limited for most people having issues on this thread. Their VRAM cap is not reached.
Does Skyim use contiguous memory, or works in chunks?

A different question. DLLs usually allocate quite a bit of memory. Does having ENB DLL present or not make any difference on mem usage, just disabling ENB does not stop it from loading into mem. Might also be interesting to see what the different DLLs do. I find it strange to see these discrepancies between people in the amount of RAM usage, with similar STEP installments.....
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users