• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** 25/02/2011 EXTENSION! *** DEAL OF CENTURY: Asus GeForce GTX 480 1536MB Graphics Card with 2 FREE

RavenXXX2 said:
Yeah not one for smooth gameplay I guess.
Click to expand...

I always have smooth gameplay. I'd never settle for any less.

If you think theres any game out there that wont run smooth on my PC at 1920x1200, then you dont have any idea what your talking about.

Vram has NEVER made any significant difference compared to raw GPU speed.

RavenXXX2 said:
Because 1.5GB is enough obviously, if you game at eyefinity/suround res then yeah 2GB would be a better choice.
Click to expand...

1 Gb is still enough for 1920x1200.
 
Last edited:
I'll install Metro and give it a try, thats one of the games where 1 Gb isnt enough right?

I did read the benchies posted already from such games. Going from 1 gb > 2 gb made a difference of around 3 FPS.

Having double the Vram really makes a huge difference:



A whole extra 0.5 FPS!
 
Last edited:
Yeah I'm talking about games that exceed the vram on the card, not the difference between 1GB and 2GB. You have got realize different areas in games use less or more Vram depending on whats going on, its not as simple as posting a graph showing results from a benchmark run which only has analytical AA on and not MSAA,
 
Last edited:
Redmint said:
Plenty of newer games if you whack the AA up to 16x...
Click to expand...

Find me a review that shows a comparison of this then?

Wouldnt Crysis at 2560x1600 and 4x AA be using more that 1 Gb Vram?



I've picked the two most demanding games there, Metro and Crysis at 2560x1600. 2 Gb doesnt make any difference over 1 Gb.

So how is going over 1 Gb going to make any difference at 1920x1200?
 
Redmint said:
Also have a look at the Metro results in that review, in particular look at the minimum frame rates.
Click to expand...

Yes, 3 fps difference as I mentioned earlier?

RavenXXX2 said:
WoW you just don't get it, in gameplay you may or may not see fps drop but it will hitch. Benchmarks do not shows this.
Click to expand...

I have never seen 'hitching' in any video game. If my game stutters or slows down, then thats because the FPS are going too low which I can confirm by loading fraps.

How about you tell me of a way to test for this hitching you mention on my SLI 1 Gb 560s @ 1920x1200 so that I can simply test it? Will I be able to see it in Metro?

Redmint said:
Reviewers rarely bother to test at 16x AA
Click to expand...

16x AA also rarely bothers to work in most games. I cannot get more than 8x AA to work in the majority of games I own, even forcing it through the drivers doesnt work. Most games only support up to 8x AA.
 
Last edited:
Redmint said:
Nicely ignoring the F1 8x AA graph, you can't tell me the extra RAM is making no difference there?
Click to expand...

At 2560x1600 resolution it is yes.

I play at 1920x1200 and dont mind only using 4x AA if I have to.

Thats also what I've asked here, to show me where more than 1 Gb Vram makes a significant difference at 1920x1200.
 
Last edited:
Going over the VRam limit can crash the game, only game where I can exceed 1.5GB is with NFSHP and 32xAA, game crashes at 1700MB usage.
 
Turn down the AA then? 32x AA isnt required to enjoy the game and still have good image quality.

Also what res is that at?
 
And I'm making the point that your not going to be exceeding 1 Gb Vram by enough to notice significant slowdown or crash any game at 1920x1200, at least not for another couple of years.
 
Giving out advice based on what you'd do isn't very helpful at all.

If I spend £200 on a graphics card, I would expect it to last me a good few years. If I wanted something that'll "do for now", I would be buying a midrange card.
 
MikeHiow said:
Giving out advice based on what you'd do isn't very helpful at all.
Click to expand...

No it isnt.

Thats why I'm actually advising people to buy these GTX 480s as well if they would get an improvement from them :)

MikeHiow said:
If I spend £200 on a graphics card, I would expect it to last me a good few years. If I wanted something that'll "do for now", I would be buying a midrange card.
Click to expand...

A current £200 graphics card will last you for a good few years, a GTX 560, GTX 480, or 6950. Each one has its merits and disadvantages.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom