• 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.

Known/suspected games to eat more than 1GB video memory at 1920x1200

We already know that 570 is generally faster than 6950. Your 560 is not even faster than my 6950. Either 570 is slower than 6950 (which doesn't seem true, not even having to mention that Metro 2033 is an nVidia's game), or your claim about 560 is on par with 570 is false.

Or you just cant read reviews. ATI are better in some games, Nvidia in others. A GTX 570 isnt always better than a 6950, but a 1 Ghz GTX 560 comes out ahead of a reference 570 in a lot of games.

Actually yes, my claim that an overclocked 560 is on par with a 570 in Metro was false. It has worse minimum frame rates:



But it is coming out ahead of a 6950.
 
Last edited:
a 1 Ghz GTX 560 comes out ahead of a reference 570 in a lot of games.

True. :)

Btw, bhavv, out of interest how quiet do you find them? Temps also? I doubt I'll be getting a new gpu just yet, but if I were to buy today, these are amongst the ones that currently tickle my fancy. :)
 
Or you just cant read reviews. ATI are better in some games, Nvidia in others. A GTX 570 isnt always better than a 6950, but a 1 Ghz GTX 560 comes out ahead of a reference 570 in a lot of games.

Actually yes, my claim that an overclocked 560 is on par with a 570 in Metro was false. It has worse minimum frame rates:

But it is coming out ahead of a 6950.

This review is BS, because there is no option called "8xAA" in the game. They either forced it in the driver (which is less expensive than "MSAA 4X"), or the reviewer had no clue about the game. The min fps is nowhere consistent with the results we both just got. Even if you are going to trust this review, 560 is bottlenecked by its 1GB vram and hence getting lower min fps than 570.
 
Last edited:
True. :)

Btw, bhavv, out of interest how quiet do you find them? Temps also? I doubt I'll be getting a new gpu just yet, but if I were to buy today, these are amongst the ones that currently tickle my fancy. :)

Silent and 81 / 76 degrees on the two cards at 1 Ghz and 1.100v. According to what I've read on other forums, the GTX 570 is prone to explosions when overclocked.

Its GTX 560 or HD 6950 for me, but the 560 was the first one available with better custom designs without a price premium (£203 for MSI TFII GTX 560 on launch vs £249 for the TFII 6850 which also couldnt be flashed).

Is the 1 Gb Vram a limitation? Well no, I cant see any lag spikes in Metro other than it going down to around 20 fps in that benchmark, and everything else is being played with 8x AA, 16x AF and all settings set to the highest.

This review is BS, because there is no option called "8xAA" in the game. They either forced it in the driver, or the reviewer had no clue about the game. Even if you are going to trust this review, 560 is bottlenecked by its 1GB vram and hence getting lower min fps than 570.

LOLOLOLOL What a complete funny clown joke. Enabling AA through the drivers is easy as cake if theres no option ingame. But hey, do you know what is BS? The claim that extra Vram over 1 Gb makes a significant improvement to performance at 1920x1200 :D
 
Last edited:
Silent and 81 / 76 degrees on the two cards at 1 Ghz and 1.100v. Acoording to what I've read on other forums, the GTX 570 is prone to xplosions when overclocked.

Its GTX 560 or HD 6950 for me, but the 560 was the first one available with better custom designs without a price premium (£203 for MSI TFII GTX 560 on launch vs £249 for the TFII 6850 which also couldnt be flashed).

Is the 1 Gb Vram a limitation? Well no, I cant see any lag spikes in Metro other than it going down to around 20 fps in that benchmark, and everything else is being played with 8x AA, 16x AF and all settings set to the highest.



LOLOLOLOL What a complete funny clown joke. Enabling AA through the drivers is easy as cake if theres no option ingame.

Unfortunately, even 6950 TF2 can be flashed to 6970 for a 5% performance increase. Someone released that BIOS in a forum in Taiwan but I didn't bookmark the link.

You are again claiming that you didn't see any lag spikes, because both your min fps and your average fps are low, and you can't pretty much tell the difference? :confused:
 
I see no sudden 'stop and restarting' sharp lag spikes, which is what people think that should be happening if th Vram limit is exceeded.

I have perfect vision so I dont know why I wouldnt be able to see the difference.

Also my drivers arent up to date, everytime I start metro it tells me to update my drivers but I cant be bothered. Todays 270 driver says it gives a 4% performance boost to metro on the GTX 560.
 
Last edited:
Silent and 81 / 76 degrees on the two cards at 1 Ghz and 1.100v. Acoording to what I've read on other forums, the GTX 570 is prone to xplosions when overclocked.

Its GTX 560 or HD 6950 for me, but the 560 was the first one available with better custom designs without a price premium (£203 for MSI TFII GTX 560 on launch vs £249 for the TFII 6850 which also couldnt be flashed).

Cheers for the info. They look to be one hell of an overclockable video card.
 
I see no sudden 'stop and restarting' sharp lag spikes, which is what people think that should be happening if th Vram limit is exceeded.

I have perfect vision so I dont know why I wouldnt be able to see the difference.

I know I know, I have heard too many people claiming that their rig can run Crysis Warhead smoothly. However when I ask them to do a benchmark they can only get like 30 fps. Old story. Metric measures in scientific method is the most widely accepted approach to keep people away from the subjective feelings of "Halo Effect". I once worried that you dare not post your benchmark results but instead just be dodgy, but you had the courage to upload the results and gave everyone a clear show about the 1GB limitation even within such a tiny benchmark. Thanks :)
 
I think that the 'clear show of 1 Gb limitaion' is only clear in your eyes though.

Normal people wont be able to see how a 2 Gb card of the same GPU would magically boost performance up to 30 FPS :D
 
I think that the 'clear show of 1 Gb limitaion' is only clear in your eyes though.

Normal people wont be able to see how a 2 Gb card of the same GPU would magically boost performance up to 30 FPS :D

As clear as how GTX590 is beat by HD6990 under high resolution, because of vram shortage.

I don't want to make people regret about their choice, I just want people to know that 1GB used to be for ancient cards like 9800GT released in 2008, and we should always look forward. People don't have to play games demanding like Metro 2033, but people often install 3rd party MODs, while the trend of game development is not to compress textures. We've already been in the DX11 era for more than one year, and it's no longer the ages when an S3 graphics card with 2MB dedicated memory could deal with 1024x768 games. What can be wrong if people plan ahead and want their card to be more future proof?
 
As clear as how GTX590 is beat by HD6990 under high resolution, because of vram shortage.

Erm what?

A GTX 590 is beat by a 6990 pretty much all the time, heck its even beat by a pair of GTX 570s, or overclocked 560s in a lot of cases.

The 590 is a horribly slow card, it isnt beat because of Vram shortage, its beat because its GPU clock is far too low.

Whatever way you look at it, the extra 1gb vram helps to achieve less fps drop offs during gameplay on a whole, not just through a benchmark run.

Yes it does, in less than 1% of the video games out today at 1920x1200. However, if the game is still dipping below 30 FPS on a 2 Gb card, then that 2 Gb is still useless because gameplay isnt going to be smooth.

By the time we actually need 2 Gb Vram in a lot of games, it will come on £100 graphics cards that outperform £300 cards currently available.
 
Last edited:
Erm what?

A GTX 590 is beat by a 6990 pretty much all the time, heck its even beat by a pair of GTX 570s, or overclocked 560s in a lot of cases.

The 590 is a horribly slow card, it isnt beat because of Vram shortage, its beat because its GPU clock is far too low.

No. GTX 590 still beats HD 6990 under low resolutions.

Yes it does, in less than 1% of the video games out today at 1920x1200. However, if the game is still dipping below 30 FPS on a 2 Gb card, then that 2 Gb is still useless because gameplay isnt going to be smooth.

By the time we actually need 2 Gb Vram in a lot of games, it will come on £100 graphics cards that outperform £300 cards currently available.

There are so many old games in the list, and you didn't even bother trying before you make claims, such like Crysis Warhead ending scene.

You are not a serious gamer, because you don't even play through the whole game of Crysis/Warhead or Metro 2033. As a casual gamer, how could you criticise experience from *more experienced* gamers?
 
The metro 2033 benchmark is flawed, even at it's lowest settings @1920x1080 i still dip under sub 10fps even tho the rest of the bench mark averages 50fps and the max being 101fps

there is no way the game uses more than 1gb vram at low quality,AAA,4xAF and everything else turned off
 
The metro 2033 benchmark is flawed, even at it's lowest settings @1920x1080 i still dip under sub 10fps even tho the rest of the bench mark averages 50fps and the max being 101fps

there is no way the game uses more than 1gb vram at low quality,AAA,4xAF and everything else turned off

Not flawed for me though.

capturexqa.jpg


Keep in mind that the min fps is not always due to vram shortage. I use Metro 2033 as partially an example of case (a) in the OP, where even the average fps is affected.
 
Last edited:
Not flawed for me though.

capturexqa.jpg


Keep in mind that the min fps is not always due to vram shortage. I use Metro 2033 as partially an example of case (a) in the OP, where even the average fps is affected.

You are proving the point AGAINST you, AGAIN, and still miss it.

Low performance, low min fps in NO WAY automatically means running out of vmem and I really really wish you'd get that.

Look WHERE your min fps is, exactly the same place Bhav's minimum is........ because of memory right, no because thats the hardest part of the test.

You are getting 28fps here, at the LOWEST res on the LOWEST settings, how is 7fps, at a much higher res and full settings........ bad. Answer it isn't, its exactly where you'd expect the card to be. He doesn't have low average FPS due to memory he has low average fps because with max settings the card isn't capable of going much much faster.

This is my issue with every single one of your conclusions, you pick up ANY drop in performance and utterly utterly ignore any other answer and insist it confirms low memory.

THe simple fact is you are wrong, your own results that I've seen prove this.

"I used settings that SAID it was using 1.2gb, on a 1gb card and saw no performance drop".

Look up benchmarks I've linked to that catagorically show what happens when you run out of memory, 30fps to 0.5fps.

When you drop out of gpu memory to system memory, you're talking about magnitudes less in performance, a split second or low performance is not due to memory limitations.

Memory limitation if you're talking about gpu's, or a program in system memory, when you run out whatever you are doing, a game, or a tonne of big photo's open in photoshop, performance goes from ok to an absolute, painful, OMG crawl. You have failed to show this in anything you've said so far. You are completely confusing minor drops in performance, or simply games with settings too tough for that particular gpu with the EPIC, MASSIVE, unquestionable, unplayable drop in performance you get from memory limits.

Look up reviews on eyefinity, on triple screen resolutions, on 2gb vs 1gb cards in these situations, the difference is patently obvious, and completely contradictory to your "oh no, performance has slightly dropped" levels.

Again, for memory limits you aren't looking for ONE frame in an entire benchmark, especially at the repeatedly confirmed toughest point in the benchmark which even showed up in your low res/low settings result, you're looking for massive, massive completely game playing experience destroying performance drop.
 
Back
Top Bottom