I have 6950>70 xfire myself:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18270697&highlight=username_tommybhoy
and I know that drunkenmaster has a 2 Gb 6950.
-
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.
A new vram eater: Total War Shogun 2 DX11 - rejecting 1GB cards?
- Thread starter drifting
- Start date
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18270697&highlight=username_tommybhoy
and I know that drunkenmaster has a 2 Gb 6950.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Drifting you are the one that's fanatic about 2GB VRAM without backing up you claims with solid evidences, nor rational argument that make sense.
Nobody here claims 2GB is not better than 1GB, but comparing different model cards and then claim it is the lack of VRAM that's causing performance drop is ridiculous.
6950 2GB is only around 3fps faster than 6950 1GB even for Metro2033 at 1920 res, so almost all games out there the 2GB version of 6950 almost no faster than the 1GB version of 6950 for 1920 res.
And to claim 2GB card on the current cards is "future proof" is pretty pointless, as by the time when lacking VRAM REALLY impact on performance, 69xx series card would already be too old and people would already upgraded to newer cards. It's almost like getting GTX470/GTX480 when it was first launch for the sake of better tessellations, but in real-world performance in doesn't really make much difference for games.
Nobody here claims 2GB is not better than 1GB, but comparing different model cards and then claim it is the lack of VRAM that's causing performance drop is ridiculous.
6950 2GB is only around 3fps faster than 6950 1GB even for Metro2033 at 1920 res, so almost all games out there the 2GB version of 6950 almost no faster than the 1GB version of 6950 for 1920 res.
And to claim 2GB card on the current cards is "future proof" is pretty pointless, as by the time when lacking VRAM REALLY impact on performance, 69xx series card would already be too old and people would already upgraded to newer cards. It's almost like getting GTX470/GTX480 when it was first launch for the sake of better tessellations, but in real-world performance in doesn't really make much difference for games.
Last edited:
Sorry guys, every neutral person without such personal hatred can look into the lag spikes from a poor 1GB card forced to do what it's not supposed to do. If you think I'm misleading then perhaps you could someday make an example of how 560 Ti 1GB or 6950 1GB can serve the game good, or quote from random review articles I have criticised many times. It's always easier said than done isn't it?
It's not that fun to see how people with 1GB cards can be so desperate/fanatic to defend it. I think I should blame myself for doing something making so many people upset. Why bother to attempt to follow Copernicus & Bruno while doing no good lol. At least I'm taught a lesson - never try to change people's widely accepted viewpoints unless you have mod privilege on forum.
Anyway, I think that's the story. Good luck to everyone who would enjoy the game with a 1GB card, and please do report back the good experience, even if it's pretending
Ok, so you made a rubbish thread and you can't develop any valid points. Whatever you say now it really seems that you have given up because you are wrong, not specifically in your theory, but on the basis of how you came up with it. I'm not saying that VRAM is not a limiter, but you have used false proof and crap comparisons.
As others have said even if VRAM is a limiter at those high specs, 2GB in current gen GPUs is hardly future proof, because in the world of enthusiast gamers there is no such thing as future proof...
By your logic make a 6950 32GB version that will last you for the next decade or so! Clear failure of taking into account all possibilities and presenting false proof - waste of time in trolling and fail logics, congratulations.
I thought he said lag spike & not about the over all performance which of course would be different with different generation.
But the problem is that the 6xxx has been shown to have better minimums so it could be down to the architecture for the lack of Lag spikes & not the Vram.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 24,307
- Location
- London
This is true.
The only benefit of having 2Gb of vram over 1Gb is for games such as DA2 and the high res texture packs and obviously for eyefinity.
Maybe this explains why Nvidia didnt put 2Gb of ram on any of their GPU's as they dont have eyefinity.
Then you should recommend 1GB cards to newbies to play this game, and mention this thread about how to bypass the vram check. Oh, of course, please tell them don't look into the "irrelevant" tests on 5850 1GB.
Totally disagree with that point that there is no such thing as future proofing to a point depending on what the individuals needs are.
Some people will never get more from 2GB than 1GB because they simply wont need it over the life of the card because of what they use it for.
It was the lack of vram that made me get rid of 4x3870 that everything ran great but it was clear as day when i hit the 512 Vram limit which spoilt the whole thing, if the SAPPHIRE HD 3870 1GB GDDR4 PCI-E Single Slot available at the time then would have been still using them until the 6xxx series.
If i was not on 4GB 5970s i would have sold them & got Trifire or quad 6xxx.
I'm hoping to be able to holdout till the 8xxx if the cards don't die before then.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
He said lots of things (not talking about only this thread). I don't have problem with people having their own opinions and beliefs, but to push them as facts without analyses that make senses if going to far. I don't think most of us got anything against drifting personally, but more on the line of not being able to bring ourselves to agree with the strange ways he carrying out analyses and making assumptions.
So you have done any experiment to support your view that 1GB does not impair experience of dx11 max in this game? I don't think so. You haven't done a single benchmark comparing Cypress 1GB vs Cypress 2GB, or Cayman 1GB vs Cayman 2GB, yet you are pushing your idea that I'm wrong as facts.
In my previous thread I have mentioned that for every 10C temperature increase of electronic components it would decrease lifespan by 50%, and gave the empirical equation (Black's equation) of exponential lifespan decrease, but you simply don't accept it because you cannot understand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
People have already posted the comparisions between 6950 2GB vs 6950 1GB from bit-tech, AnandTech etc, which you conveniently ignored.
Again, you posted a link that explain the concept and theory regarding that subject, where in the text never really mentioned/provide figures/description that actually confirm nor support your claim of -50% lifespan for every 10C increase.
What you have been doing is like a news reporter taking facts, evidences figures from somewhere, misinterpret it or throw in some personal opinions, and then pass it off as fact.
Last edited:
Then tell me which review site has discovered how to bypass the vram check of the official benchmark?
So you mean if Einstein was to explain to people why nuclear bomb could silence Japan in WW2, he would have to give all the experimental data rather than the simple Mass–energy equivalence equation e=m*c^2?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Em...no. The point is simple really...if anyone wants to support their claim or argument, he must provide evidence along with logical analysis if he wants to be able to convince other people to agree with him. But if his logic or methodology for analysis is flawed, it's only natural that people disagree with him.
Keep trolling "I hope you all enjoy playing on your (inferior) 1GB card" is real immature, and it ain't gonna help convince people to side with you.
Last edited:
Then you just contradict yourself by not being able to provide evidence while claiming that 1GB does not impair performance of the game benchmark. If I cannot convince you, you cannot convince me either.
Since so many people insist that 1GB is fine with the game (while questioning my "speculations"), all I can do is to ask people to give it a try (and I hope they are happy with 1GB). It's not trolling at all.
Last edited:
Regarding min fps, lag spikes and gaming experience: a difference of 5 between the min fps of two sessions may already be able to make a significant difference. The value (not always as dry as 5) is highly depending on the window size calculating the min fps. For instance, if the game lags for 0.5 seconds and then bursts to 60 fps in the subsequent 0.5 second, then the min fps may appear to be 30 fps with window size of 1 second. However such occasions seriously affect my personal gaming experience.
That's why I say reviews can only be used as reference - it'll be hard to tell the actual gaming experience. We could always quote review numbers such as follows, but only when you have tried it yourself could you tell a difference.
That's why I say reviews can only be used as reference - it'll be hard to tell the actual gaming experience. We could always quote review numbers such as follows, but only when you have tried it yourself could you tell a difference.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
By posting these you just further enforce the point I was makingThat's why I say reviews can only be used as reference - it'll be hard to tell the actual gaming experience. We could always quote review numbers such as follows, but only when you have tried it yourself could you tell a difference.
We are talking about 1GB card on 1920 res, yet you quote benchmark results of anything BUT 1920 res. The only comparison you quote that seems to be of relevent is the chart on the GTX460 2GB and GTX460 1GB on Crysis at 1920 res; however this is from an unknown source, and we know nothing about the testing method such as whether or not the two cards were tested on the same test rig or how the test was carried out.
Since you quoted from Hardware Canucks, I would do the same, but for the 1920 res:
The 6950 2GB is only 4fps higher in minimum and 1fps higher on average than the 6950 1GB, and we are talk Metro2033 here which is one of its kind in terms of graphic demandingness at a level which no other games close to compare to it. The impact on performance on gamings using more than 1GB of VRAM you keep going on and on about is just a mere 4fps advantage in one of the most demanding game around. And for most other games, it is no more than 0-3fps difference at 1920 res:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/02/24/amd_radeon_hd_6950_1gb_performance_review/2
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/02/11/amd-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-review/6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/02/11/amd-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-review/7
AnandTech:
Try not to ignore these AGAIN for your own convenient this time...people have already posted these before
Last edited:
Those Crysis 1Gb vs 2Gb GTX460 tests are very odd considering the difference across the entire range is the same as the difference in minimum frames, suggesting something else is at play. What we really need is a 5870 1Gb vs 5870 2Gb to really lay this to rest with Shogun 2 in it's current form.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2010
- Posts
- 510
- Location
- Kent
29.3 with my rig (Thats everything set to its highest and then game settings benchmarked at 1920x1080)
(Thats everything set to its highest and then game settings benchmarked at 1920x1080)
By posting these you just further enforce the point I was making
We are talking about 1GB card on 1920 res, yet you quote benchmark results of anything BUT 1920 res. The only comparison you quote that seems to be of relevent is the chart on the GTX460 2GB and GTX460 1GB on Crysis at 1920 res; however this is from an unknown source, and we know nothing about the testing method such as whether or not the two cards were tested on the same test rig or how the test was carried out.
Since you quoted from Hardware Canucks, I would do the same, but for the 1920 res:
The 6950 2GB is only 4fps higher in minimum and 1fps higher on average than the 6950 1GB, and we are talk Metro2033 here which is one of its kind in terms of graphic demandingness at a level which no other games close to compare to it. The impact on performance on gamings using more than 1GB of VRAM you keep going on and on about is just a mere 4fps advantage in one of the most demanding game around. And for most other games, it is no more than 0-3fps difference at 1920 res:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/02/24/amd_radeon_hd_6950_1gb_performance_review/2
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/02/11/amd-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-review/6
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2011/02/11/amd-radeon-hd-6950-1gb-review/7
AnandTech:
Try not to ignore these AGAIN for your own convenient this time...people have already posted these before
How many times must I say that you should stop quoting numbers from reviews? You just never read what I type. The numbers you quoted from hardocp for Metro 2033 was 36.8 fps for 6950 2GB and 28.6 fps for 560 1GB. I can tell you again that these numbers are irrelevant simply because:
a) my 6950 CF can get only 38 fps, while someone's heavily overclocked 560 SLI can get only 30 fps, which means the benchmark settings used by hardocp must be DOF disabled or something else but nothing close to max settings;
b) they used some insignificant scenes to do the benchmark, which is NOT hardware demanding.
Clearly the numbers you quoted means nothing close to the "official benchmark" metro2033benchmark.exe with max settings I've been talking about. Then why post such irrelevant links?
To be specific, if you want to investigate vram impact in Metro 2033, the only benchmark setting I'm interested in is exactly: 1920x1200, DX11, Very High, MSAA 4X, AF 16X, PhysX Disabled, Tessellation Enabled, DOF Enabled. Save yourself some work before you post irrelevant things next time.
Now some funny things for you:
This is what you get by comparing GTX560 vs GTX580:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/330?vs=305
And this is what you get by comparing 6950CF vs 580SLI:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/299?vs=308
As mentioned many times before, the comparison from anandtech is seriously flawed because the numbers are from different drivers/machines etc. You claim that you understand scientific method but you fail to comply.
Thus, your point was based on completely irrelevant review numbers/flaws, and, by disttracting people's eyes with fancy pictures you are misleading them, because not everyone knows about the game (and what's the max settings for that game), such like Mr Krugga.
And as I mention again, you should try it out yourself other than just quoting. Though I can tell if you only have a 5850 1GB the experience wouldn't be good as shown in this thread.
Last edited: