What Do You want from the Next Generation?

[bhavv]

Talking about performance/price ratio, both GTX560 Ti 2GB and 6950 2GB already hit near the sweet spot, and I've been recommending these two to people who want to do SLI/CF, for the best bang for buck in current gen.

Before you can understand what is called "lag spikes" on your 560 Ti 1GB SLI, on the graph I posted before, I'm not going to argue with you. You could certainly keep living in your own world believing that your 1GB beats the 2GB

If you don't even have the courage to continue buying more 1GB cards, why would you encourage people to buy more? This is lame, especially when there are new cards coming out soon.

Just look at this thread, how many people mentioned 2GB?

Oh FFS just shut up.

1) People want 2 GB at a LOWER price point, including me.

2) Your so called lag spikes on your laughable graphs are spikes of less than a few milliseconds and completely impossible to actually see if you sit in front of and watch the benchmark yourself.

3) You recommend and encourage people to buy 1 Gb GTX 560s yourself actually, as you have done right here in this thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18303903

If 1 Gb Vram is really so bad, then why dont you have the 'courage' to recommend to every single person not to buy them? You dont even believe in the BS you keep on posting yourself, thats why.

4) My 1 Gb cards did beat the 2 Gb cards in the silly graphs that you keep on posting in both average and max FPS scores, unless you are so lacking in the ability to read. And no your graphs are not valid examples of lag spikes which people absolutely cannot actually see because of how short a time they actually happen in. Metro 2033 is also a terribly coded and buggy game that many people actually DONT play, making it really insignificant for judging or comparing GFX card differences very easy to tell when in your own graphs, 1 Gb 560s clearly outperform 2 Gb 560s, not to mention that both the results are from completely different PCs making it a completely unfair comparison).

5) Not wanting to buy a 1 Gb card in the future has nothing to do with 'courage'. Right now 2 Gb+ cards are still too expensive and make an insignificant performance difference to make them worth recommending to anyone looking for a card around the £150 budget. If in the next get 2 Gb cards with faster GPUs are cheaper, people who buy mid range cards will obviously get them because they are cheaper.

Just about everyone is fed up of your BS, as plenty of people keep on telling you time and time again. All you ever do is obsess over ONE measly benchmark result in Metro as proof that 1 Gb cards are the absolute pure suckage, when they actually performed better than the 2 Gb cards in the same benchmark.

 

[harmony]

Oh FFS just shut up.

2) Your so called lag spikes on your laughable graphs are spikes of less than a few milliseconds and completely impossible to actually see if you sit in front of and watch the benchmark yourself.

4) My 1 Gb cards did beat the 2 Gb cards in the silly graphs that you keep on posting in both average and max FPS scores, unless you are so lacking in the ability to read. And no your graphs are not valid examples of lag spikes which people absolutely cannot actually see because of how short a time they actually happen in. Metro 2033 is also a terribly coded and buggy game that many people actually DONT play, making it really insignificant for judging or comparing GFX card differences very easy to tell when in your own graphs, 1 Gb 560s clearly outperform 2 Gb 560s).

Just about everyone is fed up of your BS, as plenty of people keep on telling you time and time again. All you ever do is obsess over ONE measly benchmark result in Metro as proof that 1 Gb cards are the absolute pure suckage, when they actually performed better than the 2 Gb cards in the same benchmark.

2) You are not very good at Mathematics aren't you? If you look into the log file of metro 2033 benchmark, and do some basic analysis, anyone with A-Level math should be able to understand that the fps is calculated according to frametimes, namely the "instantaneous fps". The fps of a frame is equal to 1 divided by the time gap between the frame and the previous frame. In such case, 30 fps means a time gap of 33ms, not what you call a few milliseconds. 10 fps here means a 100 millisecond gap, which, most people should be able to feel in game for sure.

Statistically, experiments have shown that (with motion blur) most people can feel choppy graphics at 30 fps and below. When you swear (which is against the forum rules) that you think you are running Metro 2033 smoothly, the fps numbers you can get are well below 30, and hence obviously you are not one of the most people.

4) You still have no intention to understand what is called "a better way of statistical measure" instead of your adhoc number. You don't earn respect when you insist to be limited.

 

[bhavv]

A graph for harmony to jizz all over:



God, theres like +20 max FPS on the 1 Gb GTX 560s too, and the min is better as well, look see, the graphs cant lie, and there are less blue arrows on the 1 Gb cards, whatever they are meant to mean.

Max Vram used was 1000 / 1024. Not like 2 Gb cards would make any difference then.

 

[harmony]

^^ I see "Run 1 (Frontline)" above. How many times did you attempt to produce a plot with less lag spikes? You should work harder and eliminate large gaps like between second 48 and 50. Also ignore more spikes like second 3, 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 43.5, 44, 44.5, 47.5, 48, 48.5, 50 etc.

When you start to realize that you need a statistical measure to do the comparison, you should understand that ideally you'll need to run the benchmark several times on each setup, and calculate the VARIANCE of each case, which defines the smoothness of the gameplay. Strictly, get a program to count "how many gaps are there larger than, say, 33ms (or 50ms, for mid ranged cards like 560 Ti SLI)". Don't just pick blue arrows by eye. This is just a rough illustration for people who can understand the idea.

Also, I hate to repeat, but Metro 2033 benchmark does NOT rotate the camera quickly or switch cutscene, and hence there are a lot more lag spikes in the real-game play than in this small benchmark. I pick this benchmark merely because it makes plots based on frametimes, not fps numbers simply averaged over 1-second time intervals smoothing out the lag spikes.

Don't report to me that the max vram you used was 1000/1024. You should let Jen-Hsun Huang know it. Obviously he's wasting money using more than 1GB on some cards, and he should cut the cost on Kepler cards.

 

[Mojo]

For next gen cards, I would like to see a meaningful performance increase across the board. Both Nvidia and AMD/ATI have disappointed me this generation in the fact that the jump in performance from 4xx>5xx and 5xxx>6xxx was very small in comparison to previous generations whilst also getting a lot hotter and more power hungry. This has made me reluctant to upgrade my 5870 for a very long time. A decent jump in performance when we get 28nm (which is basically a cert going to a new process) will make this one happy

 

[bhavv]

Pointless jargon

The point being that Metro benchmark doesnt use 2 Gb Vram, doesnt perform any better on a 2 Gb card over 1 Gb, those results were obtained from within two out of three results on my first load and run today, and only the second or third time I've ever ran the benchmark other than the couple of previous ones a few moths ago. The lag spikes likely arent due to the video cards, they are entirely due to the PC / background programs whatever else, hence as everyone already knows how invalid your comparisons using two entirely different PCs are.

That doesnt mean that people dont want more Vram on future cards, current Vram usage =/= future Vram usage.

Also I dont get why you are blaming Jen-Hsun Huang on the amount of Vram on Nvidia cards, Nvidia AIB partners are free to double up the ram if they want to, as they already have done with 2 Gb GTX 560s, 2.5 Gb GTX 570s, and 3 Gb 580s.

All of Nvidias cards can support more ram, the manufacturer only putting on 1 Gb isnt any kind of flaw with Nvidias designs. The issue with Vram on Nvidia cards is the price, though you can get a 2 Gb GTX 560 for around the same cost as a 2 Gb 6950, so this isnt any kind of a flaw or problem with Nvidia or their CEO. GTX 570s / 580s with over 2 Gb Vram cost too much for most people, hence they arent currently going to be buying anything with more than 1 Gb.

 

[harmony]

^^ Then why do I see 1.3GB vram usage in the benchmark, and 1.6GB during gameplay, on cards with more than 1GB? Obviously there is something wrong with nVidia then?

By the way, they don't get double vram for free. When the manufacturing process can produce vram of higher density (i.e. higher capacity per IC), the cost of 1GB vram must be lower than the current price as of today, and Jen-Hsun Huang can cut the cost. Why not?

 

[bhavv]

By the way, they don't get double vram for free. When the manufacturing process can produce vram of higher density (i.e. higher capacity per IC), the cost of 1GB vram must be lower than the current price as of today, and Jen-Hsun Huang can cut the cost. Why not?

What are you smoking?

People have always bought cards with more Vram after the price difference declined. Most gamers currently arent going to buy 2 Gb+ cards because they still cost too much. Exactly the same with system ram, people are now buying 4 Gb modules because of how cheap they have gone, but back when they carried an inflated price tag, most people werent interested.

The number of gamers currently with 2 Gb or higer Vram are still a minority because 2 Gb isnt yet mainstream enough with its pricing. After it is more people will buy 2 Gb cards. When Cards first started using 1 Gb vram (around the HD 4800 range), they were available from £125 on the 4850, and this is why so many people started buying them insted of 512 Mb. We have to wait for the same prices on 2 Gb cards before most gamers will buy them.

Nvidias prices on 2 Gb+ cards arent any worse than ATIs (2 Gb 560 - 2 Gb 6950, 2.5 Gb 570 - 2 Gb 6970).

Why are you blaming Nvidia only for not having enough Vram for you when its no different for ATI? There are enough cards out there right now with 2 Gb+ Vram from both companies, they simply cost more than what a lot of people are willing to pay for the currently insignificant performance difference in the majority of games up to 1200p.

 

[harmony]

^^ You still don't get it. If 1GB is sufficient, why wouldn't nvidia or amd produce 28nm midrange cards with 1GB? When the price of 2GB drops, the price of 1GB would drop as well. nvidia and amd should continue using 1GB because it cuts the cost. You should also continue buying 1GB cards because it runs absolutely fine - you get the same performance as 2GB cards, for a cheaper price.

So, prove to us that you will continue buying 1GB cards in the future (for SLI/CF purposes). Otherwise your arguments about 1GB affluent is pointless. You can't just recommend to people something that you don't want to buy yourself.

By the way, I would expect the same fate of 8800 GS 384MB and 8800 GTS 320MB awaits for GTX 560 Ti 1GB.

 

[bhavv]

1 Gb is completely sufficient right now for 99.9% of PC games. That doesnt mean it will be a few years from now.

When 2 Gb cards are affordable and most people can have them, game developers can then start making games that utilize that much Vram without negatively affecting most users.

ATI and Nvidia will carry on making 1 Gb 28 nm cards in the low - mid range, I never stated that they wouldnt. But people want CHEAPER 2 Gb cards available in the mid range price point with better performance than the current cards. Why cant you understand something as simple as this?

I have bought 1 Gb GTX 560s myself, and recommend them to people right now, as you have also done in another thread. In the next range I want the Vram in the <£180, preferably £150 price point to increase to 2 Gb on cards that are significantly faster than my current one.

If the price difference between 1 Gb and 2 Gb is only £10-20 on a card I want, then I will buy it because it is worth the difference. However the current £40+ difference on 2 Gb cards is not worth it for anyone playing at 1200p resolution or lower.

You can't just recommend to people something that you don't want to buy yourself.

I have bought what I recommend other people to buy, so what is your point? This thread is a discussion on what people want 6 months from now as an upgrade.

 

[harmony]

^^ Don't mention it. I know how you felt when there were GTX560 Ti 2GB out right after you bought your pair of GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI. I had the same feeling when I found HD5870 2GB out right after I bought my 5870 1GB CF. Your willingness of paying premium for 24GB RAM (when the price of 4GB DIMMs were not cheap) already tells your true feelings about it. The price difference between 1GB and 2GB used to be merely £20, which is negligible for someone who owns 24GB RAM.

So you do admit that game developers will start using more vram in the near future? If so, why would you continue recommending 1GB cards? If not, why would you buy 2GB cards in the near then? Many people wants their cards to sort of future-proof a bit longer and can sell at a higher price when it's out-dated.

If you buy a pair of GTX580 3GB for £900 and then sell for £400, you have paid £500 for gaming at max for a year; if you buy a pair of GTX560 Ti 1GB for £400 and then sell for £200, you have paid £200 for gaming at medium/high for a year. It is totally true that the cost of gaming at higher IQ increases exponentially. But it is wrong to deceive people that you are running everything at max smoothly on midrange cards without issue.

 

[robin66]

Double the speed of the present gen, less noise and less power useage and I'll be happy.

 

[Marine-RX179]

So you do admit that game developers will start using more vram in the near future? If so, why would you continue recommending 1GB cards? If not, why would you buy 2GB cards in the near then? Many people wants their cards to sort of future-proof a bit longer and can sell at a higher price when it's out-dated.

Stop taking peoples' post out of context and discard and ignore ALL reasonable points that people are making just because you can't counter those points.

Simple reality is not everyone got a £200 budget for getting a 6950 2GB, so people are not really "choosing" 1GB card is not really by choice, but by their budget. For people that are upgrading from the likes of 4850/4870, if they only got £100 ish budget, they would have to choose from the GTX460/GTX560/5850/6850/6870 range, but if they got a £200 budget, then they can get for a 6950 2GB...it is as simple as that! You may spit on 1GB card all you want, but unless you are giving money away for people to fill the price gap to get a 6950 2GB instead of the £100 ish range card, I suggest you should just stay quiet.

And then for the 6950, be it 2GB or 10GB of VRAM, the fact is that its GPU is not that much faster than 5850/5870, so it's hardly worth spending £100 going from a 5850/5870 upgrading to a 6950 2GB. IF the 6950 was as fast as a GTX480/GTX570 GPU wise, then it would probably worth the upgrade.

 

[harmony]

snip

I agree on your argue that we are all limited by budget. What I do not agree is that bhavv is saying there is no performance difference between 1GB and 2GB if we buy a new card now, especially for SLI/Cf setup.

 

[bhavv]

double post

 

[bhavv]

What I do not agree is that bhavv is saying there is no performance difference between 1GB and 2GB if we buy a new card now, especially for SLI/Cf setup.

Well there absolutely isnt at this current time at 1200p or lower resolution, as has been proven time and time again (even proven for Metro in post 43, your glorious benchmark for trying to show that 1 Gb Vram isnt enough for 1200p). Even if there is a difference at higher resolutions, the difference is so insignificant that it doest justify the increased cost.

^^ Don't mention it. I know how you felt when there were GTX560 Ti 2GB out right after you bought your pair of GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI.

Sigh, you are such a clown.

There were 2 Gb GTX 560s out when I bought mine, and they cost £260 for a rubbish PCB / Cooler compared to the MSI version. Even at this point, I wouldnt buy a 2 Gb GTX 560 or 6950 because they are not needed.

There is absolutely nothing stoppting me from Ebaying my current cards and getting 2 Gb ones if I want to, BUT THERE ISNT A SINGLE GAME THAT I HAVE THAT WOULD HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENT FROM MORE VRAM!

So you do admit that game developers will start using more vram in the near future? If so, why would you continue recommending 1GB cards? If not, why would you buy 2GB cards in the near then? Many people wants their cards to sort of future-proof a bit longer and can sell at a higher price when it's out-dated.

Because by the time you need 2 Gb Vram in anything, ALL of the current gen of cards, including the 3 Gb GTX 580 will be too slow to play them at even 20 FPS.

If you buy a pair of GTX580 3GB for £900 and then sell for £400, you have paid £500 for gaming at max for a year; if you buy a pair of GTX560 Ti 1GB for £400 and then sell for £200, you have paid £200 for gaming at medium/high for a year. It is totally true that the cost of gaming at higher IQ increases exponentially. But it is wrong to deceive people that you are running everything at max smoothly on midrange cards without issue.

What a bloody waste of money high end cards are compared to mid range. I am not decieving anyone by stating that Vram is not the issue for running games smoothly like you are, GPU is. Everyone that owns a GTX 460 / 560 will tell you how completely wrong you are.

EVERYTHING I play is running fully maxed out at 1200p without any issues. Get over it and stop whining about 1 Gb GTX 560s. There isnt a single game that I have installed that I need to run at medium or high like you so falsely assume.

 

[harmony]

Well there absolutely isnt at this current time at 1200p or lower resolution, as has been proven time and time again (even proven for Metro in post 43, your glorious benchmark for trying to show that 1 Gb Vram isnt enough for 1200p). Even if there is a difference at higher resolutions, the difference is so insignificant that it doest justify the increased cost.

^^ Already commented in post 44 so no need to double post again.

I'm looking forward to see you buying 28nm 1GB cards, for your system with 24GB RAM.

Sigh, you are such a clown.

There were 2 Gb GTX 560s out when I bought mine, and they cost £260 for a rubbish PCB / Cooler compared to the MSI version. Even at this point, I wouldnt buy a 2 Gb GTX 560 or 6950 because they are not needed.

There is absolutely nothing stoppting me from Ebaying my current cards and getting 2 Gb ones if I want to, BUT THERE ISNT A SINGLE GAME THAT I HAVE THAT WOULD HAVE ANY IMPROVEMENT FROM MORE VRAM!

Just because you don't play Shogun 2 and other games using mods. Also, you can live with lag spikes. Remember, your case does not apply to everyone.

Because by the time you need 2 Gb Vram in anything, ALL of the current gen of cards, including the 3 Gb GTX 580 will be too slow to play them at even 20 FPS.

I'm using 2GB VRAM in an ancient game called Crysis Warhead at 2560x1600, with playable fps on my GTX580 3GB x 2. (a lot more playable than what you get in Metro 2033)

What a bloody waste of money high end cards are compared to mid range. I am not decieving anyone by stating that Vram is not the issue for running games smoothly like you are, GPU is. Everyone that owns a GTX 460 / 560 will tell you how completely wrong you are.

EVERYTHING I play is running fully maxed out at 1200p without any issues. Get over it and stop whining about 1 Gb GTX 560s.

So just like you disabled DOF in Metro 2033, you disabled Ubersampling in The Witcher 2 and claim there is little visual difference? (I'm not saying The Witcher 2 is vram-hungry but you are obviously deceiving.)

 

[bhavv]

Why do you give a crap what I buy, which games I play, or how fantastic they run on my system?

I bought 24 Gb ram for the purpose of running a ramdrive, not for video games.

I'm using 2GB VRAM in an ancient game called Crysis Warhead at 2560x1600

Good for you. I and most people are playing at 1200p or less.

So just like you disabled DOF in Metro 2033, you disabled Ubersampling in The Witcher 2 and claim there is little visual difference?

DoF and Ubersampling are as useful as Physx. You have Physx disabled in your Metro benches, yet claim that that is max? What a liar.

I dont consider any of those features to be the difference between max / high / medium. All the sliders in my games are set to MAX. And I dont play Metro anyway, so why would I give a crap about it?

As I clearly stated, 99.9% of games that exist run fully maxed out on my system. I'm not spending £900 just for one video game because you complain that I cant run ubersampling.

Just because you don't play Shogun 2 and other games using mods. Also, you can live with lag spikes. Remember, your case does not apply to everyone.

Those games would still run perfectly maxed out for the vast majority of users on two 1280 Mb GTX 570s at 1200p. People who game at 2560x1600 are a tiny proportion of gamers.

 

[harmony]

Why do you give a crap what I buy, which games I play, or how fantastic they run on my system?

I bought 24 Gb ram for the purpose of running a ramdrive, not for video games.



Good for you. I and most people are playing at 1200p or less.



DoF and Ubersampling are as useful as Physx. You have Physx disabled in your Metro benches, yet claim that that is max? What a liar.

I dont consider any of those features to be the difference between max / high / medium. All the sliders in my games are set to MAX. And I dont play Metro anyway, so why would I give a crap about it?

You are playing a limited set of games and you claim you play everything at max without any problem? So you claim it's absolutely smooth for all games with your speculation and imagination? I wouldn't generalize that to all games, not until I have tried them out myself in real.

Disabling PhysX was to compare with AMD cards - how 1GB and 2GB cards from AMD performs. I have yet to see any results of 6850/70 CF or 6950 1GB CF. Even if you don't observe so many lag spikes (like 20+ in post 43 of your 1GB cards), it does not suffice to say there aren't so many in the real gameplay, unless you don't aim fast in first person shooting games.

Those games would still run perfectly maxed out for the vast majority of users on two 1280 Mb GTX 570s at 1200p. People who game at 2560x1600 are a tiny proportion of gamers.

Since when did you change from GTX560 Ti 1GB to GTX570 1.25GB? Didn't I already mention that you'll have to hack (my modifying the script) to prevent Shogun 2 from downgrading your graphics settings in stealth due to insufficient vram available from GTX570 1.25GB? Not having to repeat and mention the lag spike problem you insist to deny.

 

[bhavv]

Not playing Metro, Crysis or Shogun 2 isnt a limited set of games.

You are playing a limited set of games and you claim you play everything at max without any problem?

Everything I own and play yes.

Didn't I already mention that you'll have to hack (my modifying the script) to prevent Shogun 2 from downgrading your graphics settings in stealth due to insufficient vram available from GTX570 1.25GB?

What a ridiculously stupid design decision by the makers of that game. Shared memory would be able to cope with the extra Vram requirement, just like it does in every other game that requires more than 1 Gb Vram.