[In]formal proof of the limitation of 1.5GB VRAM at 1920x1200 resolution

Cleeecooo · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:15

KiiYzOo said:
He's at it again

Cleeecooo said:
what do you mean?

Nvidiot · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:16

harmony said:
570 1.25GB SLI (not recommended since early of this year)
any 1GB cards in SLI/CF (not recommended since last year)

KiiYzOo · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:17

The thread was intended to prove him wrong, but now he's back at it

Cleeecooo · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:18

Nvidiot said:

+1111111119

KiiYzOo said:
The thread was intended to prove him wrong, but now he's back at it

Lol, but atleast he's trying to give some proof

GoogalyMoogaly · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:20

The other point that probably needs to be made here is that that there are probably only a handful (or 2) of games that are going to use enough VRAM for it to be an issue.
Which probably totals about 1% of PC games?

You could probably find a few programs that use more than 4 threads, but I don't think we should go around telling people not to buy a i5 2500K because it'll be useless due to not being able to run enough threads. It's just that a few programs would benefit fro more cores and/or hyperthreading.

Nvidiot · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:20

harmony said:
"Surprisingly" w1zzard agrees with me:

http://tpucdn.com/reviews/ASUS/Mars_II/images/perfrel_1920.gif[IMG]
[/QUOTE]

Hotlinking isn't allowed;) have a RTM for your troubles:)

Cleeecooo · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:20

GoogalyMoogaly said:
You could probably find a few programs that use more than 4 threads, but I don't think we should go around telling people not to buy a i5 2500K because it'll be useless due to not being able to run enough threads. It's just that a few programs would benefit fro more cores and/or hyperthreading.

nice analogy!

EDIT: talk about rubbing salt into wounds NV!

harmony · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:26

GoogalyMoogaly said:
The other point that probably needs to be made here is that that there are probably only a handful (or 2) of games that are going to use enough VRAM for it to be an issue.
Which probably totals about 1% of PC games?

You could probably find a few programs that use more than 4 threads, but I don't think we should go around telling people not to buy a i5 2500K because it'll be useless due to not being able to run enough threads. It's just that a few programs would benefit fro more cores and/or hyperthreading.

As a user of i7 980X for over a year, I have never recommended any gamer to buy a CPU with more than 4 physical cores, this is because I know the majority of console ports still only use 3 cores, and game engines claiming to be able to utilize hex core are using only 2 physical cores most of the time. However I wouldn't continue to recommend gamers to get more dual core CPUs if they can afford an i5 2500K.

Cleeecooo · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:36

harmony said:
As a user of i7 980X for over a year, I have never recommended any gamer to buy a CPU with more than 4 physical cores, this is because I know the majority of console ports still only use 3 cores, and game engines claiming to be able to utilize hex core are using only 2 physical cores most of the time. However I wouldn't continue to recommend gamers to get more dual core CPUs if they can afford an i5 2500K.

He never said you did.
He was using an analogy

Please read posts before replying

Also, my previous list was NOT NV biased AT ALL :mad:

harmony · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:39

Cleeecooo said:
He never said you did.
He was using an analogy

Please read posts before replying

Also, my previous list was NOT NV biased AT ALL

I was using an analogy

Please read posts before replying

Also, are you saying that Techpowerup and many other sites are biased towards AMD?

Cleeecooo · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:43

harmony said:
I was using an analogy

Please read posts before replying

Also, are you saying that Techpowerup and many other sites are biased towards AMD?

Ana analogy is when you describe a situation that may be unfamiliar with a different situation, similar in principle, so that the current unfamiliar situation may be descibed in a way relating to a more familiar situation.

NO, i'm not saying techpowerup is based to AMD. Where did you get that from? :mad:

:confused.

please explain :/

harmony · 25 Oct 2011 at 22:57

Cleeecooo said:
Ana analogy is when you describe a situation that may be unfamiliar with a different situation, similar in principle, so that the current unfamiliar situation may be descibed in a way relating to a more familiar situation.

NO, i'm not saying techpowerup is based to AMD. Where did you get that from? :confused.

please explain :/

So you do know what is called analogy right?

I never said gamers must buy 3GB cards, just like I never said gamers must buy hex core CPUs.

I no longer recommend gamers to get 1.25GB cards for SLI, just like I no longer recommend gamers to buy dual core CPUs.

Your hierarchy of GPUs are not in the same order as Techpowerup's and many other sites'. If you are not biased, then they must biased.

Cleeecooo · 25 Oct 2011 at 23:04

harmony said:
So you do know what is called analogy right?

I never said gamers must buy 3GB cards, just like I never said gamers must buy hex core CPUs.

I no longer recommend gamers to get 1.25GB cards for SLI, just like I no longer recommend gamers to buy dual core CPUs.

Your hierarchy of GPUs are not in the same order as Techpowerup's and many other sites'. If you are not biased, then they must biased.

I said each colour represents a different level. Things of the same colour are equal :rolleyes:

Scougar · 26 Oct 2011 at 02:14

Geeze, both of you lol. Get back on topic eh

Purgatory · 26 Oct 2011 at 08:19

Scougar said:
I do feel threads like this can misguide buyers into thinking that a card won't be 'good enough' and they end up spending more than necessary. I just think that you have to be careful with the way you word things in analysis threads, and the topic title is not helping.

Well said , this was exactly my point.

Scougar said:
You can see it spreading round the forums with people now saying this and that card don't have enough memory etc, even before you know what resolution those people play at for example.

Yes it's spreading like the rumour Plasma screens need regasing.. :rolleyes:

This is why I said the "argument" and "proof" shown does not support the facts.

Scougar said:
I like what you are doing harmony, just please don't go making grand statements and sweeping assumptions about what people will and won't be happy with (like 30fps etc).

Exactly.. I took a lot of interest with what he said when he started this topic on many forums around the internet and as any person with common sense I did some research from well know sites and looked at their data and found what harmony has stated is wrong with what software we have in 2011 and upcoming titles. Many sites even showed 2500 x 1600 resolution does not suffer with 1.5Gb cards or even 1Gb cards on many titles.

Only thing you have done is make us think about the problem but not really shown a problem exists right now is what we are saying and it will become a problem in the future but for right now there is not a single problem with any game or graphics card driver that is written correctly and does not show any form of memory leaks or bad code.

Only areas I see more then 1.5Gb and 3Gb cards becoming useful are :-

Multi monitor setups.

Screen resolutions above 2500 x 1600 and wanting to use a lot of AA.

You use the cards to do massive amounts of data crunching, eg rendering, data analysis and special screens like medical screens and air traffic control screens.

bhavv · 29 Oct 2011 at 19:14

Vram is so important that a 1280 Mb card beats 1.5 and 2 Gb cards :rolleyes:

Dont ask me where the 1 Gb card comparisons are, I wish someone would bench BF3 with 1 Gb cards but I cant find anywhere that has done.

harmony said:
Some people are satisfied with 30 fps (e.g. bhavv is satisfied with his GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI in Metro 2033 max'ed)

1) I dont even play this rubbish game.
2) Having all the Vram in the world on a pair of GTX 560 ti's wouldnt increase FPS by even 1 over my 1 Gb GTX 560 tis @ 1920x1200 resolution.

harmony · 29 Oct 2011 at 19:58

bhavv said:
Vram is so important that a 1280 Mb card beats 1.5 and 2 Gb cards

Dont ask me where the 1 Gb card comparisons are, I wish someone would bench BF3 with 1 Gb cards but I cant find anywhere that has done.

1) I dont even play this rubbish game.
2) Having all the Vram in the world on a pair of GTX 560 ti's wouldnt increase FPS by even 1 over my 1 Gb GTX 560 tis @ 1920x1200 resolution.

Where's your frametime analysis?

Marine-RX179 · 29 Oct 2011 at 20:04

bhavv said:
Vram is so important that a 1280 Mb card beats 1.5 and 2 Gb cards

Don't tempt him, he's gonna claim the frame rate means nothing, and say that the GTX570 1.25GB WILL have "lag-spike" (something he keep banging on despite I haven't see any well-reputation reviewer mention anything like that) and not as smooth as the lower frame rate 6970 2GB...without any proof (well, any that make sense or relevant) that actually support the claim as usual...

harmony · 29 Oct 2011 at 20:09

Marine-RX179 said:
Don't tempt him, he's gonna claim the frame rate means nothing, and say that the GTX570 1.25GB WILL have "lag-spike" (something he keep banging on despite I haven't see any well-reputation reviewer mention anything like that) and not as smooth as the lower frame rate 6970 2GB...without any proof (well, any that make sense or relevant) that actually support the claim as usual...

It was not me who first said it's a bad idea to compare different GPU cores

On a side note, I have noticed that the latest NVIDIA drivers tend to do driver-level thrashing, i.e. a GTX560 Ti 2GB is getting only about 1000MB vram usage in BF3, resulting in the same performance as a GTX560 Ti 1GB. (Someone else posted this in another forum.) I have also noticed that the driver seems to be intentionally limiting the vram usage of my GTX580 3GB within 1400MB-ish after the last driver update. Sad.

Scougar · 29 Oct 2011 at 20:14

Crumbs.. you had better quick swap back to .38 drivers to increase your usage :-P

On a serious note: If you could tell us or show us exactly what has changed on screen between .38 and the latest driver that would be great. Has quality decreased? Has the frame rate increased? Has anything got better/worse apart from reduced vram usage? (And why is this bad thing, assuming the driver isn't actually screwing something up deliberately).