Vram is so important that a 1280 Mb card beats 1.5 and 2 Gb cards
This is true as i have a 2560x1440 screen and 3x 470's which only have 1.2gb of vram so asking this fourm that would never work due to lack of vram......
But currently rocking all settings on High with no AA hovering arounf 100fps and never going below 60
The reason i run high is i personally cant see much diffrence for the frame rate hit at this res brings it down to 20-40fps to some people playable but not for me As the game looks great on high with FXAA and is smooth as silk and trust me i know when a game is stuttering and laggin and i can not stand it hence the need for such high frame rate
-
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.
[In]formal proof of the limitation of 1.5GB VRAM at 1920x1200 resolution
- Thread starter harmony
- Start date
- Status
Crumbs.. you had better quick swap back to .38 drivers to increase your usage
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).
I'm waiting for someone to tell me which scene can eat the most vram with the .38 (or earlier) driver. Someone reported 2.1GB peak but didn't mention which scene. I haven't finished the game campaign yet so I don't know which scene can be used as a stress test. I suspect the .62 driver can increase the probability of lag spikes / stuttering on cards with more vram than reference design, but this is just my speculation.
Last edited:
Sadly yes. I had serious lag spikes with 5870 1GB CrossfireX in Crysis / Warhead, Napoleon Total War, while many people suggested that 1GB vram was fine for 1920x1200.
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/677152-napoleon-total-war-more-demanding-than.html
You simply enjoy playing games that are known to be incredibly buggy and full of problems as soon as they are released. Good for you, but you incorrectly associated your highly traumatic experiences @ 1920x1200 with Vram which is a very serious fallacy, and indeed a mentally crippling problem that you refuse to improve upon.
Ah no, I remember when this happened. 2 Gb 6950s solved the issues, and from that day onwards Harmony began plaguing the internet claiming that this massive performance boost between a pair of 1 Gb 5870s and 2 Gb 6950s was entirely due to nothing but Vram.
Didn't have the chance. That's why I did this thread.
WTF is this ****?
Not only does it not prove anything, it's massively pointless, shows no microstuttering effect in any form (do you even know what that is?) and is a meaningless measure since the origin of higher maximum framerates may lie in a thousand sources.
And yes, there are games that are limited by vRAM and there will be cases when running out of memory will either cause loading from the additional RAM buffer or an fps spike that will not look pretty in game.
You haven't shown any of that and I refuse to read passed that point because all you post is a load of crap with maybe 1% of useful information. There's simply too much bullcrap in your post to reply to anything in particular.
Gief me Skyrim NAOW!!!!
So you got forced to?
For the love of god, why did you have to bring this thread back from the dead.
Everyone is enjoying BF3 with there 1gb cards, and I'm sure Skyrim will be the same.
Point made, lets put this one to rest.
I'm 100% sure it's not everyone
Already seen too much complain 
hey i have a question bf3 retail
i see on various us forums that a 580 gtx 3gb can use 2000-2500mo of vram at 1920*1200 full ULTRA with 4*MSAA+FXAA and a 1.5gb 580 gtx max out his vram on the same settings and the same situation (certains mp maps/intensive situations etc...). But they get same fps and people with 1.5gb will not notice stuttering/lag spike/ micro lag or anything like that when 1.5gb is used (they checked with afterburner, gpuz and in game consoles like renderdevice.perfoverlayactive etc..). So advantage can offer the 3gb version except that more vram is used for the same visual graphics and the same gameplay? Some people from http://www.overclock.net/ said that there is a memory leak or it's a situation like crysis 2 (more you have free vram available more the driver will eat vram but you will not notice any improvments).
i see on various us forums that a 580 gtx 3gb can use 2000-2500mo of vram at 1920*1200 full ULTRA with 4*MSAA+FXAA and a 1.5gb 580 gtx max out his vram on the same settings and the same situation (certains mp maps/intensive situations etc...). But they get same fps and people with 1.5gb will not notice stuttering/lag spike/ micro lag or anything like that when 1.5gb is used (they checked with afterburner, gpuz and in game consoles like renderdevice.perfoverlayactive etc..). So advantage can offer the 3gb version except that more vram is used for the same visual graphics and the same gameplay? Some people from http://www.overclock.net/ said that there is a memory leak or it's a situation like crysis 2 (more you have free vram available more the driver will eat vram but you will not notice any improvments).
Thats called having the joy of shared ram in every single PC.
99% of users complaining about Vram have no idea what this is, nor do they notice that going from 1 Gb to 3 Gb dedicated Vram barely ever means getting better performance (definitely still not the case at 1920x1200).
People who think that amount of Vram has any direct correlation to performance or FPS couldnt be more mistaken.
There are only two games out there on the PC market that seem to be unable to properly utilize shared ram - Shogun 2 and GTA 4. This does not mean that only having 1 Gb Vram isnt enough for 1920x1200 resolution, this simply means that these games are simply terribly optimized.
All these threads, posts and whining over Vram, and not one single post or thread can show me any improvement gains from 2 Gb Geforce GTX 560 tis over 1 Gb Geforce GTX 560 tis, the only thing that Harmony ever does is prove that a single GTX 570 or 580 > a single GTX 560. ZOMG, like therefore it must be 100% due the Vram!
Last edited:
It's been proven and said a number of times already, utilising more vRAM doesn't create a bottleneck when the amount is reduced by the extra amount.
- Status