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

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 12:55

Mr Krugga said:
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.

So you don't need more than 1GB vram for 2560x1600 and higher?

This must be the greatest technology you've ever developed!

Cleeecooo · 30 Oct 2011 at 13:08

harmony said:
So you don't need more than 1GB vram for 2560x1600 and higher? This must be the greatest technology you've ever developed!

You don't.

But it's advisable to go for it as you can have some AA and eye candy.

You're also limited at times.

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 13:15

harmony said:
So you don't need more than 1GB vram for 2560x1600 and higher? This must be the greatest technology you've ever developed!

Where have I said that?

Admit that you don't understand how VRAM is utilised and that's why you're doing another thread on this subject every other week hoping that someone will join your circlejerk of being unable to proof your "facts".

All I said is that utilising more than the required amount of VRAM doesn't necessarily (and in most cases) create a bottleneck and that VRAM is much less of an issue that you make it out to be.

Modern games are limited by the power of GPUs to render scenes, not by the amount of textures they can load onto the memory.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 13:49

harmony said:
then

I feel proud that you are changing your opinions over time

Im not changing my opinions. I didnt state that those two games are a strong enough reason to buy a card with more Vram, I stated that their problems are due to terrible coding, not a lack of Vram.

You are pathetic.

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 14:43

Good. I think every fanatic defender of the 1GB has replied to this thread, and I haven't seen any sensible questions so far, such like "you'll need to compare the same GPU core of different vram size" as mentioned before. All attacks so far, are just merely pale attacks, without any reasonable proof or technical backup.

I feel glad that I didn't buy the GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI vs GTX560 Ti 2GB SLI setup, as it wouldn't make any difference to those followers of 1GB.

Cleeecooo · 30 Oct 2011 at 15:23

harmony said:
Good. I think every fanatic defender of the 1GB has replied to this thread, and I haven't seen any sensible questions so far, such like "you'll need to compare the same GPU core of different vram size" as mentioned before. All attacks so far, are just merely pale attacks, without any reasonable proof or technical backup.

I feel glad that I didn't buy the GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI vs GTX560 Ti 2GB SLI setup, as it wouldn't make any difference to those followers of 1GB.

actually,whilst we may not bring any new evidence to this thread - it is because we don't need to!

Fine - you may get lag spikes occasionaly in the most demanding games. We knew that!
No need at all to tell us!

Your evidence is reinforcing the obvious and pointing out the stupid! Yes, you may need to turn AA down a notch, but again, we all knew that AA uses VRAM.

If you get proof that VRAm between 1gb 560's and 2gb 560's will make a VISIBLE difference to a wide range of games at playable settings, THEN I will listen toy you

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 15:36

Cleeecooo said:
Your evidence is reinforcing the obvious and pointing out the stupid!

This I like! It's better said by someone else than by myself

Cleeecooo · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:27

harmony said:
This I like! It's better said by someone else than by myself

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:34

Cleeecooo said:
If you get proof that VRAm between 1gb 560's and 2gb 560's will make a VISIBLE difference to a wide range of games at playable settings, THEN I will listen toy you

^^

harmony said:
I feel glad that I didn't buy the GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI vs GTX560 Ti 2GB SLI setup, as it wouldn't make any difference to those followers of 1GB.

It wouldnt make any difference because you couldnt show any difference. All you do is post completely laughable nonsense and rubbish graphs and expect people to believe everything you say.

You have no idea at all how to show anyone that more vram is needed nor how it affects performance, all you do is post and chat ****.

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 16:58

I think if this thread was created a year from now it may have some credit but bf3 on my machine runs fine at high settings. The fact is as said above vram usage depends on what settings you run and we all know whats best for our pcs.

If i was buying a crossfire or sli setup i would tend to agree with the op as vram does matter. I would buy a 6950 2gb cf setup
before i would think about ti560 1gb sli at my resolution of 1920x1200.

He does make some good points in the above situation but from my experience with my machine i get by easy with 1gb of vram.

Cleeecooo · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:15

TheRealDeal said:
I think if this thread was created a year from now it may have some credit but bf3 on my machine runs fine at high settings. The fact is as said above vram usage depends on what settings you run and we all know whats best for our pcs.

If i was buying a crossfire or sli setup i would tend to agree with the op as vram does matter. I would buy a 6950 2gb cf setup
before i would think about ti560 1gb sli at my resolution of 1920x1200.

why? 1gb will last for some time. Although, if the price is negligible, then always go for that extra bit

He does make some good points in the above situation but from my experience with my machine i get by easy with 1gb of vram.

shame he has to ruin them straight after :/

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:31

TheRealDeal said:
If i was buying a crossfire or sli setup i would tend to agree with the op as vram does matter. I would buy a 6950 2gb cf setup
before i would think about ti560 1gb sli at my resolution of 1920x1200.

He does make some good points in the above situation but from my experience with my machine i get by easy with 1gb of vram.

None of his points regarding that situation are good.

I've probably used more Xfire / SLI setups than anyone else here, and all of them have been 256-1 Gb Vram without any kind of limitation caused by not having 2 Gb Vram (3850, 4850, 4870, 5770, GTX 460, and 560 ti xfire / SLI setups al at 1920x1200 for the last several years, 256 Mb Geforce 6800s ages before that).

Vram actually matters less for SLI / Crossfire, because of how much extra FPS and GPU power you are adding with the second card. The only reason why the 2 Gb 6950 is a good choice is because it generally has a better price / performance ratio for its cost than the over priced 2 Gb GTX 560 tis have.

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:44

bhavv said:
None of his points regarding that situation are good.

I've probably used more Xfire / SLI setups than anyone else here, and all of them have been 256-1 Gb Vram without any kind of limitation caused by not having 2 Gb Vram (3850, 4850, 4870, 5770, GTX 460, and 560 ti xfire / SLI setups al at 1920x1200 for the last several years, 256 Mb Geforce 6800s ages before that).

Vram actually matters less for SLI / Crossfire, because of how much extra FPS and GPU power you are adding with the second card. The only reason why the 2 Gb 6950 is a good choice is because it generally has a better price / performance ratio for its cost than the over priced 2 Gb GTX 560 tis have.

On some games as has been shown in reviews the extra vram is a factor. If i went for sli/cf and had the power i would push the settings up but with 1gb of ram at my resolution i may not be able to utilise this power and that fact is undisputable.

I guess what i am saying if the power is there but the memory is limiting me i see no point in spending so much and scrimping on the memory. Its probably more a piece of mind thing as it does not cost that much extra to get 2gb especially on the amd side.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:49

TheRealDeal said:
On some games as has been shown in reviews the extra vram is a factor. If i went for sli/cf and had the power i would push the settings up but with 1gb of ram at my resolution i may not be able to utilise this power and that fact is undisputable.
/QUOTE]

You mean on one game called Shogun 2, which is obviously due to the fact that the game refuses to offload extra Vram data into the shared system ram?

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:52

bhavv said:
TheRealDeal said:

On some games as has been shown in reviews the extra vram is a factor. If i went for sli/cf and had the power i would push the settings up but with 1gb of ram at my resolution i may not be able to utilise this power and that fact is undisputable.
/QUOTE]

You mean on one game called Shogun 2, which is obviously due to the fact that the game refuses to offload extra Vram data into the shared system ram?

Click to expand...

No on dragon age 2 and dirt 3. Review was comparing a 6950 1gb v 2gb. They probably could have showed more games where this was the case. 8xmsaa at 1920x1200 was the cause. They could even run at a much higher res without aa but at the lower resolution with aa the frames were very low compared with the 2gb.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/17/msi_r6950_1gb_twin_frozr_iii_power_edition_review/8

check out the difference between the settings on the link below 2gb manages 8xmsaa at 1920x1200 where as they just up the resolution on the 1gb card with no msaa.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/10/17/msi_r6950_1gb_twin_frozr_iii_power_edition_review/5

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:57

Thats 2560x1600 resolution with 8x AA, not 1920x1200 resolution.

And with so many shaders available in current cards, even if you had 2 Gb Vram, why would you insist on still using MSAA instead of the far more efficient FXAA?

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 17:58

bhavv said:
Thats 2560x1600 resolution with 8x AA, not 1920x1200 resolution.

Edited my post with the second link.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:01

Your second link is comparing different GPUs in a game which is optimised for AMD graphics cards.

This isnt evidence, show 1 Gb vs 2 Gb reviews of the same GPU.

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:03

bhavv said:
Your second link is comparing different GPUs in a game which is optimised for AMD graphics cards.

This isnt evidence, show 1 Gb vs 2 Gb reviews of the same GPU.

Lol are you reading the same review its a 6950 1gb v 2gb.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:07

TheRealDeal said:
Lol are you reading the same review its a 6950 1gb v 2gb.

Oh I see, you dont know how to read:

Look at the highlighted points:

1 Gb 6950 @ 2560x1600 vs 2 Gb 6950 @ 1920x1200 is your proof that you need more Vram :rolleyes:

Here is my proof that Vram doesnt affect performance at 1920x1200 (all tests done at the same settings:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/02/24/amd_radeon_hd_6950_1gb_performance_review/2