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?

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.
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!
So you don't need more than 1GB vram for 2560x1600 and higher?This must be the greatest technology you've ever developed!
then
I feel proud that you are changing your opinions over time![]()
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.
Your evidence is reinforcing the obvious and pointing out the stupid!
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![]()
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
Thats 2560x1600 resolution with 8x AA, not 1920x1200 resolution.
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.