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

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:10

bhavv said:
Oh I see, you dont know how to read:

Look at the highlighted points:

This is the line i was looking for:

"Once we tried 8X MSAA we hit the cards 1GB Memory limitation. Even though the performance would have been shy of our playable standards, it could not handle it all"

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:14

TheRealDeal said:
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

LOL

Better and more consistent framerates on the 1GB RAM 6950.

Not a fair comparison between the 1GB and the 2GB cards (different resolution, different AA settings).

It only shows that the 6950 1GB is just as fast as the GTX 570 (that has more vRAM, surprise surprise).

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:15

TheRealDeal said:
The 1gb card could not run 1920x1200 with 8xmsaa so they upped the resolution and ran no aa. They think 1920x1200 with 8xaa is the better option.

Then use 4x AA :rolleyes:

Are you really going to see any difference between 4x and 8a MSAA?

Can you even show me an actual graph of either:

1 Gb 6950 vs 2 Gb 6950

OR

1 Gb GTX 560 ti vs 2 Gb GTX 560 ti

at 1920x1200 resolution and 4x MSAA in any game out there with the 2 Gb card having a clear and significant performance improvement?

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:17

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.

You're nuts. That's all I've got to say.

Calling people "fanatic defenders" because they don't believe the crap you're trying to serve as over and over again is something that I have no words for.

Go on with your crazy Crusade, I'm sure there are more nutters that will support your great cause.

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:18

bhavv said:
Then use 4x AA

Are you really going to see any difference between 4x and 8a MSAA?

I agree but if you had 2gb cards then why not use the extra power that 2gb will give you. The whole point was having cf/sli cards. Why not just get 2gb for piece of mind thats the only real point i think the op has. I myself am happy with 1gb 6870.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:19

IMO this thread should be locked, as should any future thread regarding VRAM until Harmony or anyone else that believes this crap can show solid believable evidence of what I asked for in post 183.

TheRealDeal said:
I agree but if you had 2gb cards then why not use the extra power that 2gb will give you.

This thread has nothing to do with what setting you can run on a 2 Gb vram card, it is for proving any difference between 1 Gb and 2 Gb vram at 1920x1200 resolution, which you still havnt done yet.

I'd rather pay £50 less per GPU and have 1 Gb Vram and use 4x MSAA, than spend an extra £100 to use 8x MSAA in one or two games, but identical performance in every other game I own.

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:23

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.

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.

Save your words with bhavv

He'll never understand why vram does not stack up in SLI/CrossfireX due to the mechanism of AFR.

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:25

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:27

harmony said:
Save your words with bhavv He'll never understand why vram does not stack up in SLI/CrossfireX due to the mechanism of AFR.

He never actually said that, you're just putting words in his mouth.

That's all you have been doing all this time and I'm not surprised - your arguments make no sense whatsoever.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/293?vs=331

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:27

bhavv said:
IMO this thread should be locked, as should any future thread regarding VRAM until Harmony or anyone else that believes this crap can show solid believable evidence of what I asked for in post 183.

This thread has nothing to do with what setting you can run on a 2 Gb vram card, it is for proving any difference between 1 Gb and 2 Gb vram at 1920x1200 resolution, which you still havnt done yet.

I'd rather pay £50 less per GPU and have 1 Gb Vram and use 4x MSAA, than spend an extra £100 to use 8x MSAA in one or two games, but identical performance in every other game I own.

Is it only 2 games though as i am sure dirt 3 is not so much of a memory hog compared with say bf3. I am not in anyway trying to back the op as 90% i agree that theres no real cause to worry about the 1gb vram. The fact is though 1gb 6950 can not run dragon age 2 or dirt 3 with 8xaa max settings so there is proof that 2gb has its advantages. This is all i am really saying and i backed it with proof.

There will be other games where this is true also.

I happily run 4xaa or no aa if i need to but as i have proven 2gb memory does have an advantage especially for people that love aa as high as they can get even when there seems no real advantage.

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:28

bhavv said:
IMO this thread should be locked, as should any future thread regarding VRAM until Harmony or anyone else that believes this crap can show solid believable evidence of what I asked for in post 183.

This thread has nothing to do with what setting you can run on a 2 Gb vram card, it is for proving any difference between 1 Gb and 2 Gb vram at 1920x1200 resolution, which you still havnt done yet.

I'd rather pay £50 less per GPU and have 1 Gb Vram and use 4x MSAA, than spend an extra £100 to use 8x MSAA in one or two games, but identical performance in every other game I own.

Post 183?

I thought you could have been able to see this:

The MSI R6950 1GB Twin Frozr III PE was not able to play at 1920x1200 with 8X MSAA and SSAO disabled. Framerates were very low and sat primarily between 4 and 6 FPS. We could hardly walk at all in this game. There was one spike from 61 seconds to 81 seconds where we got roughly 20 FPS, but this was because we zoomed in on the back of the character all the way and stared directly at the ground. But as soon as we started walking it dropped again.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:29

You say that BF3 is a memory hog, but it runs better on a 1.2 gb GTX 570 than it does on a 1.5 Gb GTX 480 at 1920x1200 resolution.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:30

harmony said:
Post 183? I thought you could have been able to see this

Terribly coded console port (and a terrible game too) says hi.

Theres also no need whatsoever to run 8x MSAA in such a poorly optimized game.

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:30

Mr Krugga said:

You are misquoting or misunderstanding my statements. I said "vram shortage can increase the probability of getting lag spikes / stuttering".

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:31

bhavv said:
You say that BF3 is a memory hog, but it runs better on a 1.2 gb GTX 570 than it does on a 1.5 Gb GTX 480 at 1920x1200 resolution.

I am only going on posts from this site that show high memory usage. You have probably seen them yourself. I think they were from the beta though so maybe things are different.

harmony · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:32

bhavv said:
Terribly coded console port (and a terrible game too) says hi.

Theres also no need whatsoever to run 8x MSAA in such a poorly optimized game.

Good. I'd be glad to see more games blacklisted by you.

bhavv · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:33

DA2 has been blacklisted by just about everyone on the PC.

You would have to be living under a rock not to have known that its a rubbish console port, and not optimized for PC hardware.

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:36

harmony said:
You are misquoting or misunderstanding my statements. I said "vram shortage can increase the probability of getting lag spikes / stuttering".

Of course it's possible in a game that doesn't manage memory well 100% of the time. Shared memory should solve these issues and only result in slightly lower framerates in places, most likely not noticeable for most.

The problem I have with your statements is that you're vastly exaggerating the issue.

There's no proof that having less vRAM affects the gameplay whatsoever, the fps spikes can be attributed to a number of other causes.

Anyone with less vRAM has to turn down AA a notch and can play the game just as smoothly as anyone with more vRAM on the same card. More issues arise if you have an underpowered GPU that is not up to the task and won't render the graphics at an acceptable framerate - where no amount of vRAM will help you.

Mr Krugga · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:39

harmony said:
Good. I'd be glad to see more games blacklisted by you.

Do you realise that jumping on to the conclusion that 1GB vRAM is a limiting factor in Dragon Age 2 and Dirt 3 when gaming at 1920x1080 with maximum eye candy (maximum details + 8xMSAA) means that no card with 1GB vRAM or less should render the game at acceptable framerates?

That means that if I can find a review with such settings, it disproves the statement you're trying to hold on to.

TheRealDeal · 30 Oct 2011 at 18:39

Mr Krugga said:
Of course it's possible in a game that doesn't manage memory well 100% of the time. Shared memory should solve these issues and only result in slightly lower framerates in places, most likely not noticeable for most.

The problem I have with your statements is that you're vastly exaggerating the issue.

There's no proof that having less vRAM affects the gameplay whatsoever, the fps spikes can be attributed to a number of other causes.

Anyone with less vRAM has to turn down AA a notch and can play the game just as smoothly as anyone with more vRAM on the same card. More issues arise if you have an underpowered GPU that is not up to the task and won't render the graphics at an acceptable framerate - where no amount of vRAM will help you.

Pretty much says it all.