• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
V3iWA.png


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/msi-r6950-twin-frozr-iii_8.html#sect1

That's the first one down.

Now Dragon Age 2, if I can find the benchmarks for that, all your arguments are invalid as tested in a different environment they didn't show similar results - meaning that your potential bottleneck is non-existent and there was an error in the benchmarking technique.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Nope as its a lower resolution. Not by much but 1200p was used in hardocp.
Click to expand...

You're having a laugh now?

Are you seriously suggesting that putting the resolution up by 11% is causing a serious bottleneck in the game?

And yet it is just fine at 2560x1600, a 78% higher resolution with no AA?
 
Mr Krugga said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I don't understand. If a single 6950 2GB can render the game at 39.1 fps, I don't see why 6950 2GB x 2 CrossfireX cannot render the game near 60 fps. I played DA2 hi-res texture max 8AA with 6950 2GB x 2 CrossfireX and most of the time it's 60+ fps. What's wrong with my recommendations that "1GB is not recommended for SLI/CrossfireX"?
 
You do know whats gonna be said though lol. I have heard this game wont do max settings unless you have 2gb or force it at 1080p. I have not read up on this but harmony says its the case.
 
This topic has been beaten to death before with 512mb vs 1gb. Guess what, my 2 4870 512mbs destroyed my single 4890 1gb.

It's not as if the game suddenly is crippled when it runs out of texture memory.

When I play BF3 it's obvious I have run into the cap of my 1gb 5850 yet I still get well over 40-50fps average which is considered playable to most. And minimums never even get below 38fps so far
 
harmony said:
So I don't understand. If a single 6950 2GB can render the game at 39.1 fps, I don't see why 6950 2GB x 2 CrossfireX cannot render the game near 60 fps. I played DA2 hi-res texture max 8AA with 6950 2GB x 2 CrossfireX and most of the time it's 60+ fps. What's wrong with my recommendations that "1GB is not recommended for SLI/CrossfireX"?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:
 
SQ7np.png

I don't know why I even bother turning this laughable claims down.


I should just play on my 2560x1440 screen with a 2GB vRAM card.

Oh wait, I'm a "1GB vRAM fanatic defender", I shouldn't have that.
 
Mr Krugga said:
SQ7np.png

I don't know why I even bother turning this laughable claims down.


I should just play on my 2560x1440 screen with a 2GB vRAM card.

Oh wait, I'm a "1GB vRAM fanatic defender", I shouldn't have that.
Click to expand...

I am the opposite as i have 1gb on my 6870 and am still happy but i can see why certain aa fanatics would want 2gb ram. It was not so long ago nvidia users were raving about 32xaa.

I suppose hardocp are making it up as they go along as 8xmsaa was to much for the 1gb card. We could go around in circles all day long here. The simple fact of the matter is 2gb has small advantages that matter little to us 1gb users as all you need to do on any graphics card is use the correct settings.
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
I am the opposite as i have 1gb on my 6870 and am still happy but i can see why certain aa fanatics would want 2gb ram. It was not so long ago nvidia users were raving about 32xaa.
Click to expand...

Why do certain fanatics need to keep on making threads and posts on how bad 1 Gb Vram is, rather than simply buying some 2-3 Gb cards and swallowing a nice dose of STFU?
 
bhavv said:
Why do certain fanatics need to keep on making threads and posts on how bad 1 Gb Vram is, rather than simply buying some 2-3 Gb cards and swallowing a nice dose of STFU?
Click to expand...

There is no real answer to that but the most probable answer is they have plenty of cash and must have settings as high as possible even when the extra settings make little to no difference. Its an epeen thing most likely.
 
bhavv said:
Why do certain fanatics need to keep on making threads and posts on how bad 1 Gb Vram is, rather than simply buying some 2-3 Gb cards and swallowing a nice dose of STFU?
Click to expand...

This. I have 2.5gb cards, but I don't force everyone to buy them!

TheRealDeal said:
There is no real answer to that but the most probable answer is they have plenty of cash and must have settings as high as possible even when the extra settings make little to no difference. Its an epeen thing most likely.
Click to expand...

pretty much - mines massive :p
 
Prediction - if and when I buy 2 Gb Kepler cards, mr. Harmony will be rejoicing that my purchase is proof that 1 Gb vram is bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom