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

elrasho · 1 Nov 2011 at 13:30

Scougar said:
elrasho.. by chance did you update your graphics drivers at the same time?

Nope I'm still using 11.10 Pre3 with no CAPs. Although 11.10WHQL released today so I may try them with CAP4.

elrasho · 1 Nov 2011 at 13:31

spookywillow said:
the guy with a 2gb 5870 has a Q9550 or 9650 but he's still clocked at 3.6 like me and his ram is also running at 900mhz just like mine so i would also assume his fbs is the same as mine too. only difference is his card has 2gb of vram and his is fine on ultra......my fps dont change from using high or ultra but the stturing is there with ultra, only difference ultra textures does is fill up your vram, if you aint got it then it swaps textures from vram/system ram or what ever and that causes the stutters.

upgrade your ram to 8GB and you'll be fine

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 13:36

i wont be as i saw first hand today the performance hit using 8gb over 4gb, no stutters and freezing but you still get choppiness, that thread that bhavv linked to with starkill3rs screenies where he states bf3 never uses over 900mb, take a look at his last screen shot at the bottom when he tests with just 4gb....vram usage is maxed at 998mb, if thats not stuttering i'll eat my shorts lol

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 13:46

just loaded up bf3 on the same place as starkill3r took the screenshot of him using less than 900mb and on my card it's using 940mb on just high settings with no deferred AA and no motion blur, i call BS on that screenie because in the rest there is no vram usage which woill be sky high on the caspian screenies and that last one shows he's maxed his vram.

so tell me how 1gb is still enough without losing performance when using system ram. i'm guessing your one of the lot that insisted 256mb and then 512mb vram was sufficient.

elrasho · 1 Nov 2011 at 13:52

spookywillow said:
so tell me how 1gb is still enough without losing performance when using system ram.

It is for me, my CF 5850s are using RAM since I upgraded to 8GB and I saw no performance loss at all. Not sure what setup you have but I've seen major improvement since getting an SSD and installing a fresh copy of Windows 7... wink wink

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 13:55

brother has I7 2600k, 8gb ram, 2x 5850.

ultra everything except textures and deffered AA @1080p, plays perfect with around 80-110 fps.

change just textures to ultra and it gets choppy although fps are still around 60-80

change textures back to high and fps and smoothness comes back.

let me guess, it must be something else this time?

fresh W7 install as he built it last night.

harmony · 1 Nov 2011 at 17:13

spookywillow said:
just loaded up bf3 on the same place as starkill3r took the screenshot of him using less than 900mb and on my card it's using 940mb on just high settings with no deferred AA and no motion blur, i call BS on that screenie because in the rest there is no vram usage which woill be sky high on the caspian screenies and that last one shows he's maxed his vram.

so tell me how 1gb is still enough without losing performance when using system ram. i'm guessing your one of the lot that insisted 256mb and then 512mb vram was sufficient.

It is useless to argue with bhavv regarding lag spikes / stuttering, which is as hard as trying to persuade him that he needs 60 fps.

Also he still insists that TurboCache and HyperMemory are the greatest technologies to cut cost without any performance hit.

bhavv · 1 Nov 2011 at 17:19

I havnt mentioned Turbocache anywhere, nor do I use it (24 Gb ram, why would I need it), but shared memory is nowhere near as bad as you think it is.

SLI GTX 560 tis do get 60 FPS in most games, and who are you to tell me how many FPS I need exactly? If 40 FPS is silky smooth for me in all my games, why do you give a crap?

You assume that everyone here is swimming in cash and can afford to get a PC that will run Shogun 2, Witcher 2 maxed with Ubersampling, Metro with DOF and whatever else at a solid 60+ FPS. You are a complete fool to think that way.

I fully understand what lag spikes and stuttering is thank you, but I do not believe that they are caused by the reasons which you claim with 0 evidence. Arguing with you that hardly anyone can afford 3 Gb GTX 580s, nor cares about using Ubersampling or DOF, nor minds turning down their AA, or changing to FXAA is like talking to the biggest ignoramus on this planet.

Olly · 1 Nov 2011 at 17:39

I swapped out 3 1.5GB GTX's for 2 3GB versions. I found at 2560x1600 it wasn't a question of sheer horsepower, but VRAM. I did my own testing that I won't share but I was satisfied with my decision of swapping them. Nothing major, but minimum frame rates went up quite a bit amongst other things. I was also battling with heat as the 3 were watercooled and 2 3gb cards were a better option. Plus I'm futured proof'd a bit more now.

One thing to remember, is that the useage of VRAM is dymanic and data can be switched in and out just like system memory.

at 1980x1080 I can't imagine 1.5gb being too little though.

/on the fence !

EDIT - oh and you can't make any comparisons about RAGE...with my own custom config file with everything pretty much maxed I was seeing about 60% load on ONE card leaving the other one idle

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 17:53

harmony said:
It is useless to argue with bhavv regarding lag spikes / stuttering, which is as hard as trying to persuade him that he needs 60 fps.

Also he still insists that TurboCache and HyperMemory are the greatest technologies to cut cost without any performance hit.

yes, 1gb is not enough for ultra textures at 1080p on a system with 4gb ram, you will get stutters and pauses. with 8gb you probably wont get stutter but you will get lower fps due to system memory being used.

googled loads of threads about it today just to satisfy my own curiosity and the majority say the same including SLI GTX 560 ti users with the select few who insist it's fine ....they either can't tell or are just flat out lying IMO.

bhavv said:
I havnt mentioned Turbocache anywhere, nor do I use it (24 Gb ram, why would I need it), but shared memory is nowhere near as bad as you think it is.

SLI GTX 560 tis do get 60 FPS in most games, and who are you to tell me how many FPS I need exactly? If 40 FPS is silky smooth for me in all my games, why do you give a crap?

You assume that everyone here is swimming in cash and can afford to get a PC that will run Shogun 2, Witcher 2 maxed with Ubersampling, Metro with DOF and whatever else at a solid 60+ FPS. You are a complete fool to think that way.

I fully understand what lag spikes and stuttering is thank you, but I do not believe that they are caused by the reasons which you claim with 0 evidence. Arguing with you that hardly anyone can afford 3 Gb GTX 580s, nor cares about using Ubersampling or DOF, nor minds turning down their AA, or changing to FXAA is like talking to the biggest ignoramus on this planet.

this is why i wont upgrade to a 69xx card, they are hardly any faster than my 5870 in bf3 at ultra settings with the exception that they dont suffer stuttering and slow downs due to having 2gb vram compared to my 1gb.

lowering textures and shadows down to high stops the stuttering with hardly any reduction in IQ meaning i get virtually the same performance as a 69xx card but save £200.

BF3 uses more than 1gb at ultra with msaa and probably at times without msaa too, i'm waiting to hear off a reviewer now to see if he can test both a 1gb and 2gb 5870 just to see if i am right.

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 18:01

Olly said:
I swapped out 3 1.5GB GTX's for 2 3GB versions. I found at 2560x1600 it wasn't a question of sheer horsepower, but VRAM. I did my own testing that I won't share but I was satisfied with my decision of swapping them. Nothing major, but minimum frame rates went up quite a bit amongst other things. I was also battling with heat as the 3 were watercooled and 2 3gb cards were a better option. Plus I'm futured proof'd a bit more now.

One thing to remember, is that the useage of VRAM is dymanic and data can be switched in and out just like system memory.

at 1980x1080 I can't imagine 1.5gb being too little though.

/on the fence !

EDIT - oh and you can't make any comparisons about RAGE...with my own custom config file with everything pretty much maxed I was seeing about 60% load on ONE card leaving the other one idle

from what i have read today after looking around is that at your res BF3 uses around 1700mb and at 1080p uses around 1300mb so this just sort of confirms vram limitation.

with your 1.5gb cards you were using system ram too which is why you had lower lows than the 3gb cards which only needs to use vram.

bhavv · 1 Nov 2011 at 18:20

spookywillow said:
BF3 uses more than 1gb at ultra with msaa and probably at times without msaa too, i'm waiting to hear off a reviewer now to see if he can test both a 1gb and 2gb 5870 just to see if i am right.

How do you know this? How do you know that just because more data is stored in the Vram on a 1.5 or 3 Gb card, that a 1 Gb card of the same GPU wouldnt suffice with the extra data loaded into the shared ram instead?

spookywillow said:
yes, 1gb is not enough for ultra textures at 1080p on a system with 4gb ram, you will get stutters and pauses.

starkill3r said:
Ok I've tried with only 4GB of system RAM, and there is no difference really.

LeJosh · 1 Nov 2011 at 18:22

When I upgrade to 2560x1440, I won't be using 1GB cards.

I'm looking forward to the HD7xxx series too.

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 18:33

bhavv said:
How do you know this? How do you know that just because more data is stored in the Vram on a 1.5 or 3 Gb card, that a 1 Gb card of the same GPU wouldnt suffice with the extra data loaded into the shared ram instead?

because i saw it at my brothers on his 1gb 5850 crossfire, he dont get the stutters i do but his fps are reduced and it's stuttery untill he puts textures on high wehter he uses 1 card or 2. he has 8gb of ram,

also as i quoted earlier a guy with a 5870 2gb suffers none of the stuttering i do, same gpu different amount of vram, 1gb stutters, 2gb dont.

the screenie you posted shows his vram maxed just like mine is at those settings and i get stutters as i am sure he does too regardless of if he admits it or not. also some maps use more vram that others so pehaps those that say it's ok have not played caspian 64man in the forest.....go there and see.

harmony · 1 Nov 2011 at 18:34

bhavv said:
How do you know this? How do you know that just because more data is stored in the Vram on a 1.5 or 3 Gb card, that a 1 Gb card of the same GPU wouldnt suffice with the extra data loaded into the shared ram instead?

You say bs without frametime analysis to prove it's lag spike-free.

bhavv · 1 Nov 2011 at 18:36

harmony said:
You say bs without frametime analysis to prove it's lag spike-free.

Thats not what I asked, well done for yet again showing your complete lack of intelligence.

I asked how can you tell that the lag spikes are caused by lack of Vram?

Frame rate analysis obviously isnt a valid method, because all of yours are nothing but pure BS.

Scougar · 1 Nov 2011 at 19:02

Spookywillow> What's your VRAM usage BEFORE loading up the game?

spookywillow · 1 Nov 2011 at 19:18

174mb

edit, just dropped to 166mb now and staying like it.

bhavv · 1 Nov 2011 at 19:42

Wow, my idle Vram usage is around 300 mb, and I dont get lag spikes or microstutter on my SLI 1 Gb 560s

bigjimmyauk · 1 Nov 2011 at 20:01

bhavv said:
Wow, my idle Vram usage is around 300 mb, and I dont get lag spikes or microstutter on my SLI 1 Gb 560s

my idle vram when using firefox is 80Mb :confused:

*edit* and 56 Mb at desktop