• 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.
HUGE thread omg! :confused:

I refuse to run anything but a single card and even then i can see single card microstutter in L4D with 7 formats ATI + NV cards u name it i still stutter/tear with more than acceptable framerates (50+) and vsync on.

Its good to see someone finally tackle these issues rather than say oh well i cant see it.I know people who cant see the difference between 30 and 60fps nevermind microstutter! Im going to have to go retest to see if its Vram shortly with afterburner and see how much i use.

Also will turning off pagefile and having 12-16GB ram help? lots of spare memory for GFX card to cache and use.
 
Olly said:
SNIP RESULTS FROM OLLY
Click to expand...

So it does seem to use around 1900Mb, judging by the incredibly straight line in afterburner just like mine, i think the game pre-loads the textures

Would anyone with a 1Gb/1.5gb card of similar spec also be able to contribute by running the benchmark at the same settings.

i will also run this too
 
Crysis 2 eats more vram that it needs, it's about the driver management. When more vram is available, the game eats more, but you will not notice any visual or less lag spikes improvements compared to the 1.5gb why people don't understand?
 
Same run peaked at 1626Mb (now need some 1gb cards to test perferably a 1GB 6950 to see what happens)



crysis2bench.png
[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
 
kalyyy said:
Crysis 2 eats more vram that it needs, it's about the driver management. When more vram is available, the game eats more, but you will not notice any visual or less lag spikes improvements compared to the 1.5gb why people don't understand?
Click to expand...

This is what we are testing hence why i really need a 1/1.5 gb card to chip in with results
 
bigjimmyauk said:
This is what we are testing hence why i really need a 1/1.5 gb card to chip in with results
Click to expand...

A 1GB card is likely to give worse results. However a 1.5GB card is not likely to give worse results from this tool, as said many times, that you'll need frametime analysis to count the number of lag spikes, not merely average fps or adhoc min fps.
 
harmony said:
A 1GB card is likely to give worse results. However a 1.5GB card is not likely to give worse results from this tool, as said many times, that you'll need frametime analysis to count the number of lag spikes, not merely average fps or adhoc min fps.
Click to expand...

How do you do frame time analysis cause i don't know any ways off hand to measure frame render times
 
1 Gb cards are going to be slower than a 3 Gb GTX 580 because they have a weaker GPU.

Just because a game loads over 1900 Mb into the Vram on a 3 Gb card, doesnt mean that the game is going to have Vram issues running of a 1 Gb card - most of that extra data on a 2-3 Gb card isnt required to run the game, and even if it is shared ram would be able to store and run it, which only causes a slight FPS reduction of about 2 or 3.
 
We all remember the old days of 64mb and 128mb video cards,personally I think it won't be long before we will need 2GB VRAM,when you see how close the pricing of 2GB to 1 GB video cards are,it makes sense to go with 2GB card IMHO,especially if you keep your card for awhile like I do for a few years or so.

As a gamer I only know one thing ie VRAM usage for gaming keeps going up over the years.
 
Elevon said:
We all remember the old days of 64mb and 128mb video cards,personally I think it won't be long before we will need 2GB VRAM,when you see how close the pricing of 2GB to 1 GB video cards are,it makes sense to go with 2GB card IMHO,especially if you keep your card for awhile like I do for a few years or so
Click to expand...

ATM you cannot get 2 Gb cards with decent GPUs in the <£150 price segment.

A 2 Gb 6870 or GTX 460 priced at £150, 2 Gb GTX 560 ti priced at £180, and 2 Gb 6950 priced at £200 would make 2 Gb cards a viable purchase right now in all price segments.

But that isnt the case, and another mistake that people keep making is that you cannot use what prices 2 Gb+ cards will have in the future (probably in the next gen they will be cheaper) to justify purchasing them today.

2-3 Gb on video cards right now carries a huge price increase that most gamers are completely unwilling to pay. The 1 Gb GTX 560 ti is at the maximum price point that the average gamer will go up to for the performance it offers, cards higher up than this and with more Vram are completely unattractive due to their price.

Also in the old days, a 16 Mb Voodoo 3 was significantly better than a 32 Mb Rage Fury. a 32 Mb Geforce 256 was significantly better than a 64 Mb Rage Fury Maxx (only 32 Mb per GPU though, I know). When the 256 Mb 9800 pro was first released, it offered absolutely no performance increase over a 128 Mb 9800 pro.

I have no idea why people think that Vram increases have historically led to better performance, they havnt. Vram increases happen before video games can take advantage of them - No one is going to currently develop a game that requires 4 Gb Vram to run because no hardware exists for it to work on. No one is going to develop a game that requires 2 Gb Vram at minimum settings because maybe 90% of PC gamers wont be able to play it.

Games will never require more Vram than what is widely available on popular <£150 cards, because otherwise most people simply wouldnt have the hardware to play that game. I dont see anyone struggling right now at 1920x1200 resolution with only 1 Gb video cards, except for people with poorly configured / built PCs with problems that lie elsewhere. But as soon as they notice these problems, they stupidly blame the least significant, and least likely cause of the problem - Vram.
 
Last edited:
bigjimmyauk said:
Just tried it and it opened in open office but it didn't make and sense?

all i got was frame number the forever increasing times ????
Click to expand...


OpenOffice sucks balls in displaying .csv spreadsheets as you can see.

You only need "fps.csv" to render a graph representing framerates and "MinMaxAvg.csv" to find out these values.
 
bigjimmyauk said:
Just tried it and it opened in open office but it didn't make and sense?

all i got was frame number the forever increasing times ????
Click to expand...

Use Excel, or whatever makes sense to load the csv file. You'll need to do some simple calculations to take the difference between each consecutive frames to get the time spent to render each frame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom