• 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.

** 2GB GFX RAM VS 1GB GFX RAM IN BF3 (560Ti 1GB VS 560Ti 2GB) TESTING RESULTS!

The only the the graph shows is that regardless of 1 or 2gb neither can run bf3 ultra settings at a acceptable frame rate. The massive amount of sampling applied worsens the results.

Anything less than 60 FPS for a FPS is just pathetic.
That's (frames per second) for a (first person shooter)

Please re run the test maybe at high settings, or even lower so the average fps does not dip past 60. I'd expect there would be much less difference in performance between the 1gb and 2gb cards. I'd expect it would make no difference at all if you tried to get 120fps. (maybe bf3 cant do this ?)

I agree high res + high settings requires more vram, however it's a moot point when to achieve both at the same time you end up reducing frame rates to a jerky mess. The cards just are not capable of running ultra at such a resolution regardless of ram.

A misleading test. Shame on you Gibbo :)
 
Marine-RX179 said:
That's your problem...you've been saying it for "ages", and it is only "now" that it is start to become an issue. The release of the 28nm card is the perfect timing for upgrading to cards with more VRAM, 1 year ago at the launch of 6950/6970 2GB was not (I still remember the "lemon" thread people being upset about how the cards were not hugely faster than the previous gen GPU wise).. And I got the feeling the the result is a bit of benching for benching's sake, as I realistically, I seriously doubt people with just a single GTX560TI would be running on Ultra instead of High when on a 60 people map in BF3.

I agree with D13...that a test should be done on the GTX570 1.25GB, cause in majority of the case, while the 6970 2GB is as fast, if not faster than the GTX570 when at 1920 res 0xAA , BUT when AA is applied, the 6970 2GB actually loose MORE fps than the GTX570 1.25GB thus becoming slower than it, so I suspect that GPU architecture and its relation to the amount of VRAM has larger on impacting on performance, and not so much of a VRAM "one size fit all" case. As far as I see, the GF100/GF110 suffer much lesser performance hit when AA is applied, comparing to GF104/GF114 and 6950/6970 2GB. Also, the system used for the test, does it has 4GB ram or 8GB ram?

Nobody doubt that it's benefitual to have more VRAM, but is spending this amount of money on 2GB cards that are soon becoming old tech a good idea, except for someone that absolutely can't wait for the release of 28nm cards? That is the question.
Click to expand...

That is not true, it is not only now. It was the case when Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Shogun: Total War 2 and others too. You just ignored it but it was real.

By the way FSAA is AA as well.
 
Blackbadger said:
The only the the graph shows is that regardless of 1 or 2gb neither can run bf3 ultra settings at a acceptable frame rate. The massive amount of sampling applied worsens the results.

Anything less than 60 FPS for a FPS is just pathetic.
That's (frames per second) for a (first person shooter)

Please re run the test maybe at high settings, or even lower so the average fps does not dip past 60. I'd expect there would be much less difference in performance between the 1gb and 2gb cards. I'd expect it would make no difference at all if you tried to get 120fps. (maybe bf3 cant do this ?)

I agree high res + high settings requires more vram, however it's a moot point when to achieve both at the same time you end up reducing frame rates to a jerky mess. The cards just are not capable of running ultra at such a resolution regardless of ram.

A misleading test. Shame on you Gibbo :)
Click to expand...


Its not mis-leading at all, most of our customers want to play games at absolute maximum quality settings and in BF3 if you try doing so on a card like a 560Ti 1GB you will get slow downs. The 2GB version however plays the game smoothly.

Fact is with the way games are going more memory is very important, yet most companies and manufacturers would have you believe 1GB is fine, which it is if your happy gaming at lower resolution and/or lower settings.
A 560Ti with 1GB can barely manage 15fps, this is a jerky mess as you put it, yet increase the same card too 2GB and the average FPS is 35fps and this is playable. We could do the same test on a 570GTX 1280MB and 2560MB which would no doubt see a similar result, no doubt something like 24fps on the 1.3GB and circa 55fps on the 2.5GB, so the test does stand, going forward more VRAM is important and required.

One can always turn settings down and achieve smooth gameplay. However many users want to max everything out and with BF3 you need 2GB to do so and maintain smooth framerates, particular on more mid-range cards such as 560/68xx.
 
Ezyryder said:
That is not true, it is not only now. It was the case when Metro 2033, Crysis 2, Shogun: Total War 2 and others too. You just ignored it but it was real.
Click to expand...
And you just proved my point of games that single GPU card such as GTX560TI or 6950 won't be good enough to max out at 1920 with AA. The lack of GPU grunt would hit before the VRAM even be an issue.

Also, GTX570 tends to outperform the 6970 2GB when AA is applied in majority of the case despite the 6970 2GB is as fast, if not faster with 0xAA, so clearly performance goes beyond at looking at VRAM alone, but should be looked at together with GPU architecture.
 
Last edited:
I can play BF3 at medium, 1366x768 on my laptop and although lows of 25FPS are seen it's still playable :p

My desktop GTX285 delivers an average FPS of around 35 and I do just great online.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
And you just proved my point of games that "single GPU card" won't be good enough anyway to max out at 1920. The lack of GPU grunt would hit before the VRAM even be an issue.

Also, GTX570 tends to outperform the 6970 2GB when AA is applied in majority of the case despite the 6970 2GB is as fast, if not faster with 0xAA, so clearly performance goes beyond at looking at VRAM alone, but should be looked at together with GPU architecture.
Click to expand...

This. If anything all the test shows is that the 560Ti is not up to the job with 1Gb or 2Gb when using those settings. While most gamers would like to 'max out' there favourite game this is, for most, not possible.

Gibbo, I disagree mate, the 2Gb card, while obviously better, is not powerful enough and I personally would not purchase either card, if I wanted to max BF3 out. If, on the other hand I only had £196 then the 2Gb 560Ti may be the best I can do.:)

Ps I dont play BF3 so what do I know, LOL:D
 
Last edited:
@elrasho: :rolleyes:

Gibbo said:
Its not mis-leading at all, most of our customers want to play games at absolute maximum quality settings and in BF3 if you try doing so on a card like a 560Ti 1GB you will get slow downs. The 2GB version however plays the game smoothly.
Click to expand...

No-one should expect to be able to play a modern game at maximum settings with a mid-range card regardless of whether it is the 1GB or 2GB version! And the only way u get serious slowdowns is from too much AA, anything above 2xMSAA/FSAA on 1080p+ is nice but unnecessary really and in a fast-paced game like BF3 u wont notice unless u stand around and take in the scenery. Best advice on mid-low end cards is to turn down/off the AA and read the geforce tweak guides first (also relevant for ATI users http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide) before slepping out the extra for 2GB+ cards.
 
Last edited:
creed said:
No-one should expect to be able to play a modern game at maximum settings with a mid-range card regardless of whether it is the 1GB or 2GB version! And the only way u get serious slowdowns is from too much AA, anything above 2xMSAA/FSAA on 1080p+ is nice but unnecessary really and in a fast-paced game like BF3 u wont notice unless u stand around and take in the scenery. Best advice on mid-low end cards is to turn down/off the AA and read the geforce tweak guides first (also relevant for ATI users http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide) before slepping out the extra for 2GB+ cards.
Click to expand...
^This to be honest

When I saw this thread and saw GTX560TI, ON ULTRA, 60 PEOPLE SERVER, with 4xFXAA, I was like...WTF. I still recall DICE's recommendation for Ultra is mid to high range Crossfire/SLI set up, where as single GPU card should be playing on high.

As for the issue with the pair of MARS in SLI unable to deliver smooth gameplay at 2560 res max setting, while I would agree that 1.5GB VRAM could be lacking for 2560 res, but I don't think that is the foundamental problem with the unsmooth gameplay. With Quad-SLI (and Quad-fire), there's very high chance of getting micro-shuttering...in fact in a review done by bit-tech, they have tested both SLI GTX590 and Crossfire 6990 for 3 screens 5780 res, and both were micro-shuttering to hell, and the extra VRAM on the 6990 wasn't helping at all.
 
I nearly bought a 1GB yesterday, reading this I've just ordered a 2GB.

The difference in price is £16 today, it was more yesterday with the lower priced 1GB cards in the weekly offers but even so it's not a great difference in cost. If to gives me more options on settings then great. The graph shows a huge difference in performance, at lower settings there may still be some differences. Unless someone has the time to experiment, we'll never know. For me it's worth a little extra. We typically buy expensive coolers to OC the CPU a little more even though it often makes little difference to games. Just the same to me.


Thanks for posting this Gibbo

Now hurry up and send my card :)
 
Last edited:
decto said:
I nearly bought a 1GB yesterday, reading this I've just ordered a 2GB.

The difference in price is £16 today, it was more yesterday with the lower priced 1GB cards in the weekly offers but even so it's not a great difference in cost. If to gives me more options on settings then great. The graph shows a huge difference in performance, at lower settings there may still be some differences. Unless someone has the time to experiment, we'll never know. For me it's worth a little extra. We typically by expensive coolers to OC the CPU a little more even though it often makes little difference to games. Just the same to me.


Thanks for posting this Gibbo

Now hurry up and send my card :)
Click to expand...


This is a very valid point, a 2GB card is less than £20 more than the 1GB card. :)
 
What were the specs of the computer that this test was done on? In particular how much RAM did the computer have?

Cheers
 
Interesting thread.

However I think the extrapolation that 1.25 or 1.5GB is not enough either is pure speculation. This needs to be tested in a similar way with 570's and 580's. I suspect that the sweet spot for VRAM is likely in the region 1-1.5GB and anything else used @ 1080 is just pre-cached textures which have little benefit.

For me i never seen any issue running Ultra in 1.5GB if i want to drop to 50+ FPS (average, MP on large maps).

However as has been said Ultra is totally pointless for multiplayer as you simply can't see the difference in a fast paced games when actually playing! Yes when examining screenshots, but NOT when playing the game. Unless you have an Uber rig Ultra is for purely showing your mates. High is for playing! IMO if you have an Uber rig and want to play better get into 120Hz screens and 120FPS.

My goal it to get a next gen card that can keep minimums around 120FPS on high settings. That'd be perfect!:cool:
 
Last edited:
Thanks Gibbo,

It was quite obvious (well to me anyway) that 2gb was a requirement for 1080p and higher with newer games.

There are forum members who continue to post things like 'this has been done to death, 2gb doesnt make a difference blah blah blah' when it clearly does.

Thanks!!!!
 
As the graph shows, higher settings for Texture Quality do not significantly affect FPS. However as texture detail rises, so too does the amount of Video RAM (VRAM) needed to hold these textures on your graphics card for quick access. In BF3, textures are streamed in as required, but your Texture Quality setting determines the texture pool size, which is the amount of VRAM allocated to storing textures at any one time. At the Low setting, 150MB is allocated to the texture pool; Medium = 200MB; High = 300MB; and Ultra = 500MB. Keep in mind however that your VRAM also stores a range of other game information, and that an average multiplayer level in BF3 can have 1.5GB or more of textures, so it can't all be stored on your GPU at once. Thus setting this option too high may result in stuttering or visible texture streaming. The Ultra Texture Quality setting for example is designed specifically for GPUs with 1.5GB or more of VRAM.

If you notice that your system is constantly stuttering or momentarily freezing, or you frequently see textures being streamed in while you're moving around, then lower Texture Quality to see if this helps reduce the issue.
Click to expand...

http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide
 
Gibbo said:
As such we've being doing some internal testing and found some rather starkling results and one of our direct Graphics partners have also found the same results.
Click to expand...

In other words the two parties who would benefit the most from selling the higher spec hardware. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom