• 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!

^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.

Apples to oranges when it comes to 2560x1600 and eyefinty.
Eyefinity has issues all of its own which can effect smooth gameplay which sometimes can be down to lack of vram and sometimes not depending on the game.

Regardless of micro stuttering or not on quadfire systems, running out of Vram as well would certainly not help.

I know a quadfire 5970 user who has sold up because of BF3 and only having 1GB Vram 2560x and gone 2GB 6xxx series even though the timing could not be worse, other quadfire 5970 and tri fire 5970+5870 users have settled for less AA and other settings, its only the 4GB 5970 and 2GB 5870 users who are getting better results most of the time.

There is obviously some benefit for caching as much as possible in Vram or we would not hear some people with 1GB/1.25GB saying that they seen improvements going from 4GB to 8GB system ram so there much be some hard drive paging go on at times, couple that with maybe having SSD as well may levitate even more the lack of Vram, there is a lot of possibilities here.


I run Quadfdire 5970 4GB cards 8GB Ram and SSD. 2560x1600

bf320111122041341281.jpg


64 player map
loade.jpg


As far as 2xAA in BF3 its not good enough for my tastes, even the 4Xaa is not good enough and i need at least low post process as well , any more post pro looks to soft and blurry to me, HABO is to dark in my opinion, pity there is no 8xAA option.
 
Last edited:
With the 560TI 2GB constantly dipping below 30fps it will be unplayable, and it makes the 1080p @ Ultra benchmark pretty much pointless. Perhaps running the bench on 1080p @ High will be a much more realistic "real world" compairison. You should atleast choose a benchmark running playable settings if you are trying to flog the 2GB cards. BF3 @ Ultra just makes a £200 card look pants:).
 
Last edited:
With the 560TI 2GB constantly dipping below 30fps it will be unplayable, and it makes the 1080p @ Ultra benchmark pretty much pointless. Perhaps running the bench on 1080p @ High will be a much more realistic "real world" compairison.


Looking at the graph the avg is around 35 for the 2 GB, could V Lock to 30fps and 15 for the 1GB, i know which of the 2 i would rather play with even if they are below what i like to play at.
 
Do NOT need 2gb for smooth gameplay at 1080p. I can play high settings and fxaa on medium or high or somit i forgot which and have 55-60fps on average and barely dips.

Lookin at vram it doesnt use more than about 800-900mb ish iirc.
 
Do NOT need 2gb for smooth gameplay at 1080p. I can play high settings and fxaa on medium or high or somit i forgot which and have 55-60fps on average and barely dips.

Lookin at vram it doesnt use more than about 800-900mb ish iirc.

my 570's use 1500ish average and 1650 peak all full settings
 
Do NOT need 2gb for smooth gameplay at 1080p. I can play high settings and fxaa on medium or high or somit i forgot which and have 55-60fps on average and barely dips.

Lookin at vram it doesnt use more than about 800-900mb ish iirc.

Some people want to play at Ultra everything @1080p though!

The believers will keep on believing with a :D on their face!
The doubters will keep on doubting with a :( on their face!
 
Some site showed what all the settings did for quality and its really not much different if any with some of them from high to ultra due to the way bf3 forces a minimum high quality for mp reasons apparently (not my words). So your not gaining much using ultra compared to high. Especially considering the fps hit when the returns arnt justifiable.
 
Some site showed what all the settings did for quality and its really not much different if any with some of them from high to ultra due to the way bf3 forces a minimum high quality for mp reasons apparently (not my words). So your not gaining much using ultra compared to high. Especially considering the fps hit when the returns arnt justifiable.

The reasoning and why is not the point, the point is ultra uses more Vram.
 
Looking at the graph the avg is around 35 for the 2 GB, could V Lock to 30fps and 15 for the 1GB, i know which of the 2 i would rather play with even if they are below what i like to play at.
With a min of 15.8fps and average of 35 there is no chance that vsync will hold 30fps. Even a massively overclocked 560TI 2GB will not hold 30fps on Ultra, although it may get close enough to be playable for some. Better off sticking to High settings because there really is little difference in IQ.
 
With a min of 15.8fps and average of 35 there is no chance that vsync will hold 30fps. Even a massively overclocked 560TI 2GB will not hold 30fps on Ultra, although it may get close enough to be playable for some. Better off sticking to High settings because there really is little difference in IQ.

It holds 30fps for longer than it dips into the 15fps. The rest is matter of opinion for the individual so its better to keep to the statistical facts.
 
Last edited:
Why bother with msaa at all? Fxaa is plenty good enough in motion, compatible to 4xmsaa on its own. Uses a lot less vram.
 
Currently running a GTX280 with 1GB and that can use 850MB on a 64player map with medium settings, a GTX560TI has twice the cuda units and is clocked 36% faster giving a possible peformance 270+% of the GTX280.

I've been playing tonight with FPS dipping into the low 20's with the odd 18 at default settings (medium ish) and it seems fine, perfectly playable.

I have BF3 set to disable aero and still have high GPU memory usage.

Is it worth a few £££ extra ..... of course it is. After all, you' buy a GTX560 Ti over a straigh GTX560 or a 580 over a 570 for a few extra frames per second.

AD
 
I'd like to see some tests where the 2Gb version gets 60fps. I'd hazard a guess that the 1Gb will not be far behind at all. I wouldn't be happy playing at 30fps, like in the benchmarks in the OP, tbh.
 
As a matter of fact, looking at this a bit more closely, the 2Gb version doesn't even maintain 30fps consistently. So basically what we've got here are two cards which can't run BF3 on ultra on a 64 man server. That's all that you can draw from these graphs - not that 2Gb is a real deal maker and that 1Gb is a deal breaker.

Again, I'd really like to see benchmarks for how these cards do without MSAA and perhaps on high instead of ultra. I would bet that there's not much difference between the two at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom