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

[tommybhoy]

I'm talking about standard 1080p or around that resolution and I've posted two independent reviews/benchmarks which state the same thing: that the extra vram is not worth it.

Well don't post 5760x1600p benchmarks from rubbish sources for all we know they could have been using bhavv's example of using 3Gb 580sli with an Athlon!

So if I was to take your advice, I could be ripping out a PII 955 BE@4GHz, a MB and maybe the ram too or probably double it(giving my self a seriously costly upgrade on top of the price of the gpus), and buy a pair of 1GB cards?

Where as keeping my current system and spending at the most, £50 extra on 2x2GB gpus!

That is absolutely shocking advice bhavv, you should really have a good think about it, seriously!

It's not the point if you shouldn't have, if someone already has this kind of setup and reads your post and takes your advice especially while reading this thread to make their minds up in regards to BF3 which isn't cpu dependant at all.

I'm in no way confused or missing the point!

You have now resorted to deflecting the debate onto performance in other games and other cpu's that has nothing to do with, or discussed in regarding the op!

Of course the Athlon and tri sli combination is a marraige made in hell, but you can't compare a 2GHz Athlon and still ignore the performance of the PII@4GHz, while obviously it's not going to be as good a performer as an i5, it makes no difference in the case of BF3.

You are still ignoring the fact that you advised binning a perfectly good cpu and system for BF3 rather than a simple £25-£50 difference which is frankly shocking advice.

Ever thought about taking up polotics bhavv because you are going way off course rather than admit a 2Gb card makes more sense regarding BF3 mate.

BF3 is only one single game which has no CPU scaling whatsoever, and runs like crap on almost any system with 4x MSAA. I dont get why people use this obviously flawed game as an indicator of system performance.

For being the most highly optimised game to date for the PC that utilises the best gaming hardware on the planet to it's fullest potential, how can you possibly say that BF3 is flawed?

Pre BF3 patches and running on BETA drivers at the time:

I thought I would post a small video of Battlefield 3 multiplayer Caspian Border Gameplay performance of my unlocked 6950 shaders @ 6970 clocks in Crossfire.

Benchmarks are all over the place with many discrepancies imo.

There are a few posts saying that 6970 Crossfire is not enough @1080p with Ultra settings, well you can decide for yourselves now.

Specs are:

Battlefield 3 AMD Crossfire Performance
Full Caspian 64 Player Map
Ultra Settings
In game fps using console command:
'Render.DrawFps 1 Boolean'

Amd 6950>70 Crossfire @ 880MHz/1350Mhz
Catalyst 11.10 preview2 + Cap3 Win7
2500K@ 4.5GHz
MSI Z68A-GD55-G3
16GB Corsair Vengeance Red 1866 Mhz
128GB Crucial M4-Windows
120GB Corsair Force 3-BF3
Windows Pagefile is disabled(I don't know if this helps with the stuttering but I've never had any)



This may help if you are trying to decide whether 6950/70's Crossfire is for you or whether it's worth adding a second card.

Yes the videos not centred, that wasn't the point.

P.s I thought the missus was not bad for her first shot of the tank!

1080p vram usage happy in the knowledge that my cards can utilise the extra vram than not having the option at all:

And since you brought other games into the debate, here are some other DX11 titles @1080p:

If I were to go out and spend a bucket load of cash on a system and slap 1Gb cards into it and couldn't max out BF3 due to taking your advice, instead of just getting 2Gb cards, I would be absolutely !

 

[Final8y]

@ tommybhoy.
bhavv has it all back to front because he doesn't understand that when your GPU limited throwing more CPU at it will make little difference.
So basically he wishes that BF3 did not use all GPU power on most systems so the he can show off his CPU.

Basically like getting upset that his bugatti is stuck in a traffic jam, but because its a bugatti it should still be going faster than everyone else in the traffic jam.

BF3 scales excellently to the resources available to it with in feasibility, its playable on everything.

The fact that its not heavily reliant on the CPU to max out most GPUs is an achievement of good coding.

 

[bhavv]

For being the most highly optimised game to date for the PC that utilises the best gaming hardware on the planet to it's fullest potential, how can you possibly say that BF3 is flawed?

If I were to go out and spend a bucket load of cash on a system and slap 1Gb cards into it and couldn't max out BF3 due to taking your advice, instead of just getting 2Gb cards, I would be absolutely

Did you even look at the CPU comparison? Of course a game that sees 0% improvement from more CPU cores or clock speed of 1 Ghz is flawed.

For your second point, plenty of people are running BF3 on a pair of 1 Gb cards, even some on my advice, and they were thoroughly impressed by their 60+ FPS performance. How can you continue to ignore this?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18336345&highlight=startername_starkill3r

And you are definitely very confused. I havnt given anyone else any advice to 'buy cards with only 1 Gb Vram', I have advised that 'more Vram on a GTX 560 ti is indistinguishable, and the game will still be unplayable'.

You cant just slap more Vram on a mid range graphics card and expect it to run BF3 100% smoothly, this very thread and the graph in the OP prves this .

To max BF3 out, excluding 4x MSAA which even AMD have admitted is flawed in this game, at 1080p all you need is a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560 tis.

 

[bhavv]

BF3 scales excellently to the resources available to it with in feasibility, its playable on everything.

So its playable on cards with 1 Gb Vram? Even 512 Mb? How about 256?

If thats the case, then why do you argue that BF3 needs 2 Gb Vram

I really dont think you understand what scaling means. There is no scaling whatsoever in the CPU department, and the game doesnt even utilize anymore than 2 cores.

Well don't post 5760x1600p benchmarks from rubbish sources for all we know they could have been using bhavv's example of using 3Gb 580sli with an Athlon!

And whats wrong with that? We can see in BF3 that CPU doesnt matter at all, and doesnt affect performance, only GPU does. So running tri SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s on an Athlon X2 is absolutely fine for a 'modern game' like BF3.

('modern game' should actually = broken unoptimized game).

And since you brought other games into the debate, here are some other DX11 titles @1080p

Thats nice, yet my 1 Gb cards run all those DX11 games without a single problem maxed out at 1200p

You obviously have no clue what vram caching is, and that it doesnt do anything to improve performance compared to ram caching. More ram is vastly cheaper than more Vram, and does the same thing in all of these games, including BF3.

 

[Final8y]

Did you even look at the CPU comparison? Of course a game that sees 0% improvement from more CPU cores or clock speed of 1 Ghz is flawed.

For your second point, plenty of people are running BF3 on a pair of 1 Gb cards, even some on my advice, and they were thoroughly impressed by their 60+ FPS performance. How can you continue to ignore this?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18336345&highlight=startername_starkill3r

And you are definitely very confused. I havnt given anyone else any advice to 'buy cards with only 1 Gb Vram', I have advised that 'more Vram on a GTX 560 ti is indistinguishable, and the game will still be unplayable'.

You cant just slap more Vram on a mid range graphics card and expect it to run BF3 100% smoothly, this very thread and the graph in the OP prves this .

To max BF3 out, excluding 4x MSAA which even AMD have admitted is flawed in this game, at 1080p all you need is a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560 tis.

Forget about what AMD said seeing as you linked to 560 user and again only 2xAA which none of us are arguing about as being a problem.

Also is also using multi GPU that can offset some Vram bottleneck situations, he also has 8 GB or ram, there is no argument about that his system should be able to run 60fps at those settings.

If vram was not an issue the amount of system ram would not matter.

 

[bhavv]

4x MSAA is a flawed problem in BF3, this is common knowledge by now.

2x MSAA or FXAA do not cause such a vast performance hit, even on 2 Gb AMD cards, while 4x MSAA does.

Also is also using multi GPU that can offset some Vram bottleneck situations, he also has 8 GB or ram

Well done, isnt that the specification I recommend people to buy for gaming at 1080p? Oh wait, you seem to not be aware of that.

SLI / Xfire doesnt increase Vram. Two 1 Gb cards still only have 1 Gb, so if Vram was a bottleneck, it would be evident in an SLI or Xfire setup, of this there can be no doubt.

BF3 is not bottlenecked, nor performs poorly on a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560s, as has been shown time and time again. Also a single 2 Gb GTX 560 is nowhere near powerful enough to run the game on ultra settings, so please tell me again, why exactly is Vram so important in BF3?

Tell me why, not one single person who uses my recommended gaming specification for 1080p has any kind of lagspikes, stutter, or any other negative problem when playing video games? While they only have 1 Gb vram?

 

[Final8y]

1)So its playable on cards with 1 Gb Vram? Even 512 Mb? How about 256?

2)If thats the case, then why do you argue that BF3 needs 2 Gb Vram

3)I really dont think you understand what scaling means. There is no scaling whatsoever in the CPU department, and the game doesnt even utilize anymore than 2 cores.



4)And whats wrong with that? We can see in BF3 that CPU doesnt matter at all, and doesnt affect performance, only GPU does. So running tri SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s on an Athlon X2 is absolutely fine for a 'modern game' like BF3.

('modern game' should actually = broken unoptimized game).



5)Thats nice, yet my 1 Gb cards run all those DX11 games without a single problem maxed out at 1200p

6)You obviously have no clue what vram caching is, and that it doesnt do anything to improve performance compared to ram caching. More ram is vastly cheaper than more Vram, and does the same thing in all of these games, including BF3.

1) I said within feasibility, what your saying is just plain ridiculous.

2) No one is arguing that BF3 needs 2GB of Vram, you have been told that enough times already. Under certain conditions it needs more than 1GB Vram.

3) 90% use of hex cores means that it does utilize more than 2 cores, CPU scaling can not be realistically shown under GPU limited conditions fact..

4) Again no one said that the CPU could not affect performance if it was not for the GPU bottleneck that ifs there on most systems in that game.


5) aint a clue what your on about.


6) Your totally wrong on all points because if that was the case then there would be no need for Vram at all and it would be all shared system ram.

 

[bhavv]

2) No one is arguing that BF3 needs 2GB of Vram, you have been told that enough times already. Under certain conditions it needs more than 1GB Vram.

What???

Bhavv - BF3 works fine on 1 Gb Vram cards (1 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI) up to 1200p.

Final8y / tommybhoy - 'NO IT DOESNT, YOU NEED 2 GB VRAM'.

If that isnt the case then stop arguing with me.

3) 90% use of hex cores means that it does utilize more than 2 cores

But it still doesnt run any better than it does on 2 cores, showing that 'usage graphs' are a completely pointless way of judging utilization and performance.

 

[Final8y]

1)4x MSAA is a flawed problem in BF3, this is common knowledge by now.

2)2x MSAA or FXAA do not cause such a vast performance hit, even on 2 Gb AMD cards, while 4x MSAA does.


3)Well done, isnt that the specification I recommend people to buy for gaming at 1080p? Oh wait, you seem to not be aware of that.

4)SLI / Xfire doesnt increase Vram. Two 1 Gb cards still only have 1 Gb, so if Vram was a bottleneck, it would be evident in an SLI or Xfire setup, of this there can be no doubt.

5)BF3 is not bottlenecked, nor performs poorly on a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560s, as has been shown time and time again. Also a single 2 Gb GTX 560 is nowhere near powerful enough to run the game on ultra settings, so please tell me again, why exactly is Vram so important in BF3?

6)Tell me why, not one single person who uses my recommended gaming specification for 1080p has any kind of lagspikes, stutter, or any other negative problem when playing video games? While they only have 1 Gb vram?

1) Yes for AMD cards in BF3, not NV cards.


2) That depends on the game and resolutions.

3) What you recommend was not the point, its the fact of admittance that at a given setting Vram can become as issue without at least that setup.

4) Yes it can and i have posted examples already of the possible issues Vram bottleneck on multi GPU setups and so have others.

5) No one said it was, people are saying at a give setting at a given resolutions under certain conditions that 1GB of Vram can became a problem.

The only person saying that anyone is saying you must have 2GB vram for BF3 is you.

6)Ask the person who claims that it is.

 

[Final8y]

What???

Bhavv - BF3 works fine on 1 Gb Vram cards (1 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI) up to 1200p.

Final8y / tommybhoy - 'NO IT DOESNT, YOU NEED 2 GB VRAM'.

If that isnt the case then stop arguing with me.



But it still doesnt run any better than it does on 2 cores, showing that 'usage graphs' are a completely pointless way of judging utilization and performance.

Utilization and performance are 2 totally different things, they are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Fact BF3 can fully Utilize 6 cores just like BFBC2.

The performance difference depends on many other factors the problem is that your looking in an area where it cant been shown because of the bottleneck of another component in that area in this game for most people.

 

[Final8y]

What???

Bhavv - BF3 works fine on 1 Gb Vram cards (1 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI) up to 1200p.

Final8y / tommybhoy - 'NO IT DOESNT, YOU NEED 2 GB VRAM'.

If that isnt the case then stop arguing with me.

I want the quotes because otherwise your doing nothing but putting words into my mouth to suite your comments.

 

[bhavv]

Then why do you keep arguing on a topic about 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 tis in BF3, if you are not here to discuss Vram

 

[Final8y]

Then why do you keep arguing on a topic about 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 tis in BF3, if you are not here to discuss Vram

I'm here to talk about the benefits of more Vram yes i didn't say that you need 2GB of Vram for BF3 or any game like you claim.

You only need something when it flat out does not work or that the performance is at an unacceptable level at a desired setting for the individual.

Ohh that rhymed.

 

[bhavv]

Yes there are (only very slight) benefits to Vram, but it isnt justified / required for the extra cost in a lot of cases.

If you plan on playing BF3 up to 1200p using GTX 560 tis (which is what this thread is about), you need two of them to play it at comfortable framerates on ultra anyway, regardless of whether you choose the 1 gb or 2 gb model.

As plenty of people have shown, 2 x 1 Gb GTX 560 tis plays the game perfectly up to 1200p. If you plan on playing at higher resolutions, a pair of 2 Gb GTX 560 tis isnt going to have enough GPU power (this is a midrange setup for 1920x____ resolutions!).

Also, the price difference between SLI 1 Gb and 2 Gb 560 tis is £100. I dont think that the extra Vram is worth that much cost, and I wouldnt recommend it at anymore than a maximum of +£20-30 per card for the extra Vram.

 

[Final8y]

1)Yes there are (only very slight) benefits to Vram, but it isnt justified / required for the extra cost in a lot of cases.

2)If you plan on playing BF3 up to 1200p using GTX 560 tis (which is what this thread is about), you need two of them to play it at comfortable framerates on ultra anyway, regardless of whether you choose the 1 gb or 2 gb model.

3)As plenty of people have shown, 2 x 1 Gb GTX 560 tis plays the game perfectly up to 1200p. If you plan on playing at higher resolutions, a pair of 2 Gb GTX 560 tis isnt going to have enough GPU power (this is a midrange setup for 1920x____ resolutions!).

4)Also, the price difference between SLI 1 Gb and 2 Gb 560 tis is £100. I dont think that the extra Vram is worth that much cost, and I wouldnt recommend it at anymore than a maximum of +£20-30 per card for the extra Vram.

1) Up to point, in my particular case there are games that flat out will not work period at my resolution at particular settings if you have less than a certain level of Vram, let alone seeing my fps go into single digits and hearing the harddrive paging away when i have heavily exceeded the Vram, when before i got the SSD on lower vram cards than what i have now.

2) agreed.

3) agreed.

4)You have a right to that opinion, im not here to say if its worth or not for anyone else.

 

[bhavv]

in my particular case there are games that flat out will not work period at my resolution

Im not telling you that you dont need more Vram at your resolution, I'm talking purely about <1200p and the midrange, which is where GTX 560 tis are aimed at, and what this thread is about.

I dont see why anyone would buy GTX 560 tis at 2560x1600 and I'd never recommend it, I'd currently want 6990s or preferably 3 Gb GTX 580s at that res.

But that would cost so much, so I would rather stick to 1920x1200 at 60 hz.

Theres not a single game I play where I see a single lag spike or stutter at 1920x1200 resolution.

In the games I play (Civ V and Skyrim), a hex core I7 would benefit me more as it provides more FPS, plus it will last a heck of a lot longer than a graphics card upgrade to anything like 3 Gb GTX 580s ever would.

 

[B1gbeard]

Are the numbers in the OP really meant to be analyzed to such an extent?

I mean, the thread is a big sales ploy (nothing wrong with that). It was put up purely so that OCUK can sell more of the video cards that they want or need to sell (again, nothing wrong with that).

I'm an old, cynical ******* but I didn't look at the OP in any other way.

 

[spankingtexan]

Well I don't care what you all say, I just left my settings on auto and BF3 looks awesome and plays mega smooth with my system and I have the 1.5GB 580.
Everthing is set to high and some of the options are on ultra. Fantastic.

 

[your evil twin]

I've been planning on getting a new graphics card. I've got a 3 year old system and my current card is a GeForce GTX 260 "MaxCore" by BFG, 896MBytes.

I'd been thinking of getting a 560TI, I was going to go for 1GB version. And then I stumble upon this special offer for 2GB version of 560TI for just under £200, seems ideal. If it's the only component in my PC that I am upgrading, i might as well spend an extra £20 or so and get the version that is slightly more future proof. But I'm wondering whether my processor is going to be a problem, will it severely limit any performance improvement?

I play games at 1920x1200. When it comes to graphics settings I am usually willing to have just 2x antialiasing, but I like turning all other settings up as high as possible.

My processor is an Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550, 2.83ghz. My motherboard is a P43Twins 1600. I've got an 850W power supply. I used to have 2 x 2GB of 800mhz DDR2 RAM, I just replaced that with 2 x 4GB of DDR3 RAM. I'm not sure if that's actually working with the right timings or latency or whatever but at least my system recognises I've got 8GB of RAM.

When I bought my system 3 years ago the processor came already overclocked up to 3.1ghz. But it seems that wasn't quite stable, I got a few artefacts in a few games. And when I got Red Faction Guerrilla the game kept crashing, and one time it crashed so hard that when the computer restarted, somehow all the overclocking had gone! Processor had dropped from 3.1ghz to 2.83. But that fixed the crashing problem and the artefacts, so I've left it alone since then.

Is it worth me spending £200 on a new graphics card if I'm not upgrading my processor or motherboard at all?

 

[arc@css]

I would upgrade the cpu if it couldn't reach a stable overclock, your evil twin.

What's the cpu cooler like? Decent quality? It surprises me that it hasn't managed to achieve at least 3.4, they normally o/c well.