It would be pretty unusual for a CPU overclock to cause artifacts (more likely to be a faulty/overheating gfx card) or for a Q9550 to be unstable at 3.1GHz, even on stock volts. Most Q9550s will run happily at 3.6GHz with only a small voltage increase and a few push past 4GHz. Ur CPU is definnately not too old, especially if ur playing BF3 as the type of CPU (including overclock) does not seem to have any effect on frames per second in BF3.
-
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!
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
The 560Ti will have around 3x the power of the GTX260 due to the increase in core frequency and shader count.
Your quad will be fine to keep it fed. You'd would gain some performance if you upgrade everything however for any gaming situation either the CPU or the GPU is capping the FPS. To get them both in sync would be a miracle.
2GB version might be best as there will be less demand on the PCI-E interface for any background texture swapping etc. that happens while you play. The infrastructure of the s775 has less overall bandwidth.
I'm expecting the redelivery of a 2GB to pair up with my Q6700 today so if it turns up....DX then I'll be able to post back over the weekend.
AD
Your quad will be fine to keep it fed. You'd would gain some performance if you upgrade everything however for any gaming situation either the CPU or the GPU is capping the FPS. To get them both in sync would be a miracle.
2GB version might be best as there will be less demand on the PCI-E interface for any background texture swapping etc. that happens while you play. The infrastructure of the s775 has less overall bandwidth.
I'm expecting the redelivery of a 2GB to pair up with my Q6700 today so if it turns up....DX then I'll be able to post back over the weekend.
AD
I have never before seen such divided thoughts. On a serious note though and numerous threads still leave me doubtfull. Is there anyone who has 2 X 1gb 560ti cards who plays BF3 @ 1920x1080 with everything on full ultra?
If so what FPS do you get and is there any stuttering?
would you reccomend this as a justifiable upgrade or maybe wait?
£150 for a new card and I just dont know if to wait or buy.
If so what FPS do you get and is there any stuttering?
would you reccomend this as a justifiable upgrade or maybe wait?
£150 for a new card and I just dont know if to wait or buy.
I believe that both bhavy and starkiller are running 560Ti SLI set-ups and they get >60fps consistently, including in multiplayer. Starkiller even uploaded a video to demonstrate this.
He asked about full ultra though, not custom settings, yet again misleading information being thrown about this thread:
While 2 560ti's would give fantastic performance in BF3 for £150 each, you may have to drop the settings a touch, but I wouldn't pay £100 extra to enable Ultra.
If it was still £25 per gpu extra like when the debate originally started(as the 560 on offer only became available last night), I would definitely pay the extra if there were no new cards on the horizon.
The 2560x1600 is not the point, what i need or like was not the point, What effect Vram has was, this is where you keep tripping up because you lose the point and talk about the fact that i said 2560x1600.
The problem with BF3 is that the exe can use 3.2GB of system ram all by itself then the plugins running and all the other stuff and OS on top means there is not much left for shifting textures from Ram to Vram when the Vram cant hold most of it itself on 4GB systems.
The game is very good at dynamically allocating Vram depending how much you have unlike some games in the past, so when i run the game at 1920x1080 on 2GB GPUs it will use 1.5GB of Vram instead of 950MB as it would if i was using 1GB cards even though i have 8GB of system ram because GPUs like Vram before system ram, just like CPUs prefer Cache before system ram.
And im not interested is lag spike talk or CPU talk as that's been done to death already and there is nothing more can be said.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 40
Thanks guys, you've provided some great info!
I'm a newbie here and I've no experience with overclocking stuff; I bought the whole system pre-overclocked.
The CPU cooler is a Thermaltake "Golden Orb II" which is apparently an OK cooler, at least it was 3 years ago.
Since you're all saying that CPU overclocking doesn't tend to cause artefacts etc I think it is likely that the company I bought it from overclocked the graphics card as well. And I think the BFG MaxCore might have been a graphics card that already came slightly overclocked anyway, so I guess they pushed it a bit too much. And when my computer had a siezure I lost ALL overclocking, both CPU and graphics card. To be honest I didn't really notice any performance drop after the overclocks were gone, so I might leave the CPU as is unless people reckon there are any particular games that would get a significant benefit.
And yeah, if the 560Ti is effectively 3 times more powerful than my current card and my CPU won't hold it back then yeah this definately seems a good investment. If it were not for the special offer I'd need to carefully consider whether to get 1GB or 2GB version, but yeah at the moment the 2GB version looks like it makes sense.
Last edited:
Forum rules state you can't mention competitors, delete it dude
Thanks for the info. I happily play on high settings at over 60 fps with 1 560ti. My thoughts don't just lie on this game though it is future games for the next couple of years and I dont realy want to spend now knowing that in 6 months to a year I can't play games at full res even though I have sli.
More about future proofing tbh and not that I am fussed on putting everything on ultra for BF3 (so frantic I never get to notice the detail so much) It would just be nice if ya know what I mean.
Thanks again for the info though.
More about future proofing tbh and not that I am fussed on putting everything on ultra for BF3 (so frantic I never get to notice the detail so much) It would just be nice if ya know what I mean.
Thanks again for the info though.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 40
The card I'm thinking of getting is the "OcUK GeForce GTX 560Ti 2048MB GDDR5 PCI-Express Graphics Card". I'm a bit curious about the "OcUK" bit, the picture of the graphics card and the text description both say it is made by "Palit", so... what's particularly OcUK about this card? Has Overclockers UK overclocked it in advance? The description says it is 822MHz, which I think is the normal 560Ti core speed without any overclock.
Ah whoops didn't realise that, fixed. (Though it's not like I was recommending them - they gave me an unstable graphics card overclock!)
Ah whoops didn't realise that, fixed. (Though it's not like I was recommending them - they gave me an unstable graphics card overclock!)
Last edited:
I've just had one of these delivered. Actually looks better in the flesh.
OCUK are usually whichever brand they get a deal on whereas other brands you know exactly which card you'll get.
In this case though they are branded as Palit, it's a standard clocked GTX560Ti with heatpipe cooler and twin fans. Much smaller than I expected too!
AD
OCUK are usually whichever brand they get a deal on whereas other brands you know exactly which card you'll get.
In this case though they are branded as Palit, it's a standard clocked GTX560Ti with heatpipe cooler and twin fans. Much smaller than I expected too!
AD
There are new cards coming out soon and you could sell on your current single 560ti and lose less money(than selling 2) when upgrading.
As you are talking about future proofing for the next couple of years, there is a real possibility of next gen consoles this time next year, which means the 'console ports' are going to be much more demanding on hardware than they are now.
This is always the case though and a faster next gen gpu 99% of the time will far outweigh vram restrictions, but the points discussed in this thread is about current vram limitations is on this gens cards with BF3.
Whenever there is more vram available on a series of cards there is always shouts of 'it's not needed' I've seen it over the years going from 128mb>250mb>500mb>1gb>1.5gb>2gb>3gb and look at us now, the very same argument(I won't be surprised one bit if the 680 comes with a minimum of 2Gb vram
)!My advice would be to read through the thread again and make your own decision with the information available!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 6,968
To YourEvilTwin
You will benefit from overclocking your CPU yes, 3.4 should be simple, go into your BIOS and up your FSB to 400, chances are your board will do this even on auto voltage, if not then simply up the voltage a few notches. You should see nice gains in games which utilise CPU more
You will benefit from overclocking your CPU yes, 3.4 should be simple, go into your BIOS and up your FSB to 400, chances are your board will do this even on auto voltage, if not then simply up the voltage a few notches. You should see nice gains in games which utilise CPU more
My advice would be to read through the thread again and make your own decision with the information available!
Thanks bud and good advice. I have (a couple of times) and as I have just future proofed everything except for my GPU. I think it will be wise in my case to wait for Kepler/maxwell and go that way.
I am not prone to "sitting on the fence" but feel this time it would be wise.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
Yea...going for a graphic card that are still stucked on 40nm process now certainly ain't future proofing...it would be dumb in a way like building a new system around the i5 760 1-2 months before to the launch of SandyBridge i5 back then, instead of waiting.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 40
So earlier today I went and bought the OcUK GeForce GTX 560Ti 2048MB... and then in another forum thread I read that a new card, the "560ti 448" is coming out on Monday and that it is going to be about the £200 price point. Is that true? I'm guessing it is just a 1GB card though, but if it would give me better performance in most of my games (while the 2GB card only gives better performance in one or two games) then perhaps was not such a good deal...
The 560Ti 448 is basically a 570, but with less cores. I.e. it is a 570 which came out of manufacturing with some defects which meant that Nvidia couldn't sell them as 570s so they are putting a 560 badge on them and selling them that way instead.
They will run on GF110, like the 570, which means less room for overclocking and they will have 1.3Gb vram, like the 570, so less than your current card. They will run faster than a stock speed 560Ti but will lose out to an overclocked 560Ti. It is as yet unclear how they stack up against a regular 560Ti when both are overclocked. Price will probably be around £200 but will likely not drop below that because they are a limited run of only 10,000 cards. They are a stop gap until Kepler.
They will run on GF110, like the 570, which means less room for overclocking and they will have 1.3Gb vram, like the 570, so less than your current card. They will run faster than a stock speed 560Ti but will lose out to an overclocked 560Ti. It is as yet unclear how they stack up against a regular 560Ti when both are overclocked. Price will probably be around £200 but will likely not drop below that because they are a limited run of only 10,000 cards. They are a stop gap until Kepler.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I think you are wrong on the overclocking part- when you look at the amount of overclock, you shouldn't looking at the amount of MHz it's overclock by, but the percentage which it overclock by. A standard GTX560Ti overclocked from stock clock 822MHz to the average 950MHz is 15.5% overclock, if the GTX560Ti 448 is the same as the GTX570, but with only less cores, it would mean it will overclock from stock clock 732MHz to average 850MHz, which is actually 16% overclock. Taking into the account of the the GTX560Ti 448 is faster than the GTX560Ti on stock, what it means is that the performance gain on its 16% overclock would be greater than 16% overclock on a standard GTX560Ti.
There are also other things to consider- since the GTX560Ti 448 is based on the GF110 instead of GF114, it would mean it has better tessellation performance, as well as getting less performance hit when AA is applied.
![[TW]Sponge](/styles/overclockers/avatars/6.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 6,570
- Location
- Hereford
So I guess my 1280mb 570 just don't cut it anymore?
Christ this was an amazing card when I bought it! Shows how quickly tech becomes out of date.
Christ this was an amazing card when I bought it! Shows how quickly tech becomes out of date.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
I don't think you should be upset to be honest, as VRAM usage in relation to performance is not exactly a case of one size fit all. Take the 6970 2GB for example, when on 1920 res 0xAA, it is on par with the GTX570 1.25GB..or possibly faster, but once 4xAA is applied, it loses more frame rate than the GTX570 and is clearly slower in majority of the case (except for games that are optimised for AMD). So it's not about looking at the VRAM alone, but should look at the GPU architecture and how it works with the VRAM as well.[TW]Sponge;20652903 said:
To be perfectly honest, people like me with something like 5850/5870 1GB is waiting for the upgrade to the 1st gen 28nm card, so VRAM increase would be part of that upgrade, and people like you with GTX570 1.25GB, it will serve you well till you upgrade to something like 2nd gen 28nm card. Sure we might not run games completely max out, but personally I don't see it hurt all that much even if it means only have to lower texture from max down to high, and/or AA from 4x down to 2x (in A FEW more demanding titles) - I doubt you would even notice the difference in games (or not bothered by it one bit even if you do notice) rather than looking at screenshots.
Last edited: