• 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!

I've just made my first (hopefully of many) purchases from OCUK and bit the bullet on the 1gb card as £150 imo is more than adequate for casual gaming on my htpc hooked upto my big 1080p tv :)

In my honest opinion, the recent trend of adding masses of VRAM on mid-range cards like the gtx 560ti and even lower cards like the 550ti seems like a synical ploy from manufacturers to get more cash for low end tech.

Kind of like adding a 5l petrol tank to a moped- yes its nice not to have to refill the fuel for a while but its not gonna help you go any faster :confused:
 
shuzzbutt said:
In my honest opinion, the recent trend of adding masses of VRAM on mid-range cards like the gtx 560ti and even lower cards like the 550ti seems like a synical ploy from manufacturers to get more cash for low end tech.
Click to expand...

In the case of below 560ti, yes but the 560 and the 6950's can utilise it as they are very capable gpu's, the 6950 is the exact same gpu as the 6970 with some shaders disabled, there are loads of 6950's out there wich have been turned into 6970's and some still can be enabled.

Amd have been working with Dice for a long time with BF and Bioware with DA II, they would have known that there would be benefits to the extra vram a long time ago.

Don't you think Amd knew that the extra vram was beneficial and that's probably one of the reasons it was released with 2Gb in the first place?

This time last year, iirc, there was only Metro and Stalker COP using Dx11,even then it was only bolted on features, now there are a good few more titles using DX11, so now it's becoming more apparent that the extra vram is beneficial.

DX 11 titles are eating up vram, there are a few screenshots earlier in the thread that shows this.

When you hear comments like 'it's only getting stored in the frame buffer' that's the point of storing it, so that it can be accessed, read and processed much quicker which can prevent stuttering, yes it can be used from accessing system ram and the page file, but there is a performance hit which can make all the difference, if games had no need for using vram, it wouldn't use it, it's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
shuzzbutt said:
In my honest opinion, the recent trend of adding masses of VRAM on mid-range cards like the gtx 560ti and even lower cards like the 550ti seems like a synical ploy from manufacturers to get more cash for low end tech.
Click to expand...

In the case of below 560ti, yes but the 560 and the 6950's can utilise it as they are very capable gpu's, the 6950 is the exact same gpu as the 6970 with some shaders disabled, there are loads of 6950's out there wich have been turned into 6970's and some still can be enabled.

Amd have been working with Dice for a long time with BF and Bioware with DA II, they would have known that there would be benefits to the extra vram a long time ago.

Amd already knew with working with the game developers that the extra vram was beneficial and that's probably one of the reasons it was released with 2Gb in the first place, they only released the 1Gb 6950 to compete with the 560ti on price.

This time last year, iirc, there was only Metro and Stalker COP using Dx11,even then it was only bolted on features, now there are a good few more titles using DX11, so now it's becoming more apparent that the extra vram is beneficial.

DX 11 titles are eating up vram, there are a few screenshots earlier in the thread that shows this.

When you hear comments like 'it's only getting stored in the frame buffer' that's the point of storing it, so that it can be accessed, read and processed much quicker which can prevent stuttering, yes it can be used from accessing system ram and the page file, but there is a performance hit which can make all the difference, if games had no need for using vram, it wouldn't use it, it's as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
tommy, I'm still waiting to see any evidence whatsoever that a 2Gb 560Ti can make any game playable (i.e. with an average around 60fps and never dipping below 30-35) that the 1Gb version can't.
 
@kissenger, I had a huge post for you, but realised people will be getting fed up with it so I'm only going to say this:

Point out where I said 1 2Gb card can achieve this!

You know, I know, everyone knows you need 2 cards(560/6950) to achieve the numbers you are talking about in BF3, it's all been said and done in this thread without starting all over again!

Good luck goes out to you(and anyone who takes your advice!) while streaming 1.5Gb+ data through your 1Gb card without expecting a performance hit!

'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.'

http://www.geforce.com/Optimize/Guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide
 
Last edited:
The difference in the minimum fps between the 1 & 2gb card is a mere 3fps. Given that a higher minimum would be more indicative of a smooth gameplay experience, the only reason to get the 2gb version would be to run sli as 3fps difference in the minimum does not justify the extra £45 in cost imo :)
 
Oh great... on Friday I bought the OcUK GeForce GTX 560Ti 2048MB (the Palit one) for £195... and now the MSI GeForce GTX 560Ti OC Twin FrozR II 2048MB is for sale at the same price. Is the MSI a significantly better card? Factory overclocked and known for providing good artefact-free performance? http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-140-MS It's apparently a top seller and has got lots of good reviews, while the Palit one that I bought hasn't had any reviews.

The one I bought was normally £215 knocked down to £195, while this is £254.99 knocked down to £195. I haven't even had the card I bought delivered yet.

Now I see on Overclockers support page that there I've got 7 days under long distance selling regulations to return it after delivery, should I buy the MSI card and return the card I already bought? Should I perhaps not accept delivery on the card that I bought, I assume that way it gets returned to the sender for free?

I'd ask Overclockers these questions directly but it's a Sunday and as far as I can tell their customer service is only open business hours.

EDIT: Yeah I had a look at the terms and conditions and they do actually mention refusing delivery as part of ending contract under long distance selling regulations. So I've now bought the MSI card and I've sent them a Webnote on the website's "contact us" page to let them know.
 
Last edited:
I would for the longer warranty, better cooler, looks and higher stock clocks, it will cost u an extra tenner in return postage for the OCUK card though.

Edit: That offer price seems to be the same standard price as a major competitor, be strange if it jumped back up by £50 on OCUK tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom