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

[bhavv]

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.

See this thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18336345&highlight=username_starkill3r

Also consider the following points:

A) 1 GTX 560ti is no where near enough to play BF3 on ultra, regardless of how much Vram you put on it

B) 2 GTX 560tis are a requirement to play BF3 on ultra with this card, and 2 x 1 Gb cards manage that brilliantly along with 8 Gb system ram.

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.

Neither the GTX 560ti, nor the 6950 are capable of running any game at playable levels that actually requires 2 Gb Vram. Any game that is unplayable on a single 1 Gb variant or either card is still unplayable on the 2 gb variant.

In the case of the 6950, the extra 1 Gb barely costs any extra, but on the GTX 560ti the difference has been set at £50 for an additional 1 Gb Vram for a long time. People can buy that if they want, but you are simply delusional if you think having 2 Gb Vram on a 560ti will make any game playable over a 1 Gb one.

Even a 3 Gb GTX 580 lightening edition can be completely crippled by enabling 4x MSAA in some games:



I suppose you would tell me that this is because the card doesnt have enough Vram.

This is the reason I got a 6950 2GB rather than spending a bit more and getting a 570.

2 Gb 6950s and 6970s still suffer from the same amount of performance drop with 4x MSAA in BF3 that a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti does. In the case of BF3, Vram makes hardly any difference on AMD cards.

I have never before seen such divided thoughts.

TBH its not really divided thoughts, its people who simply havnt even tried, nor seen an SLI 1 Gb GTX 560 ti actually run BF3 on a decent system with at least 8 Gb system ram.

Look through any post on any tech forum from people complaining about lag in video games at 1080p 60hz, stating that this is due to only having 1 Gb vram .... EVERYONE OF THESE cases has only 4 Gb system ram.

Then look at people who currently do not have the same issues with only 1 Gb vram, THEY HAVE AT LEAST 8 GB SYSTEM RAM.

Also look at single GPU performance in the most demanding games currently out there with 4-8x MSAA enabled - GTX 560tis are not powerful enough to utilize 2 Gb Vram, and even a GTX 580 is not powerful enough to utilize 3 Gb Vram.

 

[Final8y]

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

Its about ever climbing minimum requirements.

Vram is just storage, just like System Ram and hardrive, you can fill it with demanding stuff or non demanding stuff or a bit of both.

Some games could use all of 2GB/3GB Vram to hold the whole map in and not be demanding at all.

Streaming technology is there because there is not enough Vram to hold all the info and not because holding all the info in Vram is demanding on the GPU because its not, streaming is actually more demanding than if all the info was in Vram.

People complain that when they turn quickly in RAGE they see texture pop-up and that because the Texture was not in Vram, but in System Ram or there may of been heavy texture compression.

 

[shuzzbutt]

Its about ever climbing minimum requirements.

Vram is just storage, just like System Ram and hardrive, you can fill it with demanding stuff or non demanding stuff or a bit of both.

Some games could use all of 2GB/3GB Vram to hold the whole map in and not be demanding at all.

Streaming technology is there because there is not enough Vram to hold all the info and not because holding all the info in Vram is demanding on the GPU because its not, streaming is actually more demanding than if all the info was in Vram.

People complain that when they turn quickly in RAGE they see texture pop-up and that because the Texture was not in Vram, but in System Ram or there may of been heavy texture compression.

I agree with everything you say, my personal confusion is based upon the premise that you would not need a large amount of vram to store hi-res textures unless you were playing the game at max settings. In which case the higher end cards ie gtx 580 with 1.5gb of vram which should do the business.

However, buying a gtx 560ti with more vram than comes on a gtx 580 just seems odd to me. Surely the gpu needs enough grunt to draw the masses of textures stored in its vram for a larger amount of vram to be a benefit?

 

[Final8y]

I agree with everything you say, my personal confusion is based upon the premise that you would not need a large amount of vram to store hi-res textures unless you were playing the game at max settings. In which case the higher end cards ie gtx 580 with 1.5gb of vram which should do the business.

However, buying a gtx 560ti with more vram than comes on a gtx 580 just seems odd to me. Surely the gpu needs enough grunt to draw the masses of textures stored in its vram for a larger amount of vram to be a benefit?

Textures take less grunt than AA and you would not being drawing all the textures at once.

No different than having every Map in BF3 already in System Ram so there would be no waiting time between Maps, just because all the maps was stored in system ram does not mean its all being processed at the same time.

And we have to take multi GPU into account.

 

[tommybhoy]

based upon the premise that you would not need a large amount of vram to store hi-res textures unless you were playing the game at max settings. In which case the higher end cards ie gtx 580 with 1.5gb of vram which should do the business.

Higher end cards will perform better at lower settings(BF3), as you pointed out the extra vram is not needed unless the game is at max settings or at high res.

However, buying a gtx 560ti with more vram than comes on a gtx 580 just seems odd to me. Surely the gpu needs enough grunt to draw the masses of textures stored in its vram for a larger amount of vram to be a benefit?

2x 2Gb 560ti in sli will absolutely destroy 1x 1.5Gb 580 in max settings in BF3 and almost every game out there for £40 extra, that's the point of higher vram on a less powerful gpu.

 

[tommybhoy]

2 Gb 6950s and 6970s still suffer from the same amount of performance drop with 4x MSAA in BF3 that a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti does. In the case of BF3, Vram makes hardly any difference on AMD cards.

That's not even MP!

And there you have it, look what happens when you go from custom settings to EVERYTHING on ultra!
(Test system only had 6Gb though)

 

[kissenger]

And there you have it, look what happens when you go from custom settings to EVERYTHING on ultra!

Yeah, the 1.2Gb card still pwns the 2Gb card!

 

[tommybhoy]

At 1920x1200 yes, higher than that and the 570's starts going downhill, it's a moot point anyway, the discussion on the thread is all about the vram baby!

In the Hardware canucks review, the 6970 wins more than it loses anyway!

£400 for 6950>70 crossfire 11 months ago when 2 570 would have cost £560!

My pocket one there mate

 

[kissenger]

£400 for 6950>70 crossfire 11 months ago when 2 570 would have cost £560!

That's turned out to be a bargain.

 

[shuzzbutt]

The 448 gtx 560 remids me of an old spitting image sketch of paddy ashdown- 'i did'nt touch the lady on the left leg or the right leg, but somewhere in between'!

At its current pricepoint its a very peculiar card, its definitely been launched at this silly price with a view to sell at a bargain new year sale price IMO

 

[MoRT489]

That price makes no sense, why not just buy a GTX 570?

 

[bhavv]

That's not even MP!

And there you have it, look what happens when you go from custom settings to EVERYTHING on ultra!
(Test system only had 6Gb though)

1.2 Gb card pwns the 2 Gb vards as kissenger said.

Look at 1 Gb vs 2 Gb 6950 with 4x MSAA, virually no difference but a mere few FPS, and neither is playable.

For BF3, a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti is a poor choice if all you want is a card for this game. You should be buying a GTX 570 or the new 560ti 448.

A 2 Gb 560 ti is going to fare as well as the 2 Gb 6950 does in those graphs.

These graphs you posted - they are 100% conclusive proof that Vram is not limiting or affecting performance in BF3 even with 4x MSAA.

 

[decto]

1.2 Gb card pwns the 2 Gb vards as kissenger said.

Look at 1 Gb vs 2 Gb 6950 with 4x MSAA, virually no difference but a mere few FPS, and neither is playable.

For BF3, a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti is a poor choice if all you want is a card for this game. You should be buying a GTX 570 or the new 560ti 448.

A 2 Gb 560 ti is going to fare as well as the 2 Gb 6950 does in those graphs.

These graphs you posted - they are 100% conclusive proof that Vram is not limiting or affecting performance in BF3 even with 4x MSAA.

The 1.2GB cards are faster than the 2GB ATI cards with 4x MSAA at Ultra settings.

As per the original post the performance of the 1GB GTX560Ti at ultra is unplayable, this can be improved by increasing the VRAM as Gibbo originally posted at the start of this thread or by going SLI.

Unsurprisingly two Nvidia cards with more VRAM are faster than the 1GB card at these settings. It's undeniable that using extreme settings will bring a GTX560ti to it's knees. The graphs use extreme settings.

You cannot use two different architectures to compare the impact of VRAM. The graphs mean nothing unless they post a result for a 2GB GTX560 card which they won't because Nvidia told them which cards and which settings to use. The graph is purposely constructed to make the GTX560 448 look good so Nvidia can sell some broken 570's.

Standard 560Ti SLI at stock clocks has 40% more crunching power (cuda units x frequency) than a GTX580 allowing for an SLI efficiency of 90%. Benchmarks clearly demonstrate that combined they have more rendering power than a GTX580.

The case of a 2GB GTX560ti is unproven as yet however perhaps 1.2GB or 1.5GB is the sweet spot for games. Is it a case of 1GB isn't quite enough and 2GB is too much?

For SLI I'd go for the 2GB option.... would you buy a 1GB GTX580 .... would you buy 1GB GTX580+ with 40% more rendering power.

AD

 

[tommybhoy]

1.2 Gb card pwns the 2 Gb vards as kissenger said.

Which has nothing to do with your argument regarding the discussion in this thread!

Look at 1 Gb vs 2 Gb 6950 with 4x MSAA, virually no difference but a mere few FPS, and neither is playable.

5 fps difference IS a difference, especially when it's regarding minimum fps!

For BF3, a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti is a poor choice if all you want is a card for this game. You should be buying a GTX 570 or the new 560ti 448.

It's not a poor choice when you use dual cards.

As I pointed out above 2x6950>70's bought 11 months ago for £400, a 580 would have cost me £50+ MORE at the time and 6950>70 CrossFire in BF3 destroys the single 580(and nearly every other game) !

£400 for 6950>70 crossfire 11 months ago when 2 570 would have cost £560!

The money saved paid for my 2500K!

A 2 Gb 560 ti is going to fare as well as the 2 Gb 6950 does in those graphs.

In regards to those graphs, a 2Gb 560 is going to fare even BETTER than a 6950 in BF3 especially if you go sli!

These graphs you posted - they are 100% conclusive proof that Vram is not limiting or affecting performance in BF3 even with 4x MSAA.

Quite a few sources now prove that there is a performance hit regarding vram, which clearly IS limiting AND affecting performance in BF3 you just choose not to acknowledge it!

 

[kissenger]

Quite a few sources now prove that there is a performance hit regarding vram, which clearly IS limiting AND affecting performance in BF3 you just choose not to acknowledge it!

Sorry mate, but there is no proof of that whatsoever. There is not one example of a 2Gb 560Ti achieving playable frame rates in a game in which the 1Gb version can't do the same.

 

[Final8y]

Sorry mate, but there is no proof of that whatsoever. There is not one example of a 2Gb 560Ti achieving playable frame rates in a game in which the 1Gb version can't do the same.

Your mixing 2 different points together.

1) Does it make a difference, yes it does, FACT
2) Does its make it playable, that depends on the game, in the case of BF3, not really but why make a bad thing even worse.

Quite a few sources now prove that there is a performance hit regarding vram, which clearly IS limiting AND affecting performance in BF3 you just choose not to acknowledge it!

This is point 1) not point 2 which you do fail acknowledge kissenger.

 

[kissenger]

Your mixing 2 different points together.

1) Does it make a difference, yes it does, FACT
2) Does its make it playable, that depends on the game, in the case of BF3, not really but why make a bad thing even worse.

Yes it makes a difference in some cases but not in any that matter. That's the real crux of the matter. Then again, maybe it does matter in Xfire. I don't know. I'm just talking about single card set-ups.

 

[arknor]

(Test system only had 6Gb though)

whats that got to do with anything? plenty of people are playing the game on ultra with 4gb of memory..

try opening task manager and checking how much ram bf3 is using even on 64 player maps

 

[Final8y]

whats that got to do with anything? plenty of people are playing the game on ultra with 4gb of memory..

try opening task manager and checking how much ram bf3 is using even on 64 player maps

3.225GB and on my 8GB system, with Skype, Steam, Origin, MSN and the browser open for the game, nothing out of the ordinary, 6GB of RAM is used.

 

[Final8y]

Yes it makes a difference in some cases but not in any that matter. That's the real crux of the matter. Then again, maybe it does matter in Xfire. I don't know. I'm just talking about single card set-ups.

Just because BF3 plays in the 30s and 15's on the 2GB and 1GB versions does not mean that other games wont be playing in the 60's 45's on the 2GB and 1GB versions and that you can use a higher setting in a given game on the 2GB version.

That had already happened to me way back when Race driver Grid came out, it also happened to me in DMC4 and moslty likey many other games at the time if i bothered to test any more, so yes it can make the difference between playable and unplayable depending on the game.