Okay then. Show me a benchmark which proves this. I don't have a dog in this race. I've just never seen any proof of what you're saying.
-
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
Okay then. Show me a benchmark which proves this. I don't have a dog in this race. I've just never seen any proof of what you're saying.
Sorry but my setup is much more since then so i cant recreate it.
The logic is simple and i had already posted it.
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.
The only logic to what your saying is that no single card can play any game at 60fps so 2GB can not make a game playable because no game can run at 60fps on a single card which is factually untrue.
Last edited:
It's nothing to do with my point of view on running BF3 at all.
If you read through the thread, it's in regards to bhavv's opinion on the discussion regarding vram with BF3:
That's probably because Nvidia wouldn't allow comparisons to be made in reviews when they handed out samples for reviewing purposes as they are trying to punt the 448 560ti's out the door.
The fact that the 560 tanks worse than the 1Gb 6950 when it hits full ultra, is an even bigger indication to go 2Gb 560 in regards to BF3.
I have tried it myself on full ultra with one gpu, and although playable, I would definitely drop the settings for a higher fps, I have done it in the past for the eye candy(Crysis, didn't most of us?) and will no doubt do it again in the future.
Whether you and I think it's acceptable or not frame rates there will be folks out there running a single 2Gb 560/6950 on ultra for the sake of it rather than drop the settings.
It certainly is, it's one of the best purchases I have made in years, 6950>70 CrossFire @1GHz is in stock 580 sli territory for less than half the price!
What does that even mean? Your logic is all over the place. Again, instead of wild speculation please show me evidence to support what your saying.
I am not asking you to do a benchmark, just show me a benchmark from a reputable site which has tested 1Gb and 2Gb cards and can point to a significant difference between the two at playable frame rates. Everything I've seen completely undermines your point. For example:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/11/08/gainward-geforce-gtx-560-ti-2048mb-phantom/6
^Note the 2Gb 560Ti performing exactly the same as or lower than the 1Gb 560Ti.
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...on-hd-4870-2-gb-vapor-x-empire-total-war.html
My logic is not all over the place, its simple mathematics.
Your logic is flawed because your choosing GPU limited bound scenarios which are not Vram limited scenarios.
Last edited:
The evidence is on the previous page, it doesn't specifically point out 560ti 1Gb/2Gb performance but it does with the 6950's, it's the same principle.
BF3 was built from the ground up to use DX11 properly, with BC2, it was an afterthought bolted on at the end, it's simply nowhere near demanding as BF3.
BF3 was built from the ground up to use DX11 properly, with BC2, it was an afterthought bolted on at the end, it's simply nowhere near demanding as BF3.
So now you're basing your argument about the merits of 2Gb on 560Ti cards on some old benchmarks for 4870s at 1600p (which is obviously going to require more vram) with 4x and 8x AA !
Okay, you are officially not worth debating anymore. You just completely undermined your own credibility. Harmony, is this your second account?
Thast GPU limited what your showing not Vram limited.
If your not Vram limited then the Vram amount will make no difference.
Simple logic that you don't get.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
I have 8gb of main RAM, I also have (had) 1gb 560ti SLI
at 1080P, in single player I can play on Ultra (no MSAA) with some stuttering
I can also do this with 1 560ti (my SLI GPU usage is about 30-40% each, my single card usage is 80-95%)
in multiplayer, same settings I get major stuttering, I have to drop Terrain to High to get less stuttering (about the same then as single player)
VRAM usage reaches 1004MB and then every time I turn quickly or get a wide open view I get stuttering
with any MSAA on I get major stuttering and slightly increased GPU usage, but nowhere near 100% - I am not GPU limited, I am VRAM limited
1GB of VRAM is definitely the limiting factor on 560ti SLI, I was seriously considering getting 2 560ti 2GB's as I've already prov. sold both my 1GB for £150 each, but then I won a 580 on ebay for £250
I could still be persuaded if I saw an actual BF3 on Ultra preset (inc. 4xMSAA) of 560ti 2GB being a good chunk better than a single 580 (which it should be) for only a £100 upgrade
come on OCUK, get your finger out, benchmark 560ti-2GB-SLI (vs. single 580)
and yes I've seen the screenshots of with and without MSAA and yes I can see the difference (FXAA causes blurring - blurring that means you can't see small objects at distance, which in multiplayer means you can't see people!), in fact ideally I want to play with 4xMSAA and TrAA, with FXAA OFF
at 1080P, in single player I can play on Ultra (no MSAA) with some stuttering
I can also do this with 1 560ti (my SLI GPU usage is about 30-40% each, my single card usage is 80-95%)
in multiplayer, same settings I get major stuttering, I have to drop Terrain to High to get less stuttering (about the same then as single player)
VRAM usage reaches 1004MB and then every time I turn quickly or get a wide open view I get stuttering
with any MSAA on I get major stuttering and slightly increased GPU usage, but nowhere near 100% - I am not GPU limited, I am VRAM limited
1GB of VRAM is definitely the limiting factor on 560ti SLI, I was seriously considering getting 2 560ti 2GB's as I've already prov. sold both my 1GB for £150 each, but then I won a 580 on ebay for £250
I could still be persuaded if I saw an actual BF3 on Ultra preset (inc. 4xMSAA) of 560ti 2GB being a good chunk better than a single 580 (which it should be) for only a £100 upgrade
come on OCUK, get your finger out, benchmark 560ti-2GB-SLI (vs. single 580)
and yes I've seen the screenshots of with and without MSAA and yes I can see the difference (FXAA causes blurring - blurring that means you can't see small objects at distance, which in multiplayer means you can't see people!), in fact ideally I want to play with 4xMSAA and TrAA, with FXAA OFF
Last edited:
1GB of vram is 1GB of Vram it does not matter if its on a newer generation, no 1GB card even today can play that game i showed at the setting it failed at on a 1GB card, even if today's cards could play that at 120fps it wont play it at all if its only got 1GB of Vram at those settings, its giving an example of Vram limitation on performance, it does not requires that an example must be made under the same conditions when the point is not the card but the Vram when the original conditions in question does not have the scope for the example to be made.
Even Quadfire 5970 setups with 1GB of Vram per GPU will fail.
It would be me trying to demonstrate possible performance issues with GPUs in games to a person that running 1024x786 and him asking me that i have to prove it at 1024x786 or that fact does not exist.
Your opinion of my credibility is of your own when you ignore simple facts that you don't know what Vram limited is when you point to GPU limited benchmarks, i cant help your lack of experience of being in a Vram limited situation because your setups have never been at a level where that has became a prevalent problem where i can go from 80fps to 10fps with just going from 2xAA to 4xAA in the past.
You don't understand that you can lose a statistical % of performance when you are Vram limited because all you have seem is statistical % of performance GPU limited benches because you think that Vram only makes a difference around the 40fps-15fps mark because of the heavily GPU bound situations that you have seen.
And you reply to Fact 1) with Fact 2) when there 2 different facts and you cant accept the facts for themselves because your hangup on your personally playability level.
What Harmony was going an about is nothing to what im talking about, im not interest in Lag spikes now and then.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,015
- Location
- Surrey, UK
You guys are never going to agree. You're just arguing back and forth, rather than offering up anything useful for other readers. Thread should just be closed, IMO.
The useful info is there, the problem is the acceptance of because even though it makes a difference the differences is not good enough to some people so they will ignore that there even is a difference.
Agreeing on what is playable is unimportant and indeed serves no purpose, unless the thread is specifically about peoples personal opinion of what's playable to them, this thread is not about that but some people cant separate the 2.
So what really should be said is.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
I've got 560ti 1GB SLI with 8GB of main RAM (I also have an SSD for my primary to which BF3 is loaded not that that makes a difference in to this discussion)
it is not better than a single 1GB 560ti - running MSI afterburner I see that GPU usage is low but when VRAM usage spikes to over 1GB (reads as 1004MB on afterburner) I get stuttering everytime it obviously needs to load a different texture (e.g. in multiplayer I run round a corner and I see the guy loading bit by bit just before I die because he didn't need to load me first to see me), scaling down MSAA and/or some texture settings from Ultra to High solves this issue by reducing VRAM usage (but not GPU usage)
the only thing that will solve this argument is if OCUK post up 560ti-2GB-SLI results (they may very well get a sale to me of 2 560ti 2GB's in the process)
it is not better than a single 1GB 560ti - running MSI afterburner I see that GPU usage is low but when VRAM usage spikes to over 1GB (reads as 1004MB on afterburner) I get stuttering everytime it obviously needs to load a different texture (e.g. in multiplayer I run round a corner and I see the guy loading bit by bit just before I die because he didn't need to load me first to see me), scaling down MSAA and/or some texture settings from Ultra to High solves this issue by reducing VRAM usage (but not GPU usage)
the only thing that will solve this argument is if OCUK post up 560ti-2GB-SLI results (they may very well get a sale to me of 2 560ti 2GB's in the process)
Out of interest, what is the rest of your system spec? I have a Q6700 and even at 3.6Ghz I struggle to get more than 80% GPU usage on a single card and the frame rates are around 40 @ high settings so it seems to be under performing. While CPU speed doesn't scale directly I think the S775 platform is a bottleneck in itself.
AD
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
No offense, but that just sound like high ping/bad lag...
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
q6600 @ 3.6ghz
BF3 does not care about CPU, on a single 560ti I get spells of 100% GPU in single player (1080p, ultra settings, MSAA off, HBAO and blur ON), CPU usage is never 100% on all 4 cores, when I was on a single card I also OC'd to 950mhz GPU and see high 90's to 100% usage
like I say, I don't get noticeable slow down in frame rates in BF3 EXCEPT when I do something that spikes the VRAM usage (I alt+tab out when I get slow down and from the trace on Afterburner I can see GPU usage not maxed but VRAM maxed, other times I've alt tabbed out and can see SLI usage up to 60-70% in small spikes, so no the CPU isn't starving even 560ti SLI)
in my experience of games that I play CPU and Memory speed make like 1-2% difference so I've never bothered to upgrade (some strategy games eat in to CPU in a big way but I tend to mostly play FPS which don't)
I've never experienced my quad core 775 CPU bottlnecking my graphics card - particularly not in BF3
BF3 does not care about CPU, on a single 560ti I get spells of 100% GPU in single player (1080p, ultra settings, MSAA off, HBAO and blur ON), CPU usage is never 100% on all 4 cores, when I was on a single card I also OC'd to 950mhz GPU and see high 90's to 100% usage
like I say, I don't get noticeable slow down in frame rates in BF3 EXCEPT when I do something that spikes the VRAM usage (I alt+tab out when I get slow down and from the trace on Afterburner I can see GPU usage not maxed but VRAM maxed, other times I've alt tabbed out and can see SLI usage up to 60-70% in small spikes, so no the CPU isn't starving even 560ti SLI)
in my experience of games that I play CPU and Memory speed make like 1-2% difference so I've never bothered to upgrade (some strategy games eat in to CPU in a big way but I tend to mostly play FPS which don't)
I've never experienced my quad core 775 CPU bottlnecking my graphics card - particularly not in BF3
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
it does it in single player too, very consistently both SP or MP regardless of ping and always when I try to increase either MSAA or texture quality to the point that VRAM is maxed out, I turn down a setting that no longer maxed VRAM and everything is back to smooth like butter
I'm on BT infinity and I very rarely get high ping / lag unless it's a server issue affecting everyone on the server and then everyone bitches and quits the server
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
What level of MSAA are you trying to use btw? Cause for 1GB cards on BF3 realistically you shouldn't go beyond 2xAA.
Well I turned down my settings to all medium last night with the 3.6Ghz Q6600 and GTX560Ti.
At High + some ultra FPS 42 GPU 90%
At High FPS 42 GPU 70%
At Medium FPS 43 GPU 55%
8GB DDR2 @ 800Mhz
FSB 1600Mhz
P5N-D
It's so bottlenecked in MP
Interestingly slowing the CPU down doesn't change it much either.
2.4Ghz (6x400) High 39 FPS
3.2Ghz (8x400) High 42 FPS
3.6Ghz (9x400) High 42 FPS
So I conclude this is a platform issue. Sticling an extra card in will only cause a lag fest as if the platform can only drive the card at 40ish FPS and you then SLI it to split between two cards ... it can still only do 40FPS except now you've made it stutter far worse across two cards.
Socket 775 doesn't have the bandwith, it was never designed for a Quad core CPU, Intel just made it work.
Have Sandybridge waiting in the wings for an upgrade once the motherboard arrives so I'll see what happends to the frame rates then.
AD