-
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
That is a possibility in a particular game.
GPU is a limiting factor by itself most of the time but its not always.
If it was always then you could never have a configuration where Vram made a difference.
A single 5870 2GB is out doing a TRI FIRE 5870 1GB setup.
It clearly matters in both Single and Xfire here.
F1 2010 (DX11) the 5970 dual 1GB per gpu gets smashed by a single 6970 2GB.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...s/41404-amd-radeon-hd-6990-4gb-review-18.html
Last edited:
yes but like with system RAM - and fora given resolution they'll beapoint where going over makes little difference
ie widely seen on here 1gb prob not enough
1.25 - probably in most circumstances is ok at 1900x1200
and 1.5 - I'd guess in most modern games even with lots of FSAA - its plenty of VRAM
therefore going above 1.5 may not make a difference
I'm certainly getting very fluid gaming with my OC'd 480 - especially in BF3 (ultra) and I Love my FSAA and game at 1900
and thats on a "legacy" Q6600
ie widely seen on here 1gb prob not enough
1.25 - probably in most circumstances is ok at 1900x1200
and 1.5 - I'd guess in most modern games even with lots of FSAA - its plenty of VRAM
therefore going above 1.5 may not make a difference
I'm certainly getting very fluid gaming with my OC'd 480 - especially in BF3 (ultra) and I Love my FSAA and game at 1900
and thats on a "legacy" Q6600 yes but like with system RAM - and fora given resolution they'll beapoint where going over makes little difference
ie widely seen on here 1gb prob not enough
1.25 - probably in most circumstances is ok at 1900x1200
and 1.5 - I'd guess in most modern games even with lots of FSAA - its plenty of VRAM
therefore going above 1.5 may not make a difference
I'm certainly getting very fluid gaming with my OC'd 480 - especially in BF3 (ultra) and I Love my FSAA and game at 1900
1.5 is the sweet spot.
I'm not saying anyone needs anything more than 1GB at 1080, but just watch out and don't get caught out by the odd game.
Most likely AMD and NV will have there new cards out with more Vram anyway before it really matters at 1080p.
Last edited:
The same as you suggested binning a 4GHz quad core AMD system, to buy a 2500K, 8Gb ram and 1Gb 560ti SLI instead of simply getting 2Gb Sli?
Maybe you should go back to posting on the starkiller thread that talks about maxing out BF3 with 1Gb 560ti SLI when in actual fact it still isn't fully maxed out.
Honestly, you go on about a 2Gb 560ti/6950 not being capable when it's a well known fact that the 560ti/6950 can both achieve the same level of performance as the next card up with some overclocking!
As I have said before, it is playable on a 2Gb 6950, so therefore it will be playable on the 2Gb 560 too I presume as it performs slightly better in BF3.
Last edited:
Make it bigger
Ran this this morning .... full ultra settings on totally stock 2500k 560Ti SLI 2GB 822Mhz core
Absolutely nothing disabled .... 4xMSAA is fine
AD
Edit:
Forgot to include this is at 1080p
The dips are typically kill cam after I took a bullet.
Another myth to bust ..... These are running on a Corsair HX620 psu, Peak usage is 400W from the wall socket, Assuming the best case of 85% PSU efficiency that's about 340w DC or 57% of the rated 12V capacity. Even enough head room for some over clocking. May need a couple of case mods to help cooling though as the Palit cards don't exhaust the air and the lower card gets a little warm at 80C
Last edited:
All settings except AA on highest = max.
Theres no such thing as max AA unless you are using 64x AA.
With your constant whining regarding maxing out, I'm sure you would be able to realise that a single 2 Gb 560 / 6950 will never be able to play BF3 maxed out - The official recommendation to be able to do that is to have SLI or Crossfire.
22 minimum FPS isnt anymore playable than 17.
By your definition, the game is playable on 1 Gb cards too. Your opinion of playable doesnt apply to everyone else. For most people, a minimum of 30 FPS and an average of around 50+ needs to be attained for any FPS game to be playable.
BF3 simply isnt 'playable' on any single card under the GTX 560 448 for most people, and it isnt any more 'playable' on a 2 Gb 560 to or 6950 than it is on a 1 Gb.
Last edited:
^
There is absolutely NO point discussing this matter with you at all!
As stated you have previously gave out shamefully wrong information on binning a perfectly good setup so that your argument looks credible.
All factors point to 1Gb collapsing on everything using ULTRA in game settings, NOT using a Custom config with less AA which is the sole purpose of this thread.
As you are fully aware the 4xMSAA is what makes the 1Gb card collapse, you have now moved the goalposts and are now recommending either the 448 or above rather than your previous advice on recommending 2x 1Gb 560 ti's and 8Gb of ram, even though you have ignored the fact that an overclocked 560ti can achieve the same performance as a 448/570.
There is absolutely NO point discussing this matter with you at all!
As stated you have previously gave out shamefully wrong information on binning a perfectly good setup so that your argument looks credible.
All factors point to 1Gb collapsing on everything using ULTRA in game settings, NOT using a Custom config with less AA which is the sole purpose of this thread.
As you are fully aware the 4xMSAA is what makes the 1Gb card collapse, you have now moved the goalposts and are now recommending either the 448 or above rather than your previous advice on recommending 2x 1Gb 560 ti's and 8Gb of ram, even though you have ignored the fact that an overclocked 560ti can achieve the same performance as a 448/570.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
that is exactly the information this thread needed - the whole point of 560ti 2GB is SLI - 2gb 560ti out performs single 580 1.5gb by a decent chunk AND has breathing room, which if you were looking at list price an extra £20-40 for 560ti 2GB SLI is a good deal
Don't even think about it.
so why can i max out bf3 with 2*580 1.5gb with ULTRA settings 4*MSAA in multiplayers map 64 players at 1080p and 1920*1200?
And also, repi (the bf3 dev) said ultra setting (with 4*msaa) needs 1.4GB of VRAM at 1080p check his twitter, is it me or you want to sell your stuff from overclockers.co.uk though this topic??? Just an adS...
And also, repi (the bf3 dev) said ultra setting (with 4*msaa) needs 1.4GB of VRAM at 1080p check his twitter, is it me or you want to sell your stuff from overclockers.co.uk though this topic??? Just an adS...
Last edited:
Because the thread is talking about/aimed at 1Gb/2Gb 560 ti's, not aimed at 1.5Gb 580's.
The only time 2x1.5Gb 580 is really going to struggle with BF3 is above 2560x1600p.
If you had read through the thread you would have realised that.
The only time 2x1.5Gb 580 is really going to struggle with BF3 is above 2560x1600p.
If you had read through the thread you would have realised that.
And plus looking at benchmarks of the new 560TI 448 edition, which also shows the 6950 1GB and 2GB and there is only 1 FPS difference between 1GB and 2GB at 1080/1200 (and this is for BF 3 and crysis 2 as well) going by hardware canucks etc.
The 560TI 448 beats a 6950 2GB by more than 1-3 FPS, yet it only has 1280MB.
The 560TI 448 beats a 6950 2GB by more than 1-3 FPS, yet it only has 1280MB.
Last edited:
@kalyyy, it doesn't specifically say 3GB SLI @1080p.
Which is true, it's the best performing single card, period.
Does the 'some' customers use [email protected] or similar/worse performing cpu's with 580 SLI maybe?
I'm not saying everyone is going to have some kind of problem @1080p using 580 sli, but there may be some sort of stuttering with lower performing cpu's that are bottlenecking Sli/CrossFire and therefore causing problems with the gpu's scaling properly ingame.
I had the same problem with 6950>70 CrossFire using a [email protected], it just can't utilise the gpu's scaling properly!
Now with a [email protected] the cards are performing as they should.
One of the BF3 devs also said on video that you were going to need at least 580 sli to max out BF3 which is also untrue, 2x 2Gb 6950/560ti's can do it!
To me, it sounds like there may be some cash going between pockets with certain people! nudge nudge,
@Nexus18,
That is more than a 1fps hit when you look at the mins.
The 560 has taken more than a 50% hit!
Also take note that the 6950's are essentially 6970's the same way that the 448's are essentially 570's with a few shaders knocked off, the bigger difference is that the AMD's have much lower clocks enabled on them compared to the 448's similar clock speeds to the 570's.
If you manually oc the 6950 to the same speed as the 6970 it will be very close to the same performance as well.
Which is true, it's the best performing single card, period.
Take note how the game uses upto of 1800MB of VRAM Graphics memory even at just 1920x1080, hence why some customers are getting stuttering even on GTX 580's and the higher the resolution the more VRAM the game uses, hence 2GB is a minimum requirement we believe for Battlefield 3 if you wish to enjoy the game to its full potential.
Does the 'some' customers use [email protected] or similar/worse performing cpu's with 580 SLI maybe?
I'm not saying everyone is going to have some kind of problem @1080p using 580 sli, but there may be some sort of stuttering with lower performing cpu's that are bottlenecking Sli/CrossFire and therefore causing problems with the gpu's scaling properly ingame.
I had the same problem with 6950>70 CrossFire using a [email protected], it just can't utilise the gpu's scaling properly!
Now with a [email protected] the cards are performing as they should.
One of the BF3 devs also said on video that you were going to need at least 580 sli to max out BF3 which is also untrue, 2x 2Gb 6950/560ti's can do it!
To me, it sounds like there may be some cash going between pockets with certain people! nudge nudge,
@Nexus18,
That is more than a 1fps hit when you look at the mins.
The 560 has taken more than a 50% hit!
Also take note that the 6950's are essentially 6970's the same way that the 448's are essentially 570's with a few shaders knocked off, the bigger difference is that the AMD's have much lower clocks enabled on them compared to the 448's similar clock speeds to the 570's.
If you manually oc the 6950 to the same speed as the 6970 it will be very close to the same performance as well.
I am not just talking about the 560TI normal version, talking about the 448 edition.
And not really about clocks etc.
Just about 1GB VS 2GB debate as you can see, a 1GB VS 2GB 6950 has barely any difference apart from the min FPS which has more AA applied (we all know that AA uses more VRAM up) compared to a normal 560TI and a 448 edition beats the 6950 2GB easily, yet it only has 1280MB of VRAM.
Also the 560TI actually has higher min FPS than the 2GB 6950 in the first graph.
However it is pointless even having those settings pretty much maxed out (for the 4xAA graph) with just the one card (below a 570) as for BF 3 online, that sort of FPS feels laggy, so all those single cards below a 570 just don't cut it at those settings plus 4xAA especially a 560TI 1 or 2GB and I am generally the sort of person who is happy with 30-35FPS in games, but when playing online for BF 3 at those same settings or any settings for that fact, I would want an average of around 50, no less than 45 max!
And yes I know that a 448 edition performs better in general anyway than a 6950 and the 560TI is slightly slower than the 6950 in general.
But this whole debate about 1GB VS 2GB for 1080/1200 is what I am getting at, there is no difference between 1 and 2GB as is shown by those charts that you just posted and quite frankly seeing people recommending a 2GB 560TI or 6950 (if they aren't going to be unlocking it to a 6970) over other cards (that have less than 2GB) just because it has more VRAM but won't perform as good as a 1GB is just silly tbph, unless they get them for very cheap then fair enough.
EDIT:
And plus only the second graph actually has a somewhat substantial difference and that is for the min FPS between the 1GB and 2GB 6950.
And not really about clocks etc.
Just about 1GB VS 2GB debate as you can see, a 1GB VS 2GB 6950 has barely any difference apart from the min FPS which has more AA applied (we all know that AA uses more VRAM up) compared to a normal 560TI and a 448 edition beats the 6950 2GB easily, yet it only has 1280MB of VRAM.
Also the 560TI actually has higher min FPS than the 2GB 6950 in the first graph.
However it is pointless even having those settings pretty much maxed out (for the 4xAA graph) with just the one card (below a 570) as for BF 3 online, that sort of FPS feels laggy, so all those single cards below a 570 just don't cut it at those settings plus 4xAA especially a 560TI 1 or 2GB and I am generally the sort of person who is happy with 30-35FPS in games, but when playing online for BF 3 at those same settings or any settings for that fact, I would want an average of around 50, no less than 45 max!
And yes I know that a 448 edition performs better in general anyway than a 6950 and the 560TI is slightly slower than the 6950 in general.
But this whole debate about 1GB VS 2GB for 1080/1200 is what I am getting at, there is no difference between 1 and 2GB as is shown by those charts that you just posted and quite frankly seeing people recommending a 2GB 560TI or 6950 (if they aren't going to be unlocking it to a 6970) over other cards (that have less than 2GB) just because it has more VRAM but won't perform as good as a 1GB is just silly tbph, unless they get them for very cheap then fair enough.
EDIT:
And plus only the second graph actually has a somewhat substantial difference and that is for the min FPS between the 1GB and 2GB 6950.