-
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.
1GB or 2GB GPU
- Thread starter nathan_s
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 659
- Location
- Harrogate
I would say yes, especially with games like BF3 and other ones out in the near future.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 723
- Location
- Nr Winchester
Depends on what games you ant to play and at what settings, but getting a 2gb card certainly wont do you any harm
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 2,597
On that res I'd go for the extra RAM. Or turn down your textures a notch or two and turn your AA off.
Depends how deep your pockets are and/or how much you like your games.
As £170 gets you a 1Gb 560ti(£185 bundled with BF3), £200 gets the 2Gb 560ti or £240 for the 560ti 448core.
For example with BF3, the 1Gb 560ti will play very nicely, albeit with less IQ, you will get a little extra MSAA with a 2GB one or the full IQ with the 448 core.
As I said, it depends how much you want to spend and how long your planning to keep the card.
As £170 gets you a 1Gb 560ti(£185 bundled with BF3), £200 gets the 2Gb 560ti or £240 for the 560ti 448core.
For example with BF3, the 1Gb 560ti will play very nicely, albeit with less IQ, you will get a little extra MSAA with a 2GB one or the full IQ with the 448 core.
As I said, it depends how much you want to spend and how long your planning to keep the card.
Yea at 1920x1200 - 1280 Mb 560 448 or GTX 570 is what you want for a single card. They will wipe the floor with 2 Gb Vram cards.
Nonsense, but don't just take my word for it:
http://translate.googleusercontent....g=ALkJrhipNdmGFY0qfCV-PhP1vFiP-pXiKA#pagehead
A single 2GB 6950 with higher minimum fps than 560ti SLI on everything ultra@1080p is a clear enough indication for anyone of the effects of vram limitations in BF3!
'Notably, the exceptionally low minimum values for the Radeon HD 6870 and GeForce GTX 560 Ti, a direct result of the graphics memory is not sufficient'
But, we are the pros and sweclockers.com are just some random guys from the net!
And Moogleys doing fine on everything ultra using a stock 2Gb 6950@ 1080p:
This is the settings I have 4x msaa or whatever is the highest I can go.. At these settings it is lovely and smooth no slowdown and multiplayer runs fine even 64 player maps...
I don't see the 6970 on the floor!
The 6950 is more or less a 6970 with less shaders, the same way a 560ti 448 is a 570 with less shaders.
I'm not trying to get the op to buy into an AMD card, just pointing out again that vram can make a difference.
I'm also not saying in anyway that a 2Gb 6950/560ti outperforms the 448 or 570, that's why both of the 2Gb cards are priced at least £30 cheaper!
Last edited:
^What a load of nonsense. Sort yourself out mate. You just posted a graph which shows the 1.2Gb 570 absolutely handling the 2Gb 6970 and you're trying to tell this man that 2Gb vram is the be all and end all?
Yes, in SLI situations the extra vram makes a difference. I know that, you know that, Sweclockers know that. I even went out of my way to note this in my original post, but you conveniently ignored it anyway. But the point is that in a single GPU situation the limiting factor in relation to all the cards we're talking about, vram is never the limiting factor. It's always about the raw processing power of the GPU, and those graphs you show prove that exact point.
So yes, if you're going SLI, go for a card with more vram. Hell, if you're even thinking about SLI, then go for the card with more vram, because at the end of the day it's better to be safe than sorry. But if you know you're only going to be using one card, then there is no evidence to suggest that extra vram will do anything for you at all.
Yes, in SLI situations the extra vram makes a difference. I know that, you know that, Sweclockers know that. I even went out of my way to note this in my original post, but you conveniently ignored it anyway. But the point is that in a single GPU situation the limiting factor in relation to all the cards we're talking about, vram is never the limiting factor. It's always about the raw processing power of the GPU, and those graphs you show prove that exact point.
So yes, if you're going SLI, go for a card with more vram. Hell, if you're even thinking about SLI, then go for the card with more vram, because at the end of the day it's better to be safe than sorry. But if you know you're only going to be using one card, then there is no evidence to suggest that extra vram will do anything for you at all.
*sigh*
2GB means xxxx all for res below 1200, yes it may help the cards that aren't as powerful e.g. the 560TI run the game FULLY maxed out regarding min FPS, however a 560TI is not supposed to run the game fully maxed out at 1080P, you need a 570 upwards.
I shall leave these here once again:
SHOCKER!!!!
A card that ONLY has 1280MB of VRAM is beating a card that has 2GB of VRAM, not just in average FPS but also min FPS!!!!! Comparing the 6970 2GB and 560TI 448 edition. Once again the whole 2GB VS 1GB for res below 1200 goes right out the window.
EDIT:
Only get 2GB cards if your going SLI/crossfire, higher res than 1200 or really WANT to future proof your system.
2GB means xxxx all for res below 1200, yes it may help the cards that aren't as powerful e.g. the 560TI run the game FULLY maxed out regarding min FPS, however a 560TI is not supposed to run the game fully maxed out at 1080P, you need a 570 upwards.
I shall leave these here once again:
SHOCKER!!!!
A card that ONLY has 1280MB of VRAM is beating a card that has 2GB of VRAM, not just in average FPS but also min FPS!!!!! Comparing the 6970 2GB and 560TI 448 edition. Once again the whole 2GB VS 1GB for res below 1200 goes right out the window.
EDIT:
Only get 2GB cards if your going SLI/crossfire, higher res than 1200 or really WANT to future proof your system.
Last edited:
Yep no difference at all on a single card
You could have easily have textures that take up twice as much Vram as we have now and it will still have less performance hit than applying 2xAA.
Last edited:
Sorry, my fault. I didn't anticipate some peoples' imbecility.
Yes, just to confirm, extra ram will help when you are running at 1600p or a multi-screen/eyefinity set up at 8x MSAA. Well done Finality. Happy now?
For the rest of us who run games at 1200p or less and at 4x MSAA or less, extra vram doesn't matter. It will not enable a GPU to run a game at playable settings (minimums of 30fps, averages of 40-50fps) that it couldn't already run with 1Gb vram.
Yes, just to confirm, extra ram will help when you are running at 1600p or a multi-screen/eyefinity set up at 8x MSAA. Well done Finality. Happy now?
For the rest of us who run games at 1200p or less and at 4x MSAA or less, extra vram doesn't matter. It will not enable a GPU to run a game at playable settings (minimums of 30fps, averages of 40-50fps) that it couldn't already run with 1Gb vram.
*sigh*
2GB means xxxx all for res below 1200, yes it may help the cards that aren't as powerful e.g. the 560TI run the game FULLY maxed out regarding min FPS, however a 560TI is not supposed to run the game fully maxed out at 1080P, you need a 570 upwards.
I shall leave these here once again:
SHOCKER!!!!
A card that ONLY has 1280MB of VRAM is beating a card that has 2GB of VRAM, not just in average FPS but also min FPS!!!!! Comparing the 6970 2GB and 560TI 448 edition. Once again the whole 2GB VS 1GB for res below 1200 goes right out the window.
EDIT:
Only get 2GB cards if your going SLI/crossfire, higher res than 1200 or really WANT to future proof your system.
There are 3 states.
1)Totally GPU limited.
2)GPU and Vram limited.
3)Totally Vram limited.
When 2 is in effect its not absolute as the grunt and architecture can compensated to a point, but there is no 2GB 560TI 448 in that bench to see if it would make a difference, so there is nothing to conclude that on the same Arch 2GB makes no difference over 1 GB on the same Arch when so far in BF3 everything shows that 2GB makes a difference on the same Arch.
From one of my other posts let me add some 560Ti benchmarks. With an I5 @ 4.5Ghz the 2GB GTX560Ti is perfectly playable with an average of 42FPS and a minimum of ~35FPS.
Looking at the graphs above, the 560Ti 2GB beats the GTX570 ......
My benchmarks are Capsian Boarder , Large, 64 player full server
Note .... I actually post real data from my own system rather than quoting a random and unproven FPS
Looking at the graphs above, the 560Ti 2GB beats the GTX570 ......
My benchmarks are Capsian Boarder , Large, 64 player full server
Note .... I actually post real data from my own system rather than quoting a random and unproven FPS
Here are some single card 560Ti 2GB benchmarks with graphs using a I5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz and 16GB of 1600Mhz DDR3 (Kingston Grey)
Now compare this to a Q6600 @ high which managed 42 FPS and utilisation of ~70%, this is 30% slower than the I5 and that's with a midrange GTX560Ti..... it will only be worse with a GTX570, GTX580 or any other high end GPU solution.
Click to make it bigger
Would love to see a Q6600 and GTX580 graph @ 1080P......
The Q6600, even at 3.6Ghz cannot saturate a 560TI
Look at the graphs, with the Q6600 it's at 30ish FPS far too often ..... BOTTLENECK !!!!
Last edited:
I put in that even if someone didn't have the Res and AA to make use of the Vram, textures could, and mods could and it would not need 2560x1600 or Eyefinity for the Vram to become the issue even at 1080p.
Even Quake 4 had a ultra high texture setting that you needed card with 512MB Vram, no matter what the Resolution even though there was no noticeable performance hit difference with the ultra high texture setting, if you did not have 512MB Vram then you got a performance hit at any RES.
There was settings MODs for GRID that could bring cards with less Vram to single digits which played fine on cards with more Vram even at 1080p, in fact i got negative 8 fps.
People are to hung up with More Vram being used = more heavy strain on the GPU which is not always the Case, its what type of stuff that's in the Vram that counts to more strain and not how much is in it.
Yes AA also uses up Vram, yes Resolution uses up Vram, both of them put lots of strain on the GPU, but Vram can be used up with many things that don't put strain on the GPU also.
1GB of Physics data to be processed is a bigger strain than 1GB of textures to be processed, but yet both took up the same space.
hypothetically Does that 25GB Blue Ray file on my PC put more strain on my CPU and GPU than a 8GB game, no it does not, its the content being processed that counts.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20815757&postcount=16
Last edited:
@kissenger, do you ever read any of my posts before you start typing or do you just see 2GB, Amd, 6950, 6970???
How can I quote you having not read what you said?
My sole point in this thread and the other one is that you can get higher IQ@1080p with 2GB vram on the same architecture using a single card!
Please point out where I have said otherwise or the 560ti/6950/70 beats the 448/570 in regards to BF3@1080p!
How can I quote you having not read what you said?
My sole point in this thread and the other one is that you can get higher IQ@1080p with 2GB vram on the same architecture using a single card!
Please point out where I have said otherwise or the 560ti/6950/70 beats the 448/570 in regards to BF3@1080p!
Seems my full ultra results for the GTX560Ti 2GB meet your specification as it's 42 fps average and 35fps minimum. Plays very nicely on the I5. Was jerky on a 3.6GHz Q6700 though.
AD
Edit ... PS Check my 2GB 560sli - Ultra including 4XMSAA .... 90degree FOV
Last edited:
Yes, but there is a 1 and 2GB 6950 and in the first chart, there is virtually no difference between them and even in the second chart, there is only 5FPS for min FPS difference between the 1 and 2GB.
You can't compare VRAM usage between AMD and Nvidia. AMD are far more efficient with the VRAM.
See my above post ... the 2GB 560Ti performs very differently than the 1GB 560Ti at ultra.
Though in reality, the High setting is still very good and would be indistigishable between 2GB and 1GB cards.
AD