• 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!

That was the point of the graphs to show what kind of hit that 1Gb cards take going to full ultra.

The fact that the 560 ti had the best min fps(in relation to 560/6950 performance), then on full ultra, takes the biggest hit, speaks for itself regarding vram impact @1080p.

Most of the discussion(arguments if truth be told) in the thread has been aimed at 1Gb/2Gb 560/6950 performance in BF3 regarding sli/CrossFire, and whether there is a performance hit or not.

I don't think there has been many posts(if any) recommending 1 single 560/6950 over a single 448/570@1080p, most people will just dial the settings down anyway for smooth gameplay.

Any current single gpu probably wouldn't suit you(and most of us) either as minimums of 45 are required for your gaming tastes regarding BF3 on full Ultra settings.

Regarding BF3, if you really want to play full ultra@1080p or above with no stuttering period, you are looking at a minimum setup consisting of 2Gb 6950/560ti CrossFire/Sli.

Which can be a saving of £70+ if you were to buy above the 2Gb 560/6950 price range.
 
Yeah, but as shown by this thread though some people seem to think it is night and day difference between 1 and 2GB cards, when it really isn't at 1080/1200, yes the min FPS is lower between the 1GB and 2GB 6950, however for the majority of games I play, I very rarely see my FPS dropping to minimum, let alone even noticing the stutter when that happens, so for the average, there is no difference between the 2 at all really.

And as said, all games performance will be affected big time by AA, as that is one of the main things that uses the VRAM up. But the rest of the settings for BF 3 are still the same, all set to ultra apart from the AA.

I have seen a few threads over the past few months where people have been recommending cards that have 2GB but don't perform as good as a 1GB card (not just 570 or 6950 or whatever) and posting the usual screens of crysis or whatever using more than 1GB of VRAM, even though it made no difference to FPS, lol. Cba going through them all again to find the posts.

And yeah I agree with most of the stuff you said in your post there, but you can get away with any cards from a 560TI and above for 1080 and pretty much most settings set to ultra, just no need to set the AA to 4 and have one or two other settings dropped by one e.g.

MRK with his 460:

Cool, I overclocked it to 850/1700 (didn't OC the mem so stock 2000) and have noticed nice increase in sustained framerate. I'm getting 50fps+ more now than sub 50s and it's a lot smoother and I've been able to enable more options too.

BF3_SETTINGS.jpg


bf3_usage.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good my lcd is 1366x786 max. So i dont have this problem.... Sad thing is 3 weeks after i got 1gb 6850 2gb version went on sale. Would get 2gb one ofc :P
 
Cba going through it all again either tbph, it's all been said and done to hell and back.



As your screenshot above shows, there is absolutely no problems under full Ultra settings regarding BF3 with 1GB cards whatsoever, I don't think you will find anyone in argument with that, you just need to go through the thread and read through it, not skim it, to see the effects of full ultra, not custom settings regarding 1Gb/2Gb cards @1080p and above which was the purpose of the thread.

***EDIT***

Just found this:

6a786949a8b371e21009a529832238c1.jpg


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!
 
Last edited:
tommybhoy said:
Both the 560ti and 6870 cards in the above graph are 1Gb variants, both get about a ~50% minimum fps performance hit in Sli/CrossFire compared to a single 2Gb 6950.

At the very least, your 8Gb system ram argument(which, in this case would still achieve an overhead lag) is flawed, as by your reasoning 1GB gpu's have a higher system requirement being required for optimal performance.
Click to expand...

Who or what is that comment directed at?
 
I'd rather recommend that people buy a 1280 Mb GTX 570 or 560 448 than waste money on a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti.

The extra Vram does nothing on this card because the GPU is simply too slow to make use of it, and thats the absolute truth, and its not going to magically make the game any more playable at ultra settings and 4x AA compared to a 1 Gb 560 ti.

Everysingle benchmark, review, and graph in the world is pointless for this debate unless it includes both a 1 gb and 2 Gb GTX 560 ti side by side for comparison, and I have absolutely no idea where or how OCUK pulled their figures from (most likely completely made up for marketing purposes).

Would I ever consider buying a GTX 560 to 2 Gb to play BF3? Hell no, I would buy a GTX 570 1280 Mb instead.
 
Last edited:
bhavv said:
I'd rather recommend that people buy a 1280 Mb GTX 570 or 560 448 than waste money on a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti.
Click to expand...
+1

VRAM will make a positive difference within some games at higher resolutions/settings, but GPU grunt makes a difference within all games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom