A question for 670 users with 30" screen 2560x1600 (1600P) & B3

[barjoysee]

I'm thinking of getting some Nvidia 670 GTX's 2Gb and want to know if they will run out of video Memory at 2560x1600 (1600P) in Battlefield 3 at default Max settings.

I'm hoping someone has actually done this rather than "oh it should be fine" or "I think it would" as I'll be selling my two 3Gb 580's and buying 3x EVGA GeForce GTX 670 FTW 2Gb cards and at £1200 inc waterblocks n back plates I don't want to get it wrong.

I know 2560x1440 is close but 2560x1600 pushes the memory usage that little bit more..and I don't really want to have to do the disable visual themes and other tweaks because the cards on the edge.

Many Thanks

Barjoysee

 

[Snodge]

At 1920x1080p on BF3 I'm every maxed settings on my single Windforce 2GB I've seen 1.95GB used, so if you're planning on spending that amount anyway I would really recommend 4GB.

 

[dokko]

£1200 to play a £25 game, man some people have money to burn.


Doesn't ocuk have a 7 return policy or am I dreaming this?

 

[Surveyor]

Doesn't ocuk have a 7 return policy or am I dreaming this?

If you buy mail order then you have the Distance selling regulations to rely on.

This gives you 7 working days from the day after delivery to notify the retailer that you wish to return an item and you'll get a full refund.

OcUK have extended this to 14 working days with their satisfaction guarantee.

 

[Kurisu Makise]

id go for 4gb versions.

but all that money for one game really? surely its for upcoming titles also?

 

[Rusty0611]

At 1920x1080p on BF3 I'm every maxed settings on my single Windforce 2GB I've seen 1.95GB used, so if you're planning on spending that amount anyway I would really recommend 4GB.

1.95GB not used but reported as in use in Afterburner. There's a difference as graphics cards will cache stuff if excess VRAM is available.

To the OP: if you want to max it then 2GB is likely to not be enough depending on the map/number of players. But I don't think you need to run deferred AA at that resolution as the difference in image quality is barely noticeable whereas the performance hit and VRAM requirement is huge but that's your choice I guess.

 

[andybird123]

for 1600p, 2GB is currently fine, even in BF3... all the benchmarks out there point to 2GB being borderline OK even at 5760x1080 (e.g. 2x680 still run roughly on par with 2x7970's at the same settings)

I can't see 1600p needing more than 2GB within the lifespan of a top end GPU (e.g. 2 years max), I personally am going to 1600p and I will be using 2 x 670 2GB's

I've seen BF3 use 2.4GB on a 3GB 580 at 1080p, however on my 2GB 670 it struggles to get over 1.5GB most of the time now

also bear in mind that TXAA should drop down the VRAM requirements in the next gen of games as well, so even with increasing texture quality you're not going to have the MSAA big hit of VRAM to contend with on top

 

[cHk4]

I'm thinking of getting some Nvidia 670 GTX's 2Gb and want to know if they will run out of video Memory at 2560x1600 (1600P) in Battlefield 3 at default Max settings.

I'm hoping someone has actually done this rather than "oh it should be fine" or "I think it would" as I'll be selling my two 3Gb 580's and buying 3x EVGA GeForce GTX 670 FTW 2Gb cards and at £1200 inc waterblocks n back plates I don't want to get it wrong.

I know 2560x1440 is close but 2560x1600 pushes the memory usage that little bit more..and I don't really want to have to do the disable visual themes and other tweaks because the cards on the edge.

Many Thanks

Barjoysee

I have 2x4GB 670 at this res and I can't really run Max Payne 3 with everything turned on to the max, I can get it using 6gb/8gb VRAM lol...

Everything else I've tried has been fine though.

 

[andybird123]

my experience of max payne 3 is that it is fundamentally broken... all the MSAA options don't actually appear to improve picture quality and just make the game run like ****

BF3 with MSAA + FXAA = gorgeous and MSAA obviously decreases the blurring effect of FXAA, but in MaxPayne3 any of the MSAA options just make everything visibly more jaggie whilst punishing your frame rate

 

[HornyRhino]

i hve 3 2gb running on 30" no problems with memory.

4gb are really for muti screen gaming setups where the memory is needed.

if you google youll find a lot of articles backing this up.

soon a lot of games are going to start implementing FXAA and TXAA then memory isnt going to be such an issue

 

[barjoysee]

At 1920x1080p on BF3 I'm every maxed settings on my single Windforce 2GB I've seen 1.95GB used, so if you're planning on spending that amount anyway I would really recommend 4GB.

that does suggest I would run out of memory at 2560 x1600 then..

£1200 to play a £25 game, man some people have money to burn.
Doesn't ocuk have a 7 return policy or am I dreaming this?

I definatly don't but as PC Gaming is my passion I don't mind spending 3 months overtime to get 24+ months of fun..

id go for 4gb versions.
surely its for upcoming titles also?

Sure is and I really don'twant to see sub 60 fps maxed at my res on any game iof possible E.G Crysis/Metro/Total Wars/Witcher 2 etc..

1.95GB not used but reported as in use in Afterburner. There's a difference as graphics cards will cache stuff if excess VRAM is available.

To the OP: if you want to max it then 2GB is likely to not be enough depending on the map/number of players. But I don't think you need to run deferred AA at that resolution as the difference in image quality is barely noticeable whereas the performance hit and VRAM requirement is huge but that's your choice I guess.

I hear what your saying I don't want to get to the situation were I am having to turn any in game settings down after spending that much...I do turn off motion blur for example.
I don't go into the graphics options and put up the AA to the max the card can do unless its a older title were its a benefit to the game...

for 1600p, 2GB is currently fine, even in BF3... all the benchmarks out there point to 2GB being borderline OK even at 5760x1080 (e.g. 2x680 still run roughly on par with 2x7970's at the same settings)
I can't see 1600p needing more than 2GB within the lifespan of a top end GPU (e.g. 2 years max), I personally am going to 1600p and I will be using 2 x 670 2GB's
I've seen BF3 use 2.4GB on a 3GB 580 at 1080p, however on my 2GB 670 it struggles to get over 1.5GB most of the time now
also bear in mind that TXAA should drop down the VRAM requirements in the next gen of games as well, so even with increasing texture quality you're not going to have the MSAA big hit of VRAM to contend with on top

So Snodge..(See above) uses 1.95Gb but you struggle to see 1.5Gb makes me think yourusing lower settings ? than default max? or lower Res still than him ?

i hve 3 2gb running on 30" no problems with memory.

4gb are really for muti screen gaming setups where the memory is needed.

if you google youll find a lot of articles backing this up.

soon a lot of games are going to start implementing FXAA and TXAA then memory isnt going to be such an issue

Hi HornyRhino, that info is really useful and just what I asked for (Same cards and Res in fact) are you saying that with default max settings or have you turned settings down I also ment to but that I do play MP on 64 maps could, you advise on your lowest FPS if you have VS off on..thanks

 

[Kaapstad]

GTX 670 sli review

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-670-2-and-3way-sli-review/15

 

[setter]

At 1920x1080p on BF3 I'm every maxed settings on my single Windforce 2GB I've seen 1.95GB used, so if you're planning on spending that amount anyway I would really recommend 4GB.

At 1920x1200 with all settings on the max, (except blur turned off) im seeing 1600mb max on the afterburner osd. Single oc'd windforce gtx 670.

 

[Rusty0611]

Graphics cards will cache more than what is needed if excess VRAM is present so VRAM readings from afterburner always have to be taken with some context. I would hazard a guess from various testing with my set-up that BF3 actually needs between 1.25 and 1.35GB of VRAM at 1080p to run without issues with maximum settings.

If you add in Windows Aero which is also taking some VRAM and then allow for caching you can see where the 1.9, 2.3 etc readings come from.

The point regarding MSAA not being required is that it makes little to no difference at that resolution. If you want maximum settings for maximum settings sake only while taking a large performance hit (MSAA is expensive to run) then that just seems a little daft. If it makes a difference then fine but a lot of users running 1440 and 1600 resolutions report that it makes no difference in BF3.

You get into the problem of needing a lot of GPU grunt to drive the resolution in the first place and even more to power features which aren't making any difference at all to image quality and the costs just multiply up and up. If you want to do this then I'm glad it's your wallet .

Andybird123 is a maximum settings man so his readings are accurate.

2GB is more than fine for 1600 resolution in today's game. I would image that BF3 is approaching the limit of 2GB cards (allbeit still with some headroom) though so future games may push maximum settings beyond it's limits but we're all guessing when talking about this.

As a general rule of thumb you will generally be limited by how much GPU power you have before any VRAM limitations kick in. There are of course exceptions but it's worth bearing that in mind.

 

[HornyRhino]

i can actually get away with not using msaa ...30" screen its hard enough to read text without jaggies

 

[andybird123]

for 1600p, 2GB is currently fine, even in BF3...

I've seen BF3 use 2.4GB on a 3GB 580 at 1080p, however on my 2GB 670 it struggles to get over 1.5GB most of the time now

Andybird123 is a maximum settings man so his readings are accurate.

2GB is more than fine for 1600 resolution in today's game. I would image that BF3 is approaching the limit of 2GB cards (allbeit still with some headroom) though so future games may push maximum settings beyond it's limits but we're all guessing when talking about this.

I think I already said 2GB is fine even for 1600p, I don't get why you've singled me out as a counter argument when we are saying the same thing

 

[Rusty0611]

I think I already said 2GB is fine even for 1600p, I don't get why you've singled me out as a counter argument when we are saying the same thing

I know - the OP questioned whether you used maximum settings (hence the first line)... I then proceeded to waffle about something else - if they were linked they would have been the same paragraph

 

[Bodom]

My 7970 reports about 1.8gig vram usage in BF3 at 1600p, the only game I have seen report over that is Crysis 2 useing 2.3gig of vram but looking at the benchies the 2gig 670/680 don't seem to have any perforamnce hits in that game by only having 2gig vram at that res.

 

[oweneades]

I have no issues with running BF3 at Ultra settings (minus MSAA) at 3620x1920 on a single GTX670 2GB (overclocked of course).

At this resolution anything beyond 2xMSAA is a no go due to a lack of VRAM. On a single card 2GB isn't an issue as you run out of GPU grunt before VRAM anyway (the settings that require the VRAM also require more GPU grunt which you don't have).

1600P should be perfectly do-able on 2GB cards with 4xMSAA.