Going for a new 6core setup. Should i upgrade my GPU from a 570 or just get another and SLI?

[spixelspixel]

Thanks mate, just about to order one - just read a great review on it.

If your planning on playing battlefield 3, a nvidia card would be a better choice.

 

[spixelspixel]

@spixelspixel - it only helps if you get close to running out of VRAM. Otherwise it's pointless overhead. Even with 3 screens I run out of GPU power before VRAM.

However, those titles probably aren't the best examples of VRAM hoggers to test a 3GB cards utility.

Yep, someone really needs to do a proper review showing vram importance.

Somebody said here a few weeks ago that max payne 3 used 2.5gb with his 7970 (if I remember correctly) yet this http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/page5.html shows that all the cards perform as they should, even the 1gb cards.

 

[Nickolp1974]

Thanks mate, just about to order one - just read a great review on it.

so back to my recommendation in post #11 and its down in price, enjoy

 

[andybird123]

Yep, someone really needs to do a proper review showing vram importance.

Somebody said here a few weeks ago that max payne 3 used 2.5gb with his 7970 (if I remember correctly) yet this http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/page5.html shows that all the cards perform as they should, even the 1gb cards.

review sites tend to only test 1 or at most 2 cards, or the odd time they do a 3/4 card test they don't even do 3 screen tests, or they do 3 screen with no AA or something equally gay... it's almost as if they deliberately choose settings that the lower cards can also run just to show some bar graphs instead of having quad 4GB/3GB cards with figures and everything else as <10FPS

double VRAM cards are released with the idea of being used in 3- and 4-way combinations with 3+ monitors, which most review sites just don't have the kit sitting around to test properly

there's 2 sides to VRAM use... on the one hand, cards will make use of whatever they have, so maximum VRAM useage on a big VRAM card doesn't neccessarily mean that that is what you need, I've seen 2.4GB usage on BF3 on a 3GB card @ 1080, but it also runs fine at 1440p on 2GB cards, so 2GB is not a limit for BF3 on single screen setups - have seen 2GB become a limit for quad SLI 680's on 3 screens with 4xMSAA though

MaxPayne tells me in the menus that it needs 2.5GB to run at 1440p with 4xMSAA... but if I set it to OFF in the maxpayne menu, but turn it on in nvidia control panel, it works fine... so the maxpayne menu that guesses the VRAM is broken
MaxPayne is generally broken in my experience

that review of maxpayne, they are using no AA all the way through, so that will be keeping the VRAM requirement down... the max payne menu won't even let you turn on AA on 1GB cards so that's why they chose those settings, they have deliberately chosen settings that CAN play on 1GB

the only way you can tell what is a vram limit or not is by testing it

what does get a little annoying is when people who haven't tested a particular setup/settings but have used something else and then arbitarily apply that experience to all other games on the same amount of VRAM

I know I tend to bang on about BF3 on every thread regarding VRAM, but that is because it is the one game I've tested extensively on lots of different card setups with different VRAM amounts, so I can quite confidently say whether or not VRAM is a limit in that game

but it is why when someone comes up with a "shall I SLI 560ti/570" I always ask what games they play, because if they don't play things like BF3 then it may well not affect them

 

[spixelspixel]

review sites tend to only test 1 or at most 2 cards, or the odd time they do a 3/4 card test they don't even do 3 screen tests, or they do 3 screen with no AA or something equally gay... it's almost as if they deliberately choose settings that the lower cards can also run just to show some bar graphs instead of having quad 4GB/3GB cards with figures and everything else as <10FPS

double VRAM cards are released with the idea of being used in 3- and 4-way combinations with 3+ monitors, which most review sites just don't have the kit sitting around to test properly

there's 2 sides to VRAM use... on the one hand, cards will make use of whatever they have, so maximum VRAM useage on a big VRAM card doesn't neccessarily mean that that is what you need, I've seen 2.4GB usage on BF3 on a 3GB card @ 1080, but it also runs fine at 1440p on 2GB cards, so 2GB is not a limit for BF3 on single screen setups - have seen 2GB become a limit for quad SLI 680's on 3 screens with 4xMSAA though

MaxPayne tells me in the menus that it needs 2.5GB to run at 1440p with 4xMSAA... but if I set it to OFF in the maxpayne menu, but turn it on in nvidia control panel, it works fine... so the maxpayne menu that guesses the VRAM is broken
MaxPayne is generally broken in my experience

that review of maxpayne, they are using no AA all the way through, so that will be keeping the VRAM requirement down... the max payne menu won't even let you turn on AA on 1GB cards so that's why they chose those settings, they have deliberately chosen settings that CAN play on 1GB

the only way you can tell what is a vram limit or not is by testing it

what does get a little annoying is when people who haven't tested a particular setup/settings but have used something else and then arbitarily apply that experience to all other games on the same amount of VRAM

I know I tend to bang on about BF3 on every thread regarding VRAM, but that is because it is the one game I've tested extensively on lots of different card setups with different VRAM amounts, so I can quite confidently say whether or not VRAM is a limit in that game

but it is why when someone comes up with a "shall I SLI 560ti/570" I always ask what games they play, because if they don't play things like BF3 then it may well not affect them

Another thing is that turning up AA/resolution not only increases vram usage but also decreases fps across the board at the same time. So sometimes when people say 'I'm vram limited because the game runs like crap when I turn on AA' it could just be limited processing power.

My opinion is still that vram is not as important as a lot of people make it out to be. I've read so many cringe worthy threads about vram Worst case scenario is that you have to put 1 or 2 graphics settings down a notch. Processing power > vram 99.9999 percent of the time.

Especially with recent generations where card manufacturers have been releasing double ram cards. I wonder how many people buy them simple because it says 4gb instead of 2gb, then proceed to game on 1920x1080.

This review is interesting - http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graph...nster-hd-7970-toxic-6gb-three-screens/?page=4

But of course it had to be done with a monstrous overkill 6gb card and not a 1.25 vs 2.5gb or something.

 

[whyscotty]

review sites tend to only test 1 or at most 2 cards, or the odd time they do a 3/4 card test they don't even do 3 screen tests, or they do 3 screen with no AA or something equally gay... it's almost as if they deliberately choose settings that the lower cards can also run just to show some bar graphs instead of having quad 4GB/3GB cards with figures and everything else as <10FPS

double VRAM cards are released with the idea of being used in 3- and 4-way combinations with 3+ monitors, which most review sites just don't have the kit sitting around to test properly

there's 2 sides to VRAM use... on the one hand, cards will make use of whatever they have, so maximum VRAM useage on a big VRAM card doesn't neccessarily mean that that is what you need, I've seen 2.4GB usage on BF3 on a 3GB card @ 1080, but it also runs fine at 1440p on 2GB cards, so 2GB is not a limit for BF3 on single screen setups - have seen 2GB become a limit for quad SLI 680's on 3 screens with 4xMSAA though

MaxPayne tells me in the menus that it needs 2.5GB to run at 1440p with 4xMSAA... but if I set it to OFF in the maxpayne menu, but turn it on in nvidia control panel, it works fine... so the maxpayne menu that guesses the VRAM is broken
MaxPayne is generally broken in my experience

that review of maxpayne, they are using no AA all the way through, so that will be keeping the VRAM requirement down... the max payne menu won't even let you turn on AA on 1GB cards so that's why they chose those settings, they have deliberately chosen settings that CAN play on 1GB

the only way you can tell what is a vram limit or not is by testing it

what does get a little annoying is when people who haven't tested a particular setup/settings but have used something else and then arbitarily apply that experience to all other games on the same amount of VRAM

I know I tend to bang on about BF3 on every thread regarding VRAM, but that is because it is the one game I've tested extensively on lots of different card setups with different VRAM amounts, so I can quite confidently say whether or not VRAM is a limit in that game

but it is why when someone comes up with a "shall I SLI 560ti/570" I always ask what games they play, because if they don't play things like BF3 then it may well not affect them

+1

Excellent post Andy

 

[andybird123]

Another thing is that turning up AA/resolution not only increases vram usage but also decreases fps across the board at the same time. So sometimes when people say 'I'm vram limited because the game runs like crap when I turn on AA' it could just be limited processing power.

My opinion is still that vram is not as important as a lot of people make it out to be. I've read so many cringe worthy threads about vram Worst case scenario is that you have to put 1 or 2 graphics settings down a notch. Processing power > vram 99.9999 percent of the time.

Especially with recent generations where card manufacturers have been releasing double ram cards. I wonder how many people buy them simple because it says 4gb instead of 2gb, then proceed to game on 1920x1080.

This review is interesting - http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graph...nster-hd-7970-toxic-6gb-three-screens/?page=4

But of course it had to be done with a monstrous overkill 6gb card and not a 1.25 vs 2.5gb or something.

I totally agree that in single card situations, the card will usually come with the "right" amount of VRAM and that double VRAM cards are pointless when run as a single card

but you are still massively missing the point, a 4/6GB card is for 3/4-way card setups (if it has any use at all), testing single 2/3/6GB cards against each other tells you absolutely nothing about VRAM usage

even 2 card solutions won't fully be able to make use of the double VRAM, but using this as justification that older gen / low VRAM cards are not VRAM limited is flawed logic

if you notice, yes they are running 3 screens, but at settings that a single card can play, which automatically precludes AA

with each gen there tends to be a "sweet spot" below which you have issues and above which it doesn't matter if you have 100mb more or 10GB more

this gen that sweet spot for most games / resolutions seems to be 2GB

a comparison of 2GB vs. 3GB vs. 6GB is totally irrelevant when you are talking about 1.25GB SLI vs. 2GB single card

you are right that it "could" be that they are GPU and not VRAM limited, however I can categorically tell you that BF3 @ 1080 on Ultra definitely is VRAM limited, the proof of which I have seen with my own eyes in that 560ti SLI and 570 SLI still both run like crap despite having more GPU power than a 580, yet a 580 1.5GB makes a pretty good go of being smooth and a 670 2GB does even better, again despite having slightly less GPU power than 570 SLI

to quote myself;
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21353911&postcount=164


VRAM limitation will usually present itself in 2 ways;

when VRAM is only just a limit you will get stuttering and brief dips in FPS as the card swaps out textures, but at all other times you will get very high FPS - so your average might be 80FPS, but you will have dips to possibly 10-20 FPS or even just stuttering (but more severe than microstutter that some people report on SLI/crossfire setups)

when VRAM is way way below what you need, e.g. 1GB when you need 1.5+, you will get reduced averages and severe stuttering / prolonged dips to possibly single digit, along with GPU usage below 99%
e.g. I had 560ti SLI usage around 60% on each card but FPS that matched what I got on a single card at the same settings

 

[spixelspixel]

snip

If the double ram cards were really intended for multi gpu setups I wonder why card manufacturers don't supply reviewers with 3 or 4 cards instead of 1 so they can clearly show the benefits of the extra vram.

The reality is though, nearly all people who base their graphics card purchase on vram are only going to be gaming with 1 or maybe 2 cards at the most and nearly always on a single screen.


Thought I'd just throw this in anyway, but I don't know how reliable it is

From andatech

battlefield 3 average fps
570 1.25gb vs 670 2gb


1920x1200 Ultra quality + 4AA
570 40.2fps
670 62.9 fps
670 = 157 percent


1680x1050 high quality
570 73.2 fps
670 117.5 fps
670 = 160 percent

 

[andybird123]

because it means sending out 2 grand+ worth of cards!

40FPS as an average at ultra seems accurate - remember this is average, it's not telling you what the lowest is or for how long the dips are - on a 570 1.25GB you will get the first VRAM limit effect I talked about above - the average with 570 SLI will go up but you still get these dips and stutters which render the game unplayable (to my eyes)

some people might be happy with not running AA or accepting dips and stutters if the other 90% of the time you get 40+ FPS... but for me it was painful, which is what I was trying to warn the OP about, the 670 will be about the same price but will give a much smoother more pleasant gaming experience on maximum settings

 

[Rusty0611]

The only thing you have to be careful of is writing of SLI lower end cards (with say 1 to 1.5GB of VRAM) when the buyer is happy to run at say 'High' settings and take the higher FPS.

It's not *all* about running max settings. You should aim to but a compromise can come into effect and achieve decent results.

 

[andybird123]

but a single 570 can run high settings on it's own anyway so what would be the point

when what we are talking about here is spending 150 quid plus, or selling a card for 150ish and adding 150 to get a 670 - which will be in every way better than 570SLI

the OP says he wants BF3 at max settings plus future proof as much as possible - 570 SLI is not at all future proof as it's already limited to lower settings on BF3 among others

 

[Rusty0611]

but a single 570 can run high settings on it's own anyway so what would be the point

Oi

I was talking principle rather than specifics.