7950 vs 660 ti

[Rusty0611]

The percentage of people who use 3 screens for gaming is incredibly low.

For gaming on one screen, yes, the GPU will be able to 'drive' the 3/4gb of Vram it has on the card if its using it for hi res textures/decoration as these dont hog the performance of the GPU much, while MSAA or other types of AA will.

The reason I bring up the 570 and BF3 is because this is a prime example of what Im saying and proof to my valid point.

The point of using 3 screens is that the VRAM usage is higher...

Do you really think that in the next 2 years a game is going to run using 3-4GB or more VRAM on a single screen and run on a GPU which is more than 2 years old?

Your argument is based upon an unknown variable... how much will future games load up the VRAM compared to today? And also implicitly you are saying that the load on the GPU will stay constant or near to the current level.

Basically you are saying that games in the future will use the same amount of GPU power but load up the VRAM with more than double what they are doing now... sorry I just don't see it.

Also bearing in mind that only in the last 6 months have 1GB cards started to look dated with regards to VRAM.

You said people who say that the GPU bottlenecks before VRAM are stupid, when really you are saying this from an unknown theoretical standpoint in the future where the current trend of VRAM to GPU power is completely overturned... who's stupid?

Have you ever thought you could be wrong and wont accept it? Im not saying you are in the slightest, but you seem to think that everyone else is when your arguing with them, we wont know for years to come, but Rusty my friend, that day may be the day you may have to admit you were wrong

I don't argue unless I know I'm right .

You started off talking in certainties regarding this and now we're talking about unknown future games, unknown VRAM usage and unknown GPU usage.

So I think my original point was on the money.

 

[AndyPandyPie]

The point of using 3 screens is that the VRAM usage is higher...

Do you really think that in the next 2 years a game is going to run using 3-4GB or more VRAM on a single screen and run on a GPU which is more than 2 years old?

Your argument is based upon an unknown variable... how much will future games load up the VRAM compared to today? And also implicitly you are saying that the load on the GPU will stay constant or near to the current level.

Basically you are saying that games in the future will use the same amount of GPU power but load up the VRAM with more than double what they are doing now... sorry I just don't see it.

Also bearing in mind that only in the last 6 months have 1GB cards started to look dated with regards to VRAM.

You said people who say that the GPU bottlenecks before VRAM are stupid, when really you are saying this from an unknown theoretical standpoint in the future where the current trend of VRAM to GPU power is completely overturned... who's stupid?



I don't argue unless I know I'm right .

You started off talking in certainties regarding this and now we're talking about unknown future games, unknown VRAM usage and unknown GPU usage.

So I think my original point was on the money.

Based on the release of the 5** and 6*** and the time BF3 came out, yes I suspect in 2 years the latest demanding games will have large environments/hi res textures and use more than 2gb of Vram. Nobody can tell the future (so not sure how you think you are right?) , but if you take the last 7 years and how we have progressed, im not sure how you think that the above doesnt make sense? or how you can dismiss is as not possible.

Its more than likely to anyone with a good logic and brain that in a few years demanding games will use more than 2gb of Vram.

 

[Rusty0611]

Based on the release of the 5** and 6*** and the time BF3 came out, yes I suspect in 2 years the latest demanding games will have large environments/hi res textures and use more than 2gb of Vram. Nobody can tell the future (so not sure how you think you are right?) , but if you take the last 7 years and how we have progressed, im not sure how you think that the above doesnt make sense? or how you can dismiss is as not possible.

Its more than likely to anyone with a good logic and brain that in a few years demanding games will use more than 2gb of Vram.

lmao now you've gone onto something completely different to what I originally responded to.

I'm... not... saying... they... won't... use... more... than... 2GB... of... VRAM... argh must resist.

I'm saying that the argument you're using that the GPU grunt required will remain constant and allow a card with 4GB to be fully utilised up to 4GB while running acceptable FPS is completely flawed.

I'm not saying they won't use more VRAM. I'm saying that current trends show that the load on the GPU will also increase to the point that the GPU bottleneck will apply.

I only responded to your point regarding 3GB/4GB cards on a single card which in truth is a little far-fetched...

 

[AndyPandyPie]

I'm not saying they won't use more VRAM. I'm saying that current trends show that the load on the GPU will also increase to the point that the GPU bottleneck will apply.

They dont though, like I said unless you use 3 screens liek the very few people that do, or high levels/demanding types of AA the GPU doesnt bottleneck the Vram being able to render lots of textures and decoration.

whether the GPU is powerfull enough to play the game or not isnt an issue, as if we go by current trends like you say, the 7970 and 680 will be able to play games at half decent setting and fps in just 2 years time providing they have enough Vram for the textures/decoration the games will no doubt have unless games stop progressing from now on which is highly unlikely.

lmao now you've gone onto something completely different to what I originally responded to.

I'm... not... saying... they... won't... use... more... than... 2GB... of... VRAM... argh must resist..

Who ever said about GPU's having to use more then 3/4gb of Vram??? I was clearly talking about the 2gb cards now. You just mentioned that yourself to try and back up your argument, I never said anything about GPU's having to use that much Vram I just said that if you get a 680 4g (not 2gb) or 7970 3gb the GPU wont 'bottleneck' the Vram in a few years time unless you use multiple screens or high levels/demanding types of AA, and it will be able to use that extra Vram for higher texture/terrain decoration settings and still play at a decent fps, where as the 2gb card wont because it wont be able to render the textures/decoration properly even though the GPU is able to power these as they are not demanding.

 

[Rusty0611]

They dont though, like I said unless you use 3 screens liek the very few people that do, or high levels/demanding types of AA the GPU doesnt bottleneck the Vram being able to render lots of textures and decoration.

whether the GPU is powerfull enough to play the game or not isnt an issue, as if we go by current trends like you say, the 7970 and 680 will be able to play games at half decent setting and fps in just 2 years time providing they have enough Vram for the textures/decoration the games will no doubt have unless games stop progressing from now on which is highly unlikely.

Err but if you're dropping settings (which you'll need to do as you'll be GPU power capped) the VRAM usage decreases as well....

Who ever said about GPU's having to use more then 3/4gb of Vram??? I was clearly talking about the 2gb cards now. You just mentioned that yourself to try and back up your argument, I never said anything about GPU's having to use that much Vram I just said that if you get a 680 4g (not 2gb) or 7970 3gb the GPU wont 'bottleneck' the Vram in a few years time unless you use multiple screens or high levels/demanding types of AA

You did.

if your keeping for a long time you would want 3gb/4gb of Vram.

The point is in the future if you're using the same GPU, then you will need to drop settings anyway which will in turn decrease VRAM usage making your whole point not really make any sense.

I can think of a current day example here actually... 560Ti 2GB. Unless you're going to SLI them then they weren't any more future proof than the 560Ti 1GB's.

 

[AndyPandyPie]

Err but if you're dropping settings (which you'll need to do as you'll be GPU power capped) the VRAM usage decreases as well....



You did.



The point is in the future if you're using the same GPU, then you will need to drop settings anyway which will in turn decrease VRAM usage making your whole point not really make any sense.

Yes, I said if your keeping for a long time then you would want 3gb/4gb of Vram as opposed to 2gb which is the only other option, if there was a 2.5 gb card I may have said that lol, I never said anything about games using more than 3 or 4gb of Vram, just more than 2gb of Vram which makes perfect sense in 2 years time.

Dropping settings like draw distance and terrain geometry and effects doesn't impact Vram usage much at all compared to textures and decoration.

Like I said, the GPU wont 'bottleneck' the Vram unless you are using multiple screens driving lots of pixels or are using high levels/demanding types of AA.
You will still be able to comfortably use that extra Vram in games with lots of hi res textures or big environments and your GPU will be able to power it using that extra Vram as it doesnt 'bottleneck' it, specially if you go SLI/CF.

You cant argue with the above comment lol because it is true and makes perfect sense, so instead you ramble on about what ever you can think for the sake of arguing

 

[Rusty0611]

The only person rambling here is you mate.

I have kept on topic with your original point that somehow games in the future are going to max out 3-4GB of VRAM and be runnable on a single 2-3 year old GPU with acceptable FPS.

I have asked for an historical example of this happening and you haven't provided one. All I have seen by way of evidence to back up your claims are third person discussions regarding non-definable things .

If you really think that in 3 years time (or whatever) a single 680 4GB can play a game which requires 4GB of VRAM and run the game on these settings with decent FPS then you know what - fine. It doesn't need me to spell out how unlikely this is. Not saying it's impossible just extremely improbable.

Even not factoring in the GPU power bottleneck, it's also extremely improbable that a game will really get to 4GB of VRAM on a single 1080p screen. It's quite clear that the 4GB cards are aimed at multi-screen, multi-GPU users.

Tomorrow the sun may rise and the sky will be bright pink... . Just because you can't disprove that statement doesn't make it any more empirically adequate.

 

[OptimaLnrg]

@ op, get the 7950 because the 660ti is too expensive

 

[AndyPandyPie]

The only person rambling here is you mate.

I have kept on topic with your original point that somehow games in the future are going to max out 3-4GB of VRAM and be runnable on a single 2-3 year old GPU with acceptable FPS.

Quote me where I said games in the future will max out 3-4gb of Vram.
Again as I explained above;

Yes, I said if your keeping for a long time then you would want 3gb/4gb of Vram as opposed to 2gb which is the only other option, if there was a 2.5 gb card I may have said that lol, I never said anything about games using more than 3 or 4gb of Vram, just more than 2gb of Vram which makes perfect sense in 2 years time.

and be runnable on a single 2-3 year old GPU with acceptable FPS.

My 480 played BF3 MP Lovely at 80 fps avrg with ultra textures effect and terrain decoration, unlike my 570, which didnt have enough Vram to do so even though the GPU was evenly powered.

I have asked for an historical example of this happening and you haven't provided one.

BF3 and the 570, multiple times.

If you really think that in 3 years time (or whatever) a single 680 4GB can play a game which requires 4GB of VRAM and run the game on these settings with decent FPS then you know what - fine. It doesn't need me to spell out how unlikely this is. Not saying it's impossible just extremely improbable.

Why "a game which requires 4GB of VRAM" ? your talking nonsense again because you have nothing to legitimately argue about, what you mean is "a game which requires more than 2GB of VRAM" which is what I have said and it is perfectly plausible, anyone with a brain can comprehend games using more than 2gb of Vram in 2 years (which is what I said, not 3, again you liek to change numbers around to suit you)

Even not factoring in the GPU power bottleneck, it's also extremely improbable that a game will really get to 4GB of VRAM on a single 1080p screen. It's quite clear that the 4GB cards are aimed at multi-screen, multi-GPU users.

Again... correction;

Even though theres not a "GPU power bottleneck" with regards to Vram unless were talking about MSAA or multi screens, it's also extremely plausible that a game will use more than 2gb of VRAM on a single 1080p screen with decent texture/ decoration settings. It's quite clear that the 4GB cards are aimed at multi-screen, multi-GPU users because Nvidia want you to buy a new card in 1-2 years instead of going SLI if you dont fork out the extra for the 4gb.

Sir, I bid you good day, and I will leave you to twist, take out of context quotes, and come up with things that nobody else mentioned to suit your argument and to make yourself falsely keep believing that you, are, right

 

[Gregster]

Without getting into a VRAM argument, In a couple of years we will see higher res monitors (3840*2160 and 7680*4320), so the single card user will also have to go Crossfire/SLI to have enough GPU grunt.

Just my tuppence worth anyways

 

[Rusty0611]

*snip*

I've already answered all of that. I suggest you re-read the thread as repeating yourself (like you're doing) does show a distinct lack of belief in your own argument .

Sir, I bid you good day, and I will leave you to twist, take out of context quotes, and come up with things that nobody else mentioned to suit your argument and to make yourself falsely keep believing that you, are, right

lmao. I have responded to each of your points in turn. You might not like the responses but to say they've been twisted/taken out of context is wide of the mark.

I haven't seen anyone in this forum ever recommend a 4GB for longevity over a 2GB for single 1080p gaming and be treat seriously.

To summarise: without any real knowledge of what the future holds with regards to game development you believe that games will exponentially increase the amount of VRAM they use on a single 1080p screen, to 2GB and beyond and be playable on the settings which use this level of VRAM.

While your point about dropping the GPU power hogs such as MSAA does ring true, what you have failed to fully appreciate is that this also frees up a large amount of VRAM as well. On a medium settings on a single 1080p screen, VRAM usage would have to increase by 80% to cause me to be VRAM capped and at that point it would be a safe bet that FPS minimums/averages would also be unacceptable looking at past trends.

While your point is theoretically possible it is generally accepted (just by gauging the responses of people on this forum) that GPU power will limit before 2GB of VRAM will become an issue on a single 1080p screen.

 

[AndyPandyPie]

You are funny Ignoring all logic for the sake of argument, you lost mate lol, read back and you do look silly.
Thing is I go by facts, and its a sure fact that a GPU doesn't 'bottleneck' its Vram unless its outputting to 3 screens or super high resolutions, or is using high levels/ demanding froms of AA.

The current 7970 3Gb, and 680 4GB are perfectly capable of using more than 2gb of Vram on textures/ terrain decoration without the GPU stopping it or loosing allot of performance.

And in a few years when games are more demanding, like now with the 480, its only plausible and logical that the 680/7970 will happily play games at 60 fps with other settings such as draw distance, geometry ect turned down and as long as they have enough Vram (likely more than 2GB) can still make the game look good at these smooth fps by having maximum textures/ decoration, and also having the option to add another card, where as you wouldn't have that option if you only had a 2gb card (like now with the 570)

Nobody is right or wrong (apart from you saying that a GPU bottlenecks its Vram, thats wrong) because we cant tell the future, Ive never said your wrong, Ive just given you my logical opinion that makes very good sense, and argued it as you haven't agreed with it, and you have said that opinion is wrong (when its not because you don't know yet) Even though it makes good sense and is pretty plausible, 2 years isnt long, the 480 is still a great card, but if it had less Vram liek the 570 it wouln't be as good, even though its the same power GPU wise.


In short, the phrase "The GPU will bottleneck the Vram" that gets thrown about is actually pretty dumb because its just not true... while it it can in some circumstances, it really doesn't in others and that's a sure fact.


I love your ways

 

[humbug]

Whatever the argument you can't modify vRAM, what you have is what your stuck with.

One thing i think we can all agree on; it's better to have more than it is to have less.

 

[Rusty0611]

*snip*

Snipping your post as you're just repeating yourself again. You don't become any more logical by repeating the same things. You may think you have 'won' but you then admit further down that no-one is correct. Your postings are full of similar inconsistencies.

As I have said you are the only person I can find recommending a 4GB card for longevity. I think this is the really telling point on the matter.

I thought you were finished here anyway?

Whatever the argument you can't modify vRAM, what you have is what your stuck with.

One thing i think we can all agree on; it's better to have more than it is to have less.

True. But on the that basis we'd all have quad SLI 4GB 680's or quadfire 7970 6GB's

 

[Gregster]

Whatever the argument you can't modify vRAM, what you have is what your stuck with.

One thing i think we can all agree on; it's better to have more than it is to have less.

I remember the olden days and owning a 8500 GT with 1GB of VRAM. Games used max of 500MB back then but the card was so bad, it couldn't cope with anything half decent at a playable rate.

When we finaly see the newer monitors coming out (Maybe 2 years), the 7970 and 680 will look like that poor 8500 GT.

 

[AndyPandyPie]

Snipping your post as you're just repeating yourself again. You don't become any more logical by repeating the same things. You may think you have 'won' but you then admit further down that no-one is correct. Your postings are full of similar inconsistencies.

As I have said you are the only person I can find recommending a 4GB card for longevity. I think this is the really telling point on the matter.

I thought you were finished here anyway?

I 'won' because I spoke complete sense, and never said you were wrong, or I was right about my opinion. But also because you was in fact 'wrong' about a GPU 'bottle necking' its Vram, because repeating again, in some situations it does bottleneck its Vram, but in others it doesn't and that is a fact.


If your going to keep a card for 2 years+ and not change it (some people dont buy £300+ graphics cards every year, not everyone is like us ) Then yes, I will all out recommend to get 3gb/4gb (as 4gb is the only other option for an Nvidia card) over a 2gb card because there is a very good possibility it will be powerful enough to play games half decently at good fps settings, but not have enough Vram for high texture/decoration settings which make the game look a big difference without lowering the frame rate allot. Much like the 570 now.

Even the 480 is more than 2 years old and that c is extremely capable in the latest demanding games, but back when it was out 2 years ago 1gb of Vram was far more than enough, today 1.5gb is the minimum, the 1.25gb on the 570 just isnt enough.

From this logic, its not hard to comprehend games in another 2 years using more than 2gb of Vram due to more hi res textures without demanding AA bogging the performance down

 

[Rusty0611]

I 'won' because I spoke complete sense, and never said you were wrong, or I was right about my opinion. But also because you was in fact 'wrong' about a GPU 'bottle necking' its Vram, because repeating again, in some situations it does bottleneck its Vram, but in others it doesn't and that is a fact.


If your going to keep a card for 2 years+ and not change it (some people dont buy £300+ graphics cards every year, not everyone is like us ) Then yes, I will all out recommend to get 3gb/4gb (as 4gb is the only other option for an Nvidia card) over a 2gb card because there is a very good possibility it will be powerful enough to play games half decently at good fps settings, but not have enough Vram for high texture/decoration settings which make the game look a big difference without lowering the frame rate allot. Much like the 570 now.

I do have to say I don't think you actually know what the VRAM limit being hit is. It isn't things being loaded in black as you have said, it is stuttering to single digit FPS while data is loaded from the pagefile or a crash to desktop. A 570 with MSAA off can handle Ultra minus MSAA perfectly well. Any issues you were getting were not due to VRAM.

Basically your argument is, if I'm not right now, I'll be right at an undefined point in the future while failing to comprehend what has happened historically. No-one is arguing that you will eventually exceed 2GB of VRAM.

What everyone is saying is that at that point the GPU will more than likely not have enough power to drive these settings anyway so to get acceptable FPS you will have to drop even more settings and as such relieve the VRAM load anyway.

In short, the phrase "The GPU will bottleneck the Vram" that gets thrown about is actually pretty dumb

.... more than 2gb of Vram on textures/ terrain decoration without the GPU stopping it or loosing allot of performance....

I'm not sure that somebody who doesn't know the difference between losing and loosing is qualified to call anything dumb .

 

[Gregster]

If your going to keep a card for 2 years+ and not change it (some people dont buy £300+ graphics cards every year, not everyone is like us ) Then yes, I will all out recommend to get 3gb/4gb (as 4gb is the only other option for an Nvidia card) over a 2gb card because there is a very good possibility it will be powerful enough to play games half decently at good fps settings, but not have enough Vram for high texture/decoration settings which make the game look a big difference without lowering the frame rate allot. Much like the 570 now.

Sorry I can't agree with this. In 2+ years regardless of VRAM, the GPU will not be man enough to cope. Settings regardless will have to be turned down.

 

[AndyPandyPie]

Sorry I can't agree with this. In 2+ years regardless of VRAM, the GPU will not be man enough to cope. Settings regardless will have to be turned down.

The 480 plays BF3 very very well at 80+ fps and ultra textures/effects/terrain decoration using up its Vram.

you have to turn down shadows terrain and mesh and the game doesnt look much different, just less draw distance and less rounded mountains in the distance.

The 570 on the other hand cant play at those same settings because its Vram is too low and some textures render black.


I never said a 2 year old GPU will be able to play the latest games at max settings... thats dumb ov course it will not lol.

I said if you are keeping the card for a long time and not upgrading then I recommend more than a 2gb card from the example above, to still be able to play games a decent framerates and make them look half decent with nice textures (textures aren't a performance hog, but a RAM hog)

Snip

Your just boring now

 

[Rusty0611]

Sorry I can't agree with this. In 2+ years regardless of VRAM, the GPU will not be man enough to cope. Settings regardless will have to be turned down.

He knows better than the myriad of people who don't recommend 4GB cards for single 1080p screens

The 570 on the other hand cant play at those same settings because its Vram is too low and some textures render black.

This is not the VRAM limit being hit! D'oh.

Please can you explain how the 560Ti 2GB ended up no more future-proof than the 560Ti 1GB?

(single card 1080p - remaining on the same line of thought)