Should I upgrade? GTX 670 to...

[Rusty0611]

Nowhere have I said anything about 2/4Gb 670/680's, that's yourself that keeps bleating on about it, not me, despite you knowing full well that I have witnessed the vram wall with plenty of gpu power in the tank when I hit it, to then keep trying to explain the difference between 2-4GB 6 series gpu grunt.

That's the topic though Tommy. That is what everyone is talking about. The 7900 vs 600 series debate isn't even a debate. It's clear cut.

Iv'e pointed it out before I'm talking about the limitations of the 2Gb/4Gb/ 256 bit bus combination but it's clearly not registering.

Bus yes, VRAM amount no. The two are linked but that doesn't automatically mean that the amount causes a problem because it doesn't. There's multiple users on this thread confirming it.

Quite clear and coherent I thought, for you then to go on about results last year that show zero bearing on titles released since and how it fairs against it's lesser counterpart that is the 7950 never mind the 7970 that quite clearly isn't shackled on the larger memory bus.

You keep saying this which is actually completely incoherent but you're yet to show anything with regards to the load on the GPU decreasing (so to increase FPS) so that the VRAM amount actually becomes a limit.

Thanks for the underlining but I'm quite capable of reading and taking on board text without it.

A 35%(which will be anything between 40-45% faster on the 79's) swing in performance isn't down to gpu grunt, it's down to the combination of gpu/vram/memory bus.

I'm using GPU grunt to simplify it as I know you struggle to digest complex debates unless it's down the right/wrong angle. Actually, it's down to GPU and memory bus actually, not VRAM. Gregster confirmed this from a more recent point of view just to completely unravel your "not recent" point anyway.

Move it on rusty and please stop implying/trying to put words in my mouth stating 2Gb vs 4Gb 67/80's vram argument, when I never mentioned anything about it.

I'm not the one who keeps bleating on about the 600 series being VRAM limited for a surround set up having not used either... that's you. I'll repeat that, yes, the 7900 series are far superior on a triple screen set up but that doesn't necessarily mean the 600 series is insufficient. To try and suggest they are due to the VRAM amount is at best short sighted and at worst reckless when you're talking about people spending their own money.

 

[tommybhoy]

That's the topic though Tommy. That is what everyone is talking about.

Do you hear yourself?

Seriously, still going on about 2Gb v's 4Gb that 'everyones talking about' when this 'everyone' called tommy, hasn't, it's getting pedantic/trolling now rusty.

Bus yes, VRAM amount no. The two are linked but that doesn't automatically mean that the amount causes a problem because it doesn't. There's multiple users on this thread confirming it.

I'm not the one who keeps bleating on about the 600 series being VRAM limited for a surround set up having not used either... that's you.

The two are linked, vram and memory bus, hence why the 79's pull well ahead, which again is all I've said, Iv'e made it abundantly clear time and time again it's the combination that's the limiting factor NOT just vram.

I'm talking about the limitations of the 6's in comparison to the 79's/Titan, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't need to show anything in regards to 2Gb/4Gb same card differences, you have shown it all and I didn't/never have argued the case otherwise here

Move on and give it a rest for goodness sake.

 

[jacksonbird03]

Hello members,
what is the costing of the graphic card...

 

[Rusty0611]

Do you hear yourself?

Seriously, still going on about 2Gb v's 4Gb that 'everyones talking about' when this 'everyone' called tommy, hasn't, it's getting pedantic/trolling now rusty.

Sorry, should have said everyone except Tommy. My bad. It's not trolling if you don't like what's being said. That's different.

The two are linked, vram and memory bus, hence why the 79's pull well ahead, which again is all I've said, Iv'e made it abundantly clear time and time again it's the combination that's the limiting factor NOT just vram.

Make that clearer than, rather than broad incorrect statements with regards to the 600 series drawbacks and linking it to VRAM in a doomsday manner.

Again, it's nothing to do with the VRAM amount. Theoretically, a 2GB card with a 384 bit bus would perform the same as a 384 bit bus card with 3GB though. That's the theory, anyway. And from having extensively tested both 7950 CF and 680 SLI I didn't see anything to change my mind. It's not even theoretically really as the 660Ti comes with a 192 bit bus and 2GB of VRAM.

The bump in performance for the 7900 comes from the memory bus. Reason being is that as soon as you apply any kind of MSAA at triple screen resolution the bandwidth required is quite large to avoid tanking. Without MSAA the 7950s and 680s were pretty close.

 

[Gregster]

I feel so sorry for the OP. It has been pointed out that 2x670's 2GB are enough to cope (from several people) and he WILL need to turn down the odd bit of AA at 5760x1080 to get IMO, playable frame rates.

Since BF3, we have had a few AAA titles that push our hardware to the max and VRAM is becoming more and more used, however the requirement on GPU grunt is also being pushed further with games such as Hitman/Tomb Raider/Crysis 3.

Tommy is suggesting that he should go for 7950's maybe because it has a higher bus and more VRAM (fair point) but I will override that and say the OP should go for 4GB cards or 6GB cards, because whilst playing Crysis 3, I hit 3852MB's and from your argument Tommy, we can quite clearly see that 3GB isn't enough and it is even pushing 4GB. The same with Tomb Raider, just doing the benchmark with all details on, I hit 2822MB and I am sure at parts of the game with everything maxed, VRAM will be higher and bring the 7950/70's to their knees.

The whole point is GPU grunt is needed to push full details and it takes a couple or even 3 Titans to push max details at 5760x1080. If you want playable frame rates, you will need to turn down AA and this in turn drops the amount of VRAM being used.

 

[tommybhoy]

Make that clearer than, rather than broad incorrect statements with regards to the 600 series drawbacks and linking it to VRAM in a doomsday manner.

It was clear enough, you are the only person engaging in attempts all the way through the thread to state 2Gb v's 4Gb arguments with someone that didn't mention it once.

If a card that's 8% faster at 1080p falls 27% behind in the same title, that's a sure sign of a cards limitations-vram and memory bus, it's plain for everyone to see.

I'm out, you can carry on with trolling/pedantic posting on your own.

 

[Rusty0611]

I did make the point that 7900 doesn't have enough VRAM - tongue in cheek - for Crysis 3 in Surround and Tomb Raider but it was ignored .

 

[Rusty0611]

It was clear enough, you are the only person engaging in attempts all the way through the thread to state 2Gb v's 4Gb arguments with someone that didn't mention it once.

If a card that's 8% faster at 1080p falls 27% behind in the same title, that's a sure sign of a cards limitations-vram and memory bus, it's plain for everyone to see.

I'm out, you can carry on with trolling/pedantic posting on your own.

But I didn't run out of VRAM so how on earth can it be down to the VRAM amount? LOL

That's like saying if I add in another 8GB of RAM to my system it'll become faster even though I have 2-3GB free at all times.

Very odd argument. Doesn't really make any sense.

Because nobody else bothers getting into debates with you because you just go on and on twisting things round to try and save face. It's pointless but I'm stubborn so I'm not going to back down just because you don't like the responses.

It's down to the memory bus, not the VRAM amount. Simple.

 

[tommybhoy]

^
Still at it.

Tommy is suggesting that he should go for 7950's maybe because it has a higher bus and more VRAM (fair point) but I will override that and say the OP should go for 4GB cards or 6GB cards, because whilst playing Crysis 3, I hit 3852MB's and from your argument Tommy, we can quite clearly see that 3GB isn't enough and it is even pushing 4GB. The same with Tomb Raider, just doing the benchmark with all details on, I hit 2822MB and I am sure at parts of the game with everything maxed, VRAM will be higher and bring the 7950/70's to their knees.

Quite a possibility, you won't see an argument from me there greg, I already stated 79's or Titan in my op, if 3Gb 79's can't cut it then so be it, maybe someone will test it out for the vram thread.

 

[Rusty0611]

^
Still at it.

Thought you were having a drama queen turn and were "out" ?

If being "still at it", means nullifying your non-sensical points then so be it.

 

[Gripen90]

Just a question. When you measure the Vram usage - then from what criteria ?.

As I understand eVGA Precision, MSI Afterburner etc shows the VRAM as to how much memory can be allocated to the needed texture size, but it does NOT equal to what is actually needed to make it playable or run fluently. Meaning just because there's 4GB VRAM and 3.9GB is allocated that does not mean that the 2GB card where 1.9GB vram is allocated doens't run the game fluently.

I just mean - how do you differentiate between the two things ? what is needed vs what is allocated !

 

[Bacon?]

Thats the problem we're facing right now in the VRAM thread. You can differentiate between them so we are hoping to have as much results possible so we can find the mid ground.

 

[Gregster]

For Crysis 3.

What would be interesting is for an AMD user to play with everything maxed at 5760x1080 and report back on the VRAM used. Depending on the amount of cards they have will obviously make a difference because with two Titans, it isn't playable and I would need to tone down AA or buy another Titan to be able to get it at a playable level (Crysis 3 scales very well on 3 Titans apparently).

Edit:

The caching of VRAM arguments were done over a year ago and some users insisted that it was essential to cache whilst I found it wasn't. A 4GB 680 would report far more than me and a 3GB card would do the same (when I had 2GB 680's). Any game of late that broke the required VRAM was unplayable with the amount of frames I was getting.

I tested FarCry3 at max details and VRAM stopped that with 1fps and less. I toned down MSAA to x6 and I was getting under 20 fps and again unplayable. I toned down AA to 2x and was getting around 40fps and the VRAM was sitting around 1800MB iirc.

 

[Rusty0611]

Just a question. When you measure the Vram usage - then from what criteria ?.

As I understand eVGA Precision, MSI Afterburner etc shows the VRAM as to how much memory can be allocated to the needed texture size, but it does NOT equal to what is actually needed to make it playable or run fluently. Meaning just because there's 4GB VRAM and 3.9GB is allocated that does not mean that the 2GB card where 1.9GB vram is allocated doens't run the game fluently.

I just mean - how do you differentiate between the two things ? what is needed vs what is allocated !

You can't mate. All you can do is compare across different samples to try and determine what is required. It's hard to get samples from lower VRAM cards though as 2GB is the minimum these days.

 

[Bacon?]

I have a lower VRAM card Rusty
Just dont ask it to play modern games

 

[Rusty0611]

I have a lower VRAM card Rusty
Just dont ask it to play modern games

Yeah ha ha. I had a 6870. What a beast . Legendary card.

Ideally, you'd need samples from a few 580 1.5GBs as this can tell at what point the VRAM issue occurs. Basically though on this forum, you get doomsday VRAM preachers who make it sound like the world will end if you run out of VRAM when often the cure can be just a dropping of settings.

I was being quite generous in my testing in what I termed playable FPS but no game which was even close to the VRAM limit had anything near playable FPS which as a result had me dropping some AA or AO which in turn reduced the VRAM requirement. Sleeping Dogs/BF3 are perfect examples of this.

With the 6850s they don't have the muscle to push decent enough frames even if they did have 2GB.

 

[tommybhoy]

Thought you were having a drama queen turn and were "out" ?

Talking to greg, 'out' discussing further with you bud, but troll on anyway baiting a response...

 

[Bacon?]

They are fine for games 2010 and before. All the games I play on it I can max. I struggle with VRAM but not GPU grunt with EVE Multi-boxing though.

I'd love to get my hands on a second hand 570 or 580 1.5GB though...

 

[Rusty0611]

Talking to greg, 'out' discussing further with you bud, but troll on anyway baiting a response...

Troll? Ha ha. Pull the other one. As I have said, saying something, being disproven and then not liking the response doesn't mean that the person bringing you back to reality is trolling. What would you say if we were having this debate face to face? I was face to face trolling?

Very poor quality.

They are fine for games 2010 and before. All the games I play on it I can max. I struggle with VRAM but not GPU grunt with EVE Multi-boxing though.

I'd love to get my hands on a second hand 570 or 580 1.5GB though...

They must be cheapish now? Both surpassed by an overclocked 7850.

 

[Gregster]

I pretty much feel the OP has enough info and I am out of this debate. We are going round in circles and it is pointless and unfair on the OP.