2GB doesnt allow for smooth max settings in BF4 @ 2560x1440
I sold my 670 SLI setup and bought the 780. Now BF4 is silky smooth at that res
No disrespect but aren't 2x670's faster than a single 780.
-
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.
Talk sense to me... keep 670 SLI?
- Thread starter eyetrip
- Start date
No disrespect but aren't 2x670's faster than a single 780.
Only if the memory isn't relevant and SLI scaling is working well.
So does BF4 really actually need ( actually fully utilise) more than 2Gb vrm at 1440p?
So far ive managed a 1.6Gb vram 1920x1200 4xmsaa.
What is the vram usage on a 780 at 1440p?
It's not just capacity but bandwidth. At 1440p and ultra settings, the 256bit bus will be limiting the cards. There's a difference between need and use - a game can use VRAM for higher performance. If it actually needs the VRAM, it will be virtually unplayable on anything less.
Indeed. For reference Greg's Titan used 3.1GB @ 2560x1440 whereas my 780 used 2.1GB when we loaded into the same server with the same settings which was ultra with 2x MSAA.
I agree that it's more likely to be the bandwidth degrading performance on the 670s as opposed to the memory amount itself.
What can you do? Overclock the memory more. Don't use any MSAA or AO. Both of these tax the memory bandwidth a lot. Ultra with FXAA should give more than decent performance with SLI 670s.
2GB doesnt allow for smooth max settings in BF4 @ 2560x1440
I sold my 670 SLI setup and bought the 780. Now BF4 is silky smooth at that res
Well wouldn't you know Lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,888
- Location
- Nottingham
Had similar thoughts about selling up and buying a 290x/780ti but just cant justify it.
Gonna wait for 20nm I think!
Gonna wait for 20nm I think!
How much Vram are your 7990's using at 1440p Matt in BF4?
I've not checked since i got my 7990. I will have a look when i next play and report back. Mine tends to stay around the same level, not really increasing or decreasing. I reckon its around 2.3-2.7gb.
I find it quite odd that gpu's use vastly different amounts of vram and more so when the 780 and Titan based on the gk110 have a 50% difference.
Gregs Titan 3.1 Gb vram (2xmsaa)
Rusty 780 2.1 GB vram (2xmsaa)
Matt circa TBC 2.3-2.7 vram (Matt likely using 4xmsaa)
Why such a huge variance in VRAM?
Last edited:
Firstly VRM (voltage regulator module) isn't VRAM (video random access memory). Just to clear that up
And they use different amounts purely because of caching. Whether the buffer doesn't clear it or is just stores textures into memory is over my head.
And they use different amounts purely because of caching. Whether the buffer doesn't clear it or is just stores textures into memory is over my head.
I had 3x GTX 670 2GB before the upgrade itch overcame me to get 3x GTX 780 3GB. I could easily have continued with my feeble GTX 670 only 2GB buffer cards for an much longer time in 1440p - possible almost through 2014. I usually play games at 4x Multisample or FXAA anti-aliasing and I don't have any problems with textures swapping or loading delays.
It still baffles me that people continuously interpret that the amount of textures allocated to the available Vram on the GFX card is exactly the same as what is needed to get the game running fluently.... but it isn't, there's much more to the story
It still baffles me that people continuously interpret that the amount of textures allocated to the available Vram on the GFX card is exactly the same as what is needed to get the game running fluently.... but it isn't, there's much more to the story
Last edited:
More vram could equate for less emphasis put into maximising vram usage in said games profile and frametimes are probably superior on the faster gpu's.
2GB doesnt allow for smooth max settings in BF4 @ 2560x1440
I sold my 670 SLI setup and bought the 780. Now BF4 is silky smooth at that res
Sums it up really.
Far from conclusive greg, 4Gb 670's have better frametimes than 2Gb 670's.
Last edited:
^^ could also be the fact that 2x GTX 780 gives a lot more computing power over 2x GTX 670 and thereby making a smoother experience.
GTX 670 2GB SLI vs 4GB SLI http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/01/14/asus_geforce_gtx_670_directcu_ii_4gb_sli_review/
GTX 670 2GB SLI vs 4GB SLI http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/01/14/asus_geforce_gtx_670_directcu_ii_4gb_sli_review/
Last edited:
I would like to see several tests with 2GB 670's/80's 4GB 670's/80's cards in fairness Tommy to get what is happening.
Frosty had a tank down to low 30's iirc with tri-sli 780 Ti's in BF4, so could be a factor of the game but when I have run out of VRAM, I knew it. I have no idea what is going on with the different amounts being used in truth and I did say it is above my head, so I am pretty much guessing.
Are we even playing BF4 on full ultra yet? Any comment from Dice as to what is happening with these settings yet?
Sorry OP if I am going slightly OT.
Eh?
Depends whether the difference in frame times is actually having a perceivable impact on performance. The difference in frame times that has been touted is nowhere near the levels of playable and unplayable or anything even slightly close to these ends of the spectrum.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,484
- Location
- UK.
Sell the 670's now before they lose even more value. Treat yourself to a nice high end single GPU, the best your budget allows. R9 290 / 290X GTX 780 / 780 ti are all monsters and worthy upgrades.