*** 25/02/2011 EXTENSION! *** DEAL OF CENTURY: Asus GeForce GTX 480 1536MB Graphics Card with 2 FREE

[elpedro]

Nooooeeeesss! Your screenshot is photoshopped and your game is using up WAAAY more than 768 Mb of Vram, and you must be getting hitching and game crashes and playing at slideshow speeds cos you only have 768 mb Vram

Jokes.

Haha Guess I'll have to do a video then

 

[bhavv]

My Metro is still only 21% downloaded, the joy of steam and British internet :x

So I cant do any testing with trying to max out my Vram usage.

 

[MikeHiow]

Nooooeeeesss! Your screenshot is photoshopped and your game is using up WAAAY more than 768 Mb of Vram, and you must be getting hitching and game crashes and playing at slideshow speeds cos you only have 768 mb Vram

*Forum in shock as 4 year old game plays on <1GB cards.*

Before he meant gaming benchmarks, now he means synthetic ones like furmark.

I know full well what he meant, but it seems like double standards to me. First of all benchmarks are the only way to measure performance (even though they cannot possibly be fully indicative of a user's real world experience), then my exact point is demonstrated as a different kind of benchmark is dismissed for reasons similar to my original reasoning.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Ironic, seeing as earlier you said;

Not ironic at all, Furmark is a worthless synthetic benchmark, wheres a Benchmark based on BC2 is an actual real world game you or I might play on the card we buy Infact in most cases the FPS's reported are the FPS you get on the first in-game cutscene?

It seems to be Furmark that has everyone fretting over high GPU temps and noisy fans.

 

[[TW]Fox]

*Forum in shock as 4 year old game plays on <1GB cards.*

He's talking about Crysis for goodness sake, name a single game available that stresses a system more than Crysis?

 

[elpedro]

*Forum in shock as 4 year old game plays on <1GB cards.*

Well read into why the benchmark is there. Also Crysis Warhead came out towards the end of 2008, which makes it little over 2 years old.

He's talking about Crysis for goodness sake, name a single game available that stresses a system more than Crysis?

Gotta love Mike tbh, special guy

 

[Vertigo]

What do you want, screenshots? They can be arranged?

I'm not questioning your testing methodology or claiming that you're mis-representing the results, I'm just saying that they don't seem to make sense.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm not questioning your testing methodology or claiming that you're mis-representing the results, I'm just saying that they don't seem to make sense.

I suspect that any game I play will deliver similar results. Meanwhile, I've no idea what Furmark does to a GPU, but 'make it really really hot' seems to be the result.

Basically I think it tells us that there is something iffy about Furmark.

 

[Vertigo]

It seems to be Furmark that has everyone fretting over high GPU temps and noisy fans.

Possibly but, as I said, I found my GTX280 far too loud just playing games, regardless of Furmark. I think it's all down to individual perception - if you can happily tolerate the noise levels of a 280 when playing games then I suspect you'll be fine with a 480 as they're obviously similar.

 

[MikeHiow]

He's talking about Crysis for goodness sake, name a single game available that stresses a system more than Crysis?

I'm well aware of how stressful it is, but that doesn't mean that it requires a lot of v-ram, especially seeing as it was probably designed when most cards were 512mb?

Also Crysis Warhead came out towards the end of 2008, which makes it little over 2 years old.

Isn't Warhead just Crysis with some new levels? Also, didn't someone state a few pages back that Warhead is less stressful than the original Crysis?

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm well aware of how stressful it is, but that doesn't mean that it requires a lot of v-ram, especially seeing as it was probably designed when most cards were 512mb?

Perhaps you could suggest a more memory hungry game for him to try?

 

[elpedro]

I'm well aware of how stressful it is, but that doesn't mean that it requires a lot of v-ram, especially seeing as it was probably designed when most cards were 512mb?

Do you not remember the fuss Crysis caused when it came out, due to it brining the most powerful systems (at that time) to their knees. Not to mention it was and continues to be used as a benchmark.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Lets get one thing straight running a benchmark is not the same as going through a level in crysis. 768 is not enough at max setting and 4xAA, warhead is the same, hell I breach 1Gb at 1680x1050, enjoy your hitching gameplay at said settings.

 

[elpedro]

Lets get one thing straight running a benchmark is not the same as going through a level in crysis. 768 is not enough at max setting and 4xAA, warhead is the same, hell I breach 1Gb at 1680x1050, enjoy your hitching gameplay at said settings.

Hahaha... the end.

 

[MikeHiow]

Yes, but that is hardly testament of how much v-ram it required, was it? This is what I'm trying to say, I hardly think Crysis is the benchmark you need to basing your argument for 1GB cards on.

In fact, here are some benchmarks (yes I know ) showing Crysis apparently showing no difference between 512mb and 1GB at 1920x1200 (albeit without AA).

I do not know what is more memory hungry, perhaps this new Metro or Arma2 with its stupidly long viewing distances? But I've neither played or read anything about either - so I'm completely guessing there.

 

[kitch9]

Firstly, let me just say that I detest Furmark and I believe it has come in for a lot of criticism in that it's utterly unrepresentative of the load a real game would place on a card. It stresses them in ways no game ever would and I believe it has actually damaged some cards as a result.

That said, there's something that doesn't quite sit right with those results. The load figures suggest that BC2 is stressing the GPU to almost the same degree as Furmark, yet with BC2 the temp is kept at 81C with only 57% fan speed whilst Furmark needs 100% fan speed to maintain 89C? That just doesn't add up.

I fished out Anandtech's review of the 480 from when it was released and their figures suggest it's just as hot running Crysis as it is running Furmark, which is in itself surprising.

As I said earlier, everyone's perception of "loud" differs. When I got my GTX280 (standard non-overclocked reference model) I found the noise intolerable when playing demanding games, not just when using Furmark. It may be that you had a better (quieter) card, or were playing different games, or are just less sensitive to the noise than I.

FWIW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfQOU3T0O3Q

I know it sounds weird but 100% gpu utilization under furmark is massively different to 100% game utilization.

Furmark uses lots of tiny repeating shaders whereas games use random varying length shaders which whilst tying the gpu up to not stress anywhere near as much.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Lets get one thing straight running a benchmark is not the same as going through a level in crysis. 768 is not enough at max setting and 4xAA, warhead is the same, hell I breach 1Gb at 1680x1050, enjoy your hitching gameplay at said settings.

Who are you trying to convince, out of interest? The more posts of yours I read the more it seems to be that you are trying to reassure yourself you have a super amazing graphics card each time

 

[[TW]Fox]

In fact, here are some benchmarks (yes I know ) showing Crysis apparently showing no difference between 512mb and 1GB at 1920x1200 (albeit without AA).

Looks like proof of the point I made earlier to me - the cards themselves are not powerful enough to run that game any faster. Which is what you'll find will probably happen before 1.5Gb of VRAM becomes useful.

I mean take my current card - a 1Gb GTX280. Any slowdowns I get now are as a result of the fact it is a GTX280 not the fact it has 1Gb of memory. So before the memory became an issue, the card's GPU was outclassed anyway..

 

[MikeHiow]

probably

This is exactly my issue - probably, and it is this assumption that everyone is saying 1GB is fine.

Put your money where your mouth is - buy the 560, seeing as performance everywhere else is on par with the 480.

 

[bhavv]

Yes, but that is hardly testament of how much v-ram it required, was it? This is what I'm trying to say, I hardly think Crysis is the benchmark you need to basing your argument for 1GB cards on.

In fact, here are some benchmarks (yes I know ) showing Crysis apparently showing no difference between 512mb and 1GB at 1920x1200 (albeit without AA).

I do not know what is more memory hungry, perhaps this new Metro or Arma2 with its stupidly long viewing distances? But I've neither played or read anything about either - so I'm completely guessing there.

Good? So you agree with us then that Crysis doesnt require over 1 Gb (768 Mb even) for nice smooth gameplay at 1080p?

If you agree with what we are saying and trying to prove, then why do you whine so much?

Argue with Raven instead, cos he's the only person here that reckons Crysis is unplayable at 1080p without a GTX 480?

Put your money where your mouth is - buy the 560, seeing as performance everywhere else is on par with the 480.

Yea, and why are you arguing with the people who are saying the same thing as you, and actually going to such lengths to disprove that a GTX 480 isnt a requirement at 1080p for Crysis?

Lets get one thing straight running a benchmark is not the same as going through a level in crysis. 768 is not enough at max setting and 4xAA, warhead is the same, hell I breach 1Gb at 1680x1050, enjoy your hitching gameplay at said settings.

Hitching: A term completely made up by RavenXXX2 to try and justify the imaginary superiority of his graphics card in crysis over a 768 Mb GTX 460, or 1 Gb GTX 560.