Make it a hilarious thread, an attack thread or a technical discussion thread, it's up to you. This mini review has received some positive feedback on other forums, along with some attacks mixed up as expected. So far I still have insufficient data to make it convincing. I might add more data when I've got time.
I knew that the GTX590 would share the same fate as the HD5970, for GPU power bottlenecked by not having affluent VRAM. Better safe than sorry. Thus I avoided quad-SLI of GTX590s, and avoided SLI of GTX580 1.5GB. You might ask why, and the answer is that I believe (according to my previous experience) that "vram shortage can increase the probability of getting lag spikes / stuttering", which is usually hard to be seen from average fps / ad hoc min fps measures.
Recently I grabbed a GTX590 from my girlfriend and did a comparison in my machine with a pair of GTX580 3GB in SLI (downclocked to match the GTX590 clocks). That is, the same clock for core and memory, the same rig, driver, OS, game versions etc. I can't say such comparison is perfect, as there's still a difference of the PCI-E lanes used by both GF110 GPUs in each group, but this is so far the best I can do.
I thought it would take some time to actually encounter games that can exceed 1.5GB VRAM usage at 1920x1200, but surprisingly this just happened so fast. There have been several candidates already, as of year 2011:
1) Total War Shogun 2, with DX11 patch and the "Rise of the Samuri" DLC installed. The graphics of the main game menu would eat more than 1.5GB VRAM already (something like 1650MB+ ish), according to MSI Afterburner readings. To exercise how this affects the real game play, simply enter the "Advanced Land Battle" tutorial. When playing the game at max settings with a setup of only 1.5GB VRAM per GPU, there will be a log file generated in the folder %appdata%\The Creative Assembly\Shogun2\logs:
For more details read this thread. To enforce the game engine to use 8AA instead of 4AA on a setup with only 1.5GB vram per GPU or less, an override of the parameter in the script file is required: change the value of gfx_video_memory to 2147483648 (i.e. cheating the game engine that I have 2GB vram available), and use NTFS privilege to forbid the game engine to revert the modification.
2) Crysis 2, with the official DX11 patch and high res texture patch installed. At the beginning of the game, when the player wears the nano suit for the first time and walks outdoors, the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB. (MSI Afterburner shows something like 1700MB+)
3) RAGE, with the 9th Oct patch from Steam, and rageconfig.cfg to enable 16k texture and 16AF, the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB. (MSI Afterburner shows something like 1750MB+)
4) World of Warcraft Cataclysm, in DX11 mode, in Orgrimmar during peak time (at least 40 players in sight), start two instances concurrently (e.g. use a character to do enchanting for another character or simply mule items), the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB. (MSI Afterburner shows something like 1600MB+)
5) BF3 beta, as mentioned by many players already, the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB.
I could not find a precise way to test WOW (with repeated scenes), but I can tell that the lag spikes / stuttering that occurs especially when the player turns around (spins) quickly (rotating the camera quickly) are pretty obvious on the GTX590, but not happening at all on the GTX580 3GB SLI. I haven't downloaded BF3 beta but I've heard about many players complaining about lag spikes / stuttering already, though I don't know if such subjective claims can be trusted (without providing quantitative analysis of data other than analytical comments).
For the first three games I've carried out some simple tests myself:
This is the Frametimes measure. When the average fps and the adhoc min fps cannot tell a difference between two groups, it is necessary to look into each second carefully to identify the lag spikes / stuttering. Techreport used the same method to identify microstuttering, though microstuttering caused by AFR is NOT the same as the old skool stuttering caused by VRAM shortage I'm talking about here today. I had some email communications with the author of the Techreport article, and he agreed with my hypothesis that "vram shortage can increase the probability of getting lag spikes / stuttering". He even mentioned that in his article the GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI failing Bulletstorm is supporting such phenomena, though there was no GTX560 Ti 2GB SLI for comparison.
As my observations the GTX590 are more vulnerable to lag spikes / stuttering in Crysis 2 and Shogun 2, compared against the GTX580 3GB SLI.
It is another story in RAGE with 16k texture and 16AF. The GTX590 simply cannot afford such settings. The game freezes at single-digit fps and fails to load all the textures:
While such config is a piece of cake for the GTX580 3GB:
Conclusions: if you trust that I haven't manipulated the data, then I have already proved the following (in)formally:
a) If you can see a VRAM usage reading approaching or above a certain capacity of dedicated VRAM, then the card is more vulnerable to lag spikes / stuttering;
b) 1.5GB VRAM cannot satisfy those who don't care about the actual gains of image quality, but only like the feeling of being able to max out every possible graphics setting in every game.
Don't take me wrong - I do know that there is minimal difference between 4AA and 8AA at native resolution, and almost zero difference between 8k texture and 16k texture. If you are a practical person, just turn down the AA level and 1.5GB should be fine for 1920x1200 resolution.
The question of "Is 1.5GB VRAM enough for 1920x1200?" is just like a question of "Is 12 Mpixels enough for full-frame digital cameras?". Only you know the right answer for yourself, because you are the one to decide how to use it and what you expect to get from it.
I knew that the GTX590 would share the same fate as the HD5970, for GPU power bottlenecked by not having affluent VRAM. Better safe than sorry. Thus I avoided quad-SLI of GTX590s, and avoided SLI of GTX580 1.5GB. You might ask why, and the answer is that I believe (according to my previous experience) that "vram shortage can increase the probability of getting lag spikes / stuttering", which is usually hard to be seen from average fps / ad hoc min fps measures.
Recently I grabbed a GTX590 from my girlfriend and did a comparison in my machine with a pair of GTX580 3GB in SLI (downclocked to match the GTX590 clocks). That is, the same clock for core and memory, the same rig, driver, OS, game versions etc. I can't say such comparison is perfect, as there's still a difference of the PCI-E lanes used by both GF110 GPUs in each group, but this is so far the best I can do.
I thought it would take some time to actually encounter games that can exceed 1.5GB VRAM usage at 1920x1200, but surprisingly this just happened so fast. There have been several candidates already, as of year 2011:
1) Total War Shogun 2, with DX11 patch and the "Rise of the Samuri" DLC installed. The graphics of the main game menu would eat more than 1.5GB VRAM already (something like 1650MB+ ish), according to MSI Afterburner readings. To exercise how this affects the real game play, simply enter the "Advanced Land Battle" tutorial. When playing the game at max settings with a setup of only 1.5GB VRAM per GPU, there will be a log file generated in the folder %appdata%\The Creative Assembly\Shogun2\logs:
For more details read this thread. To enforce the game engine to use 8AA instead of 4AA on a setup with only 1.5GB vram per GPU or less, an override of the parameter in the script file is required: change the value of gfx_video_memory to 2147483648 (i.e. cheating the game engine that I have 2GB vram available), and use NTFS privilege to forbid the game engine to revert the modification.
2) Crysis 2, with the official DX11 patch and high res texture patch installed. At the beginning of the game, when the player wears the nano suit for the first time and walks outdoors, the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB. (MSI Afterburner shows something like 1700MB+)
3) RAGE, with the 9th Oct patch from Steam, and rageconfig.cfg to enable 16k texture and 16AF, the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB. (MSI Afterburner shows something like 1750MB+)
4) World of Warcraft Cataclysm, in DX11 mode, in Orgrimmar during peak time (at least 40 players in sight), start two instances concurrently (e.g. use a character to do enchanting for another character or simply mule items), the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB. (MSI Afterburner shows something like 1600MB+)
5) BF3 beta, as mentioned by many players already, the VRAM usage can exceed 1.5GB.
I could not find a precise way to test WOW (with repeated scenes), but I can tell that the lag spikes / stuttering that occurs especially when the player turns around (spins) quickly (rotating the camera quickly) are pretty obvious on the GTX590, but not happening at all on the GTX580 3GB SLI. I haven't downloaded BF3 beta but I've heard about many players complaining about lag spikes / stuttering already, though I don't know if such subjective claims can be trusted (without providing quantitative analysis of data other than analytical comments).
For the first three games I've carried out some simple tests myself:
This is the Frametimes measure. When the average fps and the adhoc min fps cannot tell a difference between two groups, it is necessary to look into each second carefully to identify the lag spikes / stuttering. Techreport used the same method to identify microstuttering, though microstuttering caused by AFR is NOT the same as the old skool stuttering caused by VRAM shortage I'm talking about here today. I had some email communications with the author of the Techreport article, and he agreed with my hypothesis that "vram shortage can increase the probability of getting lag spikes / stuttering". He even mentioned that in his article the GTX560 Ti 1GB SLI failing Bulletstorm is supporting such phenomena, though there was no GTX560 Ti 2GB SLI for comparison.
As my observations the GTX590 are more vulnerable to lag spikes / stuttering in Crysis 2 and Shogun 2, compared against the GTX580 3GB SLI.
It is another story in RAGE with 16k texture and 16AF. The GTX590 simply cannot afford such settings. The game freezes at single-digit fps and fails to load all the textures:
While such config is a piece of cake for the GTX580 3GB:
Conclusions: if you trust that I haven't manipulated the data, then I have already proved the following (in)formally:
a) If you can see a VRAM usage reading approaching or above a certain capacity of dedicated VRAM, then the card is more vulnerable to lag spikes / stuttering;
b) 1.5GB VRAM cannot satisfy those who don't care about the actual gains of image quality, but only like the feeling of being able to max out every possible graphics setting in every game.
Don't take me wrong - I do know that there is minimal difference between 4AA and 8AA at native resolution, and almost zero difference between 8k texture and 16k texture. If you are a practical person, just turn down the AA level and 1.5GB should be fine for 1920x1200 resolution.
The question of "Is 1.5GB VRAM enough for 1920x1200?" is just like a question of "Is 12 Mpixels enough for full-frame digital cameras?". Only you know the right answer for yourself, because you are the one to decide how to use it and what you expect to get from it.
Last edited:
regardless of the amount of VRAM.