• 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.

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

Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
Yeah not one for smooth gameplay I guess.

I always have smooth gameplay. I'd never settle for any less.

If you think theres any game out there that wont run smooth on my PC at 1920x1200, then you dont have any idea what your talking about.

Vram has NEVER made any significant difference compared to raw GPU speed.

Because 1.5GB is enough obviously, if you game at eyefinity/suround res then yeah 2GB would be a better choice.

1 Gb is still enough for 1920x1200.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
I'll install Metro and give it a try, thats one of the games where 1 Gb isnt enough right?

I did read the benchies posted already from such games. Going from 1 gb > 2 gb made a difference of around 3 FPS.

Having double the Vram really makes a huge difference:



A whole extra 0.5 FPS!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Oct 2007
Posts
22,284
Location
North West
Yeah I'm talking about games that exceed the vram on the card, not the difference between 1GB and 2GB. You have got realize different areas in games use less or more Vram depending on whats going on, its not as simple as posting a graph showing results from a benchmark run which only has analytical AA on and not MSAA,
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
Plenty of newer games if you whack the AA up to 16x...

Find me a review that shows a comparison of this then?

Wouldnt Crysis at 2560x1600 and 4x AA be using more that 1 Gb Vram?



I've picked the two most demanding games there, Metro and Crysis at 2560x1600. 2 Gb doesnt make any difference over 1 Gb.

So how is going over 1 Gb going to make any difference at 1920x1200?
 
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
Also have a look at the Metro results in that review, in particular look at the minimum frame rates.

Yes, 3 fps difference as I mentioned earlier?

WoW you just don't get it, in gameplay you may or may not see fps drop but it will hitch. Benchmarks do not shows this.

I have never seen 'hitching' in any video game. If my game stutters or slows down, then thats because the FPS are going too low which I can confirm by loading fraps.

How about you tell me of a way to test for this hitching you mention on my SLI 1 Gb 560s @ 1920x1200 so that I can simply test it? Will I be able to see it in Metro?

Reviewers rarely bother to test at 16x AA

16x AA also rarely bothers to work in most games. I cannot get more than 8x AA to work in the majority of games I own, even forcing it through the drivers doesnt work. Most games only support up to 8x AA.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
Nicely ignoring the F1 8x AA graph, you can't tell me the extra RAM is making no difference there?

At 2560x1600 resolution it is yes.

I play at 1920x1200 and dont mind only using 4x AA if I have to.

Thats also what I've asked here, to show me where more than 1 Gb Vram makes a significant difference at 1920x1200.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
Turn down the AA then? 32x AA isnt required to enjoy the game and still have good image quality.

Also what res is that at?
 
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
And I'm making the point that your not going to be exceeding 1 Gb Vram by enough to notice significant slowdown or crash any game at 1920x1200, at least not for another couple of years.
 
Permabanned
Joined
26 Oct 2004
Posts
7,540
Location
Isle of Wight
Giving out advice based on what you'd do isn't very helpful at all.

If I spend £200 on a graphics card, I would expect it to last me a good few years. If I wanted something that'll "do for now", I would be buying a midrange card.
 
Permabanned
Joined
14 Nov 2009
Posts
13,639
Giving out advice based on what you'd do isn't very helpful at all.

No it isnt.

Thats why I'm actually advising people to buy these GTX 480s as well if they would get an improvement from them :)

If I spend £200 on a graphics card, I would expect it to last me a good few years. If I wanted something that'll "do for now", I would be buying a midrange card.

A current £200 graphics card will last you for a good few years, a GTX 560, GTX 480, or 6950. Each one has its merits and disadvantages.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom