2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?

[Marine-RX179]

no, the point is you do need 2GB+ to run BF3 on Ultra

you ALSO need a better GPU than a single 560/570

This I agree with.

Like the 6950 1GB vs 2GB above, while the 2GB is a bit higher in frame rate than the 1GB version, it also clearly shows that NEITHER are good enough to play at 4xMSAA. So realistically, both cards will need to have the MSAA reduced to 2xMSAA or none, which at that point there's probably not difference in frame rate between the two.

So basically, having a card of 6950 level and having only 1GB VRAM ain't really losing out to the 2GB version in terms of the game settings that both are needed to be at in order to provide playable frame rate. Having said that, there other factors to consider is that may be the 2GB version can be picked up for not much higher in price, or the possibility of going crossfire, which at that point there will be enough GPU grunt to take advantage of those extra VRAM.

In my honest opinion, 6950 2GB having higher frame rate than 6950 1GB on BF3 at 1920 res with 4xMSAA doesn't mean much, when they are both considered as fail at delivering playable frame rate (it's like making a big deal out of how one guy is doing better than the other guy in an exam, when both of them failed in the exam. If you give them a much easier exam to do, it is possible for the guy with the lower score to do just as well as the guy with the higher score. )

 

[bhavv]

Interesting that bhavv hasn't returned to defend his corner.

I wasnt here or the thread must have gone past the first page. This thread was just linked to me elsewhere.

Anyway regarding post 164:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=21353911&postcount=164

Anyone that thinks that this is a valid comparison has to be clueless and incapable of reading graphs:

- The first graph is not running the same setup parameters as the second graph, which is specifically testing the 'caspian border' area of the game.

- The first graph was blatantly made from a less demanding section of the game, and also on a completely different PC

- Dont want to believe that? Ok then, if you believe those graphs, then you also believe that 2x2 Gb GTX 560 Tis provide 41 max FPS more, and the same min FPS as 2x GTX 580s. Herp meet derp.

Now can anyone please show me, or feel free to make a VALID comparison on 2x1 Gb GTX 560 ti VS 2x2 GB GTX 560 ti on 100% identical systems, and 100% identical testing parameters within BF3 and any other games rather than comparing random results taken from different systems and different parts of the game?

I'd like to see comparisons of:

BF3 Ultra settings
Shogun 2 with ini tweak to force 2 Gb settings on 1 Gb cards
Skyrim with the Unofficial HD 2k texture pack on Nexus
Witcher 2 at max setting with ubersampling both on and off.

All at 4x AA and 16x AF, 1080p or 1200p.

Remember please, 100% identical testing parameters, gameplay sections and settings, and rest of the PC specs to be all the same.

no, the point is you do need 2GB+ to run BF3 on Ultra

you ALSO need a better GPU than a single 560/570

This I agree with.

No you dont, the 6950 / 6970 / GTX 560 ti are simply flawed at BF3 with 4x MSAA enabled.

Look up 1280 Mb GTX 570 SLI results. That runs the game smooth as butter with only 1280 Mb Vram at ultra settings. Even the developers of BF3 have stated that you dont need more than 1.5 Gb at Ultra settings.

Actually according to this:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/02/battlefield_3_single_player_performance_iq_review/4

At 1920x1200, a single GTX 570 is fine for ultra, but I'd think that 2 would be needed for more demanding parts of the game.

 

[RichardH754]

I now run SGSSAA on BF3 and it runs fine but it needs all 3 cards to do it!

 

[gurusan]

I really wish there were a BF3 timedemo

 

[bhavv]

So whats going on here then, Vram limitation?

I seriously doubt that 256 Mb vram causes a 15 FPS performance increase.

Why do the 1280 Mb cards have higher minimums than 2 Gb cards?

 

[Gregster]

With BF3 and Skyrim being the most VRAM intense games that I know of, it would be interesting to see honest VRAM usages on different systems/resolutions.

When I get home, I will post what I use.

 

[bhavv]

Vram usage graphs are meaningless because they add cached vram data to the totals which isnt required to boost performance.

If you have 2 Gb Vram, your graphics cards will use it to simply cache lots of extra data, but that doesnt mean that the game requires that much Vram to play smoothly!

1280 Mb GTX 560 ti 448 x 2 is all you need for BF3 maxed out, both in terms of Vram and GPU power. you dont need more Vram, you dont need more GPU power than that.

Arguably, if you had a GTX 570 GPU with only 1 Gb Vram, that wouldnt have any limitations in BF3 either.

 

[psychodil]

Vram usage graphs are meaningless because they add cached vram data to the totals which isnt required to boost performance.

If you have 2 Gb Vram, your graphics cards will use it to simply cache lots of extra data, but that doesnt mean that the game requires that much Vram to play smoothly!

1280 Mb GTX 560 ti 448 x 2 is all you need for BF3 maxed out, both in terms of Vram and GPU power. you dont need more Vram, you dont need more GPU power than that.

Arguably, if you had a GTX 570 GPU with only 1 Gb Vram, that wouldnt have any limitations in BF3 either.

Depends on your res. I am guessing you are running at 1080p or thereabouts, in which case i agree. My gtx 570 has enough vram at this res. When you start stepping up te aa though thats when you need more vram, especially msaa. There is a review somewhere showing the gtx 680 sli running out of vram with 3 screens on bf3 with msaa applied. Fps dipped below 20 regularly while the crossfired 7970's did not. For single screen setups though 2gb will be plenty for a long while.

 

[Gregster]

I know with my single 1GB 560ti, it would turn into a slideshow with full ultra on after a couple of mins.

 

[tommybhoy]

Now can anyone please show me, or feel free to make a VALID comparison on 2x1 Gb GTX 560 ti VS 2x2 GB GTX 560 ti on 100% identical systems, and 100% identical testing parameters within BF3 and any other games rather than comparing random results taken from different systems and different parts of the game?

Find/provide it yourself, 1Gb 6950 v 2 Gb 6950 results provide the exact same information and have been posted more than enough times in this thread.

Back from vacation and you've started already.

After your postings in the 680 threads that earned you a suspension, I doubt many are going to take you seriously anymore.

The evidence is there to be seen if you read the whole thread again rather than start it up all over again.

No one is stating that a single 2GB 6950/70/560 is faster than a 560 448/570 in BF3!

Nvidia have an advantage in BF3 due to there DCL instructions in BF3, fantastic feature I may add, in this title it's a clear advantage over AMD@1080p.

The whole argument is that 2x1GB 560's/6950's hit a wall in FULL ULTRA(lesser settings don't carry the overhead), where as 2x2GB 560's/6950 don't!

While a 570/560 448 can cope admirably, to many that crave high fluid fps they are still not up to the task for their needs.

Q. Why did the 680 release with 2Gb instead of 1.25Gb/1.5Gb?

A. Because it removes itself from vram limitations.

 

[bhavv]

Find/provide it yourself, 1Gb 6950 v 2 Gb 6950 results provide the exact same information and have been posted more than enough times in this thread.

An improvement from 17 to 22 minimum FPS from 1 Gb to 2 Gb Vram does not make a game playable

I know with my single 1GB 560ti, it would turn into a slideshow with full ultra on after a couple of mins.

Indeed it would, thats why the developers of BF3 have said along you need SLI / Crossfire to play the game at ultra settings.

No one is stating that a single 2GB 6950/70/560 is faster than a 560 448/570 in BF3!

So you actually agree then that 2 Gb vram is useless in BF3 because a 1280 Mb card runs the game better!

Q. Why did the 680 release with 2Gb instead of 1.25Gb/1.5Gb?

A. Because it removes itself from vram limitations.

WRONG!

A) Because it uses a 256 bit memory interface that supports 1, 2, and 4 Gb Vram. 1.25 / 1.5 Gb vram are not possible on 256 bit.

Also it would suck for a £400 graphics card to only have 1 Gb Vram when such a card is meant to be able to handle 2560x1440 resolution dont you think? TBH I would expect 4 Gb at that price point, simply based on how much money i'm spending.

The whole argument is that 2x1GB 560's/6950's hit a wall in FULL ULTRA(lesser settings don't carry the overhead), where as 2x2GB 560's/6950 don't!

So right now you would still be recommending people to buy 2x2 Gb 560 Tis or 6950s instead of a single GTX 680

The 2 Gb versions of those cards are insignificantly faster than the 1 Gb version, they always have been in every single review and were never worth buying for BF3.

 

[wannabedamned]

1.5GB minimum if buying a new rig, even that is probably pushing it now. My next purchase will be 2gb, 3gb if possible

 

[bhavv]

1.5GB minimum if buying a new rig, even that is probably pushing it now. My next purchase will be 2gb, 3gb if possible

Id definitely say 2 Gb is a must have on a GTX 680 due to its performance l
level.

2 Gb on a GTX 560 ti, and also the 6950 has turned out to be a complete waste, those cards are already obsolete.

 

[tommybhoy]

An improvement from 17 to 22 minimum FPS from 1 Gb to 2 Gb Vram does not make a game playable

Neither does 2 X 1Gb 560's, whereas 2X2Gb 560/6950 removes the vram limitation.

Indeed it would, thats why the developers of BF3 have said along you need SLI / Crossfire to play the game at ultra settings.

Which most of us know renders 1Gb cards useless.

So you actually agree then that 2 Gb vram is useless in BF3 because a 1280 Mb card runs the game better!

In single card setups, I have never said Nvidia 448/570 cards are worse than 2Gb cards, you keep ignoring that.

WRONG!

Your memory bus argument is another attempt to deflect from the fact they upped the vram limit from 1.25/1.5Gb to 2Gb.

So right now you would still be recommending people to buy 2x2 Gb 560 Tis or 6950s instead of a single GTX 680

Never mentioned recommending anything on this discussion since the new breed of cards were released.

My advice would be if you have 2Gb 560/6950 dual cards, keep them as you will not notice any difference@1080p, if anything you will see a reduction in performance in more cases than not.

The 2 Gb versions of those cards are insignificantly faster than the 1 Gb version, they always have been in every single review and were never worth buying for BF3.

Nonsense, the benches posted earlier show a considerable difference in minimums collapsing in BF3.

2 Gb on a GTX 560 ti, and also the 6950 has turned out to be a complete waste, those cards are already obsolete.

Heaven Benchmark thread:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18386056

Custom air cooled 6950>70 CrossFire@ 1GHz = 2472@1080p
Water cooled oc'ed 7970 = 2350@1080p
Air cooled oc'ed 680 = 2225@1080p

So they are, they are that obsolete that my 6950>70 CrossFire is consistently faster more often than not@1080p

 

[bhavv]

Your memory bus argument is another attempt to deflect from the fact they upped the vram limit from 1.25/1.5Gb to 2Gb.

You dont even know how Vram allocations work. Fact, 1.25 / 1.5 Gb are not possible on 256 bit memory interface

If the card was 384 bit instead, it would have launched with 1.5 / 3 Gb options.

I'm done bothering with you, you are completely clueless and know nothing about graphics cards.

 

[tommybhoy]

You dont even know how Vram allocations work. Fact, 1.25 / 1.5 Gb are not possible on 256 bit memory interface

If the card was 384 bit instead, it would have launched with 1.5 / 3 Gb options.

Hard to work that one out, another attempt at not answering the question about why Nvidia increased vram for the 680 over previous generations.

I'm done bothering with you

Thank god for that!

 

[ALXAndy]

Id definitely say 2 Gb is a must have on a GTX 680 due to its performance l
level.

2 Gb on a GTX 560 ti, and also the 6950 has turned out to be a complete waste, those cards are already obsolete.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18344284&highlight=560ti+2gb+battlefield

 

[bhavv]

You can't even tell marketing propaganda when you see it? Where's the full system spec? Where's the review? Where's the comparison to other similarly priced cards especially 1280 Mb ones?

That graph could be entirely made up, it tells me nothing.

There's no way that an extra 1 Gb vram causes that much difference when a 1280 Mb card doesn't struggle to run the game.

 

[ALXAndy]

You can't even tell marketing propaganda when you see it? Where's the full system spec? Where's the review? Where's the comparison to other similarly priced cards especially 1280 Mb ones?

That graph could be entirely made up, it tells me nothing.

This is your biggest problem.

Even when the facts are staring you blatantly in the face you just shut off your senses and continue to bleat.

As for 1280mb cards? See my GTX 470. I was perfectly happy with it until BF3 came along. It had a lovely cooler on and made absolutely no noise. However, BF3 turned it into a slideshow on heavy levels. And I'm not talking 64 player MP maps, I'm talking single player. The mall level where you are trying to keep the guy alive was unplayable on 1080p with everything on ultra and 4XFSAA.

It made aiming and loading the sniper rifle quickly impossible.

So I could have easily lowered the settings, but that was not what I wanted to do. So instead I bought a 6970 2gb, hello frames around 40 min. Yet, on paper the 6970 wasn't that much faster than the GTX 470, especially at the clocks I had mine at.

At that time I also owned SLI GTX 295. I ended up selling all of them, as none of them could run BF3 at 1080p on ultra with 4XFSAA due to vram limitation.

 

[ALXAndy]

Ah yes, this too. You'd better shut your eyes again.

So let's say you wanted to run three monitors. Obviously for those resolutions you are going to need dual cards. You are also going to need 3gb vram. Look what happens to the 680 when it runs short of vram. Grunt simply isn't enough. See also - My GTX 295s.

So there's another "for" for the 7970. As I keep telling you - big picture. It all depends what you want or need the card/s to do.