Well I can say from my experience that 1GB was enough @1080p so long as you turned AA off. Iirc 45 fps average.
Very playable frame rates IMO
-
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.
2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?
- Thread starter sparky05084
- Start date
Well I can say from my experience that 1GB was enough @1080p so long as you turned AA off. Iirc 45 fps average.
Very playable frame rates IMO
So how does that explain a 5970 not being enough ? or in my case two GTX 295s tested one after the other?
For GPU computing power the 295 is ahead of the GTX 480. So that doesn't make much sense. The 5970? still among the fastest single PCB cards around.
I'm going to do a series of tests this afternoon. And I will come back with some numbers and results
Look at what resolution he was playing at...
Well for one thing two GPU's on a single PCB results in sharing of the PCI-E bus, so each GPU only has half the bandwidth to main memory compared to a single GPU card. If you're running two dual GPU cards at 8x8 in SLI/Crossfire it's effectively 4x for each GPU.
What would settle this is a simple comparison between a GTX 570 1280MB and 2560MB.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 46
- Location
- London
"2GB is minimum at 1080p"
That's just a pipe dream.
Marketing claptrap.
Yes it's minimum if your running 3+ monitors which is 1% of pc gaming.
1280mb is more than enough.
That's just a pipe dream.
Marketing claptrap.
Yes it's minimum if your running 3+ monitors which is 1% of pc gaming.
1280mb is more than enough.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
GTX 560ti 1GB SLI BF3 Ultra > Min 16FPS AVG. 50FPS
GTX560ti 2GB SLI BF3 Ultra 90 FOV > Min 50FPS AVG 75FPS
195% improvement on minimum just from a VRAM upgrade
yet again this page I've seen "if you turn off AA..."
BS
this thread is about BF3 on Ultra (WITH AA), nothing else
don't continue talking about 1GB being fine if you turn off AA
Last edited:
I think you are the one derailing the thread, there was only one comment saying that once you turn off MSAA, 1GB VRAM is enough at 1920x1080, and it wasn't the person you quoted.
Moreover, the original thread started as a discussion whether the 2GB is a minimum for gaming at a standard resolution of 1920x1080, as per OP. It has been discussed to death a number of times and it's a well established opinion that 2GB isn't needed for gaming at this resolution. 1.5GB VRAM seems to be a recommended amount and 1.25GB is more than enough in most scenarios. Not only that, most people will be able to get away with 1GB VRAM by turning one or two settings down to lower the buffer requirements.
Either you can't read or you're trying to regulate what can and cannot be discussed, which is not your job so cut it out.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
re-read the very first post (the title of this thread is misleading as to what the OP was asking)... the very first post specifically talks about someone running BF3 on ULTRA, full ULTRA with AA
every person arguing that you can get away with 1GB either does not even own BF3, or they start talking about turning down settings, which was not the question that the OP asked
I'm not saying 2GB is the absolute minimum for 1080p, but from my own testing I still experienced stutter with 1.5GB, which only went away when i switch to a 3GB card
people keep joining in the thread without actually reading the thread, so the same 2 or 3 arguments keep getting brought up again and again of either citing games other than BF3, or of turning down settings from Ultra to high or AA off or whatever, but the whole thread actually started as a discussion on how much VRAM does BF3 need for Ultra
every person arguing that you can get away with 1GB either does not even own BF3, or they start talking about turning down settings, which was not the question that the OP asked
I'm not saying 2GB is the absolute minimum for 1080p, but from my own testing I still experienced stutter with 1.5GB, which only went away when i switch to a 3GB card
people keep joining in the thread without actually reading the thread, so the same 2 or 3 arguments keep getting brought up again and again of either citing games other than BF3, or of turning down settings from Ultra to high or AA off or whatever, but the whole thread actually started as a discussion on how much VRAM does BF3 need for Ultra
Last edited:
Nope, it doesn't, I don't think you can read, but that's common with new members lately who can't seem to be able to get off their high horse.
Let's just call you a newfriend.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7-winvista-64bit-295.73-whql-driver.html
Battlefield 3
Fixes instances of texture corruption/artifacts in Battlefield 3 when memory constrained (typically 1GB or less graphics cards running Ultra settings and high resolutions).
A nice try from green team to solve vram issues.
Battlefield 3
Fixes instances of texture corruption/artifacts in Battlefield 3 when memory constrained (typically 1GB or less graphics cards running Ultra settings and high resolutions).
A nice try from green team to solve vram issues.
What, like the simple comparison between the 1gb 560ti and the 2gb 560ti?
This one that Gibbo ran ?
So, unless Gibbo is a liar the vram makes a clear difference. Any way, I don't need to argue the toss any more. Got all the facts I need now from some tests I just ran.
The vast majority of gamers play at 1080p with 1 Gb Vram. They don't have any lag or stutter in any game, and it has been argued to death now how problematic BF3 is with 4x AA on anything less than the 560Ti 448.
Those graphs are nice, but they don't dispute the fact that a 1280 Mb 560 Ti 448 is still the better card for BF3 than any of the 2 Gb GTX 560 Ti, 6950, or 6970. I feel bad for anyone that bought a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti or 6950 / 6970 setup for BF3 when the same amount of money would have been far better spent on GTX 570s.
OCUKs graph that you keep on posting simply reflects a lack of system ram, I have no doubt that it was done on a system with only 4 Gb ram which leaves absolutely no space anywhere for caching on the 1 Gb card. 8 Gb system ram is a far cheaper upgrade than buying new cards with more Vram just to run one single game.
The arguments defending needing excessive Vram have been argued and beaten to death, there are only 2 or 3 clueless people still whining about 1-1.2 Gb vram not being enough at 1080p, when the issue is simply due to one single game with a bugged implentation of MSAA.
BF3 is a completely ridiculous game to use for Vram comparisons, proven by comparing 1280 Mb GTX 5*0 cards to 2 Gb AMD 69*0 cards.
Its only the same few people throughout this thread that think they need 1.5 Gb vram or more at 1080p, you have managed to convince absolutely no one else with any of your arguments in the amount of time you spend posting about needing 2 Gb vram at 1080p for anything.
Those graphs are nice, but they don't dispute the fact that a 1280 Mb 560 Ti 448 is still the better card for BF3 than any of the 2 Gb GTX 560 Ti, 6950, or 6970. I feel bad for anyone that bought a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti or 6950 / 6970 setup for BF3 when the same amount of money would have been far better spent on GTX 570s.
OCUKs graph that you keep on posting simply reflects a lack of system ram, I have no doubt that it was done on a system with only 4 Gb ram which leaves absolutely no space anywhere for caching on the 1 Gb card. 8 Gb system ram is a far cheaper upgrade than buying new cards with more Vram just to run one single game.
The arguments defending needing excessive Vram have been argued and beaten to death, there are only 2 or 3 clueless people still whining about 1-1.2 Gb vram not being enough at 1080p, when the issue is simply due to one single game with a bugged implentation of MSAA.
BF3 is a completely ridiculous game to use for Vram comparisons, proven by comparing 1280 Mb GTX 5*0 cards to 2 Gb AMD 69*0 cards.
Its only the same few people throughout this thread that think they need 1.5 Gb vram or more at 1080p, you have managed to convince absolutely no one else with any of your arguments in the amount of time you spend posting about needing 2 Gb vram at 1080p for anything.
Find some one with 1gb vram and invite them to disable their paging file and play Bf3.
If the game crashes and they get a low memory warning they were using their paging file.
Which, in any given scenario is less than ideal and WILL hurt performance.
I think you're missing the point Greg.
All the time you have a paging file enabled the game can use it. Your video card can use it. It's no way to tell how much vram you are using, as it simply overflows into the paging file on your hard drive which is usually enormous.
The bottom line here, incase you are failing to understand it is this.
When your GPU runs out of vram in BF3 (and it will) does using your paging file bugger up the game? And what happens if you disable the paging file with a set vram limit? will the game crash if it then runs out?
I suggest reading the thread I just posted very carefully as it will explain to you how it all works.
A 512mb 4870 can run BF3 without crashing. Simply as when it runs out of vram it will use the paging file. Disable that paging file? Goodnight.
So, today I am demonstrating that the paging file does indeed get used, and, DOES hurt performance. And the bigger the games get, and the more vram they use, and the more they rely on a paging file the worse they will run.
So, a mate of mine got in touch with me today gloating about how he's treated himself to a nice shiny new Benq XL2420T 3D Monitor and an MSI GTX 570.
My first reply, "Only has 1.2GB Vram I'd have gone with the 6970 or waited for Kepler to see real world performance."
Mate replies, "Since when did you come to the conclusion that I'd need a 6970 over the 570?"
Me, "Well, obviously the 6970 has more Vram and more headroom. Apparently that's the minimum".
Mate, "1.2GB is plenty and I'm gaming at 1080p. I can play on highest settings on BF3 and I haven't even got round to Skyrim yet but the way things are shaping up it's going to be great".
He went onto say something like, "As for Kepler, I didn't want to wait even if it's supposedly around the corner and at the end of the day the card is certainly no slouch and I think it's better than the 6970".
He finished by saying "Anyway, I'm off now to go put this card through it's paces, enjoy your 8800 GTX"(cheeky bugger)
This was a rather interesting conversation as I hear (especially around here) that Vram is very important and the size of 2GB seems to be the magical number. That very same number pops up all too often and I think there was a case a while back where someone was advised to not go with the GTX 570 even though they were too, gaming at 1080p.
Now, I do occassionally pay attention to benchmarks and the odd review but I think I'm going to side more with my mate and he is a bigger gamer than me so I do value his opinion.
Not saying he's an expert but "real" world tests and scenarios are what interest me, not a link to some "proposed" specs when the cards are not even out yet.
It's early days but already he gives me the impression that a card with less than 2GB can more than handle resolutions at 1080p. Also, considering it's a TF III if he overclocks (which, knowing him he will) I imagine (correct me please if I'm mistaken) he will get better FPS too.
So, my fellow friends, the question is do you really need 2GB of Vram and would you seriosuly call it "future proofing" like is often advised?
I mean in my opinion how can one future proof or even use such a statement when there is always something newer and potentially faster and/or better around the corner?
What are you harping on about now? Who and why would you turn off your page file?
The OP asked about future proofing and do you seriously need 2GB of VRAM...I showed a VRAM intensive game running full ultra (with AA) running very nicely on a 1280MB 570.
I hope this helps the OP and anybody else who has concerns.
Last edited:
There's no evidence that 1280MB are VRAM limited at all in BF3 or other games (let's keep Skyrim out of this thread, the vanilla game isn't limited by memory and the outdated engine is what causes poor memory management to have troubles handling 4K resolution mods).
Even in the benchmarks posted by "2GB minimum" preachers in this thread, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that 1.25GB is not enough for BF3.
It's simply the case of raw power that these cards carry, namely GTX 470, GTX 560 TI 448 and GTX 570, that might not produce enough framerates with Ultra preset at 1920x1080, which is clearly shown here:
I would also argue that not even a GTX580 is enough for this game, nor HD7850/70 or any lower card, with this preset and resolution. It's not a case of VRAM limitation, simply the GPU isn't powerful enough to render the game at "acceptable" framerates.
Most BF3 players are willing to put a few settings down to get the framerates to 60 avg, 45 min, as that will affect their overall experience more than higher res textures, etc.
So let me ask you this question, what framerates do you find acceptable in multiplayer games like BF3 to deem them "playable"? I know this perceived figure can vary depending on the game and person, but if we set up some standards as to what we consider playable, it will be easier to determine a cut off point where raw power of the GPU is limited by VRAM.
Because, quite frankly, simply saying that "herp 1GB VRAM is not enough derp" is just... not enough.
With all that said, multi-gpu setups are a bit of a game changer since raw power can often double in some scenarios and VRAM limits can come to effects at such times. This also means that anyone planning to go Crossfire/SLI in the future should have that point in mind, VRAM requirements aren't getting any lower and some titles might struggle to maintain desired framerate when buffered memory is not enough.
Yet again, there are cases when a game can use much more than it requires and buffering isn't always needed. The discussion should also include bus limitations and how memory bandwidth can become a deciding factor in overall enjoyment from playing a game.
And on another note, I think the 1GB vs 2GB debate can be closed as such, there's no point arguing that some games might require more than 1GB VRAM in specific scenarios. That's not to say that all of these cards have simply not enough power to run those games with such settings, regardless of VRAM size.
EDIT: and just to refer to your comment, which I meant to do in the first place, Anandtech's Bench data shows why you experienced a jump going from a GTX470 to an HD6970. It's simply a faster card.
I had a 570 OC and it was my first card in my first pc. I just ran at ultra preset which never went below 35 fps but when playing CQ on Caspian Border or Gulf of Oman every now and again it would feel like V-Sync on with lag and would give a skip or jump and memory usage would be 1250+mb all the time.
When i went custom and 2XMSAA after a while i switched back to 4xMSAA and it just felt sluggish. Probably not bad enough for most people or constantly noticable but I only noticed the difference from switiching between the two.
Don't buy a new card because of it but if you're buying a new card I personally wouldn't go below 2gb, games aren't going to get easier on VRAM.
You do so much whining about 570's and 560TI 448's that you must own 1 or 2 of them.
I read a couple of pages back you don't have a copy of BF3, is this true? If it is how are you forcing your un-experienced opinion on this game and it's requirements to others that actually play the game and may be experiencing issues?
[unrelated] There was a graph last post that shows a single 580 beating a 6970 but in Crossfire/SLI the 6970 has a comfy lead. Do games not use more VRAM with 2 cards? If it does, does that graph not show the extra 500mb are doing something?
EDIT: The reason people are using BF3 as a comparison is because practically everyone plays it quite a lot, you're obviously going to base all your requirements on your favourite game.
Last edited:
In defence of Bhavv, he has a valid point. So much fuss is made about VRAM and I happily ran BF3 on full ultra with AA off at a very comfortable 45fps in 64 MP BF3 with a 560ti 1GB. It always felt smooth to me anyways.
If I turned AA on, it would turn into a slideshow after a couple of mins playing. The video I linked, shows the guy with a 1280MB 570, playing happily with no slowdown.
Gibbo is a salesmen, I would prefer to trust neutral sources instead of which there aren't any showing a 1280MB GTX570 struggle in anything.
I don't really know enough about BF3 to know how taxing 60 players is but I don't see how that can be benchmarked fairly unless you coordinate 60 people to do exactly the same thing twice for benchmarking purposes. For all we know on the 1GB run there could have been considerably more particle effects etc in play which lead to a more severed dip in fps. Lag can also affect frame rate and perceived performance.
Unless you have a severe lack of system memory then the page file should not come into play, even with a 3GB Radeon if you have a lack of system memory and disable the pagefile the game is going to struggle primarily because the game runs out of system memory, not video memory.
Even those with 3GB Radeons if you go to screen resolution and click advanced settings you will see that Windows has reserved some "shared system memory". PCI-E 2.0 16x is 8GB/s bi-directional so transferring data between VRAM and system RAM happens in the blink of an eye once they're all loaded from HDD, which will happen whilst the game loads unless you have a severe lack of system memory.
Last edited:
So basically BF3 will use your memory if you run out of vram?
Because it quite clearly doesn't.