2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?

ArnieRambo · 3 Apr 2012 at 19:48

my gtx 580 1.5GB @1080p eats BF3 on ultra....i got around 1404mb vram on 64 player Caspian Border playing for about 15 mins

andybird123 · 3 Apr 2012 at 20:42

gregster said:
On my old 560TI, I had everything on ultra except AA (which was off) and I never had slowdown. I was very pleased with how 1GB VRAM performed.

really? no stutter or texture streaming at all?
because my personal experience was that I had to turn textures to high from ultra as well as turning off AA to get smooth gameplay at 1080p with a 560ti
which is also what the nvidia guide to BF3 says

anyway, as this thread is primarily about bf3 on ultra with 4x aa...

chipachap · 3 Apr 2012 at 20:48

Is there not some sort of poll function to see who has had issues with 1Gb at 1080p and 4XMSAA? If not I propose a pool function be made!

Gregster · 3 Apr 2012 at 20:54

andybird123 said:
really? no stutter or texture streaming at all?
because my personal experience was that I had to turn textures to high from ultra as well as turning off AA to get smooth gameplay at 1080p with a 560ti
which is also what the nvidia guide to BF3 says

anyway, as this thread is primarily about bf3 on ultra with 4x aa...

Nope, no stutter. The only time I did see stutter was when I turned MSAA on.

The only reson I got a 680 was so I could future proof and also see all the visual feast that BF3 brings along.

andybird123 · 3 Apr 2012 at 22:51

gregster said:
Nope, no stutter. The only time I did see stutter was when I turned MSAA on.

Hard OCP and me disagree with you

ALXAndy · 3 Apr 2012 at 22:55

andybird123 said:
Hard OCP and me disagree with you

Me three.

TBH I think some people are just less sensitive to stutter and things like that.

I mean it's quite amazing how many people play games these days with vsync off. Me? ten seconds of that **** and it drives me insane.

Gregster · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:04

Ok sorry, I could only play it with everything set to low. I should know that although it played at a respectable rate that I was happy with on ultra without MSAA, sadly this is not good enough.

I will think before I post anything next time, incase my experiences dont agree with Hardocp and Andy and Andy.

Edit:

I take it both you guys had/have a 560ti OC?

Cythx · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:10

creed said:
Also on a GTX 570 1.2MB here. bf3.exe, right click > properties > Compatibility > Disable desktop composition (turns off aero mode when the game starts) freed up to 200MB of VRAM for me and then also if I close any open web browser once the game has launched it frees up a further 100MB VRAM.

I play at range of fps from 45-70+ at 1920x1080 ultra and 2xAA. Only significant dips I notice are in smoke, but only sometimes, not sure why.

I'd like 120 fps to match my monitor but I'm not willing to reduce visuals

Your computer uses more than 350 MB VRAM just browsing the web?

Mr Krugga · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:13

ALXAndy said:
Me three.

TBH I think some people are just less sensitive to stutter and things like that.

I mean it's quite amazing how many people play games these days with vsync off. Me? ten seconds of that **** and it drives me insane.

Wait, what? :confused:

ALXAndy · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:17

Mr Krugga said:
Wait, what?

Take a look around you. Look how many people put up with microstutter and all sorts of other issues.

Look how many people say they want 100FPS or so out of a game, when they are running a 60hz monitor. Then say they have vsync enabled and don't notice any tearing.

You'll probably find it's the same sort of person who can happily play games on a Xbox 360 and not care about them running at 30 FPS or the fact that they grind to a halt on graphically heavy games.

Some people truly don't notice it. That? or they just don't mind it.

Mr Krugga · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:24

ALXAndy said:
Take a look around you. Look how many people put up with microstutter and all sorts of other issues.

Not all setups have noticeable microstutter. And it's certainly not all games that show it. Also highly depends on your multi-gpu config, fps, vsync and other factors, there have been a few people around here explaining how microsttutering works and it is something that you can experience on any card, at any time.

Look how many people say they want 100FPS or so out of a game, when they are running a 60hz monitor. Then say they have vsync enabled and don't notice any tearing.

Well with Vsync on they can't see any tearing as there isn't any.

They wouldn't be hitting 100 fps on 60 Hz monitors then, though.

The prime reason to uncap the framerates is to reduce the input lag.

You'll probably find it's the same sort of person who can happily play games on a Xbox 360 and not care about them running at 30 FPS or the fact that they grind to a halt on graphically heavy games.

I'm not one to hate on people who enjoy playing on consoles. Haven't noticed any games grinding to halt on consoles, either.

Some people truly don't notice it. That? or they just don't mind it.

Don't see the issue then.

What baffles me is why you relate vsync to stuttering.

ALXAndy · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:27

I guess it depends how you feel about having issues.

There was a time where I welcomed PC problems. Absolutely loved getting my hands dirty and working things out, as it is very satisfying. Now though? one problem is too many.
Second line? Enabled = disabled. Got them the wrong way around

And I don't hate on people who play consoles. So don't put words in my mouth.

As for grinding to a halt? load up Fallout New Vegas. First make sure you are vilified by the powder gangers, then enter the prison block. It slows down so much you can't even get into VATS.

As for relating stuttering to vsync? As I said, some people are just happy to put up with any sort of issue. There was no relation intended.

Cythx · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:31

For a lot of people, the input lag introduced by vsync is A LOT more of an issue than tearing.

ALXAndy · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:33

Cythx said:
For a lot of people, the input lag introduced by vsync is A LOT more of an issue than tearing.

Quite probably. Personally I wouldn't put up with either as they both ruin the experience.

Mr Krugga · 3 Apr 2012 at 23:38

ALXAndy said:
Quite probably. Personally I wouldn't put up with either as they both ruin the experience.

Adaptive Vsync from Nvidia tried to counter that issue but there really isn't a perfect way to get rid off either, short off getting a 120 Hz and keeping your framerate just below 120 fps at all times.

Then again, I'm not one to put up with TN monitors...

Rusty0611 · 4 Apr 2012 at 07:35

Yeah the input lag from Vsync is nasty in fast paced FPS games. I'm not that sensitive to screen tearing - in fact I don't see it all that often so lucky in that respect.

MoRT489 · 4 Apr 2012 at 07:57

ALXAndy said:
If you read it all it will also tell you to disable vsync, lower texture quality, turn off triple buffering and basically do everything you need to in order to bring up the FPS.

Nice to know you read it all.

Obvioulsy I didn't read it all, hence the question in my post. You really need to chillout a bit Andy :rolleyes:

andybird123 · 4 Apr 2012 at 09:21

gregster said:
I take it both you guys had/have a 560ti OC?

I'm going to resist the incredibly sarcastic comment I was going to put and stick with;

Yes I did have a 560ti, OC'd to 950mhz - I had to turn down multiple settings to get smooth gameplay on the larger maps like caspian, which is the same findings as HardOCP in their multiplayer speed tests (and nvidia in their BF3 tweak guide)

I also tried 560ti SLI and found it no better than a single one because - as I determined through testing - it wasn't a GPU limitation causing me massive stutter and low FPS on Ultra, it was VRAM limitation

when I then saw another user with 2GB SLI posting 60-70+FPS I knew for certain it was VRAM limitation

I did also try a friends 570 in my PC and that wasn't a massive amount better than a 560ti - FPS was a lot better but it still suffered stutter quite badly

even a GTX580 1.5GB gave me occaisional stutter and the guy that sold it told me it was BNIB but it wasn't so I sent it back and around the same time spotted a 3GB for £330 which was a bargain at the time, and luckily that does now give me a stutter free experience

but then if you'd read your own thread you might have read some of this already (sorry, I couldn't actually not be facetious at all)

Bluntwrapped · 4 Apr 2012 at 09:29

Everything maxed @ 1920x1080 SLI disabled, 64 player map - 1408mb VRAM usage. This is the highest I've seen it go.

Rusty0611 · 4 Apr 2012 at 09:44

It's not 1408 "usage" - that's how much is cached. It's very difficult to tell how much VRAM is actually being used. If more is available more is cached.

That being said, I agree that 1GB is pushing your luck at Ultra in BF3. For other games though? Generally fine.

1.5GB? Although people post VRAM usage above 1.5GB I think this is due to the caching mentioned previously.

As to if 2GB is in danger of not being enough? Until the high end cards are all coming out with 2.5GB or 3GB then I still don't believe that VRAM is going to become a problem for 2GB cards while playing on one monitor. Well at least not before the GPU starts to struggle anyway.

Developers aren't stupid - they could code an engine with textures etc which requires say 2400MB on Ultra to play it but then unless the top end mainstream cards are all coming out with this level of VRAM it would be counter intuitive to alienate a large share of the top end market that don't have a 4GB 680 or 3GB AMD card or whatever the card is at that time.

I do think we'll get to a point where 2GB is pushing it but I think we'll be a while yet. Of course all speculative though