-
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I call 5 fps a slideshow, that was what i got when turning on 4 x aa in bf3 on caspian on 1gb sli
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
O...... M....... G
this entire thread is about BF3 and you dont even have tge game?
where is the ignore button on this forum
(Just noticed I put this in the wrong thread earlier)
Both the 560ti and 6870 cards in the above graph are 1Gb variants, both get about a ~50% minimum fps performance hit in Sli/CrossFire compared to a single 2Gb 6950.
At the very least, your 8Gb system ram argument(which, in this case would still achieve an overhead lag) is flawed, as by your reasoning 1GB gpu's have a higher system requirement being required for optimal performance.
I don't see a 2 gb 560 ti anywhere on your provided graph. Please read a bit better and find me a legitimate comparison of 1 vs 2 gb vram on a gtx 560 ti.
Its also not running at a 5 FPS slideshow as people are claiming it does on a 1 Gb 560 ti SLI setup. The graph doesnt show how often the gameplay dips to the min FPS, which is most likely hardly ever and un noticable.
Last edited:
LMAO!
So please show me where a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti has been tested alongside a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti in Bf3 ultra preset? Thats what I asked you for and no you didnt provide it.
No its not, they are completely different GPUs and the 6950 is faster than a GTX 560 ti.
You cant compare Vram using different GPUs, I dont know how simple such a request can be to provide a Vram comparison of 1 vs 2 Gb using THE SAME GPU
8 Gb ram is super cheap and no one should have any less for gaming. BF3 will use around 4.5 Gb system ram + shared graphics memory making 8 Gb minimum a requirement for any setup. Its far more important and easier / cheaper to increase your system ram before you increase your Vram.
I'll take a wild guess and assume that the results you provided didnt use a PC with at least 8 Gb ram.
No its not, they are completely different GPUs and the 6950 is faster than a GTX 560 ti.
You cant compare Vram using different GPUs, I dont know how simple such a request can be to provide a Vram comparison of 1 vs 2 Gb using THE SAME GPU
8 Gb ram is super cheap and no one should have any less for gaming. BF3 will use around 4.5 Gb system ram + shared graphics memory making 8 Gb minimum a requirement for any setup. Its far more important and easier / cheaper to increase your system ram before you increase your Vram.
I'll take a wild guess and assume that the results you provided didnt use a PC with at least 8 Gb ram.
Last edited:
Total disregard of related logic provided.
I don't know who is right and who is wrong but if there are no comparable tests then both sides of the arguement could be right or wrong.
You're asking them to prove 2GB gives better performance but you can't prove it doesn't.
Other than you those discussing this matter at least seem to have played the game and have some personal experience to speak from.
Last edited:
2 Gb GTX 560 tis will give a better performance than 1 Gb GTX 560 tis.
I havnt stated once that the difference between the two would be zero.
It wont be anywhere near as significant as people claim it is on a system with at least 8 Gb ram. The difference will only be less than 5 FPS.
If you want a significant performance boost for BF3 at 1080p resolution over a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti, then you buy a GTX 570, not a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti.
Other people on this forum have personal experience with playing BF3 on 1 Gb cards, and it doesnt run at the 5 FPS slideshow that others are claiming it does in this thread (nor does it in any single review).
*This post will be 100% ignored by people trying to simply defend their 2-3 Gb video cards, which only perform better because they have a far more powerful GPU.
Last edited:
That's a fine and dandy opinion.
Now show us the comparative tests which show that in Bf3 with the ultra preset.
Its been posted hundreds of times all over the net, look up 1 Gb vs 2 Gb 6950 results.
No thanks.
I asked you about the GTX 560Ti which is what this thread seems to have developed into discussing.
Thats what I'm asking people to provide as I havnt seen it done yet?
I'll change my opinion if I see valid evidence that proves me wrong. Until then I will continue to compare 1 Gb vs 2 Gb HD 6950s as this is the only valid comparison I can find regarding Vram, and the difference in any game including BF3 is minuscule.
Why would I buy, or recommend the 2 Gb GTX 560 ti to anyone when the 1280 Mb GTX 560 ti 448 is better at everything?
Which was my point entirely.
You're arguing with people based on conclusions drawn from tests on a different card.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but you're in no better position to provide evidence about the 1GB v 2GB GTX 560 Ti than anyone else.
I hope you're not expecting me to answer that.
As I stated at the beginning all I was commenting on was the lack of comparable evidence of a 1GB GTX 560 Ti v a 2 GB GTX 560Ti from both sides of the argument.
I've not said either opinion is right or wrong and I've not sought to support either side.
So beyond what I've said already I'm not getting involved.
If you read my posts I entered this discussion to make a point about the lack of evidence from both sides regarding a 1GB GTX 560 Ti v a 2 GB GTX 560Ti.
I've made my point and beyond that I don't wish to get involved any further in another one of those discussions that could just go on and on.