2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?

[dave_beast]

Some games now, even at 1080p can use up to 1800mb of vram when maxing out AA etc.
So factor in higher resolutions and more demanding games and you're breaching 2gb vram usage.
Anyone who says 1gb, 1.2gb or 1.5gb vram is fine to buy nowdays is trying to justify something, or just being a trolling fanboiii.

If you've got a card with 1.5gb of vram running a game that can utilise 1800mb of vram at a specific res, then there will be a reduction in performance, that is logic.

 

[James J]

I call 5 fps a slideshow, that was what i got when turning on 4 x aa in bf3 on caspian on 1gb sli

Lol something seriously wrong with your computer there then, seen as my housemates 460GTX 1gb card runs ultra at around 25-30fps. Not exactly ideal by any means, but not exactly a 5 fps slideshow like you are making out either.

 

[bhavv]

If you've got a card with 1.5gb of vram running a game that can utilise 1800mb of vram at a specific res, then there will be a reduction in performance, that is logic.

Will the reduction in performance be noticable?

Wouldnt you rather have a faster GPU (1280 Mb GTX 570, or 1536 Mb GTX 580) than more Vram (2 Gb GTX 560 ti)?

I definitely would.

Vram isnt an issue when you have over £400 to spend on a GPU - you buy as much as possible if spending that much.

Vram definitely is an issue on <£200 cards, because first of all none of these cards are powerful enough to handle 2 Gb+ Vram, and secondly they are completely outperformed at every resolution by a better GPU with less Vram (GTX 570).

That is logic that seems way to complicatated for the 'Vram fanboys / trolls' to accept. It can be repeated a thousand times and they still wont learn.

 

[James J]

Anandtech gpu bench does show some info on the differences between vram on the same chip at same clockrates btw to those that are interested. Example being 460 768mb vs 1024mb cards here

 

[bhavv]

Anandtech gpu bench does show some info on the differences between vram on the same chip at same clockrates btw to those that are interested. Example being 460 768mb vs 1024mb cards here

Those are not the same chip, the 768 Mb GTX 460 is 192 bit, while the 1024 is 256 bit.

Every performance difference between the two is entirely due to the memory bit rate difference, surely you must have known this already.

What you posted is the same thing as assuming that the GTX 560 ti, and 560 ti 448 are the same chip.

 

[James J]

Those are not the same chip, the 768 Mb GTX 460 is 192 bit, while the 1024 is 256 bit.

Every performance difference between the two is entirely due to the memory bit rate difference, surely you must have known this already.

Not necessarily true, as only 1st generation 460 1gb cards are 256bit RAM, whilst the 2nd gen ones are 192bit with 1gb still.

Don't believe me? Enjoy...

"surely you must know this already"

 

[bhavv]

Not necessarily true, as only 1st generation 460 1gb cards are 256bit RAM, whilst the 2nd gen ones are 192bit with 1gb still.

Don't believe me? Enjoy...

"surely you must know this already"

Erm, yes, but the ones tested on the anandtech comparison are obviously first gen 256 bits.

 

[James J]

Erm, yes, but the ones tested on the anandtech comparison are obviously first gen 256 bits.

Based on what? Its on the 2011 gpu bench section and the bitrate isn't listed. Assumation is the chief cause of stupidity, don't do it.

 

[bhavv]

So why do you assume that the results are of the 192 bit card? They are for more than likely not.

 

[coupe69]

Based on what? Its on the 2011 gpu bench section and the bitrate isn't listed. Assumation is the chief cause of stupidity, don't do it.

But surely you're just presuming they're using the newer 192 bit card, no?

Considering the driver used is 262.99 I'm going to presume it's the old 460 1GB with the 256 bit memory interface.

Assumption is the chief cause of stupidity, don't do it

 

[bhavv]

Considering that Anandtech have used the same GTX 460 1 Gb results since the V1 cards, I am going to strongly doubt that they are V2s.

James just doesnt want to admit how much he failed by posting that comparison, and his comment on assumptions being stupid was incredibly ironic.

 

[James J]

So why do you assume that the results are of the 192 bit card? They are for more than likely not.

I don't assume that, hence why I mentioned that the gpu cores are identical, which they are. I didn't link something completely off like the 560 vs 560 448 core thing you spouted at me in my initial post. Not sure whats wrong with you mate as you seem to put across a very moody tone with every reply. Put the kettle on and take a break.

 

[bhavv]

Comparing the 192 bit to the 256 bit GTX 460 and assuming that the difference is due to the Vram is incredibly stupid, equal to comparing a 560 ti to a 560 ti 448.

If you had no idea whether the 1 Gb 460 was 256 or 192 bit, then you shouldnt have posted it as a comparison of two identical GPUs.

The Anand bench GTX 460 is most definitely the 256 bit model, absolutely no doubt in my mind about that as it has been on there since the card very first launched.

 

[James J]

But surely you're just presuming they're using the newer 192 bit card, no?

Considering the driver used is 262.99 I'm going to presume it's the old 460 1GB with the 256 bit memory interface.

Assumption is the chief cause of stupidity, don't do it

Read my other response.

Considering that Anandtech have used the same GTX 460 1 Gb results since the V1 cards, I am going to strongly doubt that they are V2s.

James just doesnt want to admit how much he failed by posting that comparison, and his comment on assumptions being stupid was incredibly ironic.

Nice edit, yet you have no idea when anandtech made those benchmarks, which card was used and the driver could have just been cherry picked instead of a "current release whql" for lack of a better saying. The driver ini code is identical for both revisions, muting that point entirely.

I don't need to admit "how much I failed", when I've simply tried to bring facts to the discussion, which you've turned into an argument with an amazing lack of knowledge and general obnoxious tone.

I'll read whatever you respond with, but don't count on an response.

 

[bhavv]

Well I definitely bought a pair of V1 GTX 460s on release day, and those benchmarks on Anandtach have been there since then as I have been looking at them ever since.

Do anandtech have an email addy I can ask them for you on this issue? I'll look for one and ask them if I find it.

 

[Surveyor]

I made a good decision not to join in this discussion.

The content and tone of some the recent posts is sad to see in this forum.

 

[kissenger]

Based on all evidence I've seen from benchmark tests, and on my own anecdotal evidence, 1.2gb is fine at 1080p, at 1200p you start to notice a drop off, and in eyefinity there is a significant hit. Yes, on something like BF3 you will need to lower your settings slightly if you're using a 570 or a 560ti, e.g., but that's not because of a lack of vram. You could stick 10gb vram on those cards and then won't max out BF3.

Some people are just delusional about vram though. There was even a guy on here that advised someone looking to buy a new GPU to buy the 2gb vram 560ti over the 1.2gb vram 570 because he said the card with more vram would give better performance. In actual fact the 1.2gb 570 is typically 30-40% faster than any version of the 560.

 

[bhavv]

Some people are just delusional about vram though. There was even a guy on here that advised someone looking to buy a new GPU to buy the 2gb vram 560ti over the 1.2gb vram 570 because he said the card with more vram would give better performance. In actual fact the 1.2gb 570 is typically 30-40% faster than any version of the 560.

This is mainly what my problem is with people on this Vram debate. More Vram does nothing to help a slower GPU. If it did then we would clearly see 2 Gb GTX 560 tis outperforming 1.2 GB / 1.5 Gb GTX 570 / 580.

Most people here dont have a budget to afford a 3 Gb GTX 580 / 7970, or simply wouldnt spend that much money on a single graphics card for whatever reason.

Advising people to buy 2 Gb on anything lower than a 1280 Mb GTX 560 ti 448 is simply wrong, and that card is not going to struggle with any current game at 1080p.

You could stick 10gb vram on those cards and then won't max out BF3.

+1

 

[Surveyor]

In actual fact the 1.2gb 570 is typically 30-40% faster than any version of the 560.

I'm still not getting involved in the main discussion but I assume you're still talking about the GTX 560 Ti and from what I've seen 30-40% is way off the mark.

Performance Summary

For anyone who doesn't want to click the link it shows 12-17% depending on the resolution.

 

[Final8y]

Vram definitely is an issue on <£200 cards, because first of all none of these cards are powerful enough to handle 2 Gb+ Vram, and secondly they are completely outperformed at every resolution by a better GPU with less Vram (GTX 570).

The problem is you don't take into account the shifting variable burden of GPU power and Vram and treat them as either one or the other and linear when if fact that is not the case most of the time.

A GPU with more power can over come some of the performance loss because of Vram, but only by so much depending on the game.

The 570 Beats the SLI 560 minimums when with full in game AA because the 570 has a little more vram than the 560 SLI, the 560 SLI grunt can not make up for the greater burden of Vram that it has, if the 560 SLI had the same Vram as the 570 then the 560 SLI would likely win.