2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?

[tommybhoy]

Not at all, take notice of the scaling above the 2 Gb 6950 on faster GPUs with less Vram.

We all know 560 448 and upwards are faster than 6970 in BF3 and are not interested in that.

Skyrim or any other game doesn't come in for discussion on said point.

We have only been discussing 1GB/2Gb 560ti SLI and 1Gb/2Gb 6050 CrossFire, between the exact same gpu in regards to BF3!

To clarify, I am saying there are minimum fps difference between said cards in said game and settings.

 

[andybird123]

just to back you up tommy, he's also ignoring the chart from a few pages back that shows that 560ti 1GB SLI shows a massive drop in min frame rate on 4xAA where as 580GTX doesn't

2 x 560ti should be faster than a single 580, but it isn't due to lack of VRAM

he then keeps banging on that a 560ti can't feed more than 1GB of VRAM ignoring the fact that we are talking about TWO 560ti's

if I can be bothered I'll dig up Decto's 560ti 2GB results that clearly show that with 2GB of VRAM all of a sudden 560ti SLI works fine and works better than a single 580

oh, and in case anyone missed it, bhavv doesn't even own a copy of BF3 yet thinks he's the master of knowing what card can play at what settings

 

[Surveyor]

No, its not misleading at all to state that a GTX 570 will always be faster than a GTX 560 ti. In BF3 the difference is 18 > 31 min FPS, which is a 40% increase.

The misleading part was that it was stated to be "typically 30-40% faster than any version of the 560" when it should have said it's 30-40% faster in certain specific circumstanes.

My post corrected that statement and showed that the GTX 570 is typically 12-17% faster.

In specific circumstances it may be more, it may be less, but that wasn't the statement I was replying to.

Please stop taking posts out of context and posting replies that aren't relevant to what was said.

 

[andybird123]

here you go bhaav;

Seems my full ultra results for the GTX560Ti 2GB meet your specification as it's 42 fps average and 35fps minimum. Plays very nicely on the I5. Was jerky on a 3.6GHz Q6700 though.

AD

Edit ... PS Check my 2GB 560sli - Ultra including 4XMSAA .... 90degree FOV

Cba going through it all again either tbph, it's all been said and done to hell and back.



As your screenshot above shows, there is absolutely no problems under full Ultra settings regarding BF3 with 1GB cards whatsoever, I don't think you will find anyone in argument with that, you just need to go through the thread and read through it, not skim it, to see the effects of full ultra, not custom settings regarding 1Gb/2Gb cards @1080p and above which was the purpose of the thread.

***EDIT***

Just found this:

http://translate.googleusercontent....g=ALkJrhipNdmGFY0qfCV-PhP1vFiP-pXiKA#pagehead

A single 2GB 6950 with higher minimum fps than 560ti SLI on everything ultra@1080p is a clear enough indication for anyone of the effects of vram limitations in BF3!

GTX 560ti 1GB SLI BF3 Ultra > Min 16FPS AVG. 50FPS
GTX560ti 2GB SLI BF3 Ultra 90 FOV > Min 50FPS AVG 75FPS

I will now just keep replying with this comment to everything you post on the subject of BF3 performance;

GTX 560ti 1GB SLI BF3 Ultra > Min 16FPS AVG. 50FPS
GTX560ti 2GB SLI BF3 Ultra 90 FOV > Min 50FPS AVG 75FPS

in case you missed it;
GTX 560ti 1GB SLI BF3 Ultra > Min 16FPS AVG. 50FPS
GTX560ti 2GB SLI BF3 Ultra 90 FOV > Min 50FPS AVG 75FPS

What's that, like 190% increase in minimum frame rate JUST from a VRAM upgrade?

 

[kissenger]

Andy, the thing you're overlooking there is that SLI changes everything. With SLI you effectively double the computing power of your GPU, in which case it will be able to make use of the extra vram. However, just sticking more vram on a card that can't really do anything with it is pointless.

That's the real issue here. And that's why a card with barely over 1gb vram like the 570 will beat a comparable card but with 2gb of vram, like the 6970, in many situations. The point is that, yes a lot of vram is necessary in some circumstances (e.g. eyefinity or SLI), but it's only one factor among many that determine performance quality.

 

[andybird123]

That was the entire basis of bhavv's argument

He said 560 2gb would be no better than 1gb in sli
he said sli 1gb could run ultra and 2gb sli would see no improvement because vram made no difference to 560 sli
he also said that no game including bf3 (a game he doesn't even own) needed, or could make use of or would show any benefit from more than 1gb of vram even with 4xaa at 1080p

 

[kissenger]

That was the entire basis of bhavv's argument

He said 560 2gb would be no better than 1gb in sli
he said sli 1gb could run ultra and 2gb sli would see no improvement because vram made no difference to 560 sli
he also said that no game including bf3 (a game he doesn't even own) needed, or could make use of or would show any benefit from more than 1gb of vram even with 4xaa at 1080p

I don't recall reading that by bhavv. If that's the case though, then I think he's wrong on the point about SLI. As for single cards, I don't think anything more than 1gb-1.5gb would be necessary on anything other than the new 7-series ATI cards provided you're staying at 1080p or below.

 

[Cleeecooo]

That was the entire basis of bhavv's argument

He said 560 2gb would be no better than 1gb in sli
he said sli 1gb could run ultra and 2gb sli would see no improvement because vram made no difference to 560 sli
he also said that no game including bf3 (a game he doesn't even own) needed, or could make use of or would show any benefit from more than 1gb of vram even with 4xaa at 1080p

560 2gb SLI wouldn't be significantly better than 560 1gb SLI at 1080p

The game isn't such a huge VRAM eater IF you are sensible with eyecandy and don't add pointless crap in that will eat VRAM and not produce a visual difference.

Why does he need to own BF3 to make his arguements valid? This is the sort of thin that looking at numbers is enough for.

Not many games will make use of more than 1gb VRAM at 1080p (again, with sensible settings) so bhavvs not far off.

 

[ALXAndy]

Cleeecooo.

PC gaming is only as good as its last game.

Look what Crysis did when it was released. I would bet that had I been into PC gaming then (was in between countries ) that the very same arguments were going down.

You can only base future hardware and upgrades for PC gaming on the last good stand out title released. That title just so happens to be BF3. That means that any game DICE release now will use the FBII engine and thus, pig on vram.

Hence, it's not a sensible idea to recommend that people ignore that as they will then end up disappointed somewhere down the road.

If some one is looking at a high end GPU it's bonkers to advise them to get something that is already out of date.

Whilst I do completely agree with your "use common sense" philosophy the fact is mate when you spend over £300 or so on a graphics card you do not want to have to compromise.

This next part isn't aimed at you, it's just aimed at what has transpired during the duration of this thread.

Sitting here talking about the past may well bring a warm smile to peoples' faces. Sadly it does bugger all for the future. BF3 has shown what it will take to take graphics to the next level, and it means bundles of power and vram. That has been conclusively shown over the crivens knows how many pages people have been arguing.

To ignore it is, IMO, very ignorant indeed. But hey ho, each to his own.

 

[Final8y]

1)560 2gb SLI wouldn't be significantly better than 560 1gb SLI at 1080p

2)The game isn't such a huge VRAM eater IF you are sensible with eyecandy and don't add pointless crap in that will eat VRAM and not produce a visual difference.

Why does he need to own BF3 to make his arguements valid? This is the sort of thin that looking at numbers is enough for.

Not many games will make use of more than 1gb VRAM at 1080p (again, with sensible settings) so bhavvs not far off.

1) You either missed the graphs, our ignoring them.

2) Most people who go multi GPU want to turn settings up, (sensible or not) and not down, and i see time and time again multi GPU users complaining when the Vram stops them from doing so.

 

[Final8y]

Cleeecooo.

PC gaming is only as good as its last game.

Look what Crysis did when it was released. I would bet that had I been into PC gaming then (was in between countries ) that the very same arguments were going down.

You can only base future hardware and upgrades for PC gaming on the last good stand out title released. That title just so happens to be BF3. That means that any game DICE release now will use the FBII engine and thus, pig on vram.

Hence, it's not a sensible idea to recommend that people ignore that as they will then end up disappointed somewhere down the road.

If some one is looking at a high end GPU it's bonkers to advise them to get something that is already out of date.

Whilst I do completely agree with your "use common sense" philosophy the fact is mate when you spend over £300 or so on a graphics card you do not want to have to compromise.

This next part isn't aimed at you, it's just aimed at what has transpired during the duration of this thread.

Sitting here talking about the past may well bring a warm smile to peoples' faces. Sadly it does bugger all for the future. BF3 has shown what it will take to take graphics to the next level, and it means bundles of power and vram. That has been conclusively shown over the crivens knows how many pages people have been arguing.

To ignore it is, IMO, very ignorant indeed. But hey ho, each to his own.

+1
I'm sometimes sensible with the settings and sometimes not depending on the game, but that's my choice when and not because i was forced to compromise because of Vram.

People understand that compromise sometimes has to be made when buying a gfx card when it comes to GPU power and get less upset when that has to be done compared to the people who have more than enough GPU Power but then have to compromise because of the Vram.

We all upgrade eventually because of the GPU power becomes not enough over time that's natural but having to upgrade because of Running out of Vram is gutting for most for who it effects with in reason.

 

[kissenger]

Cleeecooo.

PC gaming is only as good as its last game.

Look what Crysis did when it was released. I would bet that had I been into PC gaming then (was in between countries ) that the very same arguments were going down.

You can only base future hardware and upgrades for PC gaming on the last good stand out title released. That title just so happens to be BF3. That means that any game DICE release now will use the FBII engine and thus, pig on vram.

Hence, it's not a sensible idea to recommend that people ignore that as they will then end up disappointed somewhere down the road.

If some one is looking at a high end GPU it's bonkers to advise them to get something that is already out of date.

Whilst I do completely agree with your "use common sense" philosophy the fact is mate when you spend over £300 or so on a graphics card you do not want to have to compromise.

This next part isn't aimed at you, it's just aimed at what has transpired during the duration of this thread.

Sitting here talking about the past may well bring a warm smile to peoples' faces. Sadly it does bugger all for the future. BF3 has shown what it will take to take graphics to the next level, and it means bundles of power and vram. That has been conclusively shown over the crivens knows how many pages people have been arguing.

To ignore it is, IMO, very ignorant indeed. But hey ho, each to his own.

This is all well and good but you actually said to someone asking for advice on here that they should buy the 2gb 560Ti instead of the 570 because, according to you, the Ti would perform better because, quote, "it's all about the vram". That is obviously a load of nonsense.

Yes, it is true that BF3 is a beast and requires lots of GPU processing power and vram to max out, but that doesn't mean that tacking on a load of extra vram onto a card that is innately not up to the job of maxing this game out does anything. Which is why the 2gb 560Ti, 2gb 6950, 2gb 6970 and the 2.5gb and 3gb versions of the 570 and 580, respectively, have more vram on them than they can make efficient use of. Unless, that is, you're putting them in SLI/Xfire, or playing at super-high resolutions.

 

[andybird123]

560 2gb SLI wouldn't be significantly better than 560 1gb SLI at 1080p

The game isn't such a huge VRAM eater IF you are sensible with eyecandy and don't add pointless crap in that will eat VRAM and not produce a visual difference.

Why does he need to own BF3 to make his arguements valid? This is the sort of thin that looking at numbers is enough for.

Not many games will make use of more than 1gb VRAM at 1080p (again, with sensible settings) so bhavvs not far off.

1) the fact that you've posted this on the very same page that I've posted 2 graphs showing a 180% improvement in minimum frame rate from 1GB SLI to 2GB SLI is frankly hilarious (min 16FPS on the 1GB's and 50FPS on the 2GB's)

2) this entire thread is about playing BF3 on Ultra (the preset) with everything on and nothing turned off because it's in YOUR OPINION "pointless", we all dealt with "ah but if you turn off x setting" argmuent 4 pages ago

3) this entire thread is about BF3 on Ultra, it's plainly retarded to argue that your choice of cards (in bhavv's case twin 560ti 1GB's) can play a game on maximum settings when you don't even own a copy of the game and people who have owned both the game and that set of cards know for a fact and have posted independent verification that they can't

4) this thread is not about "games" at 1080p with "sensible" settings, it is specifically about BF3 on Ultra with nothing turned off just because it supports a particular argument, Ultra, full on Ultra, wether you agree or not that Ultra looks better than any other setting is irrelevant

@kissenger, no one is saying anyone should buy a single 2GB 560ti instead of a single 1GB (in fact I've frequently said just the opposite - if you are only getting one card then get the 1GB and save some money as neither as a single card can play BF3 on Ultra), if ALXAndy has said that on another thread then that is an entirely different argument and not one that really needs continuing on this thread

however, if someone already has a 1GB and is thinking of getting a 2nd one because they want to play BF3 on Ultra then my advice is not to bother as you'll see almost no improvement over a single 1GB card, you need to either switch to a 580, or if you are intent on 560ti SLI then it needs to be 2GB versions to play BF3 on Ultra

I would be willing to bet that even 570 1.25GB SLI could see issues with VRAM limitation in BF2 on Ultra - although I personally haven't tested that and haven't seen any review data on big multiplayer maps to say it for definite

the fact that in the table above 580 1.5GB gets min 34 FPS, and my 580 3GB never drops below 54 on the same settings would also tend to indicate to me that there is an improvement there too, even on a single card basis

in case anyone missed it, before replying, please bear in mind that this thread is entirely about BF3 on Ultra (e.g. Maximum settings)

Two 1 Gb GTX 560 tis absolutely do not run games at a slide snow, people on this forum are purely full of crap every time the vram discussion pops up again and again.

There's not even heavy stutter in any game I play, including Witcher 2 and Shogun 2 with 4x AA forced through an ini modification.

1 Gb Vram is still fine, I havnt got a single game that wont run on SLI 1 Gb 560 tis until I am limited by pure GPU grunt (e.g. Witcher 2 with uber sampling).

I dont really care about BF3, but all the benchmarks in the world show GPU limitation not Vram (1 Gb vs 2 Gb of the same architecture in any unbiased review shows nothing more than a 2 or 3 FPS increase to minimum FPS. any noticable improvement only happens with a more powerful GPU).

Regardless of that, a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560 tis in SLI ABSOLUTELY WILL run BF3 on ultra settings and 4x MSAA with no problem with 8 Gb system ram. A single one wont because its GPU is too slow.

in case you missed it;
GTX 560ti 1GB SLI BF3 Ultra > Min 16FPS AVG. 50FPS
GTX560ti 2GB SLI BF3 Ultra 90 FOV > Min 50FPS AVG 75FPS

What's that, like 190% increase in minimum frame rate JUST from a VRAM upgrade?

 

[ALXAndy]

This is all well and good but you actually said to someone asking for advice on here that they should buy the 2gb 560Ti instead of the 570 because, according to you, the Ti would perform better because, quote, "it's all about the vram". That is obviously a load of nonsense.

I said that I would. Not that he/she should. The reason is simple. I had a 1.2gb 470 and it wasn't enough for BF3. Framerates were fine, texture caching wasn't.

Am I not allowed my own opinion then?

As for it's all about the vram IMO it is. For all of the reasons and facts (go take a look) posted in this thread.

I'm also completely aware of how gaming evolves. Now that there has been one game released that looks like that they all need to be or they will get bad reviews. Look at how Duke Nukem Forever went down.

A game that technically there was absolutely nothing wrong with. It worked, it was smooth and it was free from any major bugs. I personally played through it twice. However, given the reception it received and the terrible scores it got you would think that it was completely broken beyond repair and unplayable.

Such is the nature of the fickle human. It was fine to play and worked very well. Yet because it used old graphics it got slagged off to high heaven.

Even Deus Ex worried my 470 into unplayable frame rates and I'm equally sure that was down to vram limitations also.

 

[Surveyor]

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

He must prefer the safety of General Discussion.

 

[tommybhoy]

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

+1

 

[bhindi]

So the point is - No point in having 2gb + Vram if your card has not got the grunt in the first place .

 

[MartynB85]

So the point is - No point in having 2gb + Vram if your card has not got the grunt in the first place .

pretty much.
I've got 2gb in my laptop, its never used more than about 400mb as it just hasn't got the minerals to keep decent fps.

 

[andybird123]

pretty much.
I've got 2gb in my laptop, its never used more than about 400mb as it just hasn't got the minerals to keep decent fps.

the what sorry?
the minerals?

 

[andybird123]

So the point is - No point in having 2gb + Vram if your card has not got the grunt in the first place .

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

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