-
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
Not with AMD(6950>70 CrossFire), ~40fps on uber@1080p(everything maxed except motion blur is off) using ~750mb each card:
Last edited:
No problem, although I just checked the settings and noticed motion blur is off
(above post has been corrected) but the rest is maxed, sorry about that mate but I've not fired it up in a long time so I forgot about that.
Just checked and motion blur kills the fps when you turn around quickly.
I really should actually play the game, heard it's quite good
, I only bought it due to the zero DRM policy and never played it at the time because it used to run terible on my Q6600.
It really is a pretty looking game though, just shows what a bit of effort gets you in DX9 never mind DX11!
(above post has been corrected) but the rest is maxed, sorry about that mate but I've not fired it up in a long time so I forgot about that.Just checked and motion blur kills the fps when you turn around quickly.
I really should actually play the game, heard it's quite good
, I only bought it due to the zero DRM policy and never played it at the time because it used to run terible on my Q6600.It really is a pretty looking game though, just shows what a bit of effort gets you in DX9 never mind DX11!
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).
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).
If you remember a couple of little tricks then 1280MB VRAM is fine for BF3 1080p Ultra 4xAA and probably other games too:
Set the game to automatically turn off aero desktop in Vista/W7 - frees up 100MB+ VRAM
Close open web browsers - frees up another 100-150MB VRAM
As far as i understand it just because a game can use additional VRAM if the card has it, it is not essential if it does not.
But quite why AMD have put 3GB on their new cards is just a marketing gimmic imo and surely inflates the price of the cards unnecessarily.
Set the game to automatically turn off aero desktop in Vista/W7 - frees up 100MB+ VRAM
Close open web browsers - frees up another 100-150MB VRAM
As far as i understand it just because a game can use additional VRAM if the card has it, it is not essential if it does not.
But quite why AMD have put 3GB on their new cards is just a marketing gimmic imo and surely inflates the price of the cards unnecessarily.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 477
- Location
- Shropshire
Ive got a GTX580 1.5Gb vram and a 24" benq 120hrz 1080p monitor and in skyrim i was using about 1.1Gb last night and thats everything set to its max setting and the game is silky smooth fraps was showing most of the time between 80 and 110 fps and bf3 ive got everything set to ultra and the other AA settings or what ever they are set to the highest they can go and thats smooth as well that uses about 1.4Gb of vram so vram isnt an issue for me
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
1.5 GB Cards here, SLI at 2560x 1440 - can't say I have ever experienced slowdowns or slide-shows EVER since I started playing BF3 (although I don't use MSAA normally, I can also turn on 2xMSAA quite happily). Remember, that 1.5 GB is shared across both cards, so it is effectively less than 2 GB.
Historically, the trend has been for VRAM requirements to slowly creep up. I still think we are in an era where most games will be happy with 1 to 1.5 GB, but for gaming at the highest possible settings, you are looking at 1.5 to 2 GB.
Probably another year or two before 2 GB will become standard - imo when the new console wave hits but no sooner. No one is going to make games which have a hard requirement of having so much VRAM, because they will be killing their own chances in the market.
Historically, the trend has been for VRAM requirements to slowly creep up. I still think we are in an era where most games will be happy with 1 to 1.5 GB, but for gaming at the highest possible settings, you are looking at 1.5 to 2 GB.
Probably another year or two before 2 GB will become standard - imo when the new console wave hits but no sooner. No one is going to make games which have a hard requirement of having so much VRAM, because they will be killing their own chances in the market.
It's due to using a 384bit memory interface, it meant they either had 1.5Gb or 3Gb and 1.5Gb would have seemed a backwards step from their previous 2Gb 6970's.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
@Random Guy
right, so you aren't playing at max settings then!
@everyone (like bhavv)
this is the last resort of the "VRAM doesn't matter" brigade, "turn down / off certain settings and it's not an issue" YES but the entire thread is about WHAT is the minimum card you need to play BF3 on MAX in game settings (e.g. Ultra with everything on), you absolutely cannot play BF3 on Ultra on any 1GB card - even in SLI, you could run quad SLI on a 1GB card and you still wouldn't be able to play ultra, because you would be VRAM limited not GPU limited
AAAAAARRRRRGHGGHGHGHGHGH!!!!!!111oneone
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
Come on now, what are max settings for you? Every slider turned all the way to the top? I think you need to be a bit flexible here, because if all my settings are at Ultra and I can add 2xMSAA to get decent playable framerates across all MP experiences, then I think it hardly matters does it?
In context, the OP is discussing 1080p and I am talking about 2560x1440, so your comment is not exactly relevant.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I want Ultra, the preset, the one that the game designers put in the game
I don't want Ultra with some of the ultra settings turned off, that is not Ultra
Ultra = 4xMSAA, if you are not using 4xMSAA then you are not using Ultra, simple as, you are not "adding 2xmsaa" you are removing 4xmsaa
this entire thread is about what card do you need to play BF3 on Ultra
any post that says "I don't care about BF3" or "I play BF3 with x setting turned down / off" adds no value
I do recognise that you are playing at a higher resolution, but again as the thread is about 1080p Ultra and that is not what you are playing at, your post says you are playing at a higher resolution AND Ultra, but you aren't, so it is misleading
Max settings are exactly that, max settings, if someone says "my high-mid range card can play x game on max settings" and then you find out he's turning stuff down, he is a cheat and a liar and a charlatan
I don't want Ultra with some of the ultra settings turned off, that is not Ultra
Ultra = 4xMSAA, if you are not using 4xMSAA then you are not using Ultra, simple as, you are not "adding 2xmsaa" you are removing 4xmsaa
this entire thread is about what card do you need to play BF3 on Ultra
any post that says "I don't care about BF3" or "I play BF3 with x setting turned down / off" adds no value
I do recognise that you are playing at a higher resolution, but again as the thread is about 1080p Ultra and that is not what you are playing at, your post says you are playing at a higher resolution AND Ultra, but you aren't, so it is misleading
Max settings are exactly that, max settings, if someone says "my high-mid range card can play x game on max settings" and then you find out he's turning stuff down, he is a cheat and a liar and a charlatan
Last edited:
Yes. That surely is max settings isn't it?!?!?
No - you're right - it doesn't really matter but max settings equals max settings and 2xMSAA isn't max settings.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
@Andy/Rusty: You seem to be missing the point here. Let me clarify - If I can crank settings up that high at 2560x1440 with an effective 1.5 GB VRAM, I think that at 1080p, like I said in a previous post, you can get away with a card with 1 to 1.5 GB VRAM for a good playable experience.
In my view, the OP is asking if 2GB is now a hard requirement. I am saying that it clearly isn't the norm yet, as evidenced by my own findings at a much higher resolution in BF3.
In my view, the OP is asking if 2GB is now a hard requirement. I am saying that it clearly isn't the norm yet, as evidenced by my own findings at a much higher resolution in BF3.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
For reference I regulary see BF3 use 1950mb vram on my 7970 on the Caspian Border map @1920x1200 with everything set to ultra and 4xmsaa and 8xaf.
It depends whether it is the GPU or VRAM becomes the limitation at high resolutions. For most games at most resolutions it is the GPU's which causes the bottleneck. Also, in many cases memory bandwidth is much more of an issue than actual MB.
I would much rather have 1GB on a 256bit bus than 2GB on a 128bit bus.
The balance between GPU, memory bandwidth and VRAM is quite hard to strike and will vary from game to game. I would say that a GTX570 1.25GB or 6950 1GB will be fine for most current games at 1920x1080 with high settings. Both will be better than a GTX460 or 6850 with 2GB each.
For ultra-high resolution and multi monitor 2GB or more could provide decent benefits, but you could always just turn AA down a notch or two.
I would much rather have 1GB on a 256bit bus than 2GB on a 128bit bus.
The balance between GPU, memory bandwidth and VRAM is quite hard to strike and will vary from game to game. I would say that a GTX570 1.25GB or 6950 1GB will be fine for most current games at 1920x1080 with high settings. Both will be better than a GTX460 or 6850 with 2GB each.
For ultra-high resolution and multi monitor 2GB or more could provide decent benefits, but you could always just turn AA down a notch or two.