2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?

[555BUK]

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 only indicates that 1950mb is buffered, not that it is in active use or needed. The VRAM in active use will likely be significantly less, although there is no easy way to measure it.

 

[andybird123]

@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.

I'm not missing the point, based on your experience of a different resolution and different settings, you are GUESSING and posting up an opinion

2GB isn't a hard requirement if Max settings isn't a hard requirement, but then by that argument you could just buy a GTX550/6850 and turn everything down to the point it's playable

personally, I have tried 580 1.5GB at 1080p and Ultra (actual Ultra, not something similar that I'll refer to as Ultra and then later admit is Ultra with a couple of settings turned off), and for me I noticed occaisional stutter
if the 3GB card was no better I would have gladly returned it and saved myself £50 sticking to the 1.5GB card

 

[Random Guy]

...2GB isn't a hard requirement if Max settings isn't a hard requirement,...

Thank you!

I agree.

 

[varkanoid]

Wouldn't a game be optimised to use vram ? ie if it sees 1.2gb its not going to try and use more ?

Also I noticed in my nvidia control panel it says 1.2gb but 4gb available for memory.

So does the stuttering occur because its switch from the onboard VRAM to dd3 memory?

I game at 1920 x 1080, not played BF3 played Crysis 2 without a problem.

 

[andybird123]

Wouldn't a game be optimised to use vram ? ie if it sees 1.2gb its not going to try and use more ?

games usually have an "auto" setting that does exactly that yes - it looks at your card / VRAM and based on a database the developers set up it tells you what settings you should use for best effect

however, you can override that and increase the settings to unplayable ones IF you choose to (e.g. the auto tells you use High but you go and set it to Ultra)

and yes, basically stuttering starts to occur when the GPU realises it doesn't have the right textures loaded and has to go looking for them, it may or may not be reflected in the frame rate and may or may not be noticed by the user if it's a borderline situation like a 1.5gb card and the game thinks it wants 1.6gb to have all the textures it needs loaded all the time (just like micro stuttering on crossfire - some people say they don't notice it)

 

[MartynB85]

1gb is not enough. I hit 1gb in bf3 with a 6870 @ 1280x1024, with textures turn up. It was horrible to play, but frame rates didn't drop, it just stuttered like crazy.

You need more than 1gb but 2gb isnt quite needed yet imo.

 

[andybird123]

Thank you!

I agree. I have nothing to add to this thread of any use or in any way in relation to the question the OP asked regarding running BF3 at 1080p on Ultra without sneakily switching it to Custom and turning things off until it runs ok.

fixed it for you

the title of the thread is slightly misleading, but the text of what he is actually asking is pretty clear - what card / VRAM do you need to play BF3 on MAX SETTINGS, unless it's a typo and by "highest" settings he actually means "high" settings

 

[spain]

games usually have an "auto" setting that does exactly that yes - it looks at your card / VRAM and based on a database the developers set up it tells you what settings you should use for best effect

however, you can override that and increase the settings to unplayable ones IF you choose to (e.g. the auto tells you use High but you go and set it to Ultra)

Shogun Total War was the exception, it would turn your settings down if vram was an issue, regardless to what settings you selected. There was a whole song-and-dance about this feature.

If buying a new GPU then 2GB should be the minimum and at the OPs res I agree that it would be required to run at max without issues, whatever they might be.

 

[oweneades]

Wouldn't a game be optimised to use vram ? ie if it sees 1.2gb its not going to try and use more ?

To a point yes (although this will also be down to the driver as well) but there will become a point where the VRAM requirement is greater than what the card has available. It is at this point where performance drops off a cliff.

As an example BF3 @ 3650x1920 with Ultra settings and 4xMSAA definately needs more than 2GB of VRAM. I confirmed this when my old HD6970 simply ran out of VRAM and the game became a stuttery mess.

1080p at the same settings on the other hand may report 2GB used (it actually reports 2-2.4GB used on my HD7970) but the game doesn't *need* this much VRAM (My HD6970 oly reported 1.2-1.5GB VRAM used at the same settings).

Unfortunately as 555BUK states, actual VRAM use is something that is very hard to quantify.

 

[The Slayer_UK]

I'm not missing the point, based on your experience of a different resolution and different settings, you are GUESSING and posting up an opinion

2GB isn't a hard requirement if Max settings isn't a hard requirement, but then by that argument you could just buy a GTX550/6850 and turn everything down to the point it's playable

personally, I have tried 580 1.5GB at 1080p and Ultra (actual Ultra, not something similar that I'll refer to as Ultra and then later admit is Ultra with a couple of settings turned off), and for me I noticed occaisional stutter
if the 3GB card was no better I would have gladly returned it and saved myself £50 sticking to the 1.5GB card

I have a Asus Direct CUII GTX580 1.5Gb and i have everything set to ultra the msa thing and the other option (can never remember what thses settings are actually called) set to its highest and i dont get any stutter at all and is always smooth at 1080p so for me IMO a 1.5Gb card works great and im very happy with the card

 

[Bluntwrapped]

I'm running BF3 with everything on Ultra MSAA/AA maxed @ 1080 res on a pair of 1.5gb GTX 480's. No problems with stuttering here, game is silky smooth. I have my BF3 short cut set to disable desktop composition. I haven't checked actual VRAM usage since it's not been a problem for me so far I'm planning on getting a 2560x1440 monitor in the not too distant future. I fully expect to have to drop a few settings to play at the higher res. As already said by many.. put your settings to high instead of ultra if you are struggling. Barely noticeable difference between the two visually and it'll free up some VRAM

 

[Marine-RX179]

To a point yes (although this will also be down to the driver as well) but there will become a point where the VRAM requirement is greater than what the card has available. It is at this point where performance drops off a cliff.

As an example BF3 @ 3650x1920 with Ultra settings and 4xMSAA definately needs more than 2GB of VRAM. I confirmed this when my old HD6970 simply ran out of VRAM and the game became a stuttery mess.

1080p at the same settings on the other hand may report 2GB used (it actually reports 2-2.4GB used on my HD7970) but the game doesn't *need* this much VRAM (My HD6970 oly reported 1.2-1.5GB VRAM used at the same settings).

Actually I think BF3 vs AMD card is a bad indicator for whether or not the "lack of VRAM" affect performance, considering the AMD cards loses a huge chuck of frame rate with MSAA application due to not liking the Frostbite2 engine, with or without the free vram available even at 1920 res.

 

[oweneades]

Actually I think BF3 vs AMD card is a bad indicator for whether or not the "lack of VRAM" affect performance, considering the AMD cards loses a huge chuck of frame rate with MSAA application due to not liking the Frostbite2 engine, with or without the free vram available even at 1920 res.

I am well aware of this.

It wasn't a case of poor performance on the HD6970 it was a case of a complete slide show as the VRAM was pegged at 2035MB.

Please bare in mind I game at 3560x1920 so VRAM does actually make a difference.

 

[silversurfer]

If you max out the Vram the first thing to cut is the AA. Not every single texture has to be loaded all at once, that isnt going to be a linear performance hit but AA will be constant

Loading of textures would be from main memory so the speed of that is also a consideration

If you dont have enough main memory you have really screwed up and vram is not the best answer. Paging textures or just the game in general to disk is awful.

Personally I'd say make sure you run the whole system without needing any pagefile before going into the idea of doubling vram which is the most expensive route. Someone considering 2gb vram should already have 8gb main memory or more even, so long as its no where near being used up

 

[Final8y]

I'm not missing the point, based on your experience of a different resolution and different settings, you are GUESSING and posting up an opinion

2GB isn't a hard requirement if Max settings isn't a hard requirement, but then by that argument you could just buy a GTX550/6850 and turn everything down to the point it's playable

personally, I have tried 580 1.5GB at 1080p and Ultra (actual Ultra, not something similar that I'll refer to as Ultra and then later admit is Ultra with a couple of settings turned off), and for me I noticed occaisional stutter
if the 3GB card was no better I would have gladly returned it and saved myself £50 sticking to the 1.5GB card

I truly think that some people are ignoring that part.

 

[Final8y]

To a point yes (although this will also be down to the driver as well) but there will become a point where the VRAM requirement is greater than what the card has available. It is at this point where performance drops off a cliff.

As an example BF3 @ 3650x1920 with Ultra settings and 4xMSAA definately needs more than 2GB of VRAM. I confirmed this when my old HD6970 simply ran out of VRAM and the game became a stuttery mess.

1080p at the same settings on the other hand may report 2GB used (it actually reports 2-2.4GB used on my HD7970) but the game doesn't *need* this much VRAM (My HD6970 oly reported 1.2-1.5GB VRAM used at the same settings).

Unfortunately as 555BUK states, actual VRAM use is something that is very hard to quantify.

Indeed it is so why take the chance on having less because some games are Ok when they don't buffer all it can in Vram but then some games will suffer the odd stutter or slight loss of performance because of it.

Its happens time and time again that a game will come out and then hooo, just turn the settings down, i remember when 512 was over kill on the 1800xt and 1900xt and for the most part it was but then Quake 4 need 512Mb for the ultra settings no matter what resolutions.

Some people don't care that they have to turn stuff down which i have no problem with, but if someone asked what they need for max then they should be told exactly that, opinions about what can be noticed is irrelevant because the OP didn't ask that question.

Enthusiasts, some people do what they need and other do because they can and whatever makes them happy is what counts.

 

[tommybhoy]

considering the AMD cards loses a huge chuck of frame rate with MSAA application due to not liking the Frostbite2 engine

As I stated earlier, there is a reason Nvidia cards have better performance in BF3, it's down to Nvidia DCL, if AMD cards didn't like F2 engine, performance would tank in F2 engine, not just lose ~3fps max/~6fps on the minimums.

I truly think that some people are ignoring that part.

The same as they ignore the terms full/max settings and use dial it down a touch, or no need for, or it's fine if you disable this/that.

Like yourself I have no problems if you want to lower settings, but informing point blank that it's not needed(vram) is misleading, and poor advice.

Quite a few folks binned their sli 1Gb 560ti's to get ultra settings in BF3 after being advised 1Gb was plenty.

Someone even advised a forum member along the lines of:

you don't need 2Gb 560ti's, just get 1Gb 560ti's but junk your 4GHz PII quad core, mb and go 2500K, new mb with 8Gb ram rather than say, just get the 2Gb 560's at a cost of about an extra £40 rather than admit their blunder or loss of face even though said 1Gb's 560's would still crumble under full ultra, go figure.

Nvidia's higher end Keplers aren't coming with 2Gb just to make the specs look good, it's because it's now needed@1080p.

At a guess, the 570 was gimped out on the vram to hold back performance from the 580 as by only disabling the cores didn't slow it down enough.

 

[ants83]

i have a 2gb 560ti. i only ever use a max of 1.4 in bf3 and other games, never have i seen usage above this. for the time being 1.5gb is fine IMO and i would have gladly saves some money if i could have purchased 1.5gb instead of 2gig, but its nice to have for the future i guess.

 

[Marine-RX179]

As I stated earlier, there is a reason Nvidia cards have better performance in BF3, it's down to Nvidia DCL, if AMD cards didn't like F2 engine, performance would tank in F2 engine, not just lose ~3fps max/~6fps on the minimums.

Whatever the reason, if BF3 was my game of choice, I wouldn't take a card that loses 33% frame rate over a card that only loses 19.5% frame rate with 4xMSAA, if both card are supposed to be same teir and price range (6970 vs GTX570). Yes people can always speculate why AMD cards do so poorly with MSAA on BF3/Frostbite engine, but regardless of the cause, I think it is just common sense to get the card that perform better in games that they play, rather than "oww~~you tried. Don't worry about the poor MSAA performance...I'll buy you anyway despite the competitor offer a more capable card at the same price point on games that I play." I don't think consumers are charity...

To be honest I was excited about the 7950...but after seeing that AMD STILL looses a huge of frame rate on AA application like the cards in its previous generation (7950 is faster than GTX580 by a fair margin on 0xAA, but once 4xAA applied, it became slower than GTX580 by fair margin in BF3), that became a turn off, and made me want wait for Kepler to see how they perform, as it is likely to offer at least similar performance, the same VRAM benefit, but without the MSAA performance weakness.

 

[Jayster]

^
DAII, Crysis 2, Avp, Shogun 2, modded Skyrim/F3/FNV are some other titles off the top of my head that can utilise >1.5Gb vram@1080p.

The racing games from slightly mad studies can use more than 1.5 too in particular the upcomming project C.A.R.S