2GB Vram The Minimum. Really?

[Jay794]

If you can afford it get as much as possible

 

[tommybhoy]

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...

A Dice dev stated that Nvidia DLC was implemented into the engine, if it increases performance then quit rightly so.

I would never buy a card for 1 game tbh, it's maddness, both the 570/6970 aren't ideal on ultra@1080p, some will play with lower fps, most won't.

Loads of review sites have a bias to how good/bad gpu's are for whatever reasons, there is too much discrepancies imo as one site has the 69** collapsing, and another site doesn't.

Driver updates vastly improved 69** performance from early drivers, the same way the 79** will get boosts.

Oc's best selling gpu of 2011 was the 6950, it wasn't down to charity, it was down to best bang for buck.

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.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviewdb/search.php?q=7950&products=1&reviews=1

Without cherry picking any BF3 results, here's a list of 7950 stock and oc cards reviews, have a look and see how many times the stock 7950 is slower than a 580 with 4xAA.

I'm not advocating to go and buy a 7950, if you want performance right now, then there isn't much point getting anything else though.

If you can wait(how long is anybody's guess), then of course it makes sense to see what the competition can bring to the table, if there is no blind brand loyalty(which you don't suffer from, from what I gather).

I'm not jumping from the rooftops with the 79** performance@1080p due to my current setup, I'm waiting to see what Kepler brings to the table to see if it's even worth a change, as it stands in regards to the 79**'s, for me it's not, Iv'e been on faster performance for over a year for less than the cost of a 7970.

 

[Final8y]

A Dice dev stated that Nvidia DLC was implemented into the engine, if it increases performance then quit rightly so.

Funny thing is that BF3 is a Gaming Evolved title and people would presume it means the same as TWIMTBP and everything would be done in favour when it just means AMD worked together with the developer on some aspects and even when money is involved the developer is not limited to implementations favourable to AMD, its just reassurance that same aspect will work on AMD, DICE also worked with NV on that title.

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/12/12/bf3techinterview/2/

 

[Marine-RX179]

Oc's best selling gpu of 2011 was the 6950, it wasn't down to charity, it was down to best bang for buck.

I was talking about paying the same/more money for a slower card (the performance I quoted was for GTX570 vs 6970), not the 6950 which is known to be one of the best bang for bucks card of last gen.

And I think you misunderstood about I'm saying about "poor MSAA performance" for AMD card. I'm not talking about how many games that 7950 beat the GTX580 in on 1920 res 4xAA, but about the % of frame rate lost going from 0xAA to 4xAA. The 7950 does beat the GTX580 in most games at 4xAA, but it is beating it in the condition of losing bigger % of frame rate going from 0xAA, so you can't help but to question if AMD could have improve more on their GPU architecture to lose less frame rate on AA application. I mean if you look at 0xAA results, you could even argue that 7950 is streets ahead of the GTX580...but because of it loses so much more frame rate than GTX580 on AA application, it makes it to be only tiny be faster than the GTX580. So what I'm saying is AMD cards clearly got the grunt (looking at 0xAA results), but the AA performance is dragging their legs.

 

[tommybhoy]

^
I know you were, it was dropped in to show that a £70 cheaper card achieved the same performance as the 570/6970's for the people with 'more common sense' that you were pointing out.

Funny thing is that BF3 is a Gaming Evolved title and people would presume it means the same as TWIMTBP and everything would de done in favour when it just means AMD worked together with the developer on some aspects and even when money is involved the developer is not limited to implementations favourable to AMD, its just reassurance that same aspect will work on AMD, DICE also worked with NV on that title.

http://blogs.amd.com/play/2011/12/12/bf3techinterview/2/

Yes, I've pointed that out before in the past(didn't show any links to anything about it though) but it was ignored, no one here picked up on it, iirc I was even told nonsence, BF3's an Nvidia title, that's why it performs better.

I wonder how it would have ran on AMD if it was indeed a TWIMTBP title.

 

[Carcer]

My lowly 460 GTX 1gb has a **** fit if i try everything on ultra ; ;

 

[arc@css]

I was talking about paying the same/more money for a slower card (the performance I quoted was for GTX570 vs 6970), not the 6950 which is known to be one of the best bang for bucks card of last gen.

And I think you misunderstood about I'm saying about "poor MSAA performance" for AMD card. I'm not talking about how many games that 7950 beat the GTX580 in on 1920 res 4xAA, but about the % of frame rate lost going from 0xAA to 4xAA. The 7950 does beat the GTX580 in most games at 4xAA, but it is beating it in the condition of losing bigger % of frame rate going from 0xAA, so you can't help but to question if AMD could have improve more on their GPU architecture to lose less frame rate on AA application. I mean if you look at 0xAA results, you could even argue that 7950 is streets ahead of the GTX580...but because of it loses so much more frame rate than GTX580 on AA application, it makes it to be only tiny be faster than the GTX580. So what I'm saying is AMD cards clearly got the grunt (looking at 0xAA results), but the AA performance is dragging their legs.

This is my only issue with them; if they improve this aspect of the performance then I'd very likely go back to buying Radeons again. Until then, Nvidia all the way for me.

 

[bhavv]

All these Vram arguments all the time and there is yet not one single valid comparison across the entire net of 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 tis in BF3

No OCUK's unsourced marketing graphs dont count, you would think with this much whinging and whining all over the place someone just might do a proper comparison review between those two cards.

My lowly 460 GTX 1gb has a **** fit if i try everything on ultra ; ;

A GTX 460 is too slow in the first place for BF3 ultra, its pure GPU, not Vram limitation on a low - mid range card like that. All the people on this forum using two 1 Gb GTX 560 tis in SLI and more importantly with 8 Gb ram dont get any stutter or lag in BF3 @ ultra settings, and manage to maintain a framerate of 60+ FPS.

@random guy
right, so you aren't playing at max settings then!

4x MSAA isnt exactly maximum AA, and is negligible over 2x in terms of visual quality. If you to play with 'max AA', then you need to be forcing 8x SSAA through your driver settings. I only play games with 4-8x SSAA if it can be forced on via the drivers and it is massively superior and far more strain on my PC than lousy 4x MSAA would be, but I dont get any lag until I reach a hard GPU limit of simply not having enough raw GPU power. There are very very few games out there that I cant run, BF3 I dont own, but everyone mentions Shogun 2 - I ran Shogun 2 using an Ini tweak to make it think I had 2 Gb vram so I could enable 4x MSAA, and I still dont get any lag.

EVERYTIME someone complains about stutter or lag on their PC, theres something else obviously wrong with their spec (most likely cases are only 4 Gb system ram, or only a single GTX 460 / 5770 graphics card, well DURRRR, obviously your PC is too slow and doesnt have anywhere near enough ram, YOU ARE NOT VRAM LIMITED!).

 

[Final8y]

4x MSAA isnt exactly maximum AA, and is negligible over 2x in terms of visual quality. If you to play with 'max AA', then you need to be forcing 8x SSAA through your driver settings.

2XAA over 4XAA is negligible in visual quality is a matter of opinion and game, res, screen size and user dependent.

MAX AA in the context of this thread is clearly about Ingame AA and not max driver level.

 

[bhavv]

The reason why 'ingame settings' dont allow you to set a higher AA than 4x or 8x MSAA in just about every game is because most setups wouldnt be able to handle them.

In terms of visual quality, all forms of MSAA are terrible, none work on every surface in any game. If you want proper AA you need to be forcing SSAA through the drivers.

Id rather be using FXAA over MSAA for the peformance, or SSAA for the visual quality if the game will still run fine. Only using in game settings for AA for comparative reasons of 'max settings' is daft.

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.

 

[Final8y]

1) The reason why 'ingame settings' dont allow you to set a higher AA than 4x or 8x MSAA in just about every game is because most setups wouldnt be able to handle them.

2) In terms of visual quality, all forms of MSAA are terrible, none work on every surface in any game. If you want proper AA you need to be forcing SSAA through the drivers.

3) Id rather be using FXAA over MSAA for the peformance, or SSAA for the visual quality if the game will still run fine. Only using in game settings for AA for comparative reasons is daft.

1) Yes most people know that.

2) Yes MSAA does not work on every surface, terrible is a matter of opinion, some people are happy to play games with no AA at all.

3) Matter of opinion and preference again, as for the last part your comment which conflicts with your first and second which means only using driver settings that most can not play with for game comparative reasons would be daft.

 

[andybird123]

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.

can you post up an afterburner log, because at least 3 of us on here have an experience totally the opposite - that 1GB cards fall off a cliff when you enable MSAA

and in fact if you google 560ti sli battlefield 3 you find numerous forums posts of people saying "if i enable 4xmsaa my fps goes down to 5fps"

I'd feel really sorry for anyone believing your blatant lie and getting a pair of 1GB cards and finding out they'd just wasted 300 quid

 

[bhavv]

If some people re happy to play games with no AA at all, how is 2 gb vram a minimum?

can you post up an afterburner log, because at least 3 of us on here have an experience totally the opposite - that 1GB cards fall off a cliff when you enable MSAA

Afterburner logs and Vram useage graphs are meaningless when most games only use additional vram for caching, not for 'smoother gameplay'.

Any single 1 Gb card will fall off a cliff simply because it is far far slower than a GTX 580, not because it has less Vram.

Also if the vram limit is reached, every PC is capable of offloading the additional Vram data into the shared ram, which is why 8 Gb system ram pretty much eliminates lag and stutter for people playing BF3 on ultra settings and 4x MSAA with a capable 1 Gb SLI / Xfire setup.

Just because a game uses up more Vram on a 2 gb card for caching doesnt mean that the game is incapable of running smoothly on less Vram.

I can get lag when I enable 8x AA in Skyrim, even while my afterburner ram usage is only sat on 700 mb because I am reaching a GPU limitation, not a Vram limit. I can run most games smoothly that utilize up and above 1 Gb vram with 4x MSAA because I am not exceeding my GPU limit on those games.

Vram is not a limiting factor for performance / lag / stutter any of that, something else is always responsible before the Vram is the cause of any such problem.

I'd feel really sorry for anyone believing your blatant lie and getting a pair of 1GB cards and finding out they'd just wasted 300 quid

Check this thread and get a re education on this topic:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18336345

People are obviously having problems on a single 1 Gb card purely because they are too slow on their own, not because they only have 1 Gb vram. 2 x 1 gb GTX 560 tis are consistently around 25-33% ahead of a single GTX 580 even up to 2560x1440 resolutions in most games (Well, everything other than BF3. In BF3 at 1080p, the SLI GTX 560 tis are far superior to a GTX 580s, proving that this resolution is absolutely not Vram limited):

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...-geforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-dual-gpu-review.html

1 Gb Vram is absolutely still not a limitation, only GPU power is.

and in fact if you google 560ti sli battlefield 3 you find numerous forums posts of people saying "if i enable 4xmsaa my fps goes down to 5fps"

And in fact, if you took a look at the rest of their system specs you would find that they only had 4 Gb system ram. You obviously feel some kind of a need to justify having lots of Vram after wasting so much money on your 3 Gb GTX 580 SLI setup, thats understandable. I wouldnt however be telling people who are building a gaming PC on a budget that they need to prioritize Vram over more important things, especially not if they are only planning on playing at 1080p.

 

[tommybhoy]

Check this thread and get a re education on this topic:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18336345

LOL, the infamous 'Were running BF3 on Ultra settings but don't mention we turned the AA down' thread rears it's head again.

It even had game play videos of standing more or less in the corner of a map throwing grenades about with no noticeable action/buildings blowing up on the less demanding maps.

In the other thread, there is Ocuk forum members with their own comparisons with 1gb 560 sli v 2 gb 560 sli.

 

[bhavv]

So the morale of the story is that you only need high end cards / more Vram for:

- 2560x1440 / 1600 resolution
- 4x AA in BF3 (very evidently due to 4x MSAA simply being bugged on anything lower than a GTX 570 in this one game).

Nothing else. So please explain how that makes 2 Gb Vram a minimum?

In the other thread, there is Ocuk forum members with their own comparisons with 1gb 560 sli v 2 gb 560 sli.

I've personally never yet seen a legit comparison of 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 tis in SLI. Feel free to provide me with a link to where you have seen this and I will take a look.

If the specs in question had anything less than 8 Gb ram, then dont bother. Just about every review out there which has BF3 tested includes 1 Gb and 2 Gb 6950s and there is next to no difference between these tow other than a few FPS, but none of them bother to include a 2 Gb GTX 560 ti co compare alongside a 1 Gb one.

 

[LeJosh]

Well you'll need a good bit of V-ram for texture mods for Skyrim and other games.

Certainly more than 1.2GB. Definitely so with 4096k textures.

 

[bemaniac]

2560x1600 on skyrim with 8xAA and loads of mods uses 2.3GB of VRAM on my 7970 actually but is nearly always 60fps = nice

Metro.......well that's pretty much unplayable at that res

 

[bhavv]

The current texture mods for skyrim are crap though and not even worth the download size.

I used to run Oblivion modded to 700-900 Mb vram usage on a pair of 512 Mb 3850s without any lag or slowdown, so I dont think I'll need an upgrade yet just for skyrim mods.

 

[LeJosh]

I think the texture mods are essential as some of Skyrim's is terrible.

 

[bhavv]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7950-overclock-crossfire-benchmark,3123-6.html
6970 2GB loses 33% frame rate on 4xMSAA application, whereas GTX570 1.25GB only loses 19.5% on 4xMSAA application.

Grunt/GPU architecture>VRAM for most games, even for games that are known to use VRAM a little over than what's available. Metro2033 is probably the ONLY game that extra VRAM would make a big difference, and it's VRAM hungry like mad, and no other game is like this.

Actually Metro 2033 isnt, it performs identically at least based on benchmark scores at 1920x1200 on both 1 Gb and 2 Gb GTX 560 to SLI.

I had a screenshot of the comparison scores, but Imageshack just made me delete everything so its gone now, though I posted the results several times.

Other than BF3, there is still not a single game out there that benefits from over 1 Gb Vram at 1920x1200, and as the results of the 6970 in that game show, its always GPU power > Vram.

I think the texture mods are essential as some of Skyrim's is terrible.

Off topic but which one is any good?