-
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
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
bhavv, you are completely missing the point, I HAD 560ti 1GB SLI and IT DID NOT WORK!!!
I have 16GB of RAM on X79 so how can you say it was a platform / RAM issue?
I tried it on both a Q6600 8GB PC and my X79 16GB PC and both saw the same result with 1GB SLI, which is AA = slideshow
my sig isn't up to date to be fair, I sent one of my 580's back as it was complete overkill, I now have just the one 580 3GB, although I will probably get another 580 if I spot one cheap, for when I go surround
I stopped upgrading when I got to the point BF3 actually worked fine and extra cards/higherspec gave me no extra benefit
560ti SLI 1GB absolutely did not work in BF3 on ultra with 4xmsaa and your insistance that it does work is totally misleading
there are several graphs of 1GB vs 2GB on this forum and if you are too lazy to look or selectively "forgetting" then I'm not going to babysit you through that
now that you are on the verge of actually admitting you are wrong you turn around and say things along the lines of BF3 is not important... well this entire thread is ABOUT BF3 and it's one of the most recent / uptodate / shiny games so that's a pretty shoddy basis to start naysaying, and then you add in "who wants AA anyway", well I do for one and so do most people that want to play BF3 on Ultra and have 3-400 to spend on a graphics card
just like some other people replying on this thread, you are reading the title of the thread and ignoring the text of the original question, which was entirely predicated on playing BF3 at 1080p on Ultra with msaa (as per the actual Ultra preset)...
no one is saying VRAM is more important than 8GB of ram or a better GPU (or an extra GPU), but for the circumstances of the original case in question, BF3 on Ultra, you do need more than 1GB of VRAM regardless of what GPU(s) you team that up with, be it a 580 or 2 560ti 2GBs, but the question was not "how much GPU do you need to run Ultra", the question was "how much VRAM do you need to run Ultra"
the way that you always keep replying that 560ti 1GB SLI is "the best" implies you have 560ti 1GB SLI, if you do then it should be trivial for you to put BF3 on ultra with 4xmsaa and then upload the log, which will show FPS and GPU utilisation alongside VRAM usage
if you are right that 1GB SLI runs BF3 on max then your log will show that very clearly, if you are cheating and turning off AA then your log will have tell tale signs that are very easy to spot
I also like your comments on the other thread that BF3 is bugged and unplayable with 4xMSAA... well on a single 580 3GB I get minimum 54FPS even on the biggest B2K maps, so yeah it must be well bugged
I have 16GB of RAM on X79 so how can you say it was a platform / RAM issue?
I tried it on both a Q6600 8GB PC and my X79 16GB PC and both saw the same result with 1GB SLI, which is AA = slideshow
my sig isn't up to date to be fair, I sent one of my 580's back as it was complete overkill, I now have just the one 580 3GB, although I will probably get another 580 if I spot one cheap, for when I go surround
I stopped upgrading when I got to the point BF3 actually worked fine and extra cards/higherspec gave me no extra benefit
560ti SLI 1GB absolutely did not work in BF3 on ultra with 4xmsaa and your insistance that it does work is totally misleading
there are several graphs of 1GB vs 2GB on this forum and if you are too lazy to look or selectively "forgetting" then I'm not going to babysit you through that
now that you are on the verge of actually admitting you are wrong you turn around and say things along the lines of BF3 is not important... well this entire thread is ABOUT BF3 and it's one of the most recent / uptodate / shiny games so that's a pretty shoddy basis to start naysaying, and then you add in "who wants AA anyway", well I do for one and so do most people that want to play BF3 on Ultra and have 3-400 to spend on a graphics card
just like some other people replying on this thread, you are reading the title of the thread and ignoring the text of the original question, which was entirely predicated on playing BF3 at 1080p on Ultra with msaa (as per the actual Ultra preset)...
no one is saying VRAM is more important than 8GB of ram or a better GPU (or an extra GPU), but for the circumstances of the original case in question, BF3 on Ultra, you do need more than 1GB of VRAM regardless of what GPU(s) you team that up with, be it a 580 or 2 560ti 2GBs, but the question was not "how much GPU do you need to run Ultra", the question was "how much VRAM do you need to run Ultra"
the way that you always keep replying that 560ti 1GB SLI is "the best" implies you have 560ti 1GB SLI, if you do then it should be trivial for you to put BF3 on ultra with 4xmsaa and then upload the log, which will show FPS and GPU utilisation alongside VRAM usage
if you are right that 1GB SLI runs BF3 on max then your log will show that very clearly, if you are cheating and turning off AA then your log will have tell tale signs that are very easy to spot
I also like your comments on the other thread that BF3 is bugged and unplayable with 4xMSAA... well on a single 580 3GB I get minimum 54FPS even on the biggest B2K maps, so yeah it must be well bugged
Last edited:
Of course it didnt work because the GTX 560 tis are too slow for BF3. End of discussion.
You buy 1280 mb GTX 570s as a minimum if you want to play BF3 on ultra with 4x MSAA, you dont go anywhere near either the 1 gb or 2 gb GTX 560 tis.
Vram isnt the limitation, GPU is!
/thread.
There is not one single valid graph or legitimate review of 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 ti for ultra preset BF3 anywhere on the net nor on this forum, and any for AMD cards show virtually no differene but <5 FPS, which isnt going to do anything to make the game completely smooth and playable when the minimums are still well below 30 fps.
Neither would the 2 Gb GTX 560 tis work either then.
Last edited:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-geforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-review/17
2560 eating up the 1gb v-ram. But it should be playable at 1920.
2560 eating up the 1gb v-ram. But it should be playable at 1920.
Definitely looks playable to me at 1920, 4x MSAA, Ultra settings, SLI 1 Gb GTX 560 tis.
Wouldnt benefit anymore than a few FPS on 2 Gb GTX 560 tis.
Last edited:
The ATI 1 Gb 5850 and its Nvidia equivalents (GGTX 460 / 560 ti) are already at a 2-3 year old performance level.
If anyone is spending over £350 on a single GPu, then they had better be getting 2-3 Gb Vram on it for future proofing.
If someone is buying a mid range <£200 card, these are going to be too slow for that much Vram.
E.G. Sticking 2 Gb Vram on a 7770 and charging £200 isnt going to make it a better purchase at that price point than a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti. The 2 Gb 6950 is already struggling to run games that use up that much Vram.
GPU > Vram, always has been, always will be. Only a GTX 580 SLI or faster setup is powerful enough to utilize 2 Gb+ Vram IMHO.
By the time the average game requires 2 gb Vram to run, The entire GTX 500 and HD 6000 ranges will be long obsolete, and wouldnt even be able to run those games even if you stuck 100 Gb Vram on them.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
just search Decto's posts, he has 2GB 560ti SLI and it works brilliantly, like 60+ minimum FPS
posting up a link to Singleplayer benchmarks is also completely retarded
posting up a link to Singleplayer benchmarks is also completely retarded
And what if people only play BF3 single player?
Far too many posts to go through to just to find the relevant ones. Why cant you just post a link instead to whatever you are referencing rather than making other people search for next to impossible to find info on the 2 Gb GTX 560 tis?
And Decto is probably playing single player too, or the same parts of the game that manage 60+ minimum FPS on a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560s tis.
Far too many posts to go through to just to find the relevant ones. Why cant you just post a link instead to whatever you are referencing rather than making other people search for next to impossible to find info on the 2 Gb GTX 560 tis?
And Decto is probably playing single player too, or the same parts of the game that manage 60+ minimum FPS on a pair of 1 Gb GTX 560s tis.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
what if people don't play BF3 at all?
ner ner na ner ner
I know you are but what am I
ner ner na ner ner
I know you are but what am I
Well according to you Andy, everyone needs to be buying a pair of 3 Gb GTX 580s just to play games maxed at 1080p. I really hope that no one listens to such terrible advice
In all honesty, you're only posting to justify how much money you wasted on your spec, and nothing more than that really.
In all honesty, you're only posting to justify how much money you wasted on your spec, and nothing more than that really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Well according to you Andy, everyone needs to be buying a pair of 3 Gb GTX 580s just to play games maxed at 1080p. I really hope that no one listens to such terrible advice
In all honesty, you're only posting to justify how much money you wasted on your spec, and nothing more than that really.
you need to get that alzheimers checked, I have 1 GTX 580
if 560ti 1GB SLI had worked, I woudn't have then bought a 570 and returned it and then a 580 1.5gb and returned it before getting a 3GB and finding it worked the way I wanted
the 580 was actually cheaper than 560ti SLI so I don't quite see how your logic (or complete lack there of) works on that one
Last edited:
There isnt a single 3 Gb GTX 580 thats cheaper than two GTX 560 tis actually, I dont see any priced at under £350.
You probably bought a second hand one for that much in which case good for you, but you really cant be telling people that they need to be purchasing even just one 3 Gb GTX 580 to be able to play games at 1080p.
You probably bought a second hand one for that much in which case good for you, but you really cant be telling people that they need to be purchasing even just one 3 Gb GTX 580 to be able to play games at 1080p.
Using BF3 as an example is retarded for the simple reason that the engine is coded to scale with the amount of vram the graphics card has, regardless of how much vram there is available. This is due to the mesh system is uses for all textures and objects in the game. The more that can be put in vram, the less processing power needed to maintain fluid fps.
Now, lets use my system as an example as I'm not exactly vram limited. I've just played a game of metro 64 player using the ultra preset as usual with vsync on with a 120hz monitor. Max vram used via MSI afterburner was 1407mb. This is at 1080p res for reference. Could a 1gb card play the game at that res at that resolution, probably, but it would have to work harder due to how the game is coded.
Lets look at other games though which are recent and also very vram hungry shall we?
Serious sam 3 on max everything at 1080p reported 1966mb vram being used, which is the highest I've seen in a game so far. That doesn't use a mesh system for textures so a 1gb card would definitely feel the pain on those settings on that particular game.
bhavv is right in saying that the GPU core itself limits the games performance, regardles of vram, yet to say that vram has no effect on the overall playability of a title is sadly just plain wrong.
Now, lets use my system as an example as I'm not exactly vram limited. I've just played a game of metro 64 player using the ultra preset as usual with vsync on with a 120hz monitor. Max vram used via MSI afterburner was 1407mb. This is at 1080p res for reference. Could a 1gb card play the game at that res at that resolution, probably, but it would have to work harder due to how the game is coded.
Lets look at other games though which are recent and also very vram hungry shall we?
Serious sam 3 on max everything at 1080p reported 1966mb vram being used, which is the highest I've seen in a game so far. That doesn't use a mesh system for textures so a 1gb card would definitely feel the pain on those settings on that particular game.
bhavv is right in saying that the GPU core itself limits the games performance, regardles of vram, yet to say that vram has no effect on the overall playability of a title is sadly just plain wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
no it can't, that's the point, 1GB cards @ 1080p on ultra turn into a slide show
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
I'm not telling them they have to to play "games" at 1080p with a bunch of settings turned down
but if asked directly and specifically about BF3 on Ultra, I found that that was the minimum card I needed to have a flawless experience, the 1.5gb was close but not quite there IMO
it was brand new in box, 2 560ti's at the time were 180 quid each as a general rule and I got the 3GB for 350 quid, obviously when the 2GB's came out and OCUK had them at 200 the 1GB's started to drop a bit
Last edited:
(Just noticed I put this in the wrong thread earlier)
Both the 560ti and 6870 cards in the above graph are 1Gb variants, both get about a ~50% minimum fps performance hit in Sli/CrossFire compared to a single 2Gb 6950.
At the very least, your 8Gb system ram argument(which, in this case would still achieve an overhead lag) is flawed, as by your reasoning 1GB gpu's have a higher system requirement being required for optimal performance.
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!
Both the 560ti and 6870 cards in the above graph are 1Gb variants, both get about a ~50% minimum fps performance hit in Sli/CrossFire compared to a single 2Gb 6950.
At the very least, your 8Gb system ram argument(which, in this case would still achieve an overhead lag) is flawed, as by your reasoning 1GB gpu's have a higher system requirement being required for optimal performance.
No, not a slide show, it would stutter heavily though. Two different things entirely.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Post up an afterburner log for bf3 on ultra with 4x aa