-
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.
384bit vs 512bit memory bus Tomb Raider shootout
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
With 0xAA the Titan does run faster than a 290X but once I underclocked the Titan slightly (-13mhz on the core to get both cards to the same starting point) the effects of changing the VRAM speed were much the same as before.
This is what I got with no AA
VRAM @1251mhz (starting point) I settled for getting the two cards within 0.1fps of each other.
290X
Titan
VRAM @1350mhz
290X
Titan
VRAM @1450mhz
290X
Titan
VRAM @1500mhz
290X
Titan
1500mhz was as high as I could go on the 290X, I don't think the memory liked the higher fps without AA.
As I said earlier I had to underclock the Titan slightly so both cards were starting from the same point @1251mhz on the VRAM, but even with the Titan overclocked on the core the increase in fps when changing the VRAM settings was not much different to what I have posted above with the cards starting from the same point.
The VRAM speed changes seems to behave the same whether the cards are using AA or with it disabled and also when the Titan is overclocked or underclocked on the core to reach the same starting point. I suspect that neither card is using it's full bus width and the results are based mostly on VRAM speed changes.
So when partner companies move to fast vram modules and better coolers on the 290/x, will these cards be much faster than today using the same gpu core?
'IF' ^^^^ yes, faster IC's running at 1750Mhz will give it a significant performance boost.
Its actually more to do with what speed the Memory can do, on the 290/X the memory IC's are rated for 1500Mhz, they don't usually go much over that unless you over-volt them, espesialy if they are Elpida. clock them to much past 1500Mhz and the performance gain falls off a cliff.
Its actually more to do with what speed the Memory can do, on the 290/X the memory IC's are rated for 1500Mhz, they don't usually go much over that unless you over-volt them, espesialy if they are Elpida. clock them to much past 1500Mhz and the performance gain falls off a cliff.
At normal resolutions I think the faster ram will give higher fps but at higher resolutions like 4K a wider bus will be more beneficial.
So my guess is yes the cards will be about 5% faster.
From stock (1250) or 1500? from 1250 to 1750 i would say its a bit more than 5%, its a 40% speed increase, that should yield 15 to 20%, from 1500 to 1750 about 7 to 10%.
Using TR in the OP as a guide going from 1251mhz to 1600mhz gave about 6% increase. Having said that it will vary from game to game, it all depends whether the VRAM is causing a bottleneck in the first place.
I would test it myself but have unistalled it to make room for other games. i don't think TR is much dependant on memory speed, its far more GPU heavy, your memory also got to its limits past 1500Mhz, giving you no gain.
If i remember rightly BF3 was almost equal in Memory percentage gain to GPU.
Out of interest what memory IC's are on it?
Kaap you'd be much better off usng Sleeping Dogs for these tests. I recommend you re-run them using that. Memory makes no difference in Tomb Raider. Just not enough to saturate the bandwidth. Sleeping dogs on the other hand with Extreme...
I noticed a 10% performance improvement on my 7970 going from 1375mhz-1875mhz.
Source
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24133681&postcount=19
I noticed a 10% performance improvement on my 7970 going from 1375mhz-1875mhz.
I haven't but seeing as you asked i just did a quick test. I only ran one game but will run a couple more later when i have time.
Sleeping Dogs - 1080p Extreme 1250 Core vs 1375 stock and 1875 OC'd.
I speculate the difference would be larger at a higher res (1440p+) although we might not see it as the pixel fill rate might hold it back somewhat.
Source
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24133681&postcount=19
Yes....?
The point is that the Titan isn't gaining more proportionately than the 290X so it looks like it isn't bandwidth limited in this game. It doesn't matter how much GB/s it is if it isn't limited on this front. The gains are linear suggesting improvements from the speed alone rather than bandwidth.
Just ran this on the Titan
The first run is one I did earlier with the core underclocked by -13mhz and the VRAM @1251mhz
The second run is what I have just done with the core at the same speed (-13mhz) but the VRAM @1902mhz
Going from 1251mhz to 1902mhz on the VRAM
The increase is 4.8 fps or 10.19%
I know there will be games that show a bigger improvement when overclocking VRAM but there will also be games that don't.
As to what chips I have on my 290Xs, I have never bothered to check as they are all good clockers on the VRAM. They are all Asus 290Xs so whatever they come with.
Last edited:
+1
It does not seem to matter if the Titan is over or underclocked on the core, when changing the VRAM speed the gains are linear.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,881
- Location
- Surrey
You need 8Ghz on a 512-bit bus 
. That'll learn Nvidia.
. That'll learn Nvidia.You need 8Ghz on a 512-bit bus
I don't think it will be long before AMD or NVidia do it if they are serious about 4K.
Yeah, thats pretty low scaling Kaap. 1251 to 1902 is +52%, for that you got 10%. TR is not the game to test for this.
AvP got me a 10% gain from 25% higher Memory, and even that is not among the best for memory speed scaling.
Here, found a very old article http://abundantcores.blogspot.co.uk/p/overclocking-gpu-and-vram-performance.html
AvP got me a 10% gain from 25% higher Memory, and even that is not among the best for memory speed scaling.
Here, found a very old article http://abundantcores.blogspot.co.uk/p/overclocking-gpu-and-vram-performance.html
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,881
- Location
- Surrey
Independent scaling isn't the point of the thread though? It's Kaap going some way to prove a fairly obvious point in my eyes. The 512-bit bus isn't really doing much for the lower VRAM clocks. No doubt other games will scale slightly better.
Just for reference Kaap the ASUS have Elpida memory
Just for reference Kaap the ASUS have Elpida memory
Not bad, that's better than i got from Sleeping Dogs. 35% overclock on the vram for 10% more performance.
Tomb Raider isn't the best game to test this though. Be better off using a game that saturates the bandwidth better. AVP or Sleeping Dogs seem the best so far, maybe there are even better alternatives.
Well no of course not, having said that; take away the 512Bit Bus, replace it with a 384Bit Bus and it will loose about 10%.
Last edited:
You can DL Aliens vs. Predator DirectX 11 Benchmark Tool you don't need to have the game.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,881
- Location
- Surrey
Worth a punt. I'm all for being wrong, but at 1600p you'll see similar results if Kaap uses the same test clocks.