If you install the high-res texture patch and enable DX11 with 4xAA, it registers 6GB Vram.
-
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.
Battlefield 3 total system resource benchmarks.
- Thread starter ALXAndy
- Start date
If you install the high-res texture patch and enable DX11 with 4xAA, it registers 6GB Vram.
What card does it register 6GB of Vram on?
7970, 2560x1440, 4xAA, DX11+pack, Ultra Preset.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 428
- Location
- Wiltshire
Hows this lol
Ok only 1 of them in over the 3gb mark but the rest are dam close to it.
3028mbvram
2949mbvram
2926mbvram
Not bragging or any thing lol
2918mbvram
By steven_belfast at 2012-04-03
Think I am getting confused here, Are we talking crosfire?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,513
you're going to have to link me, because even at 5960x1200 with 4xAA and DX11/high res pack I can only find 2.7, not 6
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,513
double post, sorry
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 6,703
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
Doesnt matter if we are, 2 * 3Gb cards will have 3Gb of VRAM available because data is mirrored on both cards (ie duplicated)
Interesting little test Andy, cheers for that. 
It's a shame some of the forum are incapable of 'discussing' things in a grown up manner. 
There's no question that when you run out of VRAM, performance dies rapidly. I'd always assumed that it was because the system would then have to start caching, swapping, paging, etc (dunno the correct term, lol). I don't know the real details but whatever happens it's not as good as when the VRAM isn't full up.
I had 2 x 1gb cards that performed really well, somewhere in between a 580 and a 7970, yet when the 1gb was gone performance dropped off a cliff. It's possible to do that in Skyrim without using graphics settings that the GPU would struggle with i.e. adding more texture packs. As long as VRAM stayed under 1gb, even with high levels of AA etc, all was fine. Now that I have 3gb to spare there's no issue. Yeah, a better GPU helps but there's no doubt in my mind that it's important to have plenty of VRAM on tap for the future.
I'm fairly sure that a 2gb 680 is fine now but the 3gb 7970 will last a bit longer, a bit like how the 480 has outlasted the 5870. Ironic that really, unless Nvidia have something in their driver that makes more efficient use of some kind of paging/caching. TBH though I haven't seen any reviews that force the 680 to use up all of it's VRAM to see what effect that has on it.
It's a shame some of the forum are incapable of 'discussing' things in a grown up manner. There's no question that when you run out of VRAM, performance dies rapidly. I'd always assumed that it was because the system would then have to start caching, swapping, paging, etc (dunno the correct term, lol). I don't know the real details but whatever happens it's not as good as when the VRAM isn't full up.
I had 2 x 1gb cards that performed really well, somewhere in between a 580 and a 7970, yet when the 1gb was gone performance dropped off a cliff. It's possible to do that in Skyrim without using graphics settings that the GPU would struggle with i.e. adding more texture packs. As long as VRAM stayed under 1gb, even with high levels of AA etc, all was fine. Now that I have 3gb to spare there's no issue. Yeah, a better GPU helps but there's no doubt in my mind that it's important to have plenty of VRAM on tap for the future.
I'm fairly sure that a 2gb 680 is fine now but the 3gb 7970 will last a bit longer, a bit like how the 480 has outlasted the 5870. Ironic that really, unless Nvidia have something in their driver that makes more efficient use of some kind of paging/caching. TBH though I haven't seen any reviews that force the 680 to use up all of it's VRAM to see what effect that has on it.
What are you showing us here? You still have plenty of VRAM left there, sig says GTX680.
Have you tried disabling it to see if your VRAM usage increases?
You're running xfire, so it's a total of both cards which are duplicated data so really you're using half of the reading you get. ~1.5gb.
Last edited:
He says he's running one I think? So that would mean one GTX 580 3GB or one 7950/7970 3GB... not 1.5GB
And of what relevance is that?
Please don't tell me that after nearly a full 24 hours you still fail to grasp what this thread is about?
Honestly is it really that? do you really not understand what is going on?
That's what people need to do here. We've now established how much vram it uses. What's hilarious is if he disables his paging file then he will highly likely see a boost in FPS.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 428
- Location
- Wiltshire
Game crashed for me when i disabled pagefile.
Shame as i did see a good boost in FPS.
Shame as i did see a good boost in FPS.
That sucks
What hardware are you running?
Edit nvm just checked your validator.
Maybe it's like this:
Your pc has physically 6GB RAM
In use before BF3 starts: 2GB
Free before BF3 starts 4GB
BF3 is 32bit so can only address 4GB
There is already 2GB in use so that leaves 2 / 1.8GB usable (32bit) left for BF3 RAM.
IF all that is full... and the VRAM exceeds your GFX card memory it can't address more in the normal ram as it's full 32bit 4GB cap... then it might go to the pagefile?
Your pc has physically 6GB RAM
In use before BF3 starts: 2GB
Free before BF3 starts 4GB
BF3 is 32bit so can only address 4GB
There is already 2GB in use so that leaves 2 / 1.8GB usable (32bit) left for BF3 RAM.
IF all that is full... and the VRAM exceeds your GFX card memory it can't address more in the normal ram as it's full 32bit 4GB cap... then it might go to the pagefile?
Last edited: