• 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.

I'll tell you what! Just found out you can't do that anymore in Windows 8! :) I think that is because of the whole metro user interface thingy. Baaaad bad bad.

Hopefully it's possible with a fall back to regular desktop by the time it goes retail.

Infact it HAS to be possible or it will cripple Remote Assistance and RDP Protocol in general over thin WAN links.

No fallback will pretty much stop Windows 8 ever reaching the corporate world and really hurt it in Virtualisation also.
 
However, as I pointed out a few times they are not accurate benchmarks and should not be taken as so. They are simply there to show what happened when I disabled my paging file and ran the game on the same level.

No BF3 benchmark is ever going to be completely accurate. Any one can work that out. There is no "set routine" benchmark that does exactly the same things during the FPS recording.

So all you have really proven is that Windows and applications become unstable with the page file disabled? Windows is built from the ground up to support paging file we've known for a long time that disabling it is a bad idea especially if you have less than 16GB RAM this day and age, even then it will probably choke eventually.

In all of your crusading (reminiscent of that Harmony guy) you are still yet to show any reliable benchmarks where a lesser VRAM equipped card shows a dip in performance at 1080P or less.

I notice you only have 6GB of RAM it's no wonder your BF3 crashes without a pagefile, I bet half of the 'not enough VRAM' troubles you preach about were caused by low system memory and the application itself paging.
 
Last edited:
No i am using a 6990

you are running crossfire then, you only have 2GB per GPU so you can't be using 3GB of VRAM

Spot on. Each GPU on a 6990 has 2gb of physical VRAM assigned to it. MSI just reads the VRAM incorrectly and states 1.5gb x2 which is the same textures + info in VRAM being on BOTH graphics cards instead of 3gb on one.

Nvidia cards are reported by MSI afterburner and other similar programs properly so don't have the same issue. Due to this, always halve the value you are presented with from MSI and that is the true VRAM value.
 
I take it that guy is completely wrong then?

He's not no. Disabling the page file completely isn't recommended as windows doesn't handle higher RAM states very effectively anyway. I have 16gb of RAM, yet still have a page file which is around 15gb allocated as that is what windows specified. Its not cached on my SSD though, instead it is on the RAID 0 array and barely gets used, yet it still is used for specific things which windows never allocates to RAM.

Theres a few posts about the pro's and con's of disabling the page file on every single hardware forum on the internet, yet not in a single one is the definitive answer saying "yes everyone disable it if you have over xxx ram" or not.

Due to that, telling someone to get off their high horse is ironic in my opinion.
 
So, the game is only using around 50% of the memory in the computer. Funny, as when recommending memory I see people saying that you must have 8gb all the time. I have also seen plenty of people suggesting that BF3 will use up to 8gb also. As I suspected it does not.

Want to point out this is very naive. When I see people suggesting 6-8 GB, it's not because BF3 takes 6-8 GB.

It's because you can easily run close to 6 GB on regular usage. I know I come to 6 GB a lot with my regular use (dozens of chrome tabs, Kaspersky, games, etc.).

Even with 6 GB, I've felt concerned in the past that I'm going to go past cap just using the PC as I would normally.

EDIT: Thanks for posting the results, though.
 
Last edited:
Alxandy what graphics card should I buy? I run 1080p 120hz. Want to be future proofed for games that want more VRAM and or multi screen setup. Rig in sig, have only a good 750w psu.

Money no object. But don't want to upgrade components just yet. End of the year for a rebuild of mobo etc.
 
Even if you're correct and disabling the page file causes BF3 to crash due to low VRAM (and not system RAM), that still doesn't mean that 1280MB is an insufficient amount of VRAM to have if performance (when the pagefile is enabled) is unaffected by the swapping.

If you're right then a system with 1280MB card is going to suffer a hell of a lot of HDD thrashing (to pagefile) and massive FPS dips while it happens during gameplay, neither of which seem to occur in reality.

I haven't seen the thousands of GTX470/570 owners complaining about these performance drops? even in this thread there is a video of a GTX570 running the game flawlessly. You have not shown any reliable benchmarks showing a 1280MB getting half the framerate of 2GB cards, infact 1280MB cards still seem to outperform a lot of 2Gb ones.

Windows is designed to operate around a pagefile and so are most applications/games written for it.
 
Even if you're correct and disabling the page file causes BF3 to crash due to low VRAM (and not system RAM), that still doesn't mean that 1280MB is an insufficient amount of VRAM to have if performance (when the pagefile is enabled) is unaffected by the swapping.

If you're right then a system with 1280MB card is going to suffer a hell of a lot of HDD thrashing (to pagefile) and massive FPS dips while it happens during gameplay, neither of which seem to occur in reality.

I haven't seen the thousands of GTX470/570 owners complaining about these performance drops? even in this thread there is a video of a GTX570 running the game flawlessly. You have not shown any reliable benchmarks showing a 1280MB getting half the framerate of 2GB cards, infact 1280MB cards still seem to outperform a lot of 2Gb ones.

Windows is designed to operate around a pagefile and so are most applications/games written for it.

What does occur in reality with 1280mb is you end up with input lag, caused by caching to the hard drive.

The same input lag I felt in F3AR, and the same input lag I had with BF3.

Now according to Nvidia's tweak guide you should disable vsync as it will speed up the process. However, then you are subject to tearing. So it's a bit of a lose lose.

Me personally? I didn't disable vsync as I didn't think of it. But, at the same time I would not have wanted to play it with vsync disabled because I can't stand tearing.

Now earlier in the day yesterday I had not sat down and read every last single word of that tweak guide.

Before I posted the link I mentioned problems with aiming the sniper rifle and it reloading on my GTX 470. That was, in hindsight, very clearly input lag. My timings were off, so was my aim and I kept dying.

I will point out again. Nowhere did I say that BF3 was unplayable on cards with 1.2gb or 1gb vram. What I did say, and excuse the bold letters.

BF3 is not playable on 1.2gb or 1gb with ultra settings and 4x aliasing (corrrected Andy, thanks for that ! )

And, I was right.

This thread was not about how to make BF3 run on the card you have with the vram it has. It wasn't an argument over BF3 working or not working on a card with 1.2gb or 1gb.

It was an argument over BF3 not being playable on a 1gb or 1.2gb card using the settings in my opening post.

That is pretty much why I did not run the game at lower settings as that is not what I was trying to prove.

I was trying to show, once and for all, that 1.2gb and 1gb cards are not capable of providing a playable game in BF3 on max settings. Not without lag and other problems that are caused by texture caching which will result in input lag.

I even did my best to explain how that input lag feels to Greg, who had quite clearly missed the boat completely and was ranting on about something else.
 
32bit programs have a limit of addressing system ram, we know that.
Is there such a thing as 32bit limit on addressing vram?
 
I haven't seen the thousands of GTX470/570 owners complaining about these performance drops? even in this thread there is a video of a GTX570 running the game flawlessly. You have not shown any reliable benchmarks showing a 1280MB getting half the framerate of 2GB cards, infact 1280MB cards still seem to outperform a lot of 2Gb ones.

also in this thread (or the other one, I can't remember) is a video of 570SLI suffering from stuttering and FPS drops playing BF3 on ultra

I think it's already been pointed out that the 570 video playing "flawlessly" has some inconsistencies in it

I personally went from 560ti to SLI to 570 to 580 purely because I was experiencing stutter and FPS drops which to me seemed to be VRAM limitation (identical FPS on 560ti 1GB to SLI)
another use on here - decto - had 560ti 2GB SLI and it absolutely flew - better FPS than a 580

which the nvidia guide to BF3 also states as being highly likely

benchmarks tend to only show avg. FPS, or even the ones that show min. FPS don't account for stutter or texture streaming - a situation that even the nvidia guide to BF3 states will happen on ultra on cards with less than 1.5GB
 
32bit programs have a limit of addressing system ram, we know that.
Is there such a thing as 32bit limit on addressing vram?

No, I don't think so. (depending on what OS / DX version)

On windows 64-bit OSes, each application runs within it's own virtual address space that for 32bit apps can be up to 4GB each.

Most of what goes on in VRAM is handled directly by the graphics card and drivers which are 64-bit aware (on a 64-bit OS). The 32-bit game itself can address up to 4GB of main RAM and it only addresses or copies over what it needs to in terms of textures etc. (500mb for ultra), the game itself doesn't directly address most of what is going on in VRAM (on DX10 or 11)

Even if the drivers are only 32-bit, it still leaves 4GB available to the graphics card itself and so far there aren't any 4GB cards so we are only just reaching that limit.

So a 32-bit game could have (for the sake of argmument) up to 2GB of textures and objects info to load in to VRAM, leaving the GPU with whatever it has left - looking at the kind of ratio in use in BF3 it means you'd need a card with 6GB of VRAM to be able to process 2GB worth of textures.

I think this is right, whilst I did used to be a software developer I've never done games so this info is gleaned "off t'internet" so if someone knows better I'll gladly be re-educated.

As mentioned, it depends on DX version, as DX9 games had to maintain full copies of what was in VRAM also in main memory, not so with DX10 or later
 
So a 32-bit game could have (for the sake of argmument) up to 2GB of textures and objects info to load in to VRAM, leaving the GPU with whatever it has left - looking at the kind of ratio in use in BF3 it means you'd need a card with 6GB of VRAM to be able to process 2GB worth of textures.

I don't get why it would need 6GB? How did you come up with that :) Thanks for the rest though, clarifying things for me :)
 
it was purely taking DICE's statement that Ultra uses 500mb for ultra textures and objects and then the fact that we know it chews through 1.5gb (or more) easily to render... so 500 X 3 = 1.5 so 2GB X 3 = 6GB

I have no idea if that is accurate or not, it was purely a guestimate to try to illustrate that 4GB per app limit is still a hefty amount

a 4GB app wouldn't realistically be able to deliver 2GB just for textures and objects anyway, it was just an example, probably 1GB would be about the limit, in which case using the very innacurate and over simplified calculation above, a 3GB card would still be fine

basically, we know that 1-1.5gb cards are approaching their limit in current games, but future games still have a ways to go to fully utilise 3GB... unless we all switch to 1600p monitors, but then AA becomes less important and TXAA uses less resources anyway so that buys you back some head room
 
Last edited:
well last light i went with no paging file...
2 hours of trying to hit some **** with sniper rifle... No crash few kills :/
Cant see it running faster tho :(
 
Back
Top Bottom