• 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 4 Recommended Requirements - 3GB Vram

Uncle Petey said:
Bugger. I'm forced to agree.
Click to expand...

That's the thing you see, people don't like it if you make a point that the limit might be exceeded. :p

pcper said:
Frame times in general are pretty good at 4K resolutions with the 2GB GTX 680 the lone outlier with some noticeable and significant spikes and jumps in performance. The fact that the 4GB variant does not exhibit that problem tells us that the 2GB frame buffer is just not enough to keep up 3840x2160 at these settings.

Both the Titan and the HD 7970 have the best / lowest frame time variance with the GTX 680 2GB coming in last. It is interesting to see the added frame buffer of the 4GB GTX 680 making a noticeable difference in potential stutter.

The GTX Titans in SLI have a very narrow and smooth band of frame times. The GTX 680 4GB frame times are also noticeably tighter and doesn't exhibit nearly as many spikes in frame times as the 2GB models do.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

An example of the potential problem 2gb users could face.
 
Last edited:
Mei said:
will be funny if they start using slightly more than 3gb and nvidia use the same marketing to advertise their 4gb cards :)
Click to expand...

The 3gb AMD cards are over 1 year old. Their next gen hasn't come out yet. When it does (soon) you can bet they will have 4 or 6gb cards available.
 
Have ppl discussing variants of conspiracy theories around the 'misdirecting' of unsuspecting buyers forgotten that the 660ti, recommended Nvidia card for BF4 on the packaging, comes in a 3GB flavour while the 7870 does not? Or is that AMD's double bluff.
 
Tonester0011 said:
They also had Aero enabled during their tests, higher res lower VRAM usage...all points to the fabled caching, when you have more VRAM to play with. Meaning in short....BF3 doesn't *need* 2.5GB to play @5760x1080....despite your lovely graph showing 2GB isn't enough.

Exactly the same as Matt's graphs showing more than 2GB usage, but the accompanying FPS charts showing cards with 2GB and less showing similar FPS (not showing the usual signs of lack of VRAM...tiny tiny minimum and average FPS)
Click to expand...

While I do agree that 2GB are enough (or even if there is some kind of a problem, may be a minor one), tests done is SP "talk" to little about the matter - lower memory footprint. Moreover, the engine takes some extra "dynamic memory" as GPU Z puts it, which may come in handy when needed - couple hundred megs.
If you look at higher resolution, the 2gb are shown as a limiting factor. Of course, you'll need 2 GPUs to power 3 displays at good enough frame rates for a online 1st person shooter.

Something more to point out, SP campaign looks darn good compared to what we have in MP. Some ground texture are quite obvious in their low quality "optimization state". If they wanted to, 3GB could be norm if proper texture were or will be used in future games - BF 4 included. But, I doubt it.
 
shaw avg on most maps at ten 80 was about 1200mb

even with newer tweaked engine cant see this more than 2000 @ 1080. all guesswork 3 weeks to go then we will know :p
 
LtMatt said:
That's the thing you see, people don't like it if you make a point that the limit might be exceeded. :p



http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

An example of the potential problem 2gb users could face.
Click to expand...

From those graphs it just looks like the 4gb GTX 680 has higher clocks/higher kepler/boost clock.

Do they list the specs of the cards in that review? I couldnt find it anywhere. All it says is that the 4gb 680 is an EVGA card and they dont even mention the manufacturer for the 2gb card...
 
Jono8 said:
From those graphs it just looks like the 4gb GTX 680 has higher clocks/higher kepler/boost clock.

Do they list the specs of the cards in that review? I couldnt find it anywhere. All it says is that the 4gb 680 is an EVGA card and they dont even mention the manufacturer for the 2gb card...
Click to expand...

I knew you'd find a reason. :D

Ask the editor, he'll definitely reply. ;)

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout

I have to be honest i can't see a reason why a slightly potential higher boost clock (which is luck of the draw isn't it?) would be the difference between smooth and stuttery gameplay at such a resolution.
 
Jono8 said:
From those graphs it just looks like the 4gb GTX 680 has higher clocks/higher kepler/boost clock.

Do they list the specs of the cards in that review? I couldnt find it anywhere. All it says is that the 4gb 680 is an EVGA card and they dont even mention the manufacturer for the 2gb card...
Click to expand...

I was supposed to test the bull**** surrounding how 4GB vs 2Gb on the same card magically provides playable framerate, same clocks etc. Didn't have enough time on the weekend, so never actually started.

Lost interest in the idea now, so i've sold my 4GB 670 meaning i can no longer do the tests myself :(
 
LtMatt said:
I knew you'd find a reason. :D

Ask the editor, he'll definitely reply. ;)

I have to be honest i can't see a reason why a slightly potential higher boost clock (which is luck of the draw isn't it?) would be the difference between smooth and stuttery gameplay at such a resolution.

https://twitter.com/ryanshrout
Click to expand...

What smooth and stuttery gameplay?

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

From what i can see there are peaks and troughs from both the 4gb and 3 gb 680's but the 4gb just seems to be consistently a bit higher hinting that it is simply clocked higher.

Edit: ah i see the frame time variance, yes it looks like the 2gb cards might suffer from some noticable stutter. Although the 3gb 7970 seems to suffer in crossfire with this as well?
 
Last edited:
Tonester0011 said:
I was supposed to test the bull**** surrounding how 4GB vs 2Gb on the same card magically provides playable framerate, same clocks etc. Didn't have enough time on the weekend, so never actually started.

Lost interest in the idea now, so i've sold my 4GB 670 meaning i can no longer do the tests myself :(
Click to expand...

I hate to say it as i didn't like it when they brought up the AMD stutter issue but pcper seem pretty good at noticing this sort of thing. They're also normally pretty pro Nvidia so i have no reason to doubt their findings. I also now agree with them on some of their findings regarding crossfire stuttering, at least on a couple of titles they originally mentioned. Not all though i might add.

The point is lack of vram can manifest itself in more ways than simply not having enough and fps dropping to 1.
 
Jono8 said:
What smooth and stuttery gameplay?

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...marked-4K-Resolutions/Battlefield-3-Single-GP

From what i can see there are peaks and troughs from both the 4gb and 3 gb 680's but the 4gb just seems to be consistently a bit higher hinting that it is simply clocked higher.
Click to expand...

Trust me those blue spikes will be very noticeable when you're playing and pcper say as much. The 4gb 680 has no spikes at all.

dyL0JfF.png

Suarez7 said:
Without that PCPER article I think AMD would have taken even longer to sort the issue.
Click to expand...

It was actually Techreport who first noted it i believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom