-
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
- Thread starter LtMatt
- Start date
So 2gb for just one 1080p must be fine then...
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Yes, plently.
Soldato
Something I don't get is the R9 290X is billed as a 4K capable card yet 4gb of vram is not enough at that resolution.
There is more chance of BF4 running maxed on my GTX 690s @1080 than there ever will be of getting it to do the same even with 4 x R9 290X cards @4K.
Ah, but you're forgetting about Mantle!
Man of Honour
I use 3.5gb running RTW2 or Crysis 3 @1600p, I would hate to think what I would use @4K
No 4gb is not enough to max games @4K.
Man of Honour
Probably won't make the slightest difference to memory requirements, the game will just run faster.
Caporegime
Ahhh ok cheers guys, new naming is messing with my mind
Still not sure what will be what but I still feel that 2GB will be fine for 1080P and if it isn't, it wouldn't have playable frames anyways.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
I still think the issue isn't gonna be the 2GB or vram, but more to do with performance dropping due to the the drop on the memory bandwidth with the memory bus gone from 384-bit to 256-bit.Ahhh ok cheers guys, new naming is messing with my mind
Still not sure what will be what but I still feel that 2GB will be fine for 1080P and if it isn't, it wouldn't have playable frames anyways.
Caporegime
Maybe but at 1080P, I don't feel it will be that noticeable. For sure, the higher the res, the more it will hurt but in the early days of testing my 680's with 7970's, there was nothing in it till the res went big and then the 384 bit bus stomped on the 256 bit.
Something I don't get is the R9 290X is billed as a 4K capable card yet 4gb of vram is not enough at that resolution.
There is more chance of BF4 running maxed on my GTX 690s @1080 than there ever will be of getting it to do the same even with 4 x R9 290X cards @4K.
Mantle could lower vram usage? Complete speculation on my part but anything is possible. Also there are 6gb/8gb versions of the 290X coming.
Yes, wanting more bang for buck in a new gen of cards is clearly wrong-headed
As soon as we get the new specs (and UK prices), I'll be better able to decide on a 7950 or a 270X.
But atm it looks like a 7950 will be much better value for money than a crippled 270X. They've cut the VRAM, gone to 256-bit, so I wonder in what other ways it's crippled...
Man of Honour
I think 8 Pack said the other day there will not be 6gb versions as they would have to redesign the PCB.
I also don't think Mantle will do anything for the internal workings of a graphics card so should not make any difference to vram requirements.
For normal use like a GTX 780 or 290X there is no problem having 3gb or 4gb of vram on board. But I really think AMD have put there foot in it by claiming the R9 290X is suitable for 4K. Four R9 290Xs a copy of Crysis 3 maxed out and a 4K monitor just won't cut it.
Its ok though, you can play Dirt 3!
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Actually there is...it's just not apparent in most games using low level or moderate level of AA.
If we have a look at the Sleeping Dog bench thread, we can see the overclocked GTX670/GTX680 being a good 10fps lower on both minimum and average frame rate comparing to the overclocked 7950/7970. This has nothing to do with it being a "AMD game" (as the 384-bit Titan/GTX780 still quite a margin ahead of the 7970), but more about the extreme AA settings for that games seem to use SuperSampling, and using that would hurt frame rate more with lower memory bandwidth. From what I recall the overclocked GTX670/GTX680's minimum frame rate is around 25-28fps, whereas the overclocked 7950/7970 is around the 35-38fps range.
So basically having low memory bandwidth won't immediately make a game unplayable, but it is more about up to what level of AA can be used before the frame rate dropping too low. May be it would be much clearer when we can compare the 7950 with the R270 on the same core clock for an apple to apple comparison in the future.
Last edited:
There will be a higher vram version coming out. There is a 6gb version of the 7970 so to think they won't release a 8gb version of the 290X is silly.
Man of Honour
Even if it sees the light of day an 8gb version will cost a pile.
AMD really have shot themselves in the foot with this claiming a 4gb card is suitable for 4K
4x 6gb HD 7970s vs 4x R9 290Xs playing Crysis 3 @4K
No contest the HD 7970s would win easy as the 290Xs would not even be able to run it unless you turned the settings down.
We don't even know the cost yet of the 290X. Its speculated to come in at just under 780 pricing (backed up by Gibbo) so a 8gb version will naturally be more expensive. Whatever happens it will still be much cheaper than a titan so i dont really a see a problem here. Either way need to wait for the product launch.
I don't think anyone has ever said 2gb won't enough at 1080p. Some people speculated it might not be enough but there's no harm in that. I'm not sure why that keeps getting mentioned. What i actually said was im not sure 2gb will be enough at 1600p/1440p with all the bells and whistles.
