It's a good question that I don't have the answer to.
All I can tell you is the same setup will use about 1.8gbs on BF3 as a comparison.
-
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.
Geforce GTX 780, 770 coming in May
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
It's a good question that I don't have the answer to.
All I can tell you is the same setup will use about 1.8gbs on BF3 as a comparison.
Caporegime
Everything Very High other than only: High Texture res + FXAA.
Soldato
Looking from that does the 780 not look like a slightly down tuned titan?
Maybe the speculation was right afterall which means get ready for the uber pricing haha. Damn i wish i had the money.
That is in effect what it is if the reports are to be believed, basically cut down GK110 GPU silicon, could be a way for them to get shot of some of the stock they have that doesn't meet the Titans requirements. That may also explain the choice in the amount of VRam, while obviously it doesn't make a huge amount of difference in performance terms (at least at the moment), from a marketing point of view you don't want a GPU that is cheaper featuring too many of the same headline specs as the top end card. Along with a way to keep the cost down as well I expect.
Caporegime
One of the review sites was benching Crysis 3 at 5760x1080 with everything on and a 7970 couldn't cope (1 fps slideshow) and this shows when VRAM has been breached.
I had this debate many times before of what is used and what is needed but it does appear in this scenario that over 3GB was needed.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 7,438
Has the actual U.K release date been confirmed yet?
Crysis 3 on a 7970 at 5760x1080 will not be a 1FPS slide show. I get more than 1FPS with 1 7950 at 7680x1440.
Caporegime
23rd for a paper launch followed by 1st June according to Whyscotty 
Soldato
There's a few reviews showing it exceeding 3GB on max settings. Don't know what kind of FPS you'd be getting before exceeding (which is also important) but it can exceed 3GB.
23rd for a paper launch followed by 1st June according to Whyscotty
Don't Nvidia usually lift NDA and release all at once? I'm sure they did with the 670 anyhow.
Certainly, just a 1FPS slideshow is quite specific, when it's not the case.
Realistically, 5760x1080 has similar performance demands to 2560x1440.
Caporegime
Did you bother reading what I typed or just want to make another argument and get another thread closed?
Soldato
Well if you're running out of VRAM a 1 FPS slideshow is not that far from the truth. In essence the point behind the statement is correct - it becomes massively unplayable.
Probably need a couple of Titans or more to realistically have decent enough FPS to make running out of VRAM mean anything though...
I do think you were nitpicking a little though - you know what the crux of the Gregster's comment was.
1600p = 2 x 1080p for the number of pixels and workload
How can 1440p be equal to 3 x 1080p
Caporegime
3686400 pixels Vs 6220800 pixels isn't particularly close to performance demands. Pushing 6220800 will be far more demanding on the GPU in terms of GPU grunt and it will require more VRAM as well. You are pushing ~69% more pixels and anyone with sense will know the demands would be no where near similar performance to 2560x1440.
Soldato
Sorry but how does that prove that VRAM was at fault? Crysis 3 is one of the more demanding games out there. Any single GPU is going to struggle at that resolution and eye candy. It could easily be lack of GPU grunt. I don't see that as conclusive proof.
If you found a way to shut off VRam on a high VRam card and then test it at each amount 1GB, 2GB, 3GB etc. Then compared the results that would be far more conclusive.
Because the decrease in performance isn't proportional to the increase in resolution.
Your performance doesn't half by increasing the pixel count by 2x.
That and because the side monitors in surround set ups don't display nearly as much content as the centre one, so not as much is being rendered as the increase in pixels would suggest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
To be fair though Greg, the performance drop off from going 1080p to 1440p is around 35%, so even though it's 60% more pixels it's not 60% more demanding.
Anyone with sense? Anyone with sense would know that it's not simply about how many pixels are being "pushed".
If that logic was correct, going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 would always result in a flat halving of FPS from 1920 > 2560, which isn't the case.
Seriously, this arguing about things you don't understand thing is going a bit far.
It's not pure pixel count, it's about what's being displayed and rendered on screen. These are the basics, come on.
But anyone with sense knows that the performance drop off is directly proportional to the amount of pixels being pushed!
As above, Gregster is incorrect, and it's fair enough to have assumptions on how it works, but posting it as fact is another matter.