"But, but, but... the vrams!" - ALXAndy.
FYI: that's the
retail version too
FYI.
Firstly I am running a Lightning card, not a stock 570. It will bench, at 980mhz, at stock GTX 580 performance. I'm sure you knew that too, as I have posted numerous threads about it.
Secondly, that is a chart from the internet. It does not depict actual gameplay, nor does it show anything other than a couple of bars. The fact that you seem to be getting very excited over the fact that your 570 may be faster is incredibly childish, but hey, I'll humour you.
And lastly, as I have explained now numerous times, I had a GTX 470 1.3gb that ran out of vram when playing Battlefield 3. In a moment of stupidity I decided to sell it and buy a 6970 2gb in order to feed the game.
And you can post as many charts as you please, but there is no getting away from it. Infact, I have seen other 570 owners saying that their cards were stuttering due to lack of vram.
Going back to your rant about texture caching.
When turned off the textures are only given video ram to use. Most games now do not allow you to change it, but, when vram runs out (as you have been told numerous times) the game will then move onto the hard drive in order to find the extra storage space in order to load in the textures.
So again, I urge you to explain to me why it is that when presented with a fair chunk of vram Battlefield 3 will use it and then some. As I said last night (and posted the pics you seem to have been craving) Battlefield 3 in
single player used over 1400mb of vram.
Thus, that explains very clearly why I was having so many issues with it when I was running it on a GTX 470.
Make no mistake, my GTX 470 was a very
very quick card. Infact, when pushed hard enough it made over 19000 3d score in Vantage.
Yet, when running Battlefield 3 at ultra settings on 1080p with 4XFSAA none of that mattered, because the card was running out of vram and then the game was texture caching from the next available supplier - my hard drive.
And I confess, it's not a super SATA III drive or a RAID array or SSD by any means, but the fact is that you really don't want a game using any sort of hard drive for video memory.
And all of that wouldn't be so subject to scrutiny
if there were not cards with enough vram to completely eradicate the problem.
But there are. And they cost the same, or less, than cards with less vram on (which do need to use your hard drive to cache from) and are fast
enough
And by fast enough I mean, fast enough to run the game smoothly with more than acceptable minimum frame rates so that you don't notice any fluctuations.
So whilst you may be very excited that on that chart you posted up there* your card scored about 7 FPS more than mine, inevitably at the end of the day you would never ever notice it when playing the game, as my card (well, a stock 6970) is more than enough.
* Now this is the part where I get to LOL.
That chart you posted was from Bit-tech. The same group of folk responsible for Maximum PC. Three months ago in one of their issues they did a rather large GPU roundup, where they basically recommended Nvidia cards over AMD cards across the entire sweep of levels.
However,
this month the only Nvidia card they recommended in their suggested hardware section was the 560ti. And that was recommending it over the 6850 for medium level gaming.
When it got to the high end there was no sign whatsoever of the 570 or 580, and the card at that level was suggested to be a 6970 2gb (that blue HIS one).
So, it appears that Bit-tech have indeed changed their minds. Oddly, at the same turning point of them changing their minds they also
reviewed Battlefield 3 in the very same edition.
Coincidence? I think not.
