• 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.

GPU Advice

The 3gb card is the sensible choice. It's not rocket science and we are all expecting Vram usage to go up with the new consoles out. Getting a 2gb card now when there's other cards with 3gb ram makes no sense unless you really want Nvidia.
 
LtMatt said:
I'm not pretending that 2GB is some arbritray limit at which games run out of memory. I'm saying that this game uses a lot of vram, so why settle for less. Just seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...

Because what matters is what it actually requires.

Your other point falls into the 'which card is more sensible' option of which you're certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion is 'meh no tangible difference' :p. I would go for the 280X though in a similar situation. It's a good card.

TheRealDeal said:
The 3gb card is the sensible choice. It's not rocket science and we are all expecting Vram usage to go up with the new consoles out. Getting a 2gb card now when there's other cards with 3gb ram makes no sense unless you really want Nvidia.
Click to expand...

In your opinion*
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
The 3gb card is the sensible choice. It's not rocket science and we are all expecting Vram usage to go up with the new consoles out. Getting a 2gb card now when there's other cards with 3gb ram makes no sense unless you really want Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Sums it up for me. No more to say on the matter. Get the 3gb card OP.
 
By the time you go over 2gb vram games will not run at an acceptable fps anyway as the cards are gpu limited right from the off.

So to the op, Get the cheapest one or get the one you like the look of.

Vram makes no difference In this game, or any other atm at an acceptable frame rate.
 
Ian Evey said:
By the time you go over 2gb vram games will not run at an acceptable fps anyway as the cards are gpu limited right from the off.

So to the op, Get the cheapest one or get the one you like the look of.

Vram makes no difference In this game, or any other atm at an acceptable frame rate.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Skyrim can be playable while breaking the 2gb barrier on a 7970 but not a 770 2gb.

I think it was argued on here that you could increase the size of textures at no cost to the gpu but use more memory. This was discussed in one of the many Vram argument threads. It may well happen with the consoles having much more memory. I know little of this though so perhaps someone who does could explain.

Anyhow the 3gb card is still the most logical.
 
Technically you can increase the texture res quite significantly without straining the FPS that much as the required 'grunt' is quite low compared to say adding in AA.

But until this actually is done and is in a game it's another if or maybe. It was meant to happen in Bioshock Infinite but never did.

Again, I agree with the principle of getting the 280X over any 2GB GK104 but it's not definitively more logical, it's that in your opinion.
 
TheRealDeal said:
This is not true. Skyrim can be playable while breaking the 2gb barrier on a 7970 but not a 770 2gb.

I think it was argued on here that you could increase the size of textures at no cost to the gpu but use more memory. This was discussed in one of the many Vram argument threads. It may well happen with the consoles having much more memory. I know little of this though so perhaps someone who does could explain.

Anyhow the 3gb card is still the most logical.
Click to expand...

Of course it's true, what you or I, or joe bloggs regards playable fps are totally our own opinions. I played skyrim many times only 670 2gb card and it did a sterling job.
 
I just thought I would give RTW2 @1080p maxed a run on my 2gb GTX 690s

98.8fps:D

gz6GwTN.jpg
 
Kappstad, Would you say that 1/2 of that 690 fps would about equal a single 680 / 770 fps wise, If so its only 3 fps behind your 290x frames which is very , very surprising.
 
Ian Evey said:
Kappstad, Would you say that 1/2 of that 690 fps would about equal a single 680 / 770 fps wise, If so its only 3 fps behind your 290x frames which is very , very surprising.
Click to expand...

That's two GTX 690s in the above bench

Unfortunately the CPU tends to limit things rather than the GPUs.

I am going to fire up the 290Xs and use all of them for a run on this, don't be surprised if the results are a bit odd.:D
 
Kaapstad said:
That's two GTX 690s in the above bench

Unfortunately the CPU tends to limit things rather than the GPUs.

I am going to fire up the 290Xs and use all of them for a run on this, don't be surprised if the results are a bit odd.:D
Click to expand...

Wow 2x690's was going to say!!!. So around 35 to 40 fps would be the norm for a 770 ( guessing ).
 
Ian Evey said:
Wow 2x690's was going to say!!!. So around 35 to 40 fps would be the norm for a 770 ( guessing ).
Click to expand...

For a GTX 770 I would say about 35 fps maxed 1080p

Just ran the 290Xs, it is not worth doing screen shots as the results were that bad.

Same settings as the GTX 690s, 1080p maxed.

1 x 290X stock = 52.5fps

2 x 290X stock = 38.7fps

3 x 290X stock = 35.0fps

4 x 290X stock = 30.7fps

:eek:

The moral of this story is, it does not matter how much VRAM a card has got if the drivers don't work (14.4 WHQL).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom