Not unless you intend on buying three 4GB 670's. They are only viable when you have enough GPU grunt to push the amount of VRAM that is required to run max details.
-
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.
Should I upgrade? GTX 670 to...
- Thread starter stringsonfire
- Start date
Not unless you intend on buying three 4GB 670's. They are only viable when you have enough GPU grunt to push the amount of VRAM that is required to run max details.
I wouldn't be throwing more money for high res gaming and being stuck on 2Gb, could become useless very soon due to the raft of titles encroaching very close to the limit of 2Gb if not already exceeding it already-Hitman@1080p max MSAA for one(although it will need Titan or 2 79's to manage anyway).
Not very fair bud.
You told me I was wrong in our 7970 v 7950 performance difference debate, despite myself testing 7970 v 7950 and you only testing a 7950 v nothing.
Not very fair bud.
You told me I was wrong in our 7970 v 7950 performance difference debate, despite myself testing 7970 v 7950 and you only testing a 7950 v nothing.
So your advice is to spend a load more money on the off chance that the VRAM wall MIGHT be hit in the future and that the raw grunt requirement to achieve playable FPS reduces. Logic failure.
Throughout all of our testing what became apparent was that, yes, you can come close to the 2GB limit in a Surround resolution and on occasion exceed it but if you're using 1950MB of VRAM and getting 10-15 FPS it's a bit of a point about nothing really. If you were getting 70 FPS at 1950MB of VRAM and then you hit the VRAM wall then that would be reason to consider a 4GB card but that never even came close to being achieved in any of my testing. New games may alter the relationship slightly but the overriding factor on the 670s/680s is raw grunt as opposed to the memory amount. I believe Gregster already explained this to you he could hit the VRAM wall but was getting ~20FPS anyway.
Bit confused as to why you still don't understand it but OK I'm not going to waste more time explaining it again if you don't listen
.+1
Not very fair bud.
You told me I was wrong in our 7970 v 7950 performance difference debate, despite myself testing 7970 v 7950 and you only testing a 7950 v nothing.
You're either not being very smart or have a poor memory. I believe what I was saying is that I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary and I didn't really place much emphasis on your synthetic benchmarks. That's different.
I know it suits you to simplify a debate to "right/wrong" but there is often more to be said than this very basic method of debating. With VRAM both whyscotty, Gregster and I all tested it extensively and shared the results so.... slightly different
Last edited:
- Joined
- 18 May 2011
- Posts
- 70
- Location
- London, UK
Do the ATI cards make better use of more VRAM then? As they come with 3GB or 6GB in the extreme?
And at the moment, I am playing Skyrim with about 50 mods...
And at the moment, I am playing Skyrim with about 50 mods...
Nah not really. They're both the same in that respect. The AMD cards have 3GB as they have a 384 bit bus which means 1.5GB or 3GB for this generation. 1.5GB isn't really enough to match the grunt which the 7950/7970 possess so it was a natural choice to equip it with 3GB.
As the 7950/7970s are much, much faster at your resolution they push higher FPS which allows them to utilise more than 2GB of VRAM as you can enable more visually taxing settings which will increase the amount of VRAM used. A moot point somewhat because they have 3GB anyway.
But with the 2GB nVidia cards you'll have to lower settings to achieve playable FPS over 3 screens which will reduce the VRAM used away from 2GB.
The exception is if you use 3 GPUs. Then you can utilise the extra 2GB that 4GB cards have.
Basically, if you have 2 4GB 670s you'll have to lower settings anyway in game to get decent FPS and as a result you may see VRAM usage well, well under 2GB which would beg the question, why get 4GB in the first place?
In reality it's a little more complex than that because cards with huge amounts of memory on tend to cache a lot of textures into the VRAM which isn't necessarily needed. So you could see a reading of 2.4GB used on a 4GB card but only 1.7GB used on a 2GB card in exactly the same scenario.
I think Gregster had something ludicrous like 4.5GB used on his 6GB Titans - due to the above mentioned caching - but of course that doesn't mean everyone needs Titans to play across three screens
.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 2,877
- Location
- -
I cba to reiterate what's been said, I run 2 2gb 680s @ 3 x 1080p, you have to turn settings down anyway for demanding games as they don't have the balls. A single 4gb 670 would fail hard.
Surround is meh anyway, only worth using for racing games that support it well.
Surround is meh anyway, only worth using for racing games that support it well.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,661
- Location
- Durham
Gregg said it himself the 680s were no good due to bandwidth/bus issues. If you do not mind AMD then go 7970/7950 or wait for the next gen if you are opposed to the red team. Regardless of what people will have you believe you need 3gb plus for higher res gaming
Permabanned
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,661
- Location
- Durham
Or Titans but purely for the price its not worth it.
(Not having a dig there though)
(Not having a dig there though)
No you don't lol. Read Gregster's post in this very thread. Memory bandwidth limitations is not the same as running out of VRAM.
+1
Last edited:
@Rusty,
I was speaking to the op, but yes, I'm stating that 2Gb 67/68's aren't enough, I'm not even convinced that the 4Gb's are enough as you need 3 of them, that's why I mention 2 79's or Titan, they have a large enough mem bus/vram, and since they are faster at higher res than the 6 series= extra grunt to help cope better.
Your findings last August or so=outdated and were from the best you could get to challenge the 2Gb limit=BF3, but this is the middle of March and like I said then and I'm saying now, it wasn't enough.
BF3 has been surpassed by vram requirements I put 'may' in to save some grief, but no I got it anyway, guy asks for an opinion, so I gave it, so heres why:
Single 7970 not fast enough, but 2 of them will be, whereas, 2 2Gb's will still struggle and the game still has another 4X MSAA available to select.
The only 2 cards@1080p that were playable, had more than 2Gb and both on the larger memory bus.
We debated till the cows came home on the 7970-50 performance difference despite yourself not using both, that was what was meant in regards to telling diagro that his opinion wasn't good enough.
Of course they do, when a 2 GB card hits the wall in Skyrim, this happens:
Contrary to what was said earlier, if AMD wanted the 79's to struggle with memory, they would have went the cheaper route and put them on the same memory bus as Nvidia and made 2Gb/4Gb versions.
They didn't(maybe because they know the capabilities of the consoles peeking out from the corner up the road), they made a higher memory bus to cope with pushing out higher bandwidth, which is a design decision that will see the 79's carry on where the 6 series struggles-rusty said BF3 was 27% faster and with newer titles=more demanding...
I was speaking to the op, but yes, I'm stating that 2Gb 67/68's aren't enough, I'm not even convinced that the 4Gb's are enough as you need 3 of them, that's why I mention 2 79's or Titan, they have a large enough mem bus/vram, and since they are faster at higher res than the 6 series= extra grunt to help cope better.
Your findings last August or so=outdated and were from the best you could get to challenge the 2Gb limit=BF3, but this is the middle of March and like I said then and I'm saying now, it wasn't enough.
BF3 has been surpassed by vram requirements I put 'may' in to save some grief, but no I got it anyway, guy asks for an opinion, so I gave it, so heres why:
Single 7970 not fast enough, but 2 of them will be, whereas, 2 2Gb's will still struggle and the game still has another 4X MSAA available to select.
The only 2 cards@1080p that were playable, had more than 2Gb and both on the larger memory bus.
We debated till the cows came home on the 7970-50 performance difference despite yourself not using both, that was what was meant in regards to telling diagro that his opinion wasn't good enough.
Of course they do, when a 2 GB card hits the wall in Skyrim, this happens:
Been playing around with Skyrim mods and all was good until I installed the Texture Pack Combiner, some stuttering started.
Low and behold I fired up Afterburner and was shocked to see my Vram usage sitting @3995Mb@1080p which of course is 1997Mb each gpu.
The cards in question are 6950>70 CrossFire running 950MHz/1300MHz, these are plenty fast at anything I have thrown at them@1080p, including Skyrim until the texture pack combiner was installed.
I swapped in a 7970 Wind Force and fired up Skyrim again, no stuttering but the vram is now hitting ~2750Mb.
As imo, the 7970 I used is slower than my CrossFire setup@1080p, it's definitely not gpu grunt at fault, they ran out of Vram!
At this point I should add that this is all being done in 3D via Tridef.
Mods used along with the Texture Combiner(and required files) are:
In game settings:
Not advocating/advising anyone rips out gpu's to replace a 2Gb gpu at all for 1080p gaming, the aim of the post is to be informative and let anyone know that a modded Skyrim can breach 2Gb vram@1080p.
Texture Combiner available here:
http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/20801/#content
Contrary to what was said earlier, if AMD wanted the 79's to struggle with memory, they would have went the cheaper route and put them on the same memory bus as Nvidia and made 2Gb/4Gb versions.
They didn't(maybe because they know the capabilities of the consoles peeking out from the corner up the road), they made a higher memory bus to cope with pushing out higher bandwidth, which is a design decision that will see the 79's carry on where the 6 series struggles-rusty said BF3 was 27% faster and with newer titles=more demanding...
Last edited:
lol time doesn't suddenly render obsolete finding like this. I'm sure Gregster will reconfirm it from a more recent point of view anyway. No, he already has. Oops.
Basically the point is 2*2GB 670 are as good/bad as 2*4GB 670s at triple screen
You're still completely missing the point about the relationship between FPS achieved and VRAM used. No-one is saying that it's not possible to use more than 2GB but again what FPS just before the memory wall is hit? That's right, too low.
Yes, due to grunt. There's only about 6 people on this thread confirming about VRAM but that's not enough
. See above. It's different running out of VRAM with 10 FPS than it is running out of VRAM with 70 FPS. Repeating this because it doesn't look like you read it first time round.
No. You were telling me you were right and I was wrong based on a synthetic benchmark. I was saying that I will reserve judgement until I see some proper evidence.
It wasn't an opinion. If somebody says something it doesn't mean it's an opinion. It also doesn't mean an opinion can't be wrong if it's based on flawed logic.
Better use is not the same as having more >.<
Agreed that the better choice for triple screen is clearly the 7900 series on paper. Doesn't mean everyone wants to rip out their 600 series and swap though. I went for the nuclear option and was pleasantly surprised just how much faster they were when both were clocked up. Doesn't mean that it was due to VRAM though
.
Last edited:
I am so bored of this pointless VRAM argument.
That was 5760x1080 will all settings maxed. VRAM wasn't an issue but if you look at some of the fps, settings needed to be turned down to get acceptable frame rates (this in turn drops the amount of VRAM being used).
It is a tired argument that proves 2GB isn't enough if you are happy with under 20fps in some games but is enough if you are happy with over 50fps
That was 5760x1080 will all settings maxed. VRAM wasn't an issue but if you look at some of the fps, settings needed to be turned down to get acceptable frame rates (this in turn drops the amount of VRAM being used).
It is a tired argument that proves 2GB isn't enough if you are happy with under 20fps in some games but is enough if you are happy with over 50fps
Rusty, the op can decide, there's no point trying to correct my first quote you used, when your arguing the same point I stated, I'm missing no point in regards to vram, besides the cows are in.
It's tiresome at times.
What no one seems to grasp is that I'm talking about what 2 X 3Gb 384 bit can achieve that 2 X 2Gb 256 bit can't.
I already said earlier-with your results you posted above, the most demanding title is BF3, that has been superseded in regards to vram.
If the op wasn't going to buy any future titles then I wouldn't have shared my opinion, but no doubt he will.
There has been/definitely will be more vram hungry titles since BF3.
The 79's are different to the 6's too, what takes more than 2 6's, doesn't equate the same for the 79's all the way down the line.
rusty already pointed out that on the 12.11's BF3 was 27% faster(no doubt it's faster again with recent driver improvements), do the maths, 2 79's can play faster and probably use higher IQ at the same fps as the 6's-which negates rusty's you don't understand how it works ****.
It's all well pointing out that we think/don't think, at the end of the day, again, it's my opinion, the same argument happened with 570's and looked what happened there and remember there wasn't next gen consoles in the equation that time.
IMO, it's bullish to say the least, that 2Gb/256-bit is enough not knowing what's coming tomorrow when it's at/busted the limit just now, even more so when the devs are saying the PS4 is going to surpass current PC's capabilities at first-like they done last time, initially the PC couldn't match the 360, it didn't happen overnight either.
It's tiresome at times.
What no one seems to grasp is that I'm talking about what 2 X 3Gb 384 bit can achieve that 2 X 2Gb 256 bit can't.
I already said earlier-with your results you posted above, the most demanding title is BF3, that has been superseded in regards to vram.
If the op wasn't going to buy any future titles then I wouldn't have shared my opinion, but no doubt he will.
There has been/definitely will be more vram hungry titles since BF3.
The 79's are different to the 6's too, what takes more than 2 6's, doesn't equate the same for the 79's all the way down the line.
rusty already pointed out that on the 12.11's BF3 was 27% faster(no doubt it's faster again with recent driver improvements), do the maths, 2 79's can play faster and probably use higher IQ at the same fps as the 6's-which negates rusty's you don't understand how it works ****.
It's all well pointing out that we think/don't think, at the end of the day, again, it's my opinion, the same argument happened with 570's and looked what happened there and remember there wasn't next gen consoles in the equation that time.
IMO, it's bullish to say the least, that 2Gb/256-bit is enough not knowing what's coming tomorrow when it's at/busted the limit just now, even more so when the devs are saying the PS4 is going to surpass current PC's capabilities at first-like they done last time, initially the PC couldn't match the 360, it didn't happen overnight either.
Last edited:
Well I'm talking about 2/4GB 6 series. What is faster out of the 7900 series and 600 series across 3 screens is so clear cut I'm clearly not on about that.
Edit: this is the OPs question Tommy. You'd do we'll to stay on topic:
But you are missing the point still because you've then said this:
Still missing that playable FPS point. Your argument is inherently flawed because it assumes that the requirement to achieve playable FPS will reduce in future so that the extra VRAM can be used.
He was on about you lmao.
Are your fingers in your ears? Playable FPS again. VRAM requirement may have increased but it's still pointless if the grunt isn't there to push it with two 2GB 670s. You keep talking about the 7900 series but the OP has a 670 already and unless I'm mistaken everybody has already said that these cards are faster at triple screen resolution. But you're now saying - based on your incoherent argument - the OP doesn't bother getting another 2GB 670 because he's going to hit the imaginary VRAM doomsday.
Playable. FPS. GPU. Grunt.
This doesn't really mean anything.
An opinion can be wrong if it's based on flawed logic like yours is. Trying to say that is just trying to hide from criticism because deep down you probably know you've got it wrong.
If a title uses more VRAM, fine, but if it doesn't have the GPU grunt to drive the settings which cause it to run out of VRAM then it doesn't matter what VRAM it uses at maximum settings as you can't use them anyway.
Oh good lord, nobody is saying that a 670/680 is enough: what everyone (note: people who have actually used triple screens with 6 series cards) bar you is saying is that two 2GB 670s are the same as two 4 GB 670s due to the playable FPS point again.
p.s. still waiting for your results across your imaginary triple screens which gives you such insight.
Edit: this is the OPs question Tommy. You'd do we'll to stay on topic:
But you are missing the point still because you've then said this:
Still missing that playable FPS point. Your argument is inherently flawed because it assumes that the requirement to achieve playable FPS will reduce in future so that the extra VRAM can be used.
He was on about you lmao.
Are your fingers in your ears? Playable FPS again. VRAM requirement may have increased but it's still pointless if the grunt isn't there to push it with two 2GB 670s. You keep talking about the 7900 series but the OP has a 670 already and unless I'm mistaken everybody has already said that these cards are faster at triple screen resolution. But you're now saying - based on your incoherent argument - the OP doesn't bother getting another 2GB 670 because he's going to hit the imaginary VRAM doomsday.
Playable. FPS. GPU. Grunt.
This doesn't really mean anything.
An opinion can be wrong if it's based on flawed logic like yours is. Trying to say that is just trying to hide from criticism because deep down you probably know you've got it wrong.
If a title uses more VRAM, fine, but if it doesn't have the GPU grunt to drive the settings which cause it to run out of VRAM then it doesn't matter what VRAM it uses at maximum settings as you can't use them anyway.
Oh good lord, nobody is saying that a 670/680 is enough: what everyone (note: people who have actually used triple screens with 6 series cards) bar you is saying is that two 2GB 670s are the same as two 4 GB 670s due to the playable FPS point again.
p.s. still waiting for your results across your imaginary triple screens which gives you such insight
.
Last edited:
I have 3x GTX 670 2GB. Running games in 5760x1200 is fine, and I can even put FXAA or 8xMSAA on a good deal of the games while they're running the highest settings.
I briefly tried 7680x1440 and I'm pretty sure I hit a Vram wall, because when going from 2xMSAA to 4xMSAA would mean a massive drop in FPS. When gaming at 7680x1440 without AA or max using FXAA, the games ran smooth enough for me (50FPS or so in average for Crysis Warhead no AA)
However I'm back to one screen again, since 3 screen gaming isn't really my thing. I prefer one big high resolution screen...still hoping for a 2560x1600/1440p screen for summer.
I briefly tried 7680x1440 and I'm pretty sure I hit a Vram wall, because when going from 2xMSAA to 4xMSAA would mean a massive drop in FPS. When gaming at 7680x1440 without AA or max using FXAA, the games ran smooth enough for me (50FPS or so in average for Crysis Warhead no AA)
However I'm back to one screen again, since 3 screen gaming isn't really my thing. I prefer one big high resolution screen...still hoping for a 2560x1600/1440p screen for summer.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,408
- Location
- Rugby
Heck I've started Tomb Raider today and I'm hitting 3-3.2gb Vram usage at 1440p Max details bar AA which is set to FXAA
2560*1440 is kind of in the middle with regards to the VRAM/GPU grunt balance. It's a tough one but I think if I was buying, I would get 2*4GB cards for that resolution.
With 5760*1080 the load on the GPU is far, far higher which reduces FPS quite considerably which means a drop in settings anyway away from the 2GB limit.
I responded to the original posters(not the original post) questions which were:
With my answer being:
To then clarify what I meant with:
Nowhere have I said anything about 2/4Gb 670/680's, that's yourself that keeps bleating on about it, not me, despite you knowing full well that I have witnessed the vram wall with plenty of gpu power in the tank when I hit it, to then keep trying to explain the difference between 2-4GB 6 series gpu grunt.
Iv'e pointed it out before I'm talking about the limitations of the 2Gb/4Gb/ 256 bit bus combination but it's clearly not registering.
Quite clear and coherent I thought, for you then to go on about results last year that show zero bearing on titles released since and how it fairs against it's lesser counterpart that is the 7950 never mind the 7970 that quite clearly isn't shackled on the larger memory bus.
A 35%(which will be anything between 40-45% faster on the 79's) swing in performance isn't down to gpu grunt, it's down to the combination of gpu/vram/memory bus.
Move it on rusty and please stop implying/trying to put words in my mouth stating 2Gb vs 4Gb 67/80's vram argument, when I never mentioned anything about it.
