• 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.

VRAM compression on the GTX 9 series, it is not very good.

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,935
Location
Dalek flagship
This is not very scientific but I thought I would give Crysis 3 @4K maxed a go on my 980s. As this uses 4.5gb of VRAM on the Titans I figured that with the memory compression feature the 980s come with they could squeeze this under 4gb to run it smoothly.

This is what I got

x4tEOj9.jpg


This was running the opening part of the game and as you can see it was a stuttery mess (by comparison the Titans are very smooth).

What is even worse is even quadfired 4gb 290Xs run the game smoother with higher fps.

Worse still antique quad SLI Titans are very smooth and have slightly better fps too.
 
Kaapstad said:
This is not very scientific but I thought I would give Crysis 3 @4K maxed a go on my 980s. As this uses 4.5gb of VRAM on the Titans I figured that with the memory compression feature the 980s come with they could squeeze this under 4gb to run it smoothly.

This is what I got

x4tEOj9.jpg


This was running the opening part of the game and as you can see it was a stuttery mess (by comparison the Titans are very smooth).

What is even worse is even quadfired 4gb 290Xs run the game smoother with higher fps.

Worse still antique quad SLI Titans are very smooth and have slightly better fps too.
Click to expand...

Think you need to start doing some video's Kap.
 
I'm not a big fan - a lot of games already use various compression techniques and while I'm not sure off the top of my head if it provides a benefit in-between compressed texture data being decompressed for the final rendering bit or not overall I'm not convinced its as effective as it needs to be.
 
how does this work though ... I diddnt think it compressed the assets data just increased the theoretical bandwidth to move those assets by reusing stored information on color ( reducing the need for a bigger bus )
 
Last edited:
MasterOC said:
how does this work though ... I diddnt think it compressed the assets data just increased the theoretical bandwidth to move those assets by reusing stored information on color ( reducing the need for a bigger bus )
Click to expand...

Some information on page 10 here http://international.download.nvidi...nal/pdfs/GeForce_GTX_980_Whitepaper_FINAL.PDF though doesn't go into that much technical depth. I think they are overestimating the efficiencies possible with the way people actually develop games versus how theoretically games are developed.
 
Try CoD Advanced Warfare, Good Grief..... @ 1080P I'm tearing along at 100 FPS "nearly maximum IQ" and 3.6GB of Vram, if i do try Maximum IQ i get a warning that Textures will run heavily compressed, which they do and look horrible, it also dumps the Vram Cache at every checkpoint.
 
Last edited:
Update

n33Cak6.jpg


I thought I would run this on the Titans as I have not done it for ages and guess what, the game is a stutter mess in the opening sequence.

What the GPUZ screenshot does also show which is interesting is the uncompressed VRAM being used.

4.4gb of uncompressed memory is not a lot for the 980s to compress but going by the previous screenshot this is not happening.

As to the stuttering in the game it is about even comparing the Titans and 980s so this could be down to the latest update for the game.

The other difference is the Titans are using a 3930k/Win7 system and the 980s are using a 5960X/Win8.1 system.
 
The opening sequence was bugged at some point due to some shady rope physics. Play a little bit 'till you're further into the game, then test it. But test on the same machine, 'cause when you get out, the grass physics uses a lot of CPU power and may alter the results.
 
I don't think I remember reading it was intended to compress all of what is in VRAM kaap - it uses dynamic compression when moving data around in order to minimise traffic over the bus, it isn't a magic bullet to improve VRAM utilisation itself
 
Ayahuasca said:
would have been nice if you knew how the technology worked Kaap before making a sensationalist title.
Click to expand...

I don't think many people here actually understand how it works entirely - I've only a basic understanding of it and not even entirely sure how effective it is when you have already compressed data (even though the main implementation is on the fly compression/decompression over the interface between sub-systems rather than packed in VRAM).
 
almighty15 said:
The new tech doesn't compress the VRAM Kaap.

It compresses the pixel data.

So bit of a pointless thread??
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is a 4gb NVidia card is no more use than a 4gb AMD card. If you are right I think this makes the thread anything but pointless as there is no point in buying a 9 series card over a R9 290 series card because the former has memory compression.

Also as Rroff has posted above, this is the way that I have always believed compression to work and further to that to compress something requires additional resources that the AMD cards don't need.
 
Ayahuasca said:
would have been nice if you knew how the technology worked Kaap before making a sensationalist title.
Click to expand...

No I was spot on

Just because a 4gb card has memory compression does not stop it running out of memory just as fast as a card that does not have compression.

Also the way compression works means that the card without it (providing the bus is up to it) could actually work faster than one that uses it. This is also the case with SSDs.

If this thread gets people discussing what compression really does then they are not going to waste their money if the feature is of no use to them.
 
I doubt anyone's decision to buy a 9 series card is based on memory compression.

I think everyone knows by now 4gb isn't enough for 4k in most new titles.
 
Ayahuasca said:
I doubt anyone's decision to buy a 9 series card is based on memory compression.

I think everyone knows by now 4gb isn't enough for 4k in most new titles.
Click to expand...

At the moment I am using my 980s more than any of my other cards even @4K but it is also important for me to know their limitations as well as their strengths.
 
TBH the memory holds me back from sidegrading to a 9xx card both in VRAM amount and bandwidth, my 780 can choke a bit at 4K if I'm not careful with settings, especially AA.

Shame GB never did a 6GB GHZ edition a pair of those would have been nice at 4K.
 
Rroff said:
TBH the memory holds me back from sidegrading to a 9xx card both in VRAM amount and bandwidth, my 780 can choke a bit at 4K if I'm not careful with settings, especially AA.

Shame GB never did a 6GB GHZ edition a pair of those would have been nice at 4K.
Click to expand...

You would probably find it very difficult to tell the difference @4K between your 780 a 980 or any other highend single card.

If I turned someone lose on BF4 @4k with a single Titan, 290X or 980 they would not be able to tell the difference, I can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom