Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Videocards - NVIDIA
Videocards - NVIDIA This forum is all about NVIDIA graphics cards and their technology. Do you have a question regarding an older GeForce videocard? Want to tell people how stylish a game works on that new shiny watercooled GeForce GTX 580 or SLI gaming rig? Get in here!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
GeForce GTX 680 2GB and 2560x1440?
Old
  (#1)
PR-0927
Maha Guru
 
PR-0927's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GeForce GTX 680 SC+
Processor: Core i7 920
Mainboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe V2
Memory: 12GB Patriot DDR3 1600
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: Antec TPQ-850
Default GeForce GTX 680 2GB and 2560x1440? - 10-03-2013, 10:51 | posts: 1,668 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.

Hey guys, long time no post on Guru3D! Anyways, I seem to have acquired some funds for use as I see fit. I've been eying one of those QNIX QX2710 Evolution II 27" 2560x1440 displays.

Here's the thing - I'm currently playing games and maxing out everything at 1920x1200, with no problems. BF3, BF4 Beta, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3, you name it. Literally the ONLY thing I've had to sacrifice so far is the highest AA setting in Total War: Shogun 2 (which, based on benchmarks, at 1080p/1920x1200 a GTX 690 or Titan seemed necessary for an acceptable FPS) - this hardly bugged me, since I comfortably had it on the second-highest AA setting...plus it's a strategy game - not a real need for high FPS.

Oh, and this is after messing with the NVIDIA Control Panel and setting the AA to 32xCSAA and the transparency AA to 8xSSAA. Meaning my games are all undergoing the control panel-based additional demands (along with adaptive v-sync, triple buffering, 16xAF, etc.).

All games are running, as mentioned, acceptably. Meaning that I've seen a minimum of 35-40 FPS or so (near-constant 60 FPS in BF3 with v-sync, and roughly 50 FPS in the BF4 Beta). I am NOT someone who needs 60 FPS on everything. As long as it isn't a slideshow, and preferably anything above a minimum of +-30 FPS, I am totally happy. My preference is to sacrifice AA when I have an FPS hit, NOT any other graphics settings.

However, the appeal of a nice IPS/PLS display at a much higher resolution is hard to ignore. I also, however, do not want to sacrifice maxing out graphics options - but AA I can do without, if need be (especially as at such high resolutions, AA matters WAY, WAY less than at lower resolutions). Seeing as benchmarks show the GTX 680 to play BF3 at roughly 42-45 FPS on average at 2560x1440, my assumption would be that BF4 at the same resolution, maxed out, wouldn't be much slower.

I do have a factory-OCed GTX 680 (only a slight OC) as well, so I typically see average FPS levels higher than the stock GTX 680 on most games.

So basically, the question is, will I be disappointed if I get a 2560x1440 monitor without changing my GPU? I have NO money to upgrade the GPU (the funds allotted me are hardly enough to afford a GTX 680-trumping GPU). Obviously I should be fine for a few months with virtually every game, but how much will my "maxing-out" lifespan be reduced by going from 1920x1200 to 2560x1440?

Any recommendations would be much appreciated!
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
lucidus
Ancient Guru
 
lucidus's Avatar
 
Videocard: 780
Processor: i7 920 3.5GHz
Mainboard: Asus P6T Deluxe
Memory: 6GB
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: EVGA 850w Supernova soon
Default 10-03-2013, 11:50 | posts: 7,098 | Location: Dubai

I think you'll face problems with VRAM in particular at that resolution, especially in upcoming games.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Pill Monster
Ancient Guru
 
Pill Monster's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7950 Vapor-X 1175/1550
Processor: AMD FX-8320 @4.8
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
Memory: 8GB Kingston HyperX 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty
PSU: AcBel M8 750
Default 10-03-2013, 12:10 | posts: 24,427 | Location: NZ

Well 2GB vram prob won't be enough, however you should still buy that monitor because the GPU is gonna get upgraded at some stage.

You don't want to buy another monitor in like 2yrs time just cause u got a new GPU right....until then just lower the res or graphics if need be...

Last edited by Pill Monster; 10-03-2013 at 12:12.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
nakquada
Master Guru
 
nakquada's Avatar
 
Videocard: Gigabyte 780 Ti OC
Processor: Core i7 3770K
Mainboard: Asus Sabertooth Z77
Memory: 16GB G.Skill DDR3-1600
Soundcard: SB Zx + Edifier S550 5.1
PSU: Corsair AX1200i
Default 10-03-2013, 12:10 | posts: 316 | Location: Kildare, Ireland

I play at 2560x1600 with 2GB 680s and never have an issue.
I get 90-100 fps on Ultra in BF3/BF4 with AA enabled.
That's SLI though, I've tried with SLI disabled and still get almost as good.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
maxx126
Newbie
 
Videocard: GTX 680 SLI
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500k
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Pro
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL DDR3
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Essence STX
PSU: 800W
Default 10-03-2013, 12:20 | posts: 11

I have two 4GB 680's in SLI and a monitor with 2560x1440. Based on my experience, you won't have a problem with 2GB ram (I haven't seen a game coming close to that limit yet) but one card won't cut it.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Pill Monster
Ancient Guru
 
Pill Monster's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7950 Vapor-X 1175/1550
Processor: AMD FX-8320 @4.8
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
Memory: 8GB Kingston HyperX 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty
PSU: AcBel M8 750
Default 10-03-2013, 12:33 | posts: 24,427 | Location: NZ

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx126 View Post
I have two 4GB 680's in SLI and a monitor with 2560x1440. Based on my experience, you won't have a problem with 2GB ram (I haven't seen a game coming close to that limit yet) but one card won't cut it.
Um, how does your experience with 4GB SLI relate to the OP's single 2GB card?

Btw if you haven't seen a game use 2GB vram then go play ArmA3 on Ultra settings, or Skyrim with HD pak, or Crysis 2, or BF3.....or...the list goes on....
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
---TK---
Ancient Guru
 
---TK---'s Avatar
 
Videocard: 780Ti SC SLI/Qnix 2710
Processor: 2600k 4.6Ghz
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Deluxe
Memory: RipJaws X 2x8GB 2133Mhz
Soundcard: Phoebus + DT880 Pro 250
PSU: Corsair AX 1200
Default 10-03-2013, 15:41 | posts: 18,944 | Location: New Jersey, USA

1 680 at that resolution is pretty weak
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Netherwind
Maha Guru
 
Netherwind's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 970 4GB SLI 1500MHz
Processor: Intel i5 3570K 4400MHz
Mainboard: MSI Z77A-GD55
Memory: Corsair 16GB Ven. 1600MHz
Soundcard: Onboard Audio
PSU: Corsair 850W HX
Default 10-03-2013, 17:25 | posts: 1,582 | Location: Sweden

What are you guys saying?

I definitely see VRAM stuttering while playing BF4 on Ultra settings @ 1200p. The VRAM usage peaks and occasionally I get these stuttering when moving to an area where VRAM is missing information.

Same thing goes for Crysis 3 on Very High when using 4xMSAA @ 1200p.

I'd love to have two 4GB cards to get rid of this problem (which, I admit, is not very big at the moment but will be in the future).
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
maxx126
Newbie
 
Videocard: GTX 680 SLI
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500k
Mainboard: Asus P8P67 Pro
Memory: 16GB G.SKILL DDR3
Soundcard: Asus Xonar Essence STX
PSU: 800W
Default 10-03-2013, 19:13 | posts: 11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pill Monster View Post
Um, how does your experience with 4GB SLI relate to the OP's single 2GB card?

Btw if you haven't seen a game use 2GB vram then go play ArmA3 on Ultra settings, or Skyrim with HD pak, or Crysis 2, or BF3.....or...the list goes on....
I haven't tried Skyrim but I tried the rest and none of them reached 2GB even with AA like 4X AA on BF3 at Ultra Settings @1440p according to MSI Afterburner.

So my cards being 4gb instead of 2gb doesn't change anything because they are not utilized. At the moment at least...

As I said to him, he'll have a problem because of the single card not 2GB memory.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Pill Monster
Ancient Guru
 
Pill Monster's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7950 Vapor-X 1175/1550
Processor: AMD FX-8320 @4.8
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
Memory: 8GB Kingston HyperX 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty
PSU: AcBel M8 750
Default 10-03-2013, 19:28 | posts: 24,427 | Location: NZ

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx126 View Post
I haven't tried Skyrim but I tried the rest and none of them reached 2GB even with AA like 4X AA on BF3 at Ultra Settings @1440p according to MSI Afterburner.

So my cards being 4gb instead of 2gb doesn't change anything because they are not utilized. At the moment at least...

As I said to him, he'll have a problem because of the single card not 2GB memory.
That all depends on the workload, if he runs out of vram not even quadfire will improve performance.

And you can't have tried ArmA3, otherwise you'd know it uses over 2.5GB vram at max settings.

Anyway I think he should buy the monitor regardless......
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
PR-0927
Maha Guru
 
PR-0927's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GeForce GTX 680 SC+
Processor: Core i7 920
Mainboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe V2
Memory: 12GB Patriot DDR3 1600
Soundcard: ASUS Xonar DX
PSU: Antec TPQ-850
Default 10-03-2013, 22:40 | posts: 1,668 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, U.S.A.

Well I did a LOT of research after the above comments, haha. Here's what I found out:
  • Benefits between the 2GB and 4GB variant of the GTX 680 are literally not more than 2 FPS in any game I looked at, at 2560x1440 or below - when differences arose they were for much larger, multi-monitor setups, and the differences were still smaller than expected.
  • I looked at the recent GTX 780 Classified review on Guru3D - there are 2560x1440 benchmarks for virtually every game - the GTX 680 2GB has completely acceptable FPS for every single game, for me.
  • If need be I will lower or turn off AA - this SUBSTANTIALLY improves FPS, and IMO, hurts image quality the least - I would rather have very high-res textures, high poly counts, etc.
  • The whole "uses 2.5GB of VRAM" thing is apparently very misunderstood by most. Apparently almost every modern game adapts to whatever VRAM quantity you have, and because of the way texture s t r e a m i n g (why is this word censored?) is setup (like with BF3), VRAM usage isn't as big a deal as people think. Mostly it's been widely regarded as more of a marketing gimmick for single-monitor resolutions and smaller...even with the most taxing games, high-res texture packs, etc.
  • On that note of VRAM, increasing AA substantially increases VRAM usage over other graphical things.


So basically, I think I'll be good with what I've got for a reasonable time span. Now to wait for a good Black Friday sale...
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
LinkDrive
Ancient Guru
 
LinkDrive's Avatar
 
Videocard: Toaster
Processor: 2 Slot
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: Wall Socket
Default 10-03-2013, 23:50 | posts: 4,675

I do a lot of downsampling on my 2gb 680. I run a lot of games at 3840x2160, or if the fps is too low, then I bump it down to 2880x1620. I have not come across a game that won't run properly at 2880x1620 even with MSAA.

Honestly, 1440p is cake for a 2gb 680. You are more likely to run out of GPU horsepower than vram with current and near futture games. If you want to grab a 1440p display, I'd say go for it, and grab a GTX880 when they come out.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
Veteran
Ancient Guru
 
Veteran's Avatar
 
Videocard: 690@1372-Vmod on H20-24/7
Processor: 4930k@4.2ghz-1.05v-H20
Mainboard: R4BE@Monoblock-H20
Memory: 16Gb Mushkin Redline2133
Soundcard: SupremeFX-Sennheiser 350
PSU: Corsair AX 1200i
Default 10-04-2013, 00:08 | posts: 10,806 | Location: United kingdom

Quote:
Originally Posted by ****ns View Post
I do a lot of downsampling on my 2gb 680. I run a lot of games at 3840x2160, or if the fps is too low, then I bump it down to 2880x1620. I have not come across a game that won't run properly at 2880x1620 even with MSAA.

Honestly, 1440p is cake for a 2gb 680. You are more likely to run out of GPU horsepower than vram with current and near futture games. If you want to grab a 1440p display, I'd say go for it, and grab a GTX880 when they come out.
I do not thimk you would get a constant 60fps with a single 680 and get a constant 60fps at 1440p. There is no way especially with Nvidia Inspector AA settings nvm the BS ingame settings.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
LinkDrive
Ancient Guru
 
LinkDrive's Avatar
 
Videocard: Toaster
Processor: 2 Slot
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: Wall Socket
Default 10-04-2013, 00:14 | posts: 4,675

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veteran View Post
I do not thimk you would get a constant 60fps with a single 680 and get a constant 60fps at 1440p. There is no way especially with Nvidia Inspector AA settings nvm the BS ingame settings.
That's nice.
When did I say anything about maintaining 60 fps?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
lucidus
Ancient Guru
 
lucidus's Avatar
 
Videocard: 780
Processor: i7 920 3.5GHz
Mainboard: Asus P6T Deluxe
Memory: 6GB
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: EVGA 850w Supernova soon
Default 10-04-2013, 00:28 | posts: 7,098 | Location: Dubai

Quote:
Originally Posted by PR-0927 View Post
Well I did a LOT of research after the above comments, haha. Here's what I found out:
  • Benefits between the 2GB and 4GB variant of the GTX 680 are literally not more than 2 FPS in any game I looked at, at 2560x1440 or below - when differences arose they were for much larger, multi-monitor setups, and the differences were still smaller than expected.
  • I looked at the recent GTX 780 Classified review on Guru3D - there are 2560x1440 benchmarks for virtually every game - the GTX 680 2GB has completely acceptable FPS for every single game, for me.
  • If need be I will lower or turn off AA - this SUBSTANTIALLY improves FPS, and IMO, hurts image quality the least - I would rather have very high-res textures, high poly counts, etc.
  • The whole "uses 2.5GB of VRAM" thing is apparently very misunderstood by most. Apparently almost every modern game adapts to whatever VRAM quantity you have, and because of the way texture s t r e a m i n g (why is this word censored?) is setup (like with BF3), VRAM usage isn't as big a deal as people think. Mostly it's been widely regarded as more of a marketing gimmick for single-monitor resolutions and smaller...even with the most taxing games, high-res texture packs, etc.
  • On that note of VRAM, increasing AA substantially increases VRAM usage over other graphical things.


So basically, I think I'll be good with what I've got for a reasonable time span. Now to wait for a good Black Friday sale...
Do post back with your results. I want to see how it does outside of the usual suspects like Battlefield and Crysis.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
Pill Monster
Ancient Guru
 
Pill Monster's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7950 Vapor-X 1175/1550
Processor: AMD FX-8320 @4.8
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
Memory: 8GB Kingston HyperX 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty
PSU: AcBel M8 750
Default 10-04-2013, 02:11 | posts: 24,427 | Location: NZ

Quote:
Originally Posted by PR-0927 View Post
Well I did a LOT of research after the above comments, haha. Here's what I found out:
  • Benefits between the 2GB and 4GB variant of the GTX 680 are literally not more than 2 FPS in any game I looked at, at 2560x1440 or below - when differences arose they were for much larger, multi-monitor setups, and the differences were still smaller than expected.
  • I looked at the recent GTX 780 Classified review on Guru3D - there are 2560x1440 benchmarks for virtually every game - the GTX 680 2GB has completely acceptable FPS for every single game, for me.
  • If need be I will lower or turn off AA - this SUBSTANTIALLY improves FPS, and IMO, hurts image quality the least - I would rather have very high-res textures, high poly counts, etc.
  • The whole "uses 2.5GB of VRAM" thing is apparently very misunderstood by most. Apparently almost every modern game adapts to whatever VRAM quantity you have, and because of the way texture s t r e a m i n g (why is this word censored?) is setup (like with BF3), VRAM usage isn't as big a deal as people think. Mostly it's been widely regarded as more of a marketing gimmick for single-monitor resolutions and smaller...even with the most taxing games, high-res texture packs, etc.
  • On that note of VRAM, increasing AA substantially increases VRAM usage over other graphical things.
No, it is a big deal and most certainly not a gimmick.

All you need to do is ask the people who have 1.5-2GB cards and can't play BF3 at ultra settings (or any other game) even with SLI because of the stuttering and fps dips.

They may avg 50fps but that doesn't show you the actual gameplay experience..... at the end of the day it's your decision.....
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
Agent-A01
Ancient Guru
 
Agent-A01's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX Titan H20 1472/7600
Processor: i7 5820K 4.7GHz H20
Mainboard: ASUS X99-A
Memory: Crucial 4x4GB 2666
Soundcard: Xonar Phoebus-PC360/HD598
PSU: SeaSonic Platinum-1000
Default 10-04-2013, 02:27 | posts: 6,883 | Location: USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pill Monster View Post
[/LIST]
No, it is a big deal and most certainly not a gimmick.

All you need to do is ask the people who have 1.5-2GB cards and can't play BF3 at ultra settings (or any other game) even with SLI because of the stuttering and fps dips.

They may avg 50fps but that doesn't show you the actual gameplay experience..... at the end of the day it's your decision.....
Pill bf3 maxed out at 2560x1440 4xmsaa+4xssaa with my old 2 680 2gb cards was cake. Bf3 scales vram usage on whats available by strea ming parts of the level further ahead, ie textures. I dont know why everybody thinks bf3 is a vram hog when its simply not. Bf3 will use over 3gb of vram on some maps. Are you telling me that because of that 3gb cards and below will be a stutter fest? nope. Its all in the game engine and how it utilizes memory

Other games werent a stutter fest(except skyrim heavily modded) either..
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
Pill Monster
Ancient Guru
 
Pill Monster's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7950 Vapor-X 1175/1550
Processor: AMD FX-8320 @4.8
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
Memory: 8GB Kingston HyperX 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty
PSU: AcBel M8 750
Default 10-04-2013, 02:36 | posts: 24,427 | Location: NZ

^Well I suggest you go check out the BF3 thread and read all the comments posted by people with 1-1.5GB vram who will disagree with you.

It's the future that matters anyway, not the past. Iin 2yrs time 2GB will be like 1GB is today....


**Btw this is a bit silly debating it don't you think - whatever opinion we have, we are all in agreement that he should get the monitor right?

Last edited by Pill Monster; 10-04-2013 at 02:44.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
rflair
Don Commisso
 
rflair's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX 980/290X
Processor: 3770K@4.4/Q9550@3.83
Mainboard: Asus P877V-Pro/Asus P5K-E
Memory: 16G 2GHz/8G 900MHz
Soundcard: Onboard/Fiio E10
PSU: Corsair HX850/PPC 860
Default 10-04-2013, 03:17 | posts: 3,048 | Location: Canada

I game with a 2GB 670@1.2Ghz at 1440p and its acceptable.

BF3 runs well, no AA, haven't played in awhile so I can't remember the numbers but I can check if you want.

The 1440p for desktop is fantastic.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Agent-A01
Ancient Guru
 
Agent-A01's Avatar
 
Videocard: GTX Titan H20 1472/7600
Processor: i7 5820K 4.7GHz H20
Mainboard: ASUS X99-A
Memory: Crucial 4x4GB 2666
Soundcard: Xonar Phoebus-PC360/HD598
PSU: SeaSonic Platinum-1000
Default 10-04-2013, 03:30 | posts: 6,883 | Location: USA

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pill Monster View Post
^Well I suggest you go check out the BF3 thread and read all the comments posted by people with 1-1.5GB vram who will disagree with you.

It's the future that matters anyway, not the past. Iin 2yrs time 2GB will be like 1GB is today....


**Btw this is a bit silly debating it don't you think - whatever opinion we have, we are all in agreement that he should get the monitor right?
Im just commenting on the "2gb isnt enough for bf3". hell back then 580 lighting sli i had was 1.5gb and it wasnt a stutter fest maxed on 1080P. I agree that its not enough for some games and def not for future games but the fact of the matter is that it does not apply to bf3. dice has already said that vram is scaled based on actual amount available. stuttering can be caused by a number of things other than lack of vram.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
mitzi76
Ancient Guru
 
mitzi76's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 970 (Gaming)
Processor: CoreI7 920@4ghz(EK Sup)
Mainboard: Asus P6T Deluxe
Memory: 6gb Corsair 1600
Soundcard: Asus Xonar D1
PSU: 850w Antec
Default 10-04-2013, 10:03 | posts: 8,108 | Location: UK

not had any issues with my 580 @1920x1200. yep am not trying for ultra though and am lowering to 2xaa sometimes...(played a lot of modded skyrim+bf3+4 and rome2 runs fine).

I'd go for the monitor OP and see how you go...

Would be interested to read about your discoveries as in the market for a new screen as well.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
LinkDrive
Ancient Guru
 
LinkDrive's Avatar
 
Videocard: Toaster
Processor: 2 Slot
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU: Wall Socket
Default 10-04-2013, 10:16 | posts: 4,675

GTX 680 running BF3 at 4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poRcXXqr5_E
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
yasamoka
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 7970CF @ 1100/1375 H2O
Processor: 5820K @ 4.3GHz 1.25V H2O
Mainboard: MSI X99S SLi Plus
Memory: 2x4GB Crucial DDR4-2133
Soundcard: Audio-GD NFB-11.32 +DT880
PSU: CM Silent Pro Hybrid 1300
Default 10-04-2013, 11:05 | posts: 3,358 | Location: Lebanon

1440p rocks but personally I wouldn't run 1440p on less than what I got. I like my 60FPS+ but if you're fine with 30FPS (and dipping from ~45FPS to 30FPS in those cases going from 1080p) then it would be acceptable for you. Consider seriously if you would prefer higher FPS instead of higher resolution as 30FPS might be a bit on the low side. Most games would run quite faster than 30FPS anyways but we're talking about the demanding games here.

Oh and I have the Qnix QX2710. I advise you to watch out who you order it from. I got an almost perfect one from accessorieswhole, Pixel Perfect. They are the only ones who have a true "Perfect" Pixel policy since they allow 0 dead and stuck pixels, though it might also not be true that they check the monitor - regardless you get the ability to complain to eBay if it does not work as advertised. Anyways, their communication is excellent and they are highly rated. Many have ordered from them and have been satisfied, but one or two others have had some issues (dust speck under the screen is one example).

If you like, I'll be providing some color and motion science concerning the monitor soon.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
Pill Monster
Ancient Guru
 
Pill Monster's Avatar
 
Videocard: 7950 Vapor-X 1175/1550
Processor: AMD FX-8320 @4.8
Mainboard: ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2
Memory: 8GB Kingston HyperX 2400
Soundcard: X-Fi Fatal1ty
PSU: AcBel M8 750
Default 10-04-2013, 12:10 | posts: 24,427 | Location: NZ

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent-A01 View Post
Im just commenting on the "2gb isnt enough for bf3". hell back then 580 lighting sli i had was 1.5gb and it wasnt a stutter fest maxed on 1080P. I agree that its not enough for some games and def not for future games but the fact of the matter is that it does not apply to bf3. dice has already said that vram is scaled based on actual amount available. stuttering can be caused by a number of things other than lack of vram.
Yeah OK, sure you're right about BF3, I should know since I ran it maxed out with a 6950. But it doesn't really matter which exact game it is, only that they are out there...

We can use BF4 if you like, I guess you've seen the benchmarks were it chews through 2.7GB at max settings....

I dunno about the vram scaling thing btw, DX11 can do dynamic frame buffers (dunno about that either).
I did Google franebuffer scaling and only got 1 relevant link...and it was to some BF4 site..... so yeah....no idea.

Lack of vram can cause stuttering though...that's no big secret.

Last edited by Pill Monster; 10-04-2013 at 14:07.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
yasamoka
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: 7970CF @ 1100/1375 H2O
Processor: 5820K @ 4.3GHz 1.25V H2O
Mainboard: MSI X99S SLi Plus
Memory: 2x4GB Crucial DDR4-2133
Soundcard: Audio-GD NFB-11.32 +DT880
PSU: CM Silent Pro Hybrid 1300
Default 10-04-2013, 12:23 | posts: 3,358 | Location: Lebanon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pill Monster View Post
Yeah OK, sure you're right about BF3, I should know since I ran it maxed out with a 6950. But it doesn't really matter which exact game it is, only that they are out there...

We can use BF4 if you like, I guess you've seen the benchmarks were it chews through 2.7GHz at max settings....
Yet they didn't actually use 2GB cards to see if they is any stuttering due to running out of VRAM. All they used are 7970 and GTX780, both 3GB cards. Same issue, BF4 will scale VRAM usage based on what these cards have.

Quote:
I dunno about the vram scaling thing btw, DX11 can do dynamic frame buffers (dunno about that either).
I did Google franebuffer scaling and only got 1 relevant link...and it was to some BF4 site..... so yeah....no idea.
Sounds interesting. So what is that about?

Quote:
Lack of vram can cause stuttering though...that's no big secret.
Definitely, but we need to compare two cards with exactly the same GPU and different VRAM. It might be helpful to compare a 3GB 7970 to a 2GB 770, but only when we're sure they perform about the same generally and one doesn't dip where the other doesn't when VRAM is sufficient.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.