AA also munches through memory. I think it's a hundred odd meg for each step at 1080p, Consoles don't use AA, so you can easily increase memory load just by turning AA up, thereyb using, oh wow, More than the 512MB that the Xbox has to work with.
The irony here being two things: 1. Both the Xbox and PS3 were limited by the 512mb of ram. In fact it caused a lot of issues for the PS3 as the 360 used a shared pool of 512 for the CPU and GFX, while the PS3 used two 256mb pools for CPU and GFX - it was UMA vs NUMA. The ps3 was only less affected because of more room for texture streaming off the blu-ray, while the 360 had the advantage of a more flexible memory system, which was partly what caused so many bad ports for the PS3 in the beginning of its life. 2. Both PS3 and 360 devs, I'd imagine, would tear your right arm off for more vram. If it is there, people will use it. Whether through mods, or clever devs giving you the option.
. A single gpu doesn't really have the grunt to make a lack of vram an issue. The power available will prohibit high levels of AA or texture packs in the first place. Believe it or not, some of us build rigs with more than one GPU because scaling is actually really good. Your testing has not been thorough enough to conclusively say '4GB cards are a pointless waste of money' because we can show that in certain circumstances, having more vram and bandwidth improves performance.
I actually had a 9800GTX+ SLI setup while everyone (including magazines) still thought that it wasn't worth it for the scaling, I was pretty much getting double scaling on nearly every game, as well the added bonus of normal (not SLI) AA modes having less of an impact % wise on framerates (never could work out why but I wasn't going to question it) At the time I only had enough money to buy the cards one at a time, six months apart, but I was very happy with my setup. It had more than enough GPU grunt for my resolution (a single 9800GTX+ didn't have quite enough) but as time went on Vram became a limiting factor, more modern games became a bit jerky due to the limited Ram since I was relying on the PCIe controller on my i5 chip, both cards only had 8x bandwidth to swap data to and fro so I ended up shelling out for a 1GB 560TI, which had more grunt and was better optimised for today's games, ran at 16x, and it only consumes 10W more than a single 9800GTX+. I had wanted to have the option to SLI in the future but recent events and economical constraints have meant that a single card might be the best solution for me if I did decide to upgrade any-time soon. If I was to go SLI, I would make sure that the next 560TI was one with 2GB Vram so I would at least have the option of playing games with one GPU and plenty of ram (to avoid 8x PCIe limitations) or 2 GPU's with limited Ram. Point being that I agree that some reviewers don't always have the time and resources to fully test every configuration, some have to limit themselves to a particular set of benchmark games to make results comparable but it doesn't always give the full picture of what can be done with the hardware. Lack of benchmarks with Physx enabled is another thing that I find most reviews don't cover. Regardless of the ******** between Nvidia and Amd, one of the biggest factors of me choosing Nvidia again was because I was so Impressed with the Physx in Arkham Asylum I wanted to have the full experience in Arkham City, and was prepared to pay more to get that. Even if AMD's cards gave slightly better performance at the price point, the 560TI hasn't let me down yet in terms of framerates. I realise that there has to be an apples for apples comparison but an additional graph for performance with these extras enabled wouldn't go amiss. I usually have to peruse many review sites to get the bigger picture about what I am to expect the hardware I am looking at to be able to do with the games I will be wanting to play.
In single card config I would agree. However in multi card configs (especially two or more) the 4GB cards cab be advantageous. You just have to be running the right combination of resolution and settings. When I was running GTX670 SLI I could easily make them run out of VRAM in BF3 at my resolution once more than 2xMSAA was applied. Oh and for reference I am not just rambling: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=232452 http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=229357 EDIT: I thought I spotted a couple of my graphs in this thread. It seems TG has already covered off this point.
So what?? The fact is, there are mods out there that many people want to use, and to use them, it's obvious that 2GB don't cut it. That alone validates 4GB cards for those that do. If you can say "I will never, ever install a texture pack" then fine, go buy a 2GB card, but this doesn't mean 4GB are useless. This "they didn't ship like that" argument is childish. In effect you are saying you should never install a texture pack because the publisher never intended it. Great.. welcome to bit tech... the MODDING site. Just LOL.
Just wanted to chime in as an owner of a pair of GTX 670 4GB... they were very much well worth it for 5760x1200. They make a big difference in Skyrim (really the only game I play) with texture packs where I eat up to 3GB of RAM. They also make a very noticeable difference in Photoshop and AutoCAD, its a simple factor of being able to load all of the graphic information of a drawing or all of the layers of an image at once in memory, or having to store it in system memory. If for whatever reason you can say "Yep, that's good enough" and you are satisfied with one monitor, get the 2GB version. It's an awesome card and more than powerful enough to be satisfactory with today's games. I'll never say "it's good enough though". If my card runs the game perfectly... I need a higher resolution texture pack or more content in the game to make it better. The difference between Skyrim without mods and Skyrim with mods is the difference between an amazing game with beautiful scenery, or a game that can literally take your breath away and in which you can truly immerse yourself.
I think we've already had this argument with TG in his 680 4GB thread; 2GB is slightly too small for some purposes, but I've yet to see anything actually fill a full four gig of video memory. Maybe if you ran, like, 7680x1440 as a resolution; you'd have issues, but I don't see it occuring otherwise.
Buy 2 7970s faster lol and they already come with 3gb of ram so no issues there either not to mension they are at least £100 cheaper than the 4gb 670 cards (£50 per card ) the cheapest model also is already at ghz edition speeds also. Just to add to the argument for the Lols really.
I've just gone for another 2gb GTX 670. Even if I was about to buy the pair not the second, I still think the £100 premium per 4gb card is a lot of extra money for the benefits.
You know when you’re in the middle of a frantic BF3 sesh, and then suddenly you get pulled back to the Windows 7 desktop with a notification saying that you are running low on Video Memory. I don’t get that anymore. The above statement was absolutely 100% true up until the release of the new ‘Aftermath’ DLC for Battlefield 3. Maybe it’s all the spangely explosion effects, or maybe it’s all the gorgeously rendered rubble – I do keep saying that the new DLC maps look better than any of the previous MP maps - but something is causing them to chew through my vRAM like a dog left alone in the kitchen with the turkey. A quick glance at my specs below reveal that I use a U3011 at 2560x1600 – which is admittedly a high resolution – but previously a lot of people have mentioned that even at these levels the new Kepler cards are very frugal with vRAM in comparison to previous generations. The new DLC, it seems, really pushes them and I’m hitting the limits in every session. General vRAM use is around the 1850mb mark with Aero on. I’ve now set it to auto disable when BF3 launches and I’ll continue to monitor (to do this, right click on the appropriate .exe and head to properties, then to the ‘compatibility tab’ and tick the ‘disable desktop composition’ button) It’s worth noting, that I still get decent framerates in the upper 50s with everything on Ultra 0xMSAA and FXAA on High (PostProcessing), but it’s a shame vRAM is becoming a limiting factor on a rather pricey card so early into its lifespan.
a complaint about pc gaming! ` we need better games` - ones that push hardware - so now its here , you want to complain the kit you have isnt good enough
Like you, I want games that push hardware more than anything. However, Nvidias choice to only have 2GB vRAM on their top end cards was a big issue upon their release, and now it appears that the time has come where 2GB isn't enough at resolutions higher than 1080p.
It's hardly conclusive, but I've run Crysis 2 with the DX11 patch and high-res texture pack and all the pretties turned on at 2560x1600 - no issues. No slow down, no jerking/tearing. I've just started playing Metro 2033 too, again at 1600p, with all the settings turned up. I'm about 8 hours into it, and haven't had any problems either. This is on a stock 670 2gb with an i7 920 at 4.2GHz. I don't doubt that there are situations where extra vram will be useful, but I haven't encountered them yet. Maybe pushing three screens will make a difference.
