Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Guest-44432, 18 Apr 2012.
I'll have a look into this now.
Starting to see BF3 using more VRAM. Proof that 2GB is not enough!
Single player: Up to 2.3GB VRAM usage.
Multi player: Up to 2.4GB VRAM usage.
I wouldn't really call it proof, I get a smooth 60FPS with SLi 2GB GTX680s. It just uses it because it is there imho.
What resolution is that? 1600?
yes. dell u30
2560x1600, Ultra Settings, 4xMSAA.
I've found that Crysis sometimes has difficulty swapping stuff in and out on my 560Ti, but imo that's partly due to their inefficient coding. Have you noticed any stuttering whilst playing without the FPS counter?
In a pure sense it would be nice to be able to hold it all in VRAM, however I don't think we know how the Frostbite engine is set up - it could be able to swap stuff in and out without too much hassle (ie small amounts from system memory to graphics memory).
It's smooth as silk even with v-sync off. Average about 80FPS.
Tried the BF3 on 2x 680 2GBs and on 2x 680 4GBs... it uses a little more ram on 4GB but FPS wise minimum average etc are there about no different.
680s clearly very good on the RAM they use thats for sure!
Very nice I think that's you sorted for a while, unless you get one of these rumoured 4k screens!
I don't get these these arguments. They make no practical sense to me. You're spending $500 on a card (or two) that has 2GB of VRAM (already pretty small for a "top-end" card)- why not spend the extra bit and get the 4GB model? Yes- you get 60FPS smooth with 2GB SLi and lets assume that BF3 doesn't actually need to use 2.5GB of vRAM at 2560x1600- but instead uses less, like 1.7-1.8GB. Why spend $1000 on a new product that is already being utilized at 90% when new? Yes there are fair arguments for drivers, game developer optimization, and other hardware bottlenecks (CPU) but I still would never buy a 2GB 680 GTX as it is an inefficient use of money at that point not opting for the 4GB model. The fact that BF3 can utilize in excess of 2GB when available (prefetching etc) does reflect the trend towards developer preference (or optimization laziness) to use more vRAM- not less.
Thanks for all the screenshots true_gamer - lots of very sexy (and informative) information!
I agree that 2GB is a low amount for a high end card and that we are heading the way of more VRam usage but that doesn't mean it has a huge (or any) impact on performance. You said it yourself, it is down to how the title is optimised and how the drivers make the additional storage available to the game. VRam is often just used as a store for non-performance related data, so often it won't make a difference on performance at all. Just like standard Ram, the operating system uses it because it is available. That is why increased vRam usage isn't a sign that more will yield noticable benifits. andrew8200m has used both, saw a sight increase in vRam usage on the 4GB cards but zero change in performance.
As far as I'm concerned there is no "practical" reason to spend more money for no gain at this time and for many on lower resolutions it won't make any difference. Also when I purchased the GTX680s there were no 4GB cards out, so I couldn't buy them if I wanted to. Sure I could of waited, but I'm glad I didn't, I got a good price on my GTX680s, the 4GBs are extremely expensive in the UK, some £165 more per card than I paid and I'd rather spend that money elsewhere.
We have no idea what the titles the future will bring and how they will perform, but as it stands I'm happy with my purchase and do not regret getting the 2GB cards over the 4GB ones.
Aside from those top top crysis settings, I don't think there are many, if any games that the 2GB versions will start having issues i.e. less than 60 fps or stuttering, etc..
New games perhaps, which is all if buts and maybes
If you were buying now, prudence would suggest getting 4GBs if you have the money, but the memory bandwidth is the same..
If you only play at 1920x1080
2gb is more than enough for a very long time( maybe once next consoles are out in 2 years it won't be ) its also enough for 3d gaming at said Rez ( you can't go higher)
For 30inch screens 4gb will become useful and if you can afford a decent 30inch screen then you can afford the 2 680 4 gbs to run it.
Fxaa once implemented properly could change everything as its memory usage is a lot smaller than 4Msaa and it looks better to boot, if the next gen consoles head nvidia expect more implementation of It vs with AMD
A couple of runs I did to test drivers in BF3.
Anyone with 2x GTX 680 2GB, 2 GTX 670 2GB & 2x HD7970 want to run the same test for comparison?
But equally, Simon; while it is showing that 2GB isn't sufficient; it's also showing that 4GB is just too much. Nvidia should've used 3GB and left it at that, allowing for headroom, using just 2 limits it slightly, and may limit it more in the future, but I think it was the cheaper option (Surprise surprise.), Also, with it being four memory buses; 3GB would've meant Assymetrical layouts, which would've lead to lower performance, in theory.
On the flipside; 4GB of memory is just far too much for most purposes. Maybe if you go all crazy and use 3 U3011's; you might see it start to use up all 4GB.
I agree, 4GB is overkill, and 3GB would have been right. They would have had to use a 386bit bus to have 3GB cards, but then they would also have had to make that the vanilla 680 3GB as 1.5GB wouldn't be enough. So I can see why they decided to go with a 256bit bus, but 512bit would have been the better choice.
My plan is to get either - 3 U2711's with the 30" as a forth for games that don't like surround, or just get another 2x 30" as you have stated, that will see VRAM usage of over 3GB.
...Still in a thinking stage, as well as sweet talking my misses.
Good luck to ya', With the price of Dell U3011s; you'll have a heck of a time convincing her!
It would be interesting to see the scenarios where you can make it dramatically go over 2GB of ram usage, though. I'm betting that just 5760x1080 wouldn't actually press too hard on the 2GB limit in most cases.
Okay, you've gotta do it now. If you go triple-30" screens; see at what point it'll fall over 2GB of memory usage, using the same Gfx settings but different resolutions, it would tell me, and everyone else, the absolute cleiling at which 2GB starts to fail, as far as just pushing more pixels goes.
I would plan to get another 2x 3008WFP's rather than swap them all out for 3x U3011.
Just got to look around for someone to sell them at the right price.
I will do the resolution test as and when I do get them.
Separate names with a comma.