Discussion in 'Hardware' started by GregTheRotter, 17 Feb 2012.
Yes do, and sell me one of your cards if it's an EVGA
You're 5 minutes from my work lol.
Hey, I wasn't having a dig! If you want 3gb on a single card, them's ya choices.
Latest fud...which of course is regurgitated rumour from another rumour factory...
Seems expectations for gk104 are being managed lower.
Sorry but please explain why there was a need to mock my point of view?
If you disagree then point it out and show why and I will hold my hands up but calling what I had to say dribble is quite derogatory and unfair.
In Battlefield 3 at 1600p, a single GTX 580 1.5 runs out of RAM using ultra settings by quite a margin. According to t_g, he sees 2200MB of VRAM usage. I personally have to lower AA, AO and switch off motion blur to make it playable at 1600p (Keep usage below 1450).
Are you suggesting that a second 580 1.5GB will improve matters?
>.< didn't think you were just wanted to mention that I personally don't like the current AMD software
No pointing adding another card = dribble.
You'll still see the card scale extremely well regardless of VRAM usage as Nvidia's memory management is well optimised, especially in comparison to AMD. Also not everyone strives for 1600p or plays BF for that matter.
So in short it's not a complete waste of time at all, I'll be happy to do some benchmarks at that resolution to prove so. As I-actually have two cards.
I was at NVIDIA the other day, and obviously asked
"We don't know yet... But we're looking at AMD's launch as a failure [on performance]"
Haven't heard anything new yet either...
I agree with both of you to a point. Adding a second card will help frame rates, you are doubling the raw graphical power after all. However, the limiting factor will the 1.5GB VRAM so adding a second might mean you may still not be able to max out every setting.
Having said that, if you own a 1600P monitor, it'd probably work out better longevity wise to buy a brand new top end card with more VRAM.
I am finding it really hard to have a reasonable conversation with you. Can you stop with the pejorative metaphors when I am trying to make a valid point? Please?
You are right not everyone plays BF3 and I am sure you're right that it will scale very well in other titles as I found my SLI 460s did, but IMO getting a second 580 1.5GB is not worth while now unless you can be certain future games will not need more than 1.5GB VRAM.
On the BF3 point, even at 1080p on ultra in a big map, I saw usage hit 1477MB personally. When you say optimized, does that mean it will use less memory if there is more performance available somehow?
Crysis is also a VRAM killer at top settings. I haven't tested other games looking specifically at the memory usage.
I would approve you running benchmarks vs someone with 2 3GB 580s at high resolutions (As is intended for a high end card no?)
Dribble? if you can't look past that, maybe you should try and be a bit less highly strung. I meant no offense.
You realise also, btw that BF3 does have a fairly potent memory leak regardless? It's really not a good example fella. I'll gladly do some benchmarks if someone with two 3GB is willing to with identical settings. Also, no it won't use 'less memory somehow'. It just has a much lesser impact on FPS than the AMD counterparts.
BUT, I am VERY glad you brought up Crysis. Hmm.
Don't get me wrong I would recommend anyone in the market for one now to go with the 3GB regardless, given the price. It's just in no way-shape or form a "waste of time" SLI'ing 1.5GB reference cards as the performance difference is still day and night over singular
I will concede that it may not be as pointless as my initial post about it sounded. I am quite miffed about this as I spent a lot of time and money the last 2 months to be able to run SLi and I now can't justify getting a second 1.5 model, even if it is just based on one game. So you hit a nerve when you said that.
There are a couple of people on this board I believe that abandoned 3 x 580 1.5 in favour of 2 3GB models which also added some weight.
Crysis going by that is a bad example, maybe Shogun 2? Skyrim is fine which is another game I play a lot.
I was at AMD the other day, and obviously asked
"We're happy so far..But we're looking at nVidia's failure to launch yet as a failure [any chip, any metric]"
See, fixed it for ya
Translate: "We got nothi'n"
The difference in RAM, makes an insignificant difference here.
a 50% increase in min fps is insignificant? going from unplayable at times to playable is insignificant?
50% is rounding up, but the point remains. It's also interesting to note that the biggest advantage was in min FPS where a low score is likely to be noticed the most. How cost plays into things and whether the 3GB version be considered a better deal is open to debate, but it certainly can't be said that there's no advantage.
statistically significant yes, but in the grand scheme of thing whilst playing a game I cant see this making a great deal of difference especially given most games will play the average FPS and not the lower threshold. I am no expert lol but I wouldnt notice <10 FPS while playing BF3, unless I am the terminator where I see digits instead of emotions
You would if it was the difference between 25fps and 16fps.
I wish my 580's were 3GB as opposed to 1.5GB. It makes quite a substantial difference, particularly at high resolutions.
not exactly sure what you are saying, but anything under 20-25 is very noticeable to the human eye
so if a game is humming along at 30 fps and suddenly dips down to 15 for 2,3 or god forbid 10 seconds, you will absolutely notice it
lots of variables though, anyways it wouldnt bother me much.
But it would practically render the game unplayable.
Separate names with a comma.