I wouldn't count on it, check this out: http://www.overclock.net/10057086-post2.html. Newer games such as Fallout 3, Metro 2033 and Crysis Warhead go over the 1.2GB mark with everything maxed out @ 1920x1080. Want to bet that BF3 raises the ante even more?
well this makes my post looks stupid, looks like you'll be looking at a 580 then fingers, 3Gb model perhaps? or one of these maybe http://www.scan.co.uk/products/25gb...32mhz-shader-1464mhz-480-cores-2x-dvi-dp-hdmi
The 570 with 2.5GB VRAM could be an option, I don't think it will be the GPU that will limit settings, I think it will be the VRAM. I think True_Gamer alluded to this when I trawled his posts in other threads. Whilst his point was in the context of multiple monitors, it could also be a bit of a problem for all of those mid-range 1GB GPU's that have been selling so well recently. The advances in game technology have been AA, tessellation, shading/shadows, water etc - all these things eat VRAM like there is no tomorrow.
How do you know you are not being limited by your 1GB VRAM? Have you measured it? Edit: another interesting thread: http://www.overclock.net/10057096-post3.html. Even Far Cry 2 seems to need 1.2GB to run 8xMSAA with DX10!
Yes I saw that needle in a hay stack post in a thread, it's something that he gets very close to with his lg monitor's, but defiantly agree the 570 would be a good option, the next decent 580 (i.e. not a palit version) with 3gb vram is about £140 more
But you have 2x GTX 580, plus a crazy overclocked Core i7! Why do you even worry? I highly doubt it will have trouble running with the U2410. Am I missing something, that I am not seeing? Please do explain.. I am all for boosting my knowledge on things... as me too I am starting to need a new GPU... my GTX 260 is starting to struggle with some games at max settings at 1920x1200
Jeezuz, even being able to get a U2410 for £299 means that I will have to drop even more on a GPU upgrade. You know, AMD could find themselves right on the price/performance sweet spot with the 6970 2GB being under £300, whereas the Nvidia options over 1.5GB are all over £300. Interesting... It is me that has the dilemma, not thetrashcanman.
thats a very good point, I always thought that its with big resolutions (for obvious reasons) and multi monitor setups that those amd cards would shine, only problem was the drivers at launch weren't great in my opinion
Hehe oups, looked at the specs of thetrashcanman instead of yours. But my point still stands: you have 2x GTX 460 SLI. This is crazy performance, it must be able to handle the game. I am not saying it will, but I'll be REALLY surprised it does not. Now I don't play every single game out there.. but those I do play (latest is the The Wither 2, before that Just Cause 2, and before that StarCraft 2), Only the The Witcher 2, and 1 scene (first fight in the trap set by Joker - intro of the game) in the entire Batman AA game) where the game was choppy, with my old GPU. Batman I got above 50fps avg about during the whole game play.. yea it's not 60 fps+ but considering that I was full settings on it, nothing overclocked, and how old my GPU is... As for the Witcher 2, yea, I am playing medium high settings at 1920x1200, and I get 30fps.. sure I admit it's pushing it, but still, it's an old GPU. Yours is much superior than mine.. AND SLI, AND room for OC.
I should start complaining goodbytes I want another gtx 580 ;D but yeah I think pete's card would be fine, just he thinks the amount of vram the card's have 768Mb I think, wouldn't be up to the task on a 1920 x 1200 monitor
I have 2 x 768mb GTX 460's in SLI and at a resolution of 1650x1050 I am using 640MB VRAM playing BC2. My supposition (which is where this thread has gone off on a tangent) is that: 1) Playing BC2 with maximum settings at a resolution of 1920x1200 (my options with a U2410 monitor) will need more VRAM than my current setup can provide (supporting evidence: http://www.overclock.net/10057086-post2.html and http://www.overclock.net/10057096-post3.html). 2) The upcoming BF3 game will, in my opinion, need more than 1.2GB of VRAM to be able to max out the settings (e.g. 8xMSAA or higher). 3) Nvidia GPU's (GTX 570 or higher) with more than 1.5GB or VRAM are over £300 in the UK whereas 2GB AMD GPU's are under £300 (HD 6970's) - caveat: I do not know if a 2GB GTX 560 will be able to max out the settings of BF3). tldr: AMD could find themselves with the price performance sweet spot if new games require more than 1.2GB of VRAM, which is very likely.
Oh ok, I get you. Well Isn't Nvidia cards expending on your RAM, when you are out of memory? Under Nvidia Control Panel > Help > System Information. You have a line that says: "Total available graphic memory". Mine says: 3711 MB. Yes, it's slower, but with fast DDR3, and a powerful chipset, I don't think the performance hit would be night and day. The way I see it. Is like this. Get the game, play it, too slow, in 3-4 days you can have a new GPU in front door.
have you seen the elysium build in the project logs section mate? http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=212825
That is another one of my points. I run BC2 with 8xAF, 8xAA and all other settings on the highest ("high"). I am using 640MB of VRAM @ 1680x1050 and I started this thread looking for a way to measure it. Moving on from that, I am coming to the view that future VRAM requirements are going to increase above what the majority of people have. The problem is that everyone has been focussed on the GPU performance, not the VRAM that comes with the GPU. What AA & AF level are you running BC2 at?
Okay. But which GPU - a sub-£300 AMD or an over-£300 Nvidia - solely based upon the VRAM available on each card?
personally considering there is only a £20 difference in price between the only 6970 scan have in stock at the moment and that gtx 570 i told you about and given that I believe/have heard that nvidia cards should be dominant over the ati card's for this game I'd go for the 2.5Gb gtx 570
I reckon you are right. What I don't want to do is drop over £300 on a new monitor without thinking about the GPU requirement. It looks like it is a £650+ spending spree to play the same settings I do now at a 1920x1200 or higher resolution. That's a new computer.
