Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by 1nf3rn0x, Jun 10, 2012.
pretty much right-now if you are serious about gaming
its resolution dependent aswell
the cache empties itself when games or programs need it. you're reaching at straws to explain the behaviour, when we all know its Vram that we run out of.
Very interesting thread, I enjoyed reading it. I have 16gb of ram and 2gb of vram, never made any changes or anything and never had an issue. I feel it is best when building a new system to cushion your ram and vram. I am not as tech savvy as you guys, but I have seen many many games use 1000-1800mb of vram, MW3 even used 1400mb of vram one time and that game is chump change to graphics cards. I have been told Nvidia vram is done differently though which is why 1.2 gb is plenty for Nvidia cards... I dunno, heh. I am happy with my current setup, so whatevs.
"Pretty much right now if you are serious about playing the latest titles at very high graphical settings", perhaps. You can be very serious about gaming and a hardcore gamer and not even own a title from the last couple of years, let alone play it on max. As I said above, I've yet to find a game in which my 512MB 9800GTX+ is a competitive disadvantage at 2048*1152, moderate settings.
1 GB VRAM has not been enough for me since I got my 1900x1200 monitor three years ago, Clear Sky and Crysis with 4xAA use 1500mb or VRAM; some people don't get that it depends on the resolution. I still have my HD4870 512MB and play most of the latest games maxed out, but using an old monitor (1280x1024).
System memory caching doesn't impact GPU vram unless you're swapping like crazy, which in that case you have other issues. Also the faster your memory is, the faster your rig can swap video memory to system memory and back again will determine how badly running out of vram will impact performance. Honestly, performance is pretty good with my 1gb 6870s in crossfire. Even though I use more than what the cards have I rarely notice performance drops.
system memory is massively slower than GPU ram. thats why the FPS drops so sharply when you run out and it swaps.
you arent noticing performance drops because you arent passing 1GB - but when you do, it becomes instantly unplayable.
MSI Afterburner disagrees with you and I do notice a minor slowdown but it speeds up instantly when it does. Also system memory being vastly slower depends on the implementation. For example, my 3820 running quad-channel DDR3-2333 will move data a lot faster than your 1090T at 1600 in dual-channel mode. Depending on how Sandra measures memory bandwidth, the aggregate memory performance of my rig is about 46.9Gb/s, which places it between 1/2 and 1/3 of the bandwidth that the 6870s have available. Even with that said, when push comes to shove, PCI-E bandwidth is really the bottleneck, not system memory when swapping video to system memory and back.
well yes, you're going to see a large performance difference to what i am, with our ram speed differences. that parts definitely true, and why we have different opinions on this.
when i go over the 1GB, thats it - slideshow.
Then I shall try to play Skyrim on my 3930k system, I'm still using the 1366 box to play games.
I'll let you know mate
Having just gotten a 7970 and trying to find things to push it with. I have seen Skyrim with the official DLC High res textures touch 1800+MB. I need to fire up Metro 2033 maxed out and see how that one does, not sure how "heavy" it really is but it is a likely suspect to suck up VRAM. Or now that I think about it The Witcher 2 would be another prime candidate.
I think 1GB of vram is already not enough Ive noticed I have been getting some crash when I hit 1GB from my cards. I honestly think any mid high-high end card should have 3GB vram.
return to what you need
for just all around 1 gig is enough
but if you do AA, run big resolution or multi monitors and serious gaming it wont be enough
Do you really need 4xAA? Also, I've seen Crysis report 1700MB VRAM usage on 512MB cards with no noticeable FPS issues.
It isn't vram related, your PC shouldn't be crashing at all.
Before total war shogun 2 last huge patch, shogun 2 used 2600+ vram on a 7970 in just 1080p... hence the patch. since not many could run that on max.
It really depends. My HD 4850 with 512 MiB VRAM is enough at 1280x1024 with 2-4x AA, triliniair-4x AF (game dependent) and High settings (without tess etc. obviously). I never use all 4 GiB of RAM when gaming.
My PC isn't crashing just the game when it hits 1GB VRAM.
Yes, I hate jaggies; I've become very picky over the years.
It all depends on:
1) monitor resolution
2) textures used (esp if you use textured mods)
4) ini file modifications
My 5970 runs vanilla Skyrim excellently (50+ fps), at 2560x1440 as long as it's without texture mods, with no AA and no ini file changes.
Add 4xAA to that and fps drops into the 20's.
Same if I install hi-resolution texture mods.
And if I modify the ini file to get ugridstoload at 5 (putting it simply it's more detail in the distance) the fps drops between 8 and 15!
And that was if I try each of the above separately. I guess were I to try 4xAA, hi-res mods and ugridstoload at 5 or 7 all at the same time I'd get one frame per minute!
AT completely max settings(AA included at 16x), Metro 2033 is by far less taxing on my crossfire 5850 setup than Crysis Warhead at 1080p at 4x AA.
Beautiful game, none the less. It seems they efficiently programmed it.
or maybe that its not DX9?
Separate names with a comma.