2Gb or 4Gb for 1440p?

[vkadurin]

Perhaps it has to do with the fact I havent been here a week and they have been here much longer LOL.

Yeah, and you have more than 224 posts and only 15 mark and i have less than 200 and have 50 mark...i am member only from a week or two. Do not underestimate how people are appreciating your posts ! Some people are here only for the count of the posts but not for their quality, it seems.

[josh_05]

The only time the GTX 680 beat the 7970 is when nobody had access to them except for the deveopers that nvidia payed off to review them with a pair of rossey glasses included because of silicon shortage so I smell BS marketing again on nvidias end.

This what nearly all the benchmarks on the web looked like when i got my cards... http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/508?vs=555

 

EDIT: I take back the 90% part and say 60 to 70%

[G.Freeman]

Yeah, and you have more than 224 posts and only 15 mark and i have less than 200 and have 50 mark...i am member only from a week or two. Do not underestimate how people are appreciating your posts ! Some people are here only for the count of the posts but not for their quality, it seems.

And you are here to try and get likes is would seem even if the information you spread is wrong and you a trollin.

[vkadurin]

And you are here to try and get likes is would seem even if the information you spread is wrong and you a trollin.

The information you post is meaningless and based only on what you have read ( even if you don't admit that). Some people here have actual experience and are into Computers maybe many years before you were born. I am not saying i am one of them...And saying Linus is wrong and that his statements are groundless is just...i don't even have words for it. If you don't believe him why you are on his forum. Go make yourself a new forum...it seems you are the expert here. I hope other members will support me here...

[SkilledRebuilds]

^This needs blatant derailing

 

BF3 - 1600p 2302MB VRAM Needed - NFI what form of AA is used.

http://i.imgur.com/qMvnJ.jpg

[Lukiose]

Don't feed the troll guys, for someone who doesn't know how to read his own sources he has severely compromised his reliability as a member of this forum.

Just in case you don't know how to read data, here are some pointed out explicitly for you.

Down-graded to High Quality, AA off

 

Downgraded to Very-High quailty, AA off

 

Downgraded to High Quality, AA Off

 

This are even more inconsistencies in your data that i haven't pointed out, stop spreading false information on this forums or i'll send a message to the moderators to look into your case, personally.

[G.Freeman]

BF3 - 1600p 2302MB VRAM Needed - NFI what form of AA is used.

http://i.imgur.com/qMvnJ.jpg

That's vague. I can post the same thing that says BF3 need under a gig. It's a pic it can be skewed real easy. Did you skew it ?

[G.Freeman]

This are even more inconsistencies in your data ..

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-690-benchmark,3193.html

[orangecat]

Just get as much GPU ram as possible as games get bigger textures and more advanced graphics if you still want to play at 1440P you going to need all da Vram.

[xBlizzDevious]

I feel I should input something to this argument...

 

Source: Personal testing and logging with GPU-Z.

 

I was playing Far Cry 3 at 3240x1920 and maxed with no AA, I was getting around 1.6GB VRAM usage. So I can assure you that without AA, 2GB will be more than enough.

 

If I put MSAA on 2x the VRAM would go up to 2.8GB+ and pretty much completely emptied my 7970 of VRAM. If I went up as high as 8x, it became more than unplayable and the VRAM usage was constantly maxed.

 

So, if you know you won't be using AA at all and you won't be increasing your resolution at all, then 2GB is enough. However, for 'futureproofing' and just so that you have it spare if need be, I would strongly advise getting the 4GB.

 

When I bought the 7970 with 3GB VRAM, I thought, that's a little overkill. Then the Titan was released with its 6GB of VRAM and I just laughed thinking that it was way more than more than enough. But after testing, I can see that I'm wrong. If you use AA at above 1080P you will need a reasonable amount of VRAM and 3GB isn't enough if you do.

[MegaTechPC]

I can't remember where I read it but I did read that the 670 simply lacks enough horsepower to ever really make use of that 4GB anyway (basically if you load up enough textures and such that you need that much VRAM, the GK104 in the 670 will long since have become the bottleneck anyway).  At any rate, I can say for sure that 2GB is definitely enough for 1440p if you stick to 4xMSAA or less.  I recently checked the memory usage on my Titans running Crysis 3 at 1440p at max settings including 8xMSAA and it topped out around 2.6GB.  Remembering that 8xMSAA is in no way necessary at 1440p, I'd say that 2GB 670's makes much more sense...

[tabuburn]

I can't remember where I read it but I did read that the 670 simply lacks enough horsepower to ever really make use of that 4GB anyway (basically if you load up enough textures and such that you need that much VRAM, the GK104 in the 670 will long since have become the bottleneck anyway).  At any rate, I can say for sure that 2GB is definitely enough for 1440p if you stick to 4xMSAA or less.  I recently checked the memory usage on my Titans running Crysis 3 at 1440p at max settings including 8xMSAA and it topped out around 2.6GB.  Remembering that 8xMSAA is in no way necessary at 1440p, I'd say that 2GB 670's makes much more sense...

Yep. The 670 not just lacks the horsepower to make use of the 4GB VRAM, it also lack a larger memory interface. Only 256bit as compared to the 7970 or Titan which has 386bit.

[PipWinsAgain]

The 680 is going to be better in most cases. I found benchmarks comparing Gtx 670 4gb and gtx 680 2gb. Consider how high the gtx 670 is clocked though

 

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/evga-geforce-gtx-670-4gb_7.html#sect4

[SkilledRebuilds]

That's vague. I can post the same thing that says BF3 need under a gig. It's a pic it can be skewed real easy. Did you skew it ?

http://i.imgur.com/qMvnJ.jpg

It's not my pic, I did google search for it, and it is what it is. I didnt touch the image or "skew it" whatever that means...

I just wanted to show that 1600p this picture is using 2.3GB Vram, like an example.. not definitive proof.

 

As I can run 1440p through my selection of games,...... Vram screenies of usage?

2560x1440p (Maximum Possible Game Settings)

FC3 1440p - http://postimg.org/image/ybm7r5y1z/full/

NFS MW 1440p - http://postimg.org/image/4rlyzz0yv/full/

Tomb Raider 1440p - http://postimg.org/image/p6duxaunb/full/

[Lukiose]

Basically, this is how vram works. Graphical horsepower of course drives your frames per second, delivering smooth framerates provided you have the processing power in your card to do so. At high resolutions and aliasing/shaders and particles. Especially in intense firefights or periods of chaotic mania where your screen is filled to the brim with effects. Your vram usage skyrockets, if your graphic card does not process sufficient vram, it has to regulate between graphical and system ram, creating a massive dip in framerates, often down to <10FPS.

So yeah, a 2GB 680 would give you higher framerates, at the expense of unplayability during periods of intense screen clogging at high resolutions and settings 1440p/1600p and up. So, a 4GB vram is still recommended as you would receive smooth frames throughout. If you want to go the Nvidia line then a 4GB 680 would be my recommendation, otherwise, pick up a 7970.

[BKCXb]

Instead of fighting with BS, post screenshots, with system specs, and game settings instead.

 

Personally I don't need more than 1Gb, because the games I play, and the resolution I play at. I spend most of the time playing Borderlands 2 at 5910 x 1080, with the game all maxxed out, with the only the "60 fps cap" on.

 

I can't run Crysis 2 at these setting because I run out of GPU horsepower, but at 1920 x 1080 I never dip below the 60 fps mark.

 

VRam has to be balanced with the GPU power.

 

Size depends on your bus, 128 bit bus has 2- 64 bit memory controllers,194 bit has 3, 256 bit has 4 ,320 bit has 5, 384 has 6,   and memory chip are only made in certain sizes 128Mb, 265Mb, 512Mb, and so on.

 

Manufactures have to build cards that you will buy, putting extra memory chips on the card raises prices. If a 660Ti needed more Vram or a wider bus, for the intended games of the targeted audience, Nvidia would have included it. 

 

But since it was made for 1080 p gaming,  with current games at the $250-$299 price point they actually cut the bus down to cut cost. If you buy a 3 Gb 660Ti for 20 bucks more , It won't magically let you play Crysis 3 maxed out, when the 2 GB one was holding you back, the GPU is the limiting factor for that game.

 

If your in that targeted audience, and spend more money on a card with a weaker GPU with more memory than you could of on a 2 Gb 670, you may need to rethink what you doing. 

 

When you get to 670/680 they are stuck with a 256 bit bus(bad move by Nvidia,in my opinion, why I skipped this generation), so they either get 1Gb which nobody in their right mind would buy, 2Gb which is fine for that GPU , but not very future proof or 4Gb, which cost more and is over kill.

 

The 4GB cards are for people who are gonna throw more GPU at their gaming experience, by using SLI. In SLI the GPU power scales but the memory doesn't.

[Gilmore]

Why the hell did Nvidia not make GTX 690 a real 4GB card??? People with higher resolutions 1600p and more are the ones that need GTX690 the most.

 

But with only 2GB to play with it´s kind of a deal breaker for me. But I didn´t realise it until after I bought it, and the card won´t last me as long if future games have hi-res textures, and the vram will bottleneck the perfomance, but i use Dell U3011 monitor.

 

They trick people to buy it by selling it as an 4Gb card, like me.

 

Don´t get me wrong, I like the card alot and it slayes most games today, but it is frustrating to now if some awsome games come out with really high textures, that the lack of vram will ruin the experience. :(

[CatCloud]

Why the hell did Nvidia not make GTX 690 a real 4GB card??? People with higher resolutions 1600p and more are the ones that need GTX690 the most.

 

But with only 2GB to play with it´s kind of a deal breaker for me. But I didn´t realise it until after I bought it, and the card won´t last me as long if future games have hi-res textures, and the vram will bottleneck the perfomance, but i use Dell U3011 monitor.

 

They trick people to buy it by selling it as an 4Gb card, like me.

 

Don´t get me wrong, I like the card alot and it slayes most games today, but it is frustrating to now if some awsome games come out with really high textures, that the lack of vram will ruin the experience. :(

I know how you feel,i like my 690 for some facts like, its slim, it has 3x DVI ports and a nice design, the Titan came later sadly and i wasn´t aware of it untill it was too late and when i saw that 6 GB i was kinda blown away. not sure if it can perform as well as 690 in terms of performance (sli cards are faster then singel cards right???) but im sure as hell that 6gb could be helpfull seeing as i do use a triple monitor setup /w 5760x1080.

Not sure how the Ares II is compaird to the 690 but that card is atlest 2x3gb, then again AMD tend to have more Muscle then Nvidia (but they eat more power and ain´t as fast i belive)

Kinda reminds me of cars lol.

 

[Lukiose]

I know how you feel,i like my 690 for some facts like, its slim, it has 3x DVI ports and a nice design, the Titan came later sadly and i wasn´t aware of it untill it was too late and when i saw that 6 GB i was kinda blown away. not sure if it can perform as well as 690 in terms of performance (sli cards are faster then singel cards right???) but im sure as hell that 6gb could be helpfull seeing as i do use a triple monitor setup /w 5760x1080.

Not sure how the Ares II is compaird to the 690 but that card is atlest 2x3gb, then again AMD tend to have more Muscle then Nvidia (but they eat more power and ain´t as fast i belive)

Kinda reminds me of cars lol.

 

The titan is indeed slower than the 690, but it is also the fastest single-gpu card on the planet.

The ARES II is the fastest card on earth at this time of posting.

AMD cards at the moment have greater graphical horsepower than Nvidia, but yes, they do consume more power.

[G.Freeman]

AMD cards at the moment have greater graphical horsepower than Nvidia, but yes, they do consume more power.

I belive this theory to be debunked. The power difference is like 5 watts LOL. Some please post the links.

[vkadurin]

I belive this theory to be debunked. The power difference is like 5 watts LOL. Some please post the links.

GTX 680 max TDP is 195 Watts and 7970 is 250 Watts. It is a fact. You can check both cards' spec and you will see.

[G.Freeman]

GTX 680 max TDP is 195 Watts and 7970 is 250 Watts. It is a fact. You can check both cards' spec and you will see.

[tabuburn]

I belive this theory to be debunked. The power difference is like 5 watts LOL. Some please post the links.

 

 

[vkadurin]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/06/22/amd-7970-ghz/

 

note the following: Although it's only a 50MHz increase, every little helps - and it comes without breaking the 250W TDP, although it's possible to clock the board higher through the PowerTune control panel software.

[G.Freeman]

note the following: Although it's only a 50MHz increase, every little helps - and it comes without breaking the 250W TDP, although it's possible to clock the board higher through the PowerTune control panel software.

?