2Gb or 4Gb for 1440p?

[vkadurin]

?

7970 has 250 Watt TDP ..are you blind or what...read the review before posting...

[G.Freeman]

7970 has 250 Watt TDP ..are you blind or what...read the review before posting...

It still does not consume 250watts. 7970 is more powerful than 680 and 7970 consumes about 30watts more than a 680 and you guy's make it seem like it's a nuclear reaction between the both of them.

[vkadurin]

It still does not consume 250watts. 7970 is more powerful than 680 and 7970 consumes about 30watts more than a 680 and you guy's make it seem like it's a nuclear reaction between the both of them.

I have the feeling that i am arguing with a TV here....AMD has rated their GPU to 250 Watts TDP and NVIDIA to 190Watts...so you know better than them, right? How you figured it doesn't consume 250 Watts? Do you think AMD will release higher TDP than it actually is? They have to be insane...think about it... 

[G.Freeman]

I have the feeling that i am arguing with a TV here....AMD has rated their GPU to 250 Watts TDP and NVIDIA to 190Watts...so you know better than them, right? How you figured it doesn't consume 250 Watts? Do you think AMD will release higher TDP than it actually is? They have to be insane...think about it... 

[vkadurin]

 

I have the feeling that i am arguing with a TV here....AMD has rated their GPU to 250 Watts TDP and NVIDIA to 190Watts...so you know better than them, right? How you figured it doesn't consume 250 Watts? Do you think AMD will release higher TDP than it actually is? They have to be insane...think about it... 

 

What does a blank quote even mean?

[Giac]

2gb is fine. Vram is a marketing ploy to get people to buy more GPUs.

 

 

Performance does not go down when Vram buffer is filled up. It's a simple concept you see.

 

 

Funny cause I max out BF3 on 1GB 7850 no problem and it play's smooth as a babies ass.

 

"In Battlefield 3 at 1,920 x 1,080, the MSI HD 7850 1GB was actually able to outperform the 2GB version thanks to its factory overclock, albeit by a single frame per second on the minimum frame rate. This suggests that the 2GB's extra 1GB of GDDR5 is all but useless at this resolution."

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2012/11/05/msi-radeon-hd-7850-1gb-review/10

 

 

Not in the games I play I have never ran into a problem when the Vram buffer fills up.

 

 

Don't need to google as I have shown you proof from reliable sources and I have my exsperience where you just have expressed your opinion.

 

 

I don't know because I have not tested it myself but at Ultra HD+ resolution the story could be different than @ 1200P and under. I also think that imo you would have been better off with HD 7950 for Ultra HD+.

 

 

LOL from the one who does not provid any sources to his claims but a troll picture and his opinion.

Please. Just leave.

[R4STABAN]

How many people that have posted in the thread have gamed at this res or greater while limited to 2gb vram?

The vram topic pops up on forums daily and people gaming at 1080p chip in as if they know what they're talking about.

 

I run 3 x 1080p (1440p is ~60% of this) with 2 2gb 680s and here's my experiences:

 

-I always disable windows aero when gaming on newer games (saves ~200-300mb vram)

-I used to play battlefield 3 on ultra but had to turn aa down to 2x, I would usually play on high because 680s aren't powerful enough.

-If you run out of vram your game will crash or you will trudge along at 1fps, I can force this to happen by turning AA up to 8x or w/e silly value you want.

-If I ever push settings high enough to push me close to the vram limit my fps is already rubbish because gk104 and the 256bit bus can't handle it.

 

For 1440p 4gb is not a necessity.

-On 1440p you don't need as high AA because of the good pixel density MSAA is a vram hog.

-If it's not too much more money, it may be worth it, but it's not worth spending loads extra on, because..

-AMD spanks nvidia above 1080p by a bigger margin than below it. (7950s make 680s look rubbish), they're cheaper and come with more vram too if you're worried.

[josh_05]

How many people that have posted in the thread have gamed at this res or greater while limited to 2gb vram?

The vram topic pops up on forums daily and people gaming at 1080p chip in as if they know what they're talking about.

 

I run 3 x 1080p (1440p is ~60% of this) with 2 2gb 680s and here's my experiences:

 

-I always disable windows aero when gaming on newer games (saves ~200-300mb vram)

-I used to play battlefield 3 on ultra but had to turn aa down to 2x, I would usually play on high because 680s aren't powerful enough.

-If you run out of vram your game will crash or you will trudge along at 1fps, I can force this to happen by turning AA up to 8x or w/e silly value you want.

-If I ever push settings high enough to push me close to the vram limit my fps is already rubbish because gk104 and the 256bit bus can't handle it.

 

For 1440p 4gb is not a necessity.

-On 1440p you don't need as high AA because of the good pixel density MSAA is a vram hog.

-If it's not too much more money, it may be worth it, but it's not worth spending loads extra on, because..

-AMD spanks nvidia above 1080p by a bigger margin than below it. (7950s make 680s look rubbish), they're cheaper and come with more vram too if you're worried.

Summed it up nicely :) The only game my 670s have crashed on is Crysis 3 maxxed with 8x MSAA @ 1440P and as u mentioned above, you don't need as much AA at higher resolutions. Jaggies are less visible. heck, even with no AA just the higher resolution alone makes games look so much better than 1080P with AA. 

[RaVenBelgium]

I'd go with 4GB, the more the better

[G.Freeman]

:-)

[Giac]

Why cause I proved my point with facts from reputable profetional reviwers  ?

1. l2grammar

2. stop trolling

3. read your sources before posting

4. ????

5. leave

[G.Freeman]

 

[G.Freeman]

 

[Chivpcgamer]

Come on guys this is not how this forum works : /

[Giac]

Now yur trollin

plz stahp it. ur grammur is trribll

[RaVenBelgium]

Come on guys this is not how this forum works : /

Only a moderator or so could stop this... Or the wisest one of them stops

 

EDIT: Or the wisest of them all should stop

[Theo]

Only a moderator or so could stop this... Or the wisest one of them stops

 

EDIT: Or the wisest of them all should stop

it is quite funny though, not really productive or anything good but for the lols

[G.Freeman]

How many people that have posted in the thread have gamed at this res or greater while limited to 2gb vram?

The vram topic pops up on forums daily and people gaming at 1080p chip in as if they know what they're talking about.

 

I run 3 x 1080p (1440p is ~60% of this) with 2 2gb 680s and here's my experiences:

 

-I always disable windows aero when gaming on newer games (saves ~200-300mb vram)

-I used to play battlefield 3 on ultra but had to turn aa down to 2x, I would usually play on high because 680s aren't powerful enough.

-If you run out of vram your game will crash or you will trudge along at 1fps, I can force this to happen by turning AA up to 8x or w/e silly value you want.

-If I ever push settings high enough to push me close to the vram limit my fps is already rubbish because gk104 and the 256bit bus can't handle it.

 

For 1440p 4gb is not a necessity.

-On 1440p you don't need as high AA because of the good pixel density MSAA is a vram hog.

-If it's not too much more money, it may be worth it, but it's not worth spending loads extra on, because..

-AMD spanks nvidia above 1080p by a bigger margin than below it. (7950s make 680s look rubbish), they're cheaper and come with more vram too if you're worried.

Funny cause I play BF3 maxed out with every option cranked @ 1680x1050 on an HD 7850 1GB and even with the Vram burffer filled up the game runs perfectly smooth.

[Giac]

Theo, on 13 May 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

it is quite funny though, not really productive or anything good but for the lols

I just find this G Freeman guy amusing...I mean he's clearly here to troll...that much is clear.

 

Funny cause I play BF3 maxed out with every option cranked @ 1680x1050 on an HD 7850 1GB and even with the Vram burffer filled up the game runs perfectly smooth.

 

 

Please just stop saying that!!! You keep repeating it but it's meaningless!!! BF3 has a bug in game since launch where it fills the GPU Vram to full, even if it doesnt need it. Even you have a titan it will use up all your memory. Please. Read. Before. Posting.

[Theo]

Funny cause I play BF3 maxed out with every option cranked @ 1680x1050 on an HD 7850 1GB and even with the Vram burffer filled up the game runs perfectly smooth.

Funny cause you arent even playing in HD resolution, where 1gb is enough

[ERSCreeper]

Funny cause you arent even playing in HD resolution, where 1gb is enough

Nailed it

[G.Freeman]

Funny cause you arent even playing in HD resolution, where 1gb is enough

Funny cause the Vram buffer is maxed but the game still plays perfectly.

[Giac]

Funny cause the Vram buffer is maxed but the game still plays perfectly.

OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. Must. Control. Rage. If you knew anything about BF3 then you would know the game has a bug that uses all VRAM regardless of pool size.

[Guest]

Locked.

[Theo]

Funny cause the Vram buffer is maxed but the game still plays perfectly.

My dear G.Freeman, you seem to not understand the difference between full and being overflowed. If Vram is full, game runs fine, if the game needs more Vram than the gpu can provide then you wont play. I dont really see how something so simple could take to much to understand