[QUOTE=Koolg223;35690919]Incorrect sir, at 1080p, newer games can exceed 1 gb of vram usage easily. I see bad stutter in Crysis 2 and BF3 with my 1 gb of vram at 1080p, whereas with my 2 GB cards I get none. It's very annoying since I could easily max many games if not for the vram bottleneck.
Also Stalker is somewhat obscure.[/QUOTE]
Yah and the Nvidia team is yet to put out a game breaking driver that causes a bug such as all the textures on the map to start flickering when you have to reload. I could go on for a long while talking about their constant need for hotfixes and their almost non existent openGL support, but it's been done to death.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;35690968]Yah and the Nvidia team is yet to put out a game breaking driver that causes a bug such as all the textures on the map to start flickering when you have to reload. I could go on for a long while talking about their constant need for hotfixes and their almost non existent openGL support, but it's been done to death.[/QUOTE]
You mean AMD?
[QUOTE=Koolg223;35690960]I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, obviously vram is not the only factor here, I never said that. The point is that 2 GB vram is entirely necessary for a 6870 if you plan on crossfiring.[/QUOTE]
Yes because at a resolution you might play at while using crossfire such as 2560x1600 then 2GB of VRAM would definitely be a useful addition. But the impact isn't that large at a resolution such as 1920x1080 and unless you start throwing on tons of AA that makes no perceivable difference the GTX 560 Ti is likely going to come out the faster card, 2GB of VRAM or not.
This is a good debate but again it's irrelevant because the OP asked for an Nvidia card. The 6850 and 6870 are usually my build choices if somebody can't afford the GTX 560 Ti, but I'm not going to recommend the OP something he specifically said not to recommend.
[editline]23rd April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Koolg223;35690989]You mean AMD?[/QUOTE]
Yes AMD. None of those things can apply to Nvidia whatsoever.
[QUOTE]Wahaha. 2GB of VRAM on a 6870? At any resolution that needs that amount of VRAM the card itself won't be powerful enough to pull good framerates. Also you won't see any performance gains beyond the small ones you'll get with the 2GB in the first place, using CFX/SLI doesn't magically make all the VRAM available at once. The GPUs will take turns to render one part of scene and they employ their own VRAM for doing so.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty common knowledge that newer games, such as Battlefield 3, utilize upwards of 1.5GB VRAM at 1080p...
[QUOTE=garrynohome;35691006]Yes because at a resolution you might play at while using crossfire such as 2560x1600 then 2GB of VRAM would definitely be a useful addition. But the impact isn't that large at a resolution such as 1920x1080 and unless you start throwing on tons of AA that makes no perceivable difference the GTX 560 Ti is likely going to come out the faster card, 2GB of VRAM or not.[/QUOTE]
Agree about the nVidia thing, but one more point; I play at 1080p and have some stutter issues in select games, so it doesn't just apply to higher resolutions. Yes the 560 Ti is generally the better bet, but my limited experience with crossfire has taught me that you're definitely better off getting some extra vram if you want to use any dual GPU solution, so I'd be a bit weary of getting two 560 Tis with 1 GB vram.
[QUOTE=ATLracing;35691095]It's pretty common knowledge that newer games, such as Battlefield 3, utilize upwards of 1.5GB VRAM at 1080p...[/QUOTE]
That's interesting. If you'll look above you'll see that on Ultra at 2560x1600 where Battlefield 3 would use as much VRAM as possible for a single monitor setup, the GTX 570 with its 1280MB of VRAM is faster than my HD 6970 with its 2048MB of VRAM. It should also be noted that the 6970 is typically faster than the GTX 570. Now it could have nothing to do with the cards. It could be due to the drivers from AMD being poor at the time, I wouldn't have a hard time believing that. But it's just very interesting how the inferior card with less VRAM comes out on top in a situation where cards with a lack of VRAM are supposedly bottlenecked.
[QUOTE]That's interesting. If you'll look above you'll see that on Ultra at 2560x1600 where Battlefield 3 would use as much VRAM as possible for a single monitor setup, the GTX 570 with its 1280MB of VRAM is faster than my HD 6970 with its 2048MB of VRAM. It should also be noted that the 6970 is typically faster than the GTX 570. Now it could have nothing to do with the cards. It could be due to the drivers from AMD being poor at the time, I wouldn't have a hard time believing that. But it's just very interesting how the inferior card with less VRAM comes out on top in a situation where cards with a lack of VRAM are supposedly bottlenecked.[/QUOTE]
VRAM bottlenecks, from my experience, are much more prevalent in CFX or SLI, than in single card performance. I don't know how much experience you have with dual GPU setups, but good FPS mean very little if you have a lot of stutter, which is what a lack of VRAM will cause (stutter can also occur with a single GPU setup, and would not be reflected in this type of benchmark). The point is, I have had first hand experience with this issue, and I can tell you that a pair of 1GB 6870s/6850s in CFX are a complete waste of money due to terrible stutter, which can be fixed entirely by simply buying the 2GB versions.
Also, I have no idea where this benchmark is from, and there a number of factors that could play into a GTX 570 getting better FPS than your card.
[QUOTE=ATLracing;35691258]VRAM bottlenecks, from my experience, are much more prevalent in CFX or SLI, than in single card performance. I don't know how much experience you have with dual GPU setups, but good FPS mean very little if you have a lot of stutter, which is what a lack of VRAM will cause (stutter can also occur with a single GPU setup, and would not be reflected in this type of benchmark). The point is, I have had first hand experience with this issue, and I can tell you that a pair of 1GB 6870s/6850s in CFX are a complete waste of money due to terrible stutter, which can be fixed entirely by simply buying the 2GB versions.
Also, I have no idea where this benchmark is from, and there a number of factors that could play into a GTX 570 getting better FPS than your card.[/QUOTE]
It's from Techspot, and when I say my card I'm referring to the fact that it performed worse in their benchmark and I get similar performance.
[QUOTE]It's from Techspot, and when I say my card I'm referring to the fact that it performed worse in their benchmark and I get similar performance.[/QUOTE]
Look, I think you're missing the point. First, FPS aren't always relevant because stutter can ruin your experience, even when you're getting 60FPS. Have you seen all the threads of angry 570 and 580 users that are getting horrible stutter in Battlefield 3, even though their GPUs are more than capable of maxing everything out? Did you see the video of a pair of Mars II cards (four 580 GPUs in SLI) brought to a crawl due to a lack of VRAM? Second, as a 2GB 6870 owner, and a previous 1GB version owner, I can tell you first hand that the extra VRAM makes a huge difference, especially in CFX, in which a pair of 1GB 6870s are virtually useless in my opinion.
That said, this debate is really not useful to the OP, so we should probably bring it to a close.
Stop arguing, the GTX 560 Ti is a better card than the 6870 any way you look at it. Now, why are you comparing the two?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;35691586]Stop arguing, the GTX 560 Ti is a better card than the 6870 any way you look at it. Now, why are you comparing the two?[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, and you need to remember how much cheaper the 6870 is.
[QUOTE]Stop arguing, the GTX 560 Ti is a better card than the 6870 any way you look at it. Now, why are you comparing the two?[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the conversation above?
[QUOTE=ATLracing;35691613]Did you even read the conversation above?[/QUOTE]
I might have been tired last night, but I just reread it, and my point is the same. Sure, VRAM is a bottleneck sometimes, in some games, but it's generally not the deciding factor. It is true that it's more important in CF (look at brt5470's setup, he chose to have a lot of VRAM), but this is again in most cases not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is that the GTX 560 Ti is almost as good as the 6950, and the 6870 is not. More than 1GB VRAM is becoming the norm, but 1GB is still more than good enough for most games.
I've got a 560 Ti 2GB edition, never had any issues whatsoever in BF3 due to VRAM.
[QUOTE=Ruzza;35697046]I've got a 560 Ti 2GB edition, never had any issues whatsoever in BF3 due to VRAM.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, you have the 2gb version.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;35695744]I might have been tired last night, but I just reread it, and my point is the same. Sure, VRAM is a bottleneck sometimes, in some games, but it's generally not the deciding factor. It is true that it's more important in CF (look at brt5470's setup, he chose to have a lot of VRAM), but this is again in most cases not the deciding factor. The deciding factor is that the GTX 560 Ti is almost as good as the 6950, and the 6870 is not. More than 1GB VRAM is becoming the norm, but 1GB is still more than good enough for most games.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you for the most part, but I think you exaggerate the speed of a 560Ti to some degree. The 6870 and 560Ti are both pretty similar in performance, and with 2GB of VRAM available, the performance gap shrinks even further. I don't know if VRAM had anything to do with it, but I was able to squeeze out more FPS on a 2GB 6870 than a 560Ti in Crysis Warhead, and that was without SLI or CFX. I'm not going to deny that a single 560Ti is generally better than a 6870, but it costs significantly more, and if you're running a dual GPU setup, like me, 2GB VRAM is a must for a stutter free experience.
[QUOTE=ATLracing;35704564]I agree with you for the most part, but I think you exaggerate the speed of a 560Ti to some degree. The 6870 and 560Ti are both pretty similar in performance, and with 2GB of VRAM available, the performance gap shrinks even further. I don't know if VRAM had anything to do with it, but I was able to squeeze out more FPS on a 2GB 6870 than a 560Ti in Crysis Warhead, and that was without SLI or CFX. I'm not going to deny that a single 560Ti is generally better than a 6870, but it costs significantly more, and if you're running a dual GPU setup, like me, 2GB VRAM is a must for a stutter free experience.[/QUOTE]
Actually like he stated the 560 Ti competes with the 6950 1GB, not the 6870. You're underestimating the speed of a GTX 560 Ti and I am yet to see you present anything but anecdotal evidence to support your claims. No benchmarks, no specs, nothing at all.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;35705852]Actually like he stated the 560 Ti competes with the 6950 1GB, not the 6870. You're underestimating the speed of a GTX 560 Ti and I am yet to see you present anything but anecdotal evidence to support your claims. No benchmarks, no specs, nothing at all.[/QUOTE]
You should specify which GTX 560 Ti you're talking about.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;35705852]Actually like he stated the 560 Ti competes with the 6950 1GB, not the 6870. You're underestimating the speed of a GTX 560 Ti and I am yet to see you present anything but anecdotal evidence to support your claims. No benchmarks, no specs, nothing at all.[/QUOTE]
Ok, here's a list of graphics cards by 3DMark11 scores:
[url]http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+560+Ti/review[/url]
As you can see, the 560Ti falls right between the 6870 and the 6950. Like I said, I'm NOT making the claim that a 560Ti is is on par with a 6870. I'm only noting that, as someone who has experience with both cards, (and the 6870s in two different VRAM configurations), I haven't found the difference between the two to be that significant. Factor in the added price of a 560Ti, and VRAM limitations, and I think that the 6870 is a better buy.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that when I put together my rig, I was planning for a dual GPU setup. I can't really speak to much to how a single 560Ti and single 6870 (1GB or 2GB) compare with each other, but I can safely say that for good CFX performance 2GB VRAM is a must.
That's amazing. CFX performance is sort of irrelevant when the OP is buying a mobo with one PCI-E slot.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Koolg223;35706393]You should specify which GTX 560 Ti you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
No I really don't have to. The GTX 560 Ti design from Nvidia comes with 1GB of VRAM. If anyone references the 2GB card they'll put a 2GB suffix on the name of the card. If it just says GTX 560 Ti it's obviously referring to the typical card configuration.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;35709500]That's amazing. CFX performance is sort of irrelevant when the OP is buying a mobo with one PCI-E slot.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
In that case the 560 Ti is most certainly not as good as a 6950.
No I really don't have to. The GTX 560 Ti design from Nvidia comes with 1GB of VRAM. If anyone references the 2GB card they'll put a 2GB suffix on the name of the card. If it just says GTX 560 Ti it's obviously referring to the typical card configuration.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]That's amazing. CFX performance is sort of irrelevant when the OP is buying a mobo with one PCI-E slot.[/QUOTE]
Considering that pretty much our entire VRAM/Driver debate was completely off topic, it's kind of funny that you bring this up now.
[QUOTE=1solidsnake2;35650191]When I've looked in my local PC World store, Jeantech were the only PSU's they sold.[/QUOTE]
I bought a ANTEC VP450P PSU there last Wednesday so your local store must suck.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
