EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 2Win Dual GPU Review

Quote:

---

While there were some minor stumbling blocks throughout testing which were largely a byproduct of the GTX 560 Ti’s memory bandwidth limitations, the 2Win performed flawlessly. However, the true value of EVGA’s GTX 560 Ti 2Win will lie in the eyes of the beholder. For those who are strapped for space but can’t justify (or find) an expensive, power hungry GTX 590, it provides an excellent gaming experience and bridges the gap between NVIDIA’s flagship product and a GTX 580. Standing on the other side of that fence will be the people who just can’t see a use for dual GPU card when two individual GTX 560 Tis cost less. Nonetheless, we feel that EVGA has released an innovative product that will certainly find good traction among specific enthusiast circles.

---

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...60-2WIN-11.jpg

Source

Can you do quad sli with these? I know that you couldn't with the GTX 460 version and that had an sli connector too.

But for what point? I would think 1gb ram will limit this card alone for quite a bit in some games. 2 of theese would be limited for shure.
Then again, quad sli isnt really worth it for gaming, just benching and i guess 1gb ram is fine then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

But for what point? I would think 1gb ram will limit this card alone for quite a bit in some games. 2 of theese would be limited for shure.
Then again, quad sli isnt really worth it for gaming, just benching and i guess 1gb ram is fine then.

---

Quad sli and tri-sli tend to have a lot less microstutter. Reviews only tell half of the story when they just show an average and occasionally minimum framerate. I do agree that the memory may hold it back a bit.

Looks like a great card to use in cases where you can cram in a pair of 560 TIs into your case. Would help if it was a little cheaper than SLI 560s.. you'd think there'd be some savings. I guess the design work kept the price high.

or get 4 of these on 1 rig for GPU grid or something like that

Quad SLI is not supported on GTX 560 Ti cards.

PCPerspective's Review
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...cs-Card-Review

Anandtech's Review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5048/e...er-of-two-gpus

does it fail like 460 2Win

In that it does not support sli with an addititional GTX560TI, then yes. Considering you can get a HD6870x2 and CF it with a HD6870, this is not the best route for the money. Since two GTX570's would cost you maybe a $100 more depending on rebates and such, I think it would be a mistake to got with this card. Now if it was in the $400 price range and you could SLI it with other cards for Tri-SLI or Quad-SLI, then it would be a winner. You would think EVGA would have leaned this from the GTX4602Win card.

It seems like depending on your monitor configuration, you're better off either going with a GTX 570, GTX 580, or simply two GTX 560 Ti cards in SLI (considering the price).

I still think it looks pretty cool.

IF this was 2GB per GPU, i would buy 2 asap.

Nawrr was totally about to get a 460 2Win for the GF's comp and now this pops out.

Wish we'd be able to get them in Australia though.

-PB

2GB of RAM per GPU would have made this better along with the ability to Tri and/or Quad-SLI these would indeed made this '2 Win'.

Yeah but lack of Quad SLI is a restriction by the GF GPU not so much what the manufacturers do with it.

-PB

LOL @ the 2GB memory per GPU complaints.

Do you REALLY think that the GF114 GPU can process enough information to adequately feed 2GB of memory?

I'll give you a hit: NO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

LOL @ the 2GB memory per GPU complaints.

Do you REALLY think that the GF114 GPU can process enough information to adequately feed 2GB of memory?

I'll give you a hit: NO!

---

+1.

GTX 560 Ti sees absolutely no improvement from having 2 Gb Vram. In any situation where that much Vram would really be needed (nothing which yet exists at 1920x1200), the GPU on this card would be too slow for it and you would need at least a pair of 3 Gb GTX 580s anyway.

People always want things that they dont need, and in this case wont provide even the slightest benefit. I'm yet to be limited by my SLI GTX 560 Tis in any game at 1920x1200 resolution and 4x MSAA.

In every benchmark except for BF3 in that review, the 2 x GTX 560 Ti significantly beats a single GTX 580, even at 2560x1600 resolution. That is what makes this card such an attractive SLI option - same, or even less cost than a GTX 580, more performance.

As for the BF3 results, I really cant tell what went wrong in that review, but heres how they actually perform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZoSU...layer_embedded

Other people with two of these cards have reported a solid 60-100 FPS with Ultra settings, 2x MSAA, and far more with FXAA in BF3 (its still playable at 4x MSAA, but most people want at least 60 in FPS games).

Civ V is another game which has always been incredibly demanding ever since it was launched. People keep on blaming the coding or lack of optimization on it, but I'm running it without any hiccups at a constant 60 FPS (Vsync enabled with SLI ofc) and absolutely no lag, FPS spikes or any other problem other than waiting time in between turns (not a graphics problem - oh, and all settings on max and 4x MSAA).

Everyone that has bought a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI setup on my recommendation so far have been nothing but thoroughly impressed by how great they perform. No one using this setup that I have yet seen have ever complained about lag spikes or microstutter in any recent and old video game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Quad sli and tri-sli tend to have a lot less microstutter. Reviews only tell half of the story when they just show an average and occasionally minimum framerate. I do agree that the memory may hold it back a bit.

---

Yet again, you are wrong about everything regarding SLI as usual.

Are you saying 2 (yes this is 2 not 1) 560 TI cant play games maxed @ 1920x1200? And that 1gb is enough for a single GTX580?

1920x1200:
Crysis Warhead 1393mb
Dragon age 2 1115mb
Metro 2033 1443mb
Napoleon Total War 1235mb
Total war shogun 2 1547mb
The witcher 2 1152mb
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18284509

And personally ive seen 1790mb usage so far in BF3

Look at this too:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...y-at-1920x1200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Are you saying 2 (yes this is 2 not 1) 560 TI cant play games maxed @ 1920x1200? And that 1gb is enough for a single GTX580?

1920x1200:
Crysis Warhead 1393mb
Dragon age 2 1115mb
Metro 2033 1443mb
Napoleon Total War 1235mb
Total war shogun 2 1547mb
The witcher 2 1152mb
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18284509

And personally ive seen 1790mb usage so far in BF3

Look at this too:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...y-at-1920x1200

---

I'm a little curious about those numbers- are they calculating the VRAM usage on each card and then adding them together?

Under an SLI configuration, there is a copy of the same data in each GPU's dedicated VRAM, correct?

The result would be the same for a singel card.

Battlefield 3

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6315/unledtyh.jpg

http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-g...ge%20to%20Load

Dont forget HH have use 4xMSAA + FXAA ... the result are completely different with only FXAA (as shown really well on Hardwarecanucks review ).... i have no problem at 1920x1080 with 2x MSAA or only FXAA with 2x HD 5870 1gb . i got 85 to 110fps average and the worst minimum fps i have seen was 61fps .. ofc it can be a little bit lower in some case ( i don't use fraps or ingame report all the time when i play )

In reality i start to think the problem don't reside in Texture who should be what use the Vram, but with the MSAA in game or in a memory leak for BF3.. i mean textures are not so " perfect " in BF3 they should require so much vram. and i don't think MSAA will use so much memory. Or all reviews shows the same things, when you use 4xMSAA the cards with "only" 1024mb goes down.


Again, it's sad we have not seen this 560TI 2win months ago ... we are in november, if all is going well, we should start to see new Nvidia cards in 3months.

EVGA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 2 WIN 2GB DirectX11 Video Card Review - HiTech Legion

Unboxing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiG14JRjjpU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

+1.

GTX 560 Ti sees absolutely no improvement from having 2 Gb Vram. In any situation where that much Vram would really be needed (nothing which yet exists at 1920x1200), the GPU on this card would be too slow for it and you would need at least a pair of 3 Gb GTX 580s anyway.

People always want things that they dont need, and in this case wont provide even the slightest benefit. I'm yet to be limited by my SLI GTX 560 Tis in any game at 1920x1200 resolution and 4x MSAA.

In every benchmark except for BF3 in that review, the 2 x GTX 560 Ti significantly beats a single GTX 580, even at 2560x1600 resolution. That is what makes this card such an attractive SLI option - same, or even less cost than a GTX 580, more performance.

As for the BF3 results, I really cant tell what went wrong in that review, but heres how they actually perform:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZoSU...layer_embedded

Other people with two of these cards have reported a solid 60-100 FPS with Ultra settings, 2x MSAA, and far more with FXAA in BF3 (its still playable at 4x MSAA, but most people want at least 60 in FPS games).

Civ V is another game which has always been incredibly demanding ever since it was launched. People keep on blaming the coding or lack of optimization on it, but I'm running it without any hiccups at a constant 60 FPS (Vsync enabled with SLI ofc) and absolutely no lag, FPS spikes or any other problem other than waiting time in between turns (not a graphics problem - oh, and all settings on max and 4x MSAA).

Everyone that has bought a 1 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI setup on my recommendation so far have been nothing but thoroughly impressed by how great they perform. No one using this setup that I have yet seen have ever complained about lag spikes or microstutter in any recent and old video game.



Yet again, you are wrong about everything regarding SLI as usual.

---

Have you read any reviews? For resolutions over 1920 x 1080 you can start to see the impact of Vram. Hardocp has showed this over the last year or so with all their triple monitor gaming reviews. Tomshardware did a review showing that Tri-CF/Tri-SLI was the best setup to avoid microstuttering. Have you read about the issues of BF3 and SLI/CF? Single GPU cards do not have the same issues. Granted, this should change with new driver updates, but a single GTX580 would be a abetter choice right now. And as far as price goes, you can get a GTX580 for around $400 almost weekly, so these are not in the same price point. As it was stated earlier, if this had come out 6 months ago it would have been a serious consideration, but being that the point of this is to allow triple monitor game play from a single Nvidia card like the GTX590, it's just not a contender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Utnorris

Have you read any reviews? For resolutions over 1920 x 1080 you can start to see the impact of Vram. Hardocp has showed this over the last year or so with all their triple monitor gaming reviews. Tomshardware did a review showing that Tri-CF/Tri-SLI was the best setup to avoid microstuttering. Have you read about the issues of BF3 and SLI/CF? Single GPU cards do not have the same issues. Granted, this should change with new driver updates, but a single GTX580 would be a abetter choice right now. And as far as price goes, you can get a GTX580 for around $400 almost weekly, so these are not in the same price point. As it was stated earlier, if this had come out 6 months ago it would have been a serious consideration, but being that the point of this is to allow triple monitor game play from a single Nvidia card like the GTX590, it's just not a contender.

---

I'm sorry but no. Granted, on high end cards with massive video processing capabilities, extra VRAM MAY come in handy and in some games it WILL be beneficial.

However, on lower end cards like the GTX 560 Ti, once in-game details are increased to the point where memory needs increase past the 1GB mark, the GPU architecture becomes a bottleneck rather than the memory itself. You have to remember that acceptable performance requires the memory AND GPU to work in parallel. If either one can't process info fast enough then the whole shebang falls apart very quickly.

People can throw around numbers like 1.7GB for BF3 or 1.1GB for Dragon Age 2 but that doesn't necessarily mean that more memory on a mid range card will actually allow for PLAYABLE framerates. Sure, a 2GB GTX 560 Ti will outperform a 1GB card in high resolution, high IQ situations but if one gets 10 FPS and the other nets 15 FPS, what's the use?

Personally I haven't had problems with BF3 in SLI with a pair of GTX 580 cards. Unless you test with a clean OS install and 100% working hardware at stock clocks, you really can't be sure what's going on.

As for micro-stutter, I've found that you need two of the highest-end cards to perform the most optimal together in SLI. Don't even bother with anything less. Also, things have gotten better with every generation I've tried. GTX 580 SLI is basically perfect to me. 3-4 cards in SLI on the other hand tend cause more problems in general gaming use. If you run a triple monitor setup you don't have much choice though. You basically need 3 cards for high image quality and frame rates...sometimes it works well...or you get too much stutter/hitching/low frame rates. It's a crap shoot. Perhaps the next gen will improve on this.

I also would like to refer to the below article related to game testing and frame timing:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21516

SKYMTL

For a single card 1 gb is enough, but 2 GTX560TI does have enough power to take advantage of more than 1gb ram. And this thread is not about a single GTX560TI but 2 on one pcb, so 2gb would have beneficial. Ram is cheap anyways so why not do it properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

SKYMTL

For a single card 1 gb is enough, but 2 GTX560TI does have enough power to take advantage of more than 1gb ram. And this thread is not about a single GTX560TI but 2 on one pcb, so 2gb would have beneficial. Ram is cheap anyways so why not do it properly.

---

Are you sure?
Cards in SLI/X-Fire mode don't share memory. Data is mirrored. There is not a single big memory pool.

And whats your point?

If a single card has barely enough horsepower to feed/use 1GB, dual cards are not going to use more 1GB per GPU.

Ofc they are. As you say, they mirror the data. So 2 cards double the processing power but is still limited to 1 gb ram. 2 cards with 2gb each on the other hand...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

SKYMTL

For a single card 1 gb is enough, but 2 GTX560TI does have enough power to take advantage of more than 1gb ram. And this thread is not about a single GTX560TI but 2 on one pcb, so 2gb would have beneficial. Ram is cheap anyways so why not do it properly.

---

That doesn't happen. Having two GPUs on a single card doesn't change a thing since each still addresses 1GB of memory and no more than that. The 2Win has 2GB of total memory which is split 1GB per GPU. Since it uses GF114 cores, my point about adding memory still stands. ;)

Remember, SLI still uses AFR which means GPU 1 renders even number frames while GPU 2 renders odd numbered frames. This means the architecture will always be the limiting factor as the "power" of the GPUs themselves, isn't combined to render each frame.

ok, let me be more clear.. 2gb FOR EACH GPU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

ok, let me be more clear.. 2gb FOR EACH GPU

---

As we have been saying: POINTLESS due to the limitations of the underlying architecture. It is not the 1GB of memory that is bottlenecking these cards.

No one has been saying about anything about architecture limitations. You said that 1 GTX560 isnt powerfull enough to take advantage of more than 1gb ram, and i agree, but 2 would.
But what are theese architecture limitations then?

Edit: Are you saying that cards like THIS dont work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

No one has been saying about anything about architecture limitations. You said that 1 GTX560 isnt powerfull enough to take advantage of more than 1gb ram, and i agree, but 2 would.
But what are theese architecture limitations then?

Edit: Are you saying that cards like THIS dont work?

---

Ok. Let me explain this clearly since maybe I have been beating around the bush here.

What you are talking about is the possibility that two GTX 560 cores will build upon each other's performance in order to take advantage of higher memory bandwidth. Unfortunately, in SLI (or Crossfire on the AMD side) that doesn't happen since the drivers pick them up as TWO INDIVIDUAL cards, each with 1GB of memory. Adding more memory will therefore cause the drivers to see 2x GTX 560 Ti 2GB cards rather than one massively powerful card with 4GB of total memory. And as you said:

Quote:

---

You said that 1 GTX560 isnt powerfull enough to take advantage of more than 1gb ram, and i agree,

---

The GTX 560 Ti 2Win has 1GB PER GPU for a total of 2GB on the card but like I said above, it is still seen as two 1GB cards.

The main issue with expanded memory in certain cards is one of diminishing returns. In most cases a GTX 580 for example has ample overhead to continue rendering high framerates once IQ settings are pushed to the max. Hence, doubling up memory can help in bandwidth limited scenarios. A GTX 570 can benefit as well but due to its slightly lower core performance, it will likely hit a rendering wall before bandwidth limitations factor into the equation. What this basically means is that its core (CUDA cores, TMUs, ROPs, etc) will prove to be the limiting factor in most cases and while additional memory may be beneficial, this (in most cases) won't allow for playable frames where the reference card stumbles.

I'll give you some numbers to back this up. First lets start with the GTX 580:

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...UND-MEM-28.jpg

As you can see, the GTX 580 can indeed take advantage of additional memory but....only in certain cases.

The GTX 570 on the other hand has other limitations:

http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...UND-MEM-29.jpg

As you can see, under just the right conditions, more bandwidth can indeed help but the scenario has to be carefully chosen....basically like HardOCP does with their reviews and articles.


The GTX 560 Ti will basically emphasize this rendering bottleneck all that much more due to its architectural performance and the fact that dual GPU cards still detect a pair of individual GPUs rather than combining both into one massive rendering engine.

Hope that helps. :)

Gosh, are you not reading what im writing? read the thread again? im talking about memory SIZE! not bandwith

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Gosh, are you not reading what im writing? read the thread again? im talking about memory SIZE! not bandwith

---

So is SKYMTL. What he is saying, if I got it right, is that adding more wagons to the train is useless if the people at the station can't load them fast enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

But for what point? I would think 1gb ram will limit this card alone for quite a bit in some games.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

LOL @ the 2GB memory per GPU complaints.

Do you REALLY think that the GF114 GPU can process enough information to adequately feed 2GB of memory?

I'll give you a hit: NO!

---

No, but i believe that TWO can process enough to feed MORE THAN 1GB ram

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

+1.

GTX 560 Ti sees absolutely no improvement from having 2 Gb Vram. In any situation where that much Vram would really be needed (nothing which yet exists at 1920x1200), the GPU on this card would be too slow for it and you would need at least a pair of 3 Gb GTX 580s anyway.

---

2 not one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Are you saying 2 (yes this is 2 not 1) 560 TI cant play games maxed @ 1920x1200? And that 1gb is enough for a single GTX580?

1920x1200:
Crysis Warhead 1393mb
Dragon age 2 1115mb
Metro 2033 1443mb
Napoleon Total War 1235mb
Total war shogun 2 1547mb
The witcher 2 1152mb
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18284509

And personally ive seen 1790mb usage so far in BF3

Look at this too:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...y-at-1920x1200

---

I guess i need to bump this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I'm sorry but no. Granted, on high end cards with massive video processing capabilities, extra VRAM MAY come in handy and in some games it WILL be beneficial.

However, on lower end cards like the GTX 560 Ti, once in-game details are increased to the point where memory needs increase past the 1GB mark, the GPU architecture becomes a bottleneck rather than the memory itself. You have to remember that acceptable performance requires the memory AND GPU to work in parallel. If either one can't process info fast enough then the whole shebang falls apart very quickly.

People can throw around numbers like 1.7GB for BF3 or 1.1GB for Dragon Age 2 but that doesn't necessarily mean that more memory on a mid range card will actually allow for PLAYABLE framerates. Sure, a 2GB GTX 560 Ti will outperform a 1GB card in high resolution, high IQ situations but if one gets 10 FPS and the other nets 15 FPS, what's the use?

---

You are talking about it as a single GTX560TI, not 2 as the issue is about here.
And its not all about pure fps numbers. When you run out of vram you can get stutters and stuff like that and thats the point of having more than 1gb ram. 2 GTX560TI is quite abit more powerful than a singel GTX580, and they clock very well on top of that.

@ SKYMTL

Great article! I was wondering if you have had a chance to test BF3 at all?

What I am talking about is the fact that the drivers see dual GPU cards as two SINGLE cards. As such, the memory allotment isn't shared between the two cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChinStrap

@ SKYMTL

Great article! I was wondering if you have had a chance to test BF3 at all?

---

Yup! In the GTX 560 Ti 2Win article, there are full BF3 numbers along with a video detailing the scene I benchmarked. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

No, but i believe that TWO can process enough to feed MORE THAN 1GB ram.

---

Maybe this will help to clear things up. To preface, during rendering two GPUs don't work on the same job concurrently, but each does one image individually.

Example: GPU1 renders frame 1 in 10ms
GPU2 renders frame 2 in 10 ms

result = 2 frames in 10ms

Every single frame still renders in 10ms regardless of the number of GPUs. The performance gain that you experience comes from the second frame rendering, while the first frame is rendering and displaying

I think it would benefit from 2gb (4gb total). Also you guys are reading eXa's post wrong, he knows how SLI works, he's just saying he thinks the card would be better with 2gb for each GPU (2gb+2gb). I would have to agree, new games, and some older, can, and will take advantage of over 1gb vram. Also think about future titles, If you bought this card you would want it to perform for several years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cx-ray

Maybe this will help to clear things up. To preface, during rendering two GPUs don't work on the same job concurrently, but each does one image individually.

Example: GPU1 renders frame 1 in 10ms
GPU2 renders frame 2 in 10 ms

result = 2 frames in 10ms

Every single frame still renders in 10ms regardless of the number of GPUs. The performance gain that you experience comes from the second frame rendering, while the first frame is rendering and displaying

---

I know this.

And its irelevant. 2 cards let you get more fps or increase the eyecandy, or a mix of both. In some games you can have more than 1gb vram usage and still have playable fps with 2 GTX560TI and in theese situations 2gb per gpu is beneficial over 1gb per gpu.

1gbs vs 2gbs
the timings settings on the 1gbs is tighter then the 2gbs cards at the same clocks.

Thanks for all the clarification SKYMTL. I think your explanation confirmed what many of us thought.

I think this is a cool card, but with most P67 boards offering two PCI-E x16 slots (with one x8 electric), two GTX 560 Ti cards at a lower price would seem like a no brainer, right?

If the benchmarks I had seen were correct, the GTX 560 Ti (maybe it was two GTX 570 actuallys, but that would be even stronger evidence) is not limited by the PCI-E x8 bus speed (assuming it's a PCI-E 2.0 slot, of course).

Can anyone confirm that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrazyNutz

I think it would benefit from 2gb (4gb total). Also you guys are reading eXa's post wrong, he knows how SLI works, he's just saying he thinks the card would be better with 2gb for each GPU (2gb+2gb). I would have to agree, new games, and some older, can, and will take advantage of over 1gb vram. Also think about future titles, If you bought this card you would want it to perform for several years.

---

And what we are saying is that the associated cost increase for 2x1GB additional GDDR5 would not be worth it due to the limited number of situations in which it will be put to good use.

No SKYMTL you have not said that at all, i wouldnt argue that. You have been saying that it wouldnt work and/or that it wouldnt benefit at all. THAT is what i disagree with. The actual cost of implementing havent been discussed at all, only I mentioned that ram is fairly cheap so i dont see it as a big problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

And what we are saying is that the associated cost increase for 2x1GB additional GDDR5 would not be worth it due to the limited number of situations in which it will be put to good use.

---

Then the card is a flop, as you could get two gtx560ti's each with 2gb vram for about the same price:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127608

About the only way this card makes sense is on a mobo that only has 1 pcie connector, or only supports CF

Or SFF maybe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Or SFF maybe

---

I can't think of a single small form factor case that can fit a huge card like this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

No SKYMTL you have not said that at all, i wouldnt argue that. You have been saying that it wouldnt work and/or that it wouldnt benefit at all. THAT is what i disagree with. The actual cost of implementing havent been discussed at all, only I mentioned that ram is fairly cheap so i dont see it as a big problem.

---

I never said "at all". I have said time and again that the memory increase would be mostly pointless and I'm sticking to that. Not only that but I'll add a new wrinkle into the fabric: a 2x2GB dual GTX 560 Ti card would likely have LOWER performance in many games than the 2Win. ;)

My current modded install of Fallout 3 eats up every bit of vram on my GTX570 and the gpu is not the bottleneck. Any less vram would cause the stutter that I used to see on my GTX280 and still occasionally see on my GTX570. My current install of Doom 3 and Darkplaces (a quake source port) also eat up every bit of vram at 1920x1080.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

My current modded install of Fallout 3 eats up every bit of vram on my GTX570 and the gpu is not the bottleneck. Any less vram would cause the stutter that I used to see on my GTX280 and still occasionally see on my GTX570. My current install of Doom 3 and Darkplaces (a quake source port) also eat up every bit of vram at 1920x1080.

---

Like some of us have been saying: it varies from title to title but there are very few cases where more memory on a GTX 560 Ti will make the difference between playable and non-playable framerates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Like some of us have been saying: it varies from title to title but there are very few cases where more memory on a GTX 560 Ti will make the difference between playable and non-playable framerates.

---

That I'll agree with but we are talking about an almost $600 video card here. When I'm spending that kind of money I don't want to have to make too many compromises.

Which is why getting a GTX580 or a HD6970 is a better option for multi-monitor setups. If you are not going to do a multi-monitor setup, then they would still be better choice since the FPS will be high enough it won't matter. This card has the same issue as the GTX4602WIN card, high price for the performance. You could almost get two GTX570's or two HD6850's and get better performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I'm sorry but no. Granted, on high end cards with massive video processing capabilities, extra VRAM MAY come in handy and in some games it WILL be beneficial.

However, on lower end cards like the GTX 560 Ti, once in-game details are increased to the point where memory needs increase past the 1GB mark, the GPU architecture becomes a bottleneck rather than the memory itself. You have to remember that acceptable performance requires the memory AND GPU to work in parallel. If either one can't process info fast enough then the whole shebang falls apart very quickly.

People can throw around numbers like 1.7GB for BF3 or 1.1GB for Dragon Age 2 but that doesn't necessarily mean that more memory on a mid range card will actually allow for PLAYABLE framerates. Sure, a 2GB GTX 560 Ti will outperform a 1GB card in high resolution, high IQ situations but if one gets 10 FPS and the other nets 15 FPS, what's the use?

---

Sorry, I didnt keep up with this thread.

eXa, PLEASE understand the following points:

- GTX 560 ti is a mid range card, suitable for up to 1920x1200 resolution (and higher in some cases)

- Regardless of whether you use one GTX 560 ti, or 2 of them, extra Vram gives you no benefit at this resolution

- If you are running at 2560x1600 resolution, or eyefinity, than even SLI GTX 560 tis are going to be a bottleneck because they are still not fast enough!

- For ultra high resolution gaming (2560x1440 and higher), you need a minimum of SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s, or Xfire 2 Gb 6970s to ensure as smooth as possible gameplay

- Two GTX 560 tis is a better price / performance option for mid range gamers at 1920x1200 that need more power than a single GTX 560 ti (yes a single one is far too crap at this resolution - it cant even run modded oblivion smoothly with only 700 Mb Vram used, it cant run TW2 or Civ V maxed out at close to 60 FPS. It cant run BF3 on Ultra settings.)

- At 1920x1200 resolution, 2 x GTX 560 ti is ALWAYS far faster and better bang for buck than 1x GTX 580.

- Any higher setup than SLI GTX 560 ti is only needed at 2560x1440 resolution and up and is a complete waste at 1920x1200.

- Even in cases where people post meaningless screenshots of their 2 Gb+ cards using over 1700 Mb ram at 1920x1200 resolution (or any other), the SLI 1 Gb GTX 560 ti DOES NOT SUFFER from low framerates, lag spike, or any kind of microstuttering.

- The above point happens because games load more information than they need into extra Vram if it is available. If less Vram is available (1 Gb), this doesnt mean that the game will slow down to unplayable levels on 1 Gb cards (in any such scenario, and in any review you can find, the performance difference caused by Vram is rarely any more than 2-5 FPS).

- In Shogun 2, a 3 Gb GTX 580 only gains a measly few extra FPS over a 1.5 Gb @ 2560x1600 resolution due to the extra Vram being used, and even then the average FPS is still under 25, making the game far from playable when so much data is being processed that it requires 2 Gb Vram or more!

- In any case where a game actually requires 2 - 3 Gb Vram right now, the only way of getting enough GPU power not to cause a bottleneck to this much data is with either SLI 3 Gb GTX 580s, or Xfire 2 Gb 6970s (TBH, I dont even think that two 6970s are powerful enough not to bottleneck 2 Gb Vram requirements).

- The next generation 28 nm cards will likely be the first ones to offer enough GPU power not to bottleneck 2Gb+ of graphics data on a single card, or two mid range cards.

Dont listen to lies and false assumptions that excessive Vram is currently a good option, we do not yet have the required GPU power not to bottleneck 2Gb+ Vram on a single high end card, or on a dual card option that offers slightly better performance to a single high end card.

I've been through SLI Geforce 6800s (the very first SLI generation available on PCI-E), Xfire 3850, 4850, 4870, 5770, and SLI GTX 460 and 560 ti playing all the latest games through all these setups constantly on nothing but highest settings, I can honestly tell you that everything I ever read about multiple GPUs or Vram limitations is ridiculous BS, misinformed myths, and propaganda which really is not issues with either Vram or multiple GPUs at all, and in all cases is due fully to user error or some other fault. I have never had anything but wonderfully smooth framerates and the best gameplay experience possible, and I have 20/20 and perfect colour vision and can clearly notice that 30 FPS is laggy even on a single GPU, and that I need at least 40, preferably 60 FPS in all my games to be able to enjoy them.

All the people who complain about any such issues also tend not to have any experience with using such setups, and if they did it was a one of problem likely due to user error, driver issues or some other hardware, but they simply blame either multiple GPUs or Vram, and then go on an illogical and irrational crusade against SLI / Xfire / anything less than 2 Gb Vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

- Regardless of whether you use one GTX 560 ti, or 2 of them, extra Vram gives you no benefit at this resolution

---

I don't agree with that and I remember people saying similar things about 4870 when the 1GB model was released. I already mentioned three games that I have played recently that use all of the vram on my single gtx570 at 1920x1080 and I don't really monitor my vram usage. I'm sure that there are more titles.

Like I said at the end of the day we are talking about an almost $600 video card here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Dont listen to lies and false assumptions that excessive Vram is currently a good option, we do not yet have the required GPU power not to bottleneck 2Gb+ Vram on a single high end card, or on a dual card option that offers slightly better performance to a single high end card.

---

I'm not so sure what raw horsepower has to due with vram usage. Look at Fallout 3 with the normal mods. That will eat up every bit of video memory on your GTX560ti. It does on my GTX570. Now keep in mind that this is happening when gpu usage is very low. That would probably cause more noticeable stuttering on a 560ti than I see on my 570. This is just one example that I've seen recently.

The video card that I bought for half the price of this GTX560 three years ago had the same amount of vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I don't agree with that and I remember people saying similar things about 4870 when the 1GB model was released. I already mentioned three games that I have played recently that use all of the vram on my single gtx570 at 1920x1080 and I don't really monitor my vram usage. I'm sure that there are more titles.

---

If your GTX 570 only had 1 Gb Vram, it would not perform any worse than it does with 1280 Mb. Used Vram on a card with more Vram never means that this much Vram is actually required to ensure smooth gameplay.

Quote:

---

- Even in cases where people post meaningless screenshots of their 2 Gb+ cards using over 1700 Mb ram at 1920x1200 resolution (or any other), the SLI 1 Gb GTX 560 ti DOES NOT SUFFER from low framerates, lag spike, or any kind of microstuttering.

- The above point happens because games load more information than they need into extra Vram if it is available. If less Vram is available (1 Gb), this doesnt mean that the game will slow down to unplayable levels on 1 Gb cards (in any such scenario, and in any review you can find, the performance difference caused by Vram is rarely any more than 2-5 FPS).

---

The difference in performance between having 1 Gb and 1.28 Gb vram wouldnt even give you an extra 1 FPS, even if the extra information is being offloaded into your shared ram. 'Lag spikes / microstuttering' are an imaginary falacy, and you never see any such lag unless your detectable FPS is actually dropping to unplayable levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

I'm not so sure what raw horsepower has to due with vram usage. Look at Fallout 3 with the normal mods. That will eat up every bit of video memory on your GTX560ti.

---

It means that more Vram barely ever increases performance. Only raw horsepower ever does. Name any game that you that you think 'needs' more than 1 Gb Vram @ 1920x1200 and it will run without any problem whatsoever on my system.

Vram usage is a 100% useless way to judge performance, or whether you actually need anymore Vram for smooth lag free performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

The video card that I bought for half the price of this GTX560 three years ago had the same amount of vram.

---

And so what??? The CPU that I bought 3 years ago had a higher clock speed and half the price of CPUs I can buy today. Vram does not directly correlate with graphics card performance or value any more than clock speed doesnt for a CPU.

If you want graphics cards with 2 Gb Vram, then you can buy them. They are on the market and available on both the GTX 560 ti and 6950. You can also buy a 2.5 Gb GTX 570, or a 3 Gb GTX 580 if you feel that Vram is so important. If price is your concern then theres also 2 Gb GTX 550s available. There is absolutely no valid need to complain about graphics cards which only have 1 Gb Vram. Most PC gamers dont need anymore and would gladly pay less money for 1 Gb Vram in the current generation of graphics cards.

High vram usage can cause stuttering that you won't always pick up when just looking at the average framerate from a time demo. Any one who has installed Oblivion or Fallout 3 with texture mods knows just what I am talking about. Think what you will, I'm not going to argue with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Vram usage is a 100% useless way to judge performance, or whether you actually need anymore Vram for smooth lag free performance.

---

Using nothing other than the average framerate of a timedemo to judge performance is just as useless. Think what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

High vram usage can cause stuttering that you won't always pick up when just looking at the average framerate from a time demo.

---

Prove it then. And give me a method that can replicate this stuttering on my PC while my FPS counter is at 60. My eyes are the judge, not graphs. If I cant see the stutter / lag spikes, then it doesnt exist. If I can see lag spikes / stutter, it is always recordable in an FPS graph. I wouldnt be using 1 Gb video cards at all right now if lack of Vram was causing stuttering in my games.

I dont notice any such stuttering in situations where you have seen more than 1 Gb Vram used, that is my point that you keep on missing - more Vram on my GTX 560 Tis is not going to give me smoother gameplay in any current situation.

The hardware canucks 6950 1GB review had some results that you might be interested in. Keep in mind that is single card results.

This is my last response to you since you aren't open to discussion, you're mind is already made up. I don't know of too many sites that test with texture packs which is when the extra vram can really be more useful.

A ssd can make a difference in a large open world game that streams data off the hdd like WOW. Is that easy to show in a timedemo?

Im not going to notice the difference between 19 FPS on a 1 Gb card, and 24 FPS on a 2 Gb card am I?

Neither case would be playable - your link only proves that 2-3 Gb cards arent yet powerful enough to run games that need more than 1 Gb Vram, which is the point that others are making.

Skyrim is out soon, and someone with the same opinions as yours has reported it to be using over 1 Gb Vram at 1920x1200. I cant wait to see 'lag spikes' on my PC :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

This is my last response to you since you aren't open to discussion, you're mind is already made up.

---

But you're exactly the same with your opinions which over rate Vram :)

It all comes down to GPU bottlenecking. In many cases, a GTX 570 and below will have issues processing the data before the available memory starts causing an issue. This is why ultra high end cards like the GTX 580 can benefit more from additional memory than a GTX 560 can.

As Bhavv said: many times additional memory on lower end cards will provide a framerate increase but chances are, the game will be no more playable than with a reference design.

Again you are all ignoring sli.... wich in my opinion is the entire point with 2gb 560ti. Single card isnt powerful enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

Again you are all ignoring sli.... wich in my opinion is the entire point with 2gb 560ti. Single card isnt powerful enough.

---

And again, you are ignoring the fact that in SLI each card with its associated memory is treated separately, resulting in the exact same bottleneck. If 2GB doesn't add anything to single card results, it certainly won't add anything to SLI results.

That doesnt make any sence. Only way that would make sence is if 1+1=1

Edit: 2cards = higher IQ than 1 at the same fps.... ish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

That doesnt make any sence. Only way that would make sence is if 1+1=1

Edit: 2cards = higher IQ than 1 at the same fps.... ish.

---

cx-ray discussed the limitations very well a few posts ago:

Quote:

---

Maybe this will help to clear things up. To preface, during rendering two GPUs don't work on the same job concurrently, but each does one image individually.

Example: GPU1 renders frame 1 in 10ms
GPU2 renders frame 2 in 10 ms

result = 2 frames in 10ms

Every single frame still renders in 10ms regardless of the number of GPUs. The performance gain that you experience comes from the second frame rendering, while the first frame is rendering and displaying

---

This means it may RENDER faster (thus allowing you to increase IQ) but the fundamental bottlenecks will remain. A good example of this is in multi monitor testing. Sure, in SOME games memory is certainly a limitation but as you can see HERE additional memory on even a GTX 570 really doesn't make all that much of a difference in most scenarios. Especially when you consider the cost of more memory modules which routinely increases the price of cards from 20-30%. Jump up to a GTX 580 on the other hand and then we're talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Prove it then. And give me a method that can replicate this stuttering on my PC while my FPS counter is at 60. My eyes are the judge, not graphs. If I cant see the stutter / lag spikes, then it doesnt exist. If I can see lag spikes / stutter, it is always recordable in an FPS graph. I wouldnt be using 1 Gb video cards at all right now if lack of Vram was causing stuttering in my games.

I dont notice any such stuttering in situations where you have seen more than 1 Gb Vram used, that is my point that you keep on missing - more Vram on my GTX 560 Tis is not going to give me smoother gameplay in any current situation.

---

lol it's already proved in my threads on various forums. It's just people like you fail to understand.

This doens't have many to question: http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1273264&mpage=1

This was closed cuz too many hatred fail to understand the basics of quantitative analysis and cannot read the scales of y-axis: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18331666

For the limitation of 1GB vram in BF3, a good review should tackle the vram hungry scenes and use MSAA:

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...60-2WIN-32.jpg

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...60-2WIN-33.jpg

And there you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

lol it's already proved in my threads on various forums. It's just people like you fail to understand.

This doens't have many to question: http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1273264&mpage=1

This was closed cuz too many hatred fail to understand the basics of quantitative analysis and cannot read the scales of y-axis: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=18331666

For the limitation of 1GB vram in BF3, a good review should tackle the vram hungry scenes and use MSAA:

---

So why does the GTX 570 handle the 4xMSAA so much better than 560 Ti SLI? Is that because of the extra VRAM?

As some of us has been saying: it takes rendering horsepower to properly backstop large memory capacities. Remember, those high res textures have to be processed somewhere....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExodusC

So why does the GTX 570 handle the 4xMSAA so much better than 560 Ti SLI? Is that because of the extra VRAM?

---

Yes you are correct! It is because of the extra vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

As some of us has been saying: it takes rendering horsepower to properly backstop large memory capacities. Remember, those high res textures have to be processed somewhere....

---

Negative. The 560ti SLI has much more compute/rendering horsepower than a single 570, yet its is severely crippled by lack of vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrazyNutz

Negative. The 560ti SLI has much more compute/rendering horsepower than a single 570, yet its is severely crippled by lack of vram.

---

I see we are back to square one here.

It is not due to any one issue but in this case since each GPU is paired up with an associated amount of memory, there is still a finite amount of rendering resources to go around.

One way or another, this is where I drop out because it seems we are all saying a combination of the same things, just in different contexts. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Im not going to notice the difference between 19 FPS on a 1 Gb card, and 24 FPS on a 2 Gb card am I?

Neither case would be playable - your link only proves that 2-3 Gb cards arent yet powerful enough to run games that need more than 1 Gb Vram, which is the point that others are making.

Skyrim is out soon, and someone with the same opinions as yours has reported it to be using over 1 Gb Vram at 1920x1200. I cant wait to see 'lag spikes' on my PC :rolleyes:



But you're exactly the same with your opinions which over rate Vram :)

---

We'll see what happens when the first texture pack gets released for Skyrim. Do you remember what people used to say about QTP3 for Oblivion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

We'll see what happens when the first texture pack gets released for Skyrim. Do you remember what people used to say about QTP3 for Oblivion?

---

He will insist that he can play with the texture pack fine with 1GB vram per GPU silky smooth, no lags no freezes; or he could just blacklist the texture packs accusing memory leaks or whatever.

We need some proper GTX560TI 1gb vs 2gb SLI testing using the games that actually do benefit from more than 1gb ram.
And no, i dont mean cherry picking games but there is no point in focusing on games that do not have high vram usage because no one is saying that more than 1gb is beneficial for all games but there are some that do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

We need some proper GTX560TI 1gb vs 2gb SLI testing using the games that actually do benefit from more than 1gb ram.
And no, i dont mean cherry picking games but there is no point in focusing on games that do not have high vram usage because no one is saying that more than 1gb is beneficial for all games but there are some that do.

---

I think it would clear it up if we saw GTX 560 Ti 1GB vs 2GB vs 2Win benchmarks on several games at both 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. Maybe throw in a GTX 570 and/or GTX 570 SLI as well, just to see.

That would hopefully clear up this issue. I'm not taking either side, since am really unfamiliar with multi-GPU setups, but I am genuinely curious to know what the results show. I'm happy with my GTX 570's performance as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

We need some proper GTX560TI 1gb vs 2gb SLI testing using the games that actually do benefit from more than 1gb ram.
And no, i dont mean cherry picking games but there is no point in focusing on games that do not have high vram usage because no one is saying that more than 1gb is beneficial for all games but there are some that do.

---

Sadly NVIDIA's drivers have been intentionally, actively and aggressively throttling the vram usage in certain popular games regarding GPU model (i.e. aggresive thrashing at driver-level), regardless of vram size, making non-reference cards with large vram almost useless, causing unnecessary lag spikes / stuttering on them. For example, the vram usage in BF3 and Metro 2033 with MSAA 4X 1080p is only around 1000MB on GTX560 Ti 2GB, while it can easily reach 1500MB on GTX580s. Does this introduce problems? Of course yes. For example, users have been reporting that when they open sniper scopes in BF3 there would be a lag on GTX560s (both 1GB and 2GB), loading the textures of objects far away, which indicates that the driver has been cheating by reducing the view distance in stealth, in order to reduce vram usage. NVIDIA will never admit this, otherwise they admit 1GB vram is inferior, which would affect their sales.

I honestly have no idea why people are so persistent to debate this simple question. For those who is not smart enough to understand what is lag spikes / stuttering, they can only read this kind of plots:

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...878pzL_8_2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

For the limitation of 1GB vram in BF3, a good review should tackle the vram hungry scenes and use MSAA:

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...60-2WIN-32.jpg

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...60-2WIN-33.jpg

---

Those graphs that HWC did are completely wrong and are not mirrored by other reviews of SLI GTX 560 ti performance in BF3 (TBH it looks like SLI was accidentally disabled on the 560 tis, or incorrect drivers / profiles used).

Theres a video recording right here of BF3 on ultra settings and 4x MSAA at 1080p on GTX 560 ti SLI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZoSUtLMFiU&feature=player_embedded

I see no lag spikes. There are other reviews out there which show SLI GTX 560 ti performing as well as it should in BF3, but I cant locate those right now but will continue looking for them.

Several people that I have heard from that are playing BF3 on SLI GTX 560 tis are handling it wonderfully at 60-100 FPS at ultra settings without lag spikes or stuttering.

DA2 and GTA4 are very poor console ports that have not been optimised to run well on PC hardware. I dont see how people can take a comparison of DA2 seriously when it looks worse than games which only require 512 Mb Vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eXa

We need some proper GTX560TI 1gb vs 2gb SLI testing using the games that actually do benefit from more than 1gb ram.

---

I fully agree with you, but shouldnt it be the responsibility of the people who claim that Vram is so significant to make those comparisons, rather than people who already know that 1 Gb Vram is yet a limitation to waste their time doing so?

Here is the correct performance of GTX 560 ti, and this EVGA dual GPU card in BF3:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/evga-g...2win-review/17

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/6387/bf3sli.png

I fail to see how SLI GTX 560 Tis with 1 Gb Vram are limited in this game in anyway, unless you look at false graphs.

If you compare 1Gb to 2Gb GTX 560 tis in an apples to apples comparison (I am waiting for this, and it should be the people who claim that there will be any difference to carry out the test), you will not see any differences at 1200p resolution.

I'm still saying the same again: 4 reviews using non-vram-hungry scenes in BF3 does not necessarily mean there is no vram-hungry scene that can bring 1GB down to knees. Of course you can enjoy BF3 facing a wall all the day. I suspect that you might even get a K/D ratio of zero (0) in 64-player maps in BF3, if you dare use MSAA 4X and Ultra at 1920x1200 on your 1GB cards, which would make you easy points for farming.

Furthermore, lag spikes / stuttering is not for people like you to understand, because you have no ability to read scales of y-axis and do quantitative analysis of data. Your claims have been based on subjective feelings all the time, without giving any reasonable proof.

I understand lag spikes and stuttering perfectly fine when I see them with my own eyes in a video game thanks, and if I got them I would upgrade my graphics cards to eliminate them. It doesnt need any kind of higher capacity to understand other than being able to see them while playing a game. However I dont have any lag spikes yet, nor do I have a single game that actually requires me to use graphics cards with more Vram for smooth and lag free performance.

The graphs which I have seen do not show any indication, nor proof of lag spikes which anyone could actually see or notice while playing a game.

The Guru 3D review above was done across a whole level of BF3, also you can see in the GTX 560 ti video of BF3 that I posted above that the player is going around the whole level playing normally, and not just standing against a wall as you suggest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/...878pzL_8_2.jpg

---

How do you explain this

HD 6870 1GB

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4703/63075881.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

The Guru 3D review above was done across a whole level of BF3, also you can see in the GTX 560 ti video of BF3 that I posted above that the player is going around the whole level playing normally, and not just standing against a wall as you suggest.

---

I never bothered to watch the video you posted until just now I clicked play and realised that it already has stuttering in there, not having to mention that a video transcoded by youtube down to 24fps or 30fps has already lost much information on framerates.

But it looks far from being unplayable as you claim it should be with only 1 Gb Vram.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cold2010

How do you explain this

HD 6870 1GB

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4703/63075881.jpg

---

Please refer to #83 of this thread.

Your argument in #83 is weak, and merely your own personal opinion, not a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

Please refer to #83 of this thread.

---

I do not need it because you did not answer my question Why did not occur for HD 6870 1GB, as happened to the HD 6950 1GB, suffocation, but you did not answer the question, "as usual"
I love you man :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Your argument in #83 is weak, and merely your own personal opinion, not a fact.

---

The same can be said about your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

This dude is a pro troll, try to google "bhavv troll" and there you go :)

He will insist that he can play with the texture pack fine with 1GB vram per GPU silky smooth, no lags no freezes; or he could just blacklist the texture packs accusing memory leaks or whatever.

---

:rofl: That really is a lot of trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExodusC

I think it would clear it up if we saw GTX 560 Ti 1GB vs 2GB vs 2Win benchmarks on several games at both 1920x1080 and 2560x1440. Maybe throw in a GTX 570 and/or GTX 570 SLI as well, just to see.

That would hopefully clear up this issue. I'm not taking either side, since am really unfamiliar with multi-GPU setups, but I am genuinely curious to know what the results show. I'm happy with my GTX 570's performance as is.

---

Its true that more vram is not necessary for most games. No one is arguing that but to say that there is no benefit to more than 1GB of vram is ridiculous. The vast majority of the games that I play use about 1GB of vram most of the time. I also like to use high resolution texture packs which can really eat up the vram usage and this is in games that do not cache memory. I don't have the means to test this with my modded Fallout 3 install but I can say that with a card with more vram I don't see the hitching that I once did when loading textures.

Troll:

Quote:

---

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

---

I dont think that you will find that any of the posts I make on whichever forums I use fall into any of those categories. On topic posts which oppose your beliefs and opinions on a topic =/= troll posts.

Quote:

---

I can say that with a card with more vram I don't see the hitching that I once did when loading textures.

---

But your GTX 570 has a much more powerful GPU than any 1 Gb card out there, so you cannot use this as a valid comparison or assumption that the improvement was caused by the mere 256 Mb exra Vram when it is far more likely that your improvements are caused by having a much more powerful GPU.

The only way to test it would be to compare a 1 Gb to a 2 Gb card of the same GPU - the HD 6950 or GTX 560 ti would be the best ones to use as they would clearly show more difference due to Vram as opposed to comparing a 1.5 Gb to a 3 Gb GTX 580. Any Vram comparison should also have a sufficient amount of system ram - at least 8-12 Gb to allow the possibility of cheaper to obtain shared memory to alleviate any lag spikes or hitching problems.

Then there is also the problem with skewed / flawed results due to improperly set up PCs, as the ones that Sniper Sung keeps on posting which are proven to be completely incorrect in other similar benchmarks.

Quote:

---

but to say that there is no benefit to more than 1GB of vram is ridiculous.

---

No one is saying that, we are saying that the difference is so small that it would be unnoticeable.

There there, this is just an forum discussion, no need to get harsh or personal.

SKYMTL, if you are still following:
Your own testing of this EVGA card shows exactly what i have been arguing the whole time.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-review-4.html (same graphs sniper_sung posted earlier in this thread)
1920x1200 with 0 MSAA 2 GTX560TI is well above a singel GTX580, but with 4x MSAA they run out of vram and performance plunge way below GTX580. With 2gb per gpu it would still be above GTX580 and plenty playable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

Those graphs that HWC did are completely wrong and are not mirrored by other reviews of SLI GTX 560 ti performance in BF3 (TBH it looks like SLI was accidentally disabled on the 560 tis, or incorrect drivers / profiles used).

---

Wrong. Do some research and then test on the same mission we did.

All of the other reviews seem to have taken the easy way out by either using the first mission or using an intentionally "light" area of the game. The area we took is the heaviest in the game that I could find. :)

I would like to test the game myself, but I dont play FPS's so it would be a waste of cash for me to buy the game just to test one level.

Your site seems to be down atm, could I ask how much ram the test PC had?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

I would like to test the game myself, but I dont play FPS's so it would be a waste of cash for me to buy the game just to test one level.

Your site seems to be down atm, could I ask how much ram the test PC had?

---

Site is up. ;)

I can't remember off the top of my head how much memory but I'll find out ASAP after SB-E testing is done and I set back up my gaming computer.

Alternately, I would be happy to send someone my Save Game file and they could have a go at it. :)

You can see all sequences here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...-review-2.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

I would like to test the game myself, but I dont play FPS's so it would be a waste of cash for me to buy the game just to test one level.

Your site seems to be down atm, could I ask how much ram the test PC had?

---

They used 6GB system memory at 1600MHz. As I said, they did a good job by including some zooming in of sniper scopes in some relatively busy areas, which stresses vram by requiring pre-caching of some textures far away. For cards with small vram size it is more likely to get lag spikes / stuttering when zooming in with sniper scopes.

Don't waste your money on this game. You don't know how to prove it's stuttering-free with appropriate data to back up but only with your subjective feelings. Do I have to repeat again that a video clip transcoded to 24 fps or 30 fps would lose much information regarding framerates and stuttering?

It would be great if anybody could test that same sequence again using:

- 8 or 12 Gb ram (to minimize performance loss due to not enough ram for both system use and shared video ram)
- 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI.

Though I doubt anyone will, but this would be all that is required to find out how much extra Vram would benefit that scene, and whether or not Vram is the definite cause.

In fact, a whole review with the most demanding games and 'Vram eating' situations at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 res with 4 and 8x MSAA at both resolutions would make the most accurate comparison for Vram.

Without that, it still remains nothing but assumption and baseless opinion that Vram alone would make a significant enough difference in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhavv

It would be great if anybody could test that same sequence again using:

- 8 or 12 Gb ram (to minimize performance loss due to not enough ram for both system use and shared video ram)
- 1 Gb vs 2 Gb GTX 560 ti SLI.

Though I doubt anyone will, but this would be all that is required to find out how much extra Vram would benefit that scene, and whether or not Vram is the definite cause.

In fact, a whole review with the most demanding games and 'Vram eating' situations at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 res with 4 and 8x MSAA at both resolutions would make the most accurate comparison for Vram.

Without that, it still remains nothing but assumption and baseless opinion that Vram alone would make a significant enough difference in that case.

---

You still don't understand BF3 would be a bad choice for GTX560 Ti 2GB? I've already said the current NVIDIA driver would only use around 1000MB on a GTX560 Ti 2GB in BF3, which does not take any advantage of the additional vram at all, while GTX580 can use around 1500MB, taking advantage of the pre-caching. Try other tests that are NOT known to be prone of this problem, e.g. try Shogun 2 with script overriding of 8AA, or try Rage with config file of 16k textures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper_sung

I've already said the current NVIDIA driver would only use around 1000MB on a GTX560 Ti 2GB in BF3, which does not take any advantage of the additional vram at all

---

I dont believe that at all.