Page 7 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 1214

Thread: Geforce Titan - GK110 will be a consumer part

  1. #151
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    It runs on 1GB cards. You are out of touch. Source
    I have been running Skyrim on 2 2Gb 680's in surround at 6000x1200 and it runs fine. I don't use more than 2x AA, but at that res, I feel I don't need to.

  2. #152
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    US, MI
    Posts
    1,679
    Running vanilla skyrim here.
    1920x1080x32@144hz.
    Maxed setting's, forced 4x sgssaa, forced ao, -15 mip bais, force af disabled, forced trilinear filter..., forced vsync, etc etc.
    It's using 100% of the gpu and 100% of the vram...
    I'll have to lower the aa to run it in 3d too.

    Some games I can go 8x, some 4x, or really 2x... :\
    In 3d, in alot of games my fps halves, vmem consumption doesn't go up with this though it seems.
    Might be a speed issue with my system though, in 3d mode codwaw starts slower.
    In some ao modes, sr3 takes much longer to load.

    Using:
    306.79-quadro-tesla-win8-win7-winvista-32bit-international-whql
    The later drivers are supposed to be faster but not unusable to me without a working lod bais lock at -15.
    Last edited by NEOAethyr; 02-01-2013 at 02:23 AM.


    CPU: Intel Core i7-4930k [3332B054]
    CPU Heatsink: NZXT Kraken X60
    Mobo: ASUS Rampage IV Black Edition (0507 BIOS)
    MEM: 4x 4gig G.Skill [F3-2400C9Q-16GTXD] (Dual Sidded Samsung of Some Sorts)
    PSU: Antec HCP-850 Platinum
    VGA: nVidia Grid VGX K2 (WIP with 2x 680 lightnings)
    Monitor: ASUS VG278HE & 3DVision2 Kit
    Drives: 2x WD Red 2TB Drives [WDBMMA0020HNC-NRSN] (RAID 0), Corsair Force Series 3 CSSD-F60GB3A-BK 60GB SATA3 SSD, Pioneer BDR-2208 Blue Ray Burner
    Case: Rosewill Blackhawk Ultra
    OS's: Windows 2003 Enterprise x86 SP2-R2 VLM, Windows 7 Standard Embedded x86 SP1 EVL (128GB Patched), Windows 7 Standard Embedded x64 SP1 EVL
    Mouse: Using generic mouse for now...
    Arm:Samsung Galaxy S IV i9500 Octo-Core Quad Band 16gb Unlocked and 2x 64gig sd cards
    777

    Sig is slightly out of date, I'll update it later ^^


  3. #153
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by MaddMuppet View Post
    I have been running Skyrim on 2 2Gb 680's in surround at 6000x1200 and it runs fine. I don't use more than 2x AA, but at that res, I feel I don't need to.
    Surround resolutions aren't really "high resolution" in the sense that they have higher PPI or lower pixel size. The 6000 is spread across 5' of monitor space.

    If that was crammed into a 30 or 40" display you'd be right that higher PPI reduces the need for AA. As it stands, 27" 25X14 panels are the best we have for that:

    http://www.prismo.ch/comparisons/desktop.php
    Intel 990x/Corsair H80 /Asus Rampage III
    Coolermaster HAF932 case
    Patriot 3 X 2GB
    EVGA GTX Titan SC
    Dell 3008

  4. #154
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,068
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    It runs on 1GB cards. You are out of touch. Source
    fail to understand ? you cannot comprehend meaning/the purpose of vram ? very sorry man you and some here are badly out of touch when it comes to vram/vram usage/etc


    Quote Originally Posted by MaddMuppet View Post
    I have been running Skyrim on 2 2Gb 680's in surround at 6000x1200 and it runs fine. I don't use more than 2x AA, but at that res, I feel I don't need to.
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOAethyr View Post
    Running vanilla skyrim here.
    1920x1080x32@144hz.
    Maxed setting's, forced 4x sgssaa, forced ao, -15 mip bais, force af disabled, forced trilinear filter..., forced vsync, etc etc.
    It's using 100% of the gpu and 100% of the vram...
    I'll have to lower the aa to run it in 3d too.

    Some games I can go 8x, some 4x, or really 2x... :\
    In 3d, in alot of games my fps halves, vmem consumption doesn't go up with this though it seems.
    Might be a speed issue with my system though, in 3d mode codwaw starts slower.
    In some ao modes, sr3 takes much longer to load.

    Using:
    306.79-quadro-tesla-win8-win7-winvista-32bit-international-whql
    The later drivers are supposed to be faster but not unusable to me without a working lod bais lock at -15.
    just because its running doesnt mean theres enough vram to buffer fully

    not just skyrim every game

  5. #155
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago,Illinois
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmV5 View Post
    fail to understand ? you cannot comprehend meaning/the purpose of vram ? very sorry man you and some here are badly out of touch when it comes to vram/vram usage/etc






    just because its running doesnt mean theres enough vram to buffer fully

    not just skyrim every game
    The min is what you want to be high,avg is useless when you drop to 15fps.The more vram buffer the better faster the streaming/transfer from sys mem/hdd = smoother gameplay
    My doom3 uses up all vram before using all gpu(80%core/100%mem-@720p).Raising aa/af would raise gpu usage and then start swaping because it doesn't have enough memory.
    A 8mb texture could kill a 1gb gpu @ 1080p.
    We want the best experience possible and they just want to play,but to say what is useless for a game that can be modded doesn't make sense.



  6. #156
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by NapalmV5 View Post
    fail to understand ? you cannot comprehend meaning/the purpose of vram ? very sorry man you and some here are badly out of touch when it comes to vram/vram usage/etc
    just because its running doesnt mean theres enough vram to buffer fully

    not just skyrim every game

    From what I've read some will cache as much in VRAM as there is available, but having less doesn't necessarily impact on performance.

    Of course, when you throw 4 and 6GB cards into the mix, more latency/framerate variation of AMD cards, variations in how well brands run individual games, the picture is a whole lot less clear than "More VRAM is always better.".

    AFAIK there is no accurate way to measure how much VRAM a game "needs" to run well at this point in time.
    Intel 990x/Corsair H80 /Asus Rampage III
    Coolermaster HAF932 case
    Patriot 3 X 2GB
    EVGA GTX Titan SC
    Dell 3008

  7. #157
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    8,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    From what I've read some will cache as much in VRAM as there is available, but having less doesn't necessarily impact on performance.

    AFAIK there is no accurate way to measure how much VRAM a game "needs" to run well at this point in time.
    Precisely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    Of course, when you throw 4 and 6GB cards into the mix, more latency/framerate variation of AMD cards, variations in how well brands run individual games, the picture is a whole lot less clear than "More VRAM is always better.".
    Unless you have to resort to slower memory chips, it's definitely not worse.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  8. #158
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    Precisely.

    Unless you have to resort to slower memory chips, it's definitely not worse.
    My point was it isn't always "better" either. If you have a 1080P monitor, whether you have 1.5GB or 10GB of VRAM likely doesn't matter one way or the other 99.9% of the time.
    Intel 990x/Corsair H80 /Asus Rampage III
    Coolermaster HAF932 case
    Patriot 3 X 2GB
    EVGA GTX Titan SC
    Dell 3008

  9. #159
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago,Illinois
    Posts
    1,182
    This part of the world is where the 0.1% live.



  10. #160
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    My point was it isn't always "better" either. If you have a 1080P monitor, whether you have 1.5GB or 10GB of VRAM likely doesn't matter one way or the other 99.9% of the time.
    i would like to think that more than .1% of people with high end cards heavily mod games like skyrim
    1.5g gtx480 in skyrim with mods at 1080p = ~3fps for me simply due to a sever lack of vram
    lighten the amount of texture mods\vram used and fps went back up to 60 with a few stutters
    move to a card with 2g vram and you just get a few stutters without the severe fps drop

    i would also like to think that new games will finally start adopting 64bit only engines and using over 3g ram and 1g gpu mem by default
    but if everyone just keeps running a 32bit os with 4g ram 1g gpu it will never happen
    TJ08-EW 6700k@4.7 1.375v - Z170-GENE - 2x8g 3866 16-16-16 - 1070@ 2088\9500MHz -Samsung 830 64G, Sandisk Ultra II 960G, WD Green 3tb - Seasonic XP1050 - Dell U2713 - Pioneer Todoroki 5.1 Apogee Drive II - EK VGA-HF Supreme - Phobia 200mm Rad - Silverstone AP181 Project Darkling
    3770k vs 6700k RAM Scaling, HT vs RAM, Arma III CPU vs RAM, Thief CPU vs RAM

  11. #161
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by Hell Hound View Post
    This part of the world is where the 0.1% live.
    Your sig says you have a Phenom II and a 1GB 4850, no offense intended, but it sort of contradicts your statement. Not saying my 990X and 2GB GTX680 SLi and 2500K and HD7970 (both with 25 X 16 panels) puts me in the .1% either, but apparently all types of users "live here".

    It's sort of a moot point to talk about VRAM limitations, because no matter how much you have, you can exceed it in a variety of ways. So if I say "Nuh uh! I can run my Skyrim at 25 X16 with the texture packs because I have 3GB VRAM on my 7970!" I'm just a guy waiting to hear "But I can run Skyrim in 3d at 57X10 with 4XAA because I have 4GB of VRAM on my 680!".

    It's a pointless argument that can never be won, and as noted, we have no good tool for measuring VRAM use.
    Intel 990x/Corsair H80 /Asus Rampage III
    Coolermaster HAF932 case
    Patriot 3 X 2GB
    EVGA GTX Titan SC
    Dell 3008

  12. #162
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Hell Hound View Post
    This part of the world is where the 0.1% live.
    I am glad i lived there! Will buy every VGA with dual GPU performance with only one GPU, for any price!

  13. #163
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
    Titan 3DMark11 Extreme preset scores?
    X7107

    A bit high, that would be...fast!
    http://diy.pconline.com.cn/317/3172950.html
    As reported on AnandTech, it's an overclocked 690 apparently: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...&postcount=431
    Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe / i7 3770k @4.5GHz / 8GB Samsung Green Series 30nm @2133MHz / Phanteks PH-TC14PE / Asus GTX Titan @1.1GHz / Corsair AX1200 / Audio-gd 11.32 Dac-Amp & Audeze LCD-2

  14. #164
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    20,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollo View Post
    Your sig says you have a Phenom II and a 1GB 4850, no offense intended, but it sort of contradicts your statement. Not saying my 990X and 2GB GTX680 SLi and 2500K and HD7970 (both with 25 X 16 panels) puts me in the .1% either, but apparently all types of users "live here".

    It's sort of a moot point to talk about VRAM limitations, because no matter how much you have, you can exceed it in a variety of ways. So if I say "Nuh uh! I can run my Skyrim at 25 X16 with the texture packs because I have 3GB VRAM on my 7970!" I'm just a guy waiting to hear "But I can run Skyrim in 3d at 57X10 with 4XAA because I have 4GB of VRAM on my 680!".

    It's a pointless argument that can never be won, and as noted, we have no good tool for measuring VRAM use.

    You have several tools. Not all of them are perfect in all situations, but the fact remains there are several which produce relatively good results as long as you have the faculties available to interpret the results.

    Here are 3 off the top of my head.

    Fraps
    Rivatuner and derivatives (msi afterburner for example)
    Asus GPU Tweak

    Then some games (Far Cry, Serious Sam, etc) also have in-game methods.


    As a 3rd option you can visually test and mentally comprehend your benchmarks. If you get 3fps at 1920x1080 with 4xAA but 30fps with no AA then you've probably either run out of VRAM or the game engine is poorly designed for streaming of compartmentalized data.
    Heatware || 01.01.08; AND 111.2%

    Dead Z7S-WS? Click!. || XS Z7S-WS Thread || Current Dead Asus Z7S-WS count: 26+ ($15,000 in dead motherboards).
    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.
    Want to use my Anti-asus logo? Go ahead, but use this link please!: http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/a...sus/noasus.gif
    Bring back the game. http://reclaimyourgame.com/. EA are mean.

  15. #165
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    863
    I think it was Skymtl that wrote a good thread here or on his site as to why tools like Afterburner are not good for recording memory use in games. Not sure if it was entirely due to the "game will take as much as is available" issue only, or if there were other reasons.

    Maybe he'll chime in, but that is why I said that. If there are good tools to record memory use, I'll gladly retract.
    Intel 990x/Corsair H80 /Asus Rampage III
    Coolermaster HAF932 case
    Patriot 3 X 2GB
    EVGA GTX Titan SC
    Dell 3008

  16. #166
    I could go on and on about memory use reporting in Afterburner, Precision and whatnot.

    They are all accurate to a certain extent since they are actively reporting the amount of memory being allocated for usage by a given application. However, many times it is the game which is the issue.

    Back then, I gave Shogun 2: Total War as an example since many were reporting that it was eating up a massive amount of memory. And, it was. However, it didn't matter at the time whether you had a 1GB card or one with 4GB; memory was always a bottleneck.

    The reason for this was pretty convoluted. The game wasn't "flushing" texture information from the buffer which resulted in an exponential memory footprint growth as you played the game. For example, when you started the game, the front screen options popped up with a rendered in-game sequence playing behind. At high settings the memory footprint here was ~550MB if memory serves me correct. However, starting the actual game (campaign map) resulted in that 550MB remaining rather than being flushed and then the 250MB of campaign map information was layered on top of that. If you started a battle, that 750MB to 1GB of data was added as well for a total of ~1.5GB of memory usage or more.

    Using higher settings made this issue even worse.

    As a result of this compounding problem, the game's forums were filled with people saying their high end graphics cards weren't enough to handle Shogun 2. The only way around this was to save the game mid-battle, restart the application and directly load your save again, skipping the campaign map.

    However, the real reason wasn't memory use but rather a lack of proper coding on Creative Assembly's part. I've seen the same issue present itself in the initial releases of Assassin's Creed III and COD: Black Ops. The only reason this didn't get noticed is these games' small initially memory footprint.

    Developer optimizations play a huge part as well. If a developer doesn't implement the necessary memory optimizations, even the highest-end graphics card will struggle with bandwidth constraints.

  17. #167
    Xtreme Member JaD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    257
    Some people have been spewing nonsense about VRAM requirements since the introduction of the GTX 680, just refrain from taking their opinion on the matter into consideration.

    STEvil is right, with the available tools it's relatively trivial to discern vram usage; the problem (which i'm guessing Skymtl highlighted)is that VRAM occupation alone isn't enough to draw conclusions about it not being enough, because if texture buffers don't always get flushed and you can end up with a much bigger occupation than necessary: occupation should always be cross referenced with framerate with both a larger and smaller framebuffer.

    The one and only situation where 2GB aren't enough is skyrim with excessive and pointless texture mods at 5760x1080+, or BF3/Crysis at silly SSAA+MSAA settings, at which point memory bandwidth and performance in general wouldn't keep up anyway.
    For people who require that and the idiots who look at VRAM as a performance measure, there will always be properly overpriced cards with twice the amount of memory.
    Last edited by JaD; 02-04-2013 at 05:32 AM.

  18. #168
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,967
    Yeah, the current tools have a few flaws, but I wouldn't say anything insurmountable to tell "close enough" for all real purposes. However, there are a lot of issues with just taking that number and running with it. Jad's conclusion is correct here, and SKYMTL illustrated why very well.

  19. #169
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    581
    I heard from someone with connections that Titan will indeed be a 15 SMX part. Would be great if true.

  20. #170
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,967
    Quote Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
    I heard from someone with connections that Titan will indeed be a 15 SMX part. Would be great if true.
    That would indeed be great if true... I'm getting ready to sell a couple of things to fund the purchase of one already in case it really rocks.

  21. #171
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany, Stuttgart
    Posts
    546
    The most important thing - except the possibility to watercool it - is to freely change the Voltage!


  22. #172
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    163
    I'm looking forward to buying one of these as a replacement for my GTX 580, if performance is really good. And I'm happy that they put so much memory on the card. Sure, right now it's not needed. But I want to keep this card a few years. 2 GB would not be enough IMHO, it's one of the reasons why I did not want a 680. Look at Crysis 3. In a video with one of the developers he shows a scene and says: this is 2.5 GB of textures. So while 6GB is maybe a bit overkill for now, I think the card should at least have 4 GB. Nvidia mostly sellling 2GB cards is only holding back progress. If all cards had 4 GB, I'm sure it would be used by now.
    Asus Z87 Deluxe, 4770K,Noctua NH-D14, Crucial 16 GB DDR3-1600, Geforce Titan, ASUS DRW-24B3ST, Crucial M500 960GB, Crucial M4 256GB, 3 X Seagate 4TB, Lamptron FC5 V2 Fancontroller, Noctua Casefans, Antec P183 Black, Asus Essence STX, Corsair AX860i, Corsair SP2500 speakers, Logitech Illuminated Keyboard, Win7 Home Pro 64 bit + Win 8.1 Home 64 bit Dual boot, ASUS VG278H

  23. #173
    All 2.5GB won't be sent to the GPU at one time. The vast majority of it will be pre-loaded in cached form. With a proper texture caching hierarchy, several dozen GB of texture data can be present within a scene without bogging down a 1.5GB card. Actually, caching efficiency is one of the integral aspects of today's GPU designs.

  24. #174
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,960
    Without wanted to go even further, increase memory on size need be followed or simply need hardware behind it.. Cache size and speed , register, etc etc. We have see many GPU's with 2x the amount of ram, as 4gb instead of 2gb initially where performance is not increased for a simple reason, the hardware behind it will not properly use this amount of GDDR.
    CPU: - I7 4930K (EK Supremacy )
    GPU: - 2x AMD HD7970 flashed GHZ bios ( EK Acetal Nickel Waterblock H2o)
    Motherboard: Asus x79 Deluxe
    RAM: G-skill Ares C9 2133mhz 16GB
    Main Storage: Samsung 840EVO 500GB / 2x Crucial RealSSD C300 Raid0

  25. #175
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,116
    Quote Originally Posted by boxleitnerb View Post
    I heard from someone with connections that Titan will indeed be a 15 SMX part.
    yeah right. the supercomputer named "titan" uses $8000 boards with 14 smx, and nvidia will kindly sell us 15 smx boards for $800. that would be nice of them.

Page 7 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •