Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › Graphics Cards - General › Do you need 2GB VRAM?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you need 2GB VRAM? - Page 3

post #21 of 30
On my 42" 1920x1080 in the metro map was GPU RAM was consistantly at 1.25GB usage.
I think on some of the larger maps with lots of players the 1gb cards will show their weakness.
Angry Monster
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 4770K MSI Z87 G45 HIS R9 290 G-skill Ripjaws 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 640GB Sata III LG DVD RW Corsair H70 W8.1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
42" Sharp Aquos K800 EW 650W Antek 900 
MouseAudio
R.A.T. 9 Soundblaster xi-fi Titanium 
  hide details  
Reply
Angry Monster
(15 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 4770K MSI Z87 G45 HIS R9 290 G-skill Ripjaws 4x4GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
WD Black 640GB Sata III LG DVD RW Corsair H70 W8.1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
42" Sharp Aquos K800 EW 650W Antek 900 
MouseAudio
R.A.T. 9 Soundblaster xi-fi Titanium 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post
AFAIK, no PhysX in BF3. At least, I didn't see that option while playing.

FWIW, I could feel the stutter as it approached 1000+ VRAM via Afterburner.
Didn't notice, thanks.

That same scenario happned to me in Batman Arkum Asylum benchmark.....in higest settings I went to 20FPS....noticed 'enable phsyx hardware' was on. Disabled it and I shot back up to 198 FPS.

I just about had a heart attack myself. Thought at least to give that a check. Somethings wrong for you, if it dosen't happen in other games, keep in mind beta is beta, testing is happening behind the scenes without our knowledge. We're the guinea pigs.

Good luck Jo.
     
  hide details  
Reply
     
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 30
You need 3GB VRAM with a $600 card for a $60 game at min 18FPS, then SLI for $1200 total, and can stop asking if you need anything more cuz you'll have the best you can spend, though my two GTX 570 1.2GB's in SLI for $423 will most likely be good enough.
Main Rig
(14 items)
 
Server
(9 items)
 
2nd Rig
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930K C2 @ 4.8GHz BIOS 4403 (1.392V - 1.400V... ASUS Rampage IV Extreme with Koolance Waterblocks Unlocked GTX 780 3GB with HeatKiller 1306/1597 ... 6 x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws X 1866MHz @ 10-11-10-30... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x SanDisk Extreme 240GB RAID 0 | 2 x OCZ Ver... LITE-ON 12X Blu-Ray Burner IHBS112-04 Windows 7 Professional x64 HP ZR30W 30" 2560 x 1600 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tesoro Durandal Ultimate G1NL LED Backlit Mecha... Corsair Professional Series AX1200 Mountain Mods Pinnacle 24 Logitech G500S 
Mouse PadAudio
PureTrak Stealth Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD with LM... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Dual XEON X5650 @2.67 GHz w/HT (12 Cores | 24 ... ASUS Z8NA-D6C  Gigabyte HD 4350 512MB 6 x 4GB Kingston KVR1066D3Q8R7SK2/8G 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSPower
2 x Intel X25-M G2 160GB and 8 Disk Samsung Spi... LG DVD Burner GH20NS15 20X Windows Server 2012 Essentials x64 Seasonic 1000W Platinum 
Case
NZXT Source 210 Elite White 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930K C2 @ 4.8GHz BIOS 1404 (1.376V - 1.384V... ASUS Rampage IV Extreme with Koolance Waterblocks MSI R9 290X 4GB wih EK Copper 1200/1390 @ 1.3V'... 8 x 4GB Samsung Extreme Low Voltage 1866MHz @ 8... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x Crucial M4 512GB RAID 0 | Crucial M4 256GB ... LG Blue-Ray Burner WH10LS30 Windows 7 Professional x64 Dell 3007WFP 30"W 2560 x 1600 IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tesoro Durandal Ultimate G1NL LED Backlit Mecha... Corsair Professional Series AX1200 Xigamatek Elysium Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudio
PureTrak Stealth Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD with LM... 
  hide details  
Reply
Main Rig
(14 items)
 
Server
(9 items)
 
2nd Rig
(14 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930K C2 @ 4.8GHz BIOS 4403 (1.392V - 1.400V... ASUS Rampage IV Extreme with Koolance Waterblocks Unlocked GTX 780 3GB with HeatKiller 1306/1597 ... 6 x 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws X 1866MHz @ 10-11-10-30... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x SanDisk Extreme 240GB RAID 0 | 2 x OCZ Ver... LITE-ON 12X Blu-Ray Burner IHBS112-04 Windows 7 Professional x64 HP ZR30W 30" 2560 x 1600 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tesoro Durandal Ultimate G1NL LED Backlit Mecha... Corsair Professional Series AX1200 Mountain Mods Pinnacle 24 Logitech G500S 
Mouse PadAudio
PureTrak Stealth Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD with LM... 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Dual XEON X5650 @2.67 GHz w/HT (12 Cores | 24 ... ASUS Z8NA-D6C  Gigabyte HD 4350 512MB 6 x 4GB Kingston KVR1066D3Q8R7SK2/8G 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSPower
2 x Intel X25-M G2 160GB and 8 Disk Samsung Spi... LG DVD Burner GH20NS15 20X Windows Server 2012 Essentials x64 Seasonic 1000W Platinum 
Case
NZXT Source 210 Elite White 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930K C2 @ 4.8GHz BIOS 1404 (1.376V - 1.384V... ASUS Rampage IV Extreme with Koolance Waterblocks MSI R9 290X 4GB wih EK Copper 1200/1390 @ 1.3V'... 8 x 4GB Samsung Extreme Low Voltage 1866MHz @ 8... 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x Crucial M4 512GB RAID 0 | Crucial M4 256GB ... LG Blue-Ray Burner WH10LS30 Windows 7 Professional x64 Dell 3007WFP 30"W 2560 x 1600 IPS 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Tesoro Durandal Ultimate G1NL LED Backlit Mecha... Corsair Professional Series AX1200 Xigamatek Elysium Logitech G500 
Mouse PadAudio
PureTrak Stealth Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD with LM... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 30
nah you don't need it, the beta has a gpu memory leak i heard, so thats why its useing so much now.
Silent Dominator
(28 items)
 
Classy Lady
(26 items)
 
TUF Inside
(18 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
Silent Dominator
(28 items)
 
Classy Lady
(26 items)
 
TUF Inside
(18 items)
 
  hide details  
Reply
post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizonian View Post
Somethings wrong for you, if it dosen't happen in other games...
I don't like that thought, lol. But no, no other game uses more than 7 to 800 MB. BC2 only eats up about 750...only, haha. I freaked when I saw it the first time, haha!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortySmalls View Post
nah you don't need it, the beta has a gpu memory leak i heard, so thats why its useing so much now.
Link please!
post #26 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizonian View Post
Exactly my point to those who claim 1GB VRAM isn't enough for a single monitor due to VRAM usage but all of a sudden 2GB across 3 monitors even though it's exceeding 2GB VRAM enough?

So people think that across 3 monitors going over 2GB VRAM dosent have any effect on FPS but going over VRAM on one monitor does?

Anyone else see the problem in this failed hipocracy?

On a single monitor the GTX 570 is going to be enough on a single monitor like Pioneer said in previous post and many others concur.
A fair number of people rag on nVidia for not catering to surround/extreme resolution gamers with their standard card, but while AMD do do better on that front with their 2GB as standard on the 6900 series, I'm growing increasingly of the opinion that for Surround, classically "insane" amounts of VRAM are required. When AMD ship a card with 4GB of VRAM per GPU, then I'll think they're actually taking it really seriously. Same with nVidia.

However VRAM usage doesn't scale in a linear fashion to number of screens used. Framebuffer scales linearly, but nothing else does. In any given scene, the wider it is, the more likelihood there is that you'll need more textures, but for most cases, if you've got a few hundred textures loaded they'll probably cover it. Look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution; perhaps not the best example, but the VRAM usage in Surround goes up only marginally from VRAM usage on a single monitor. Now, either it's got a really fantastically efficient texture load/unload algorithm going on behind the scenes, or Surround VRAM utilisation is tremendously engine-dependent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post
AFAIK, no PhysX in BF3. At least, I didn't see that option while playing.

FWIW, I could feel the stutter as it approached 1000+ VRAM via Afterburner.
I believe I can present an explanation; or at least one that explains some of the exhibited issues...

The framebuffer reserves an amount of VRAM for each frame as it is being drawn/set to monitor, plus room for however many frames you have set to render ahead. Because it stores this as raw pixel information, it's not exactly small. You have 8-bit data for each of RGB, and on modern cards alpha as well. When you include overhead, such as lookup tables and other 'housekeeping' info for the card, each frame starts to get a bit on the large side. This limits how much you can fit in the rest of it, as it's essentially not there for other purposes - textures, shader code, etc.

This means that you'll start seeing what AMD/ATi termed "Hypermemory" and nVidia terms "TurboCache" swapping to system RAM when the GPU runs out of texture room. And compared to VRAM, which can transfer at rates easily topping 150GB/s on higher-end cards, system RAM is slow. Almost glacially so. And you won't get the raw speed of system RAM, either, as it has to talk through both a DirectX layer, and a driver layer, and a kernel layer, before getting to what the card needs. Add on the latency inherent, and when calling info for the GPU out of system RAM (PCI-E bus latency, PCI-E controller, memory controller, RAM, then all the way back again) the card needs to still need it once it's arrived - because it takes a long, long time.

Now, if your situation is anything similar to mine when I went investigating this a while ago (over a year, now!) if you monitored system RAM usage, you'd probably see it absolutely full to bursting when the huge framerate dives happen.

This is when the caching to system RAM fails, and it falls back to a pagefile on your HDD/SSD. Which, regardless of whether you're running the latest Sandforce SSD or a 4200RPM HDD, is so epically slow, it's like watching Grand Prix Continental Drift occurring in real time. Whenever I saw huge fps drops when testing, it was always when I'd pushed my GPU too far in terms of how much I was asking it to load, and it was paging first to system RAM, then to a pagefile. I confirmed this by stuffing another 6GB of RAM into my system and seeing if it still did it at the same points. It did not. Don't get me wrong - framerates were still appalling, but because it wasn't hitting up the HDD for texture memory, they didn't drop into the low-single-digits, and instead remained in the teens.

You'll possibly also see some odd behaviour at times - where, if you're asking the GPU to load too much in terms of textures, it doesn't even try to fit them into VRAM, and just goes straight to system RAM... in these scenarios, you can be seeing what amounts to a random VRAM usage number in monitoring software, and high system RAM usage levels, but also at the same time terrible framerates.

At least, this is the hypothesis I've formed after significant testing; I have no way of actually confirming whether when system RAM is full Windows is intelligent enough to load other stuff that is less access-speed dependent into the pagefile first, but it seems to tally up with all the evidence I've gathered.
Aoi
(20 items)
 
Midori
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 D0 Gigabyte G1.Killer Guerilla GTX670 4GB SLI 24GB Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Velociraptor Samsung F1 Blu-ray XL Corsair H70 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Professional x64 Dell 2405FPW Dell U2410 Dell 2405FPW 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Silverstone Strider 1kw Corsair 700D 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Logitech G500 Ozone XL Integrated Logitech G13 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 3570K Asus P8Z77-M Pro nVidia GTX680 Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
WD Velociraptor 600GB Samsung DVD+RW Windows 7 Home Premium x64 Ubuntu Server Customised 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Triple Dell U2412M Sidewinder X6 Corsair TX750 Fractal Design R4 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
Aoi
(20 items)
 
Midori
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 920 D0 Gigabyte G1.Killer Guerilla GTX670 4GB SLI 24GB Corsair Vengeance 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
WD Velociraptor Samsung F1 Blu-ray XL Corsair H70 
OSMonitorMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Professional x64 Dell 2405FPW Dell U2410 Dell 2405FPW 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell U2311H Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Silverstone Strider 1kw Corsair 700D 
MouseMouse PadAudioOther
Logitech G500 Ozone XL Integrated Logitech G13 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 3570K Asus P8Z77-M Pro nVidia GTX680 Corsair Vengeance LP 16GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSOS
WD Velociraptor 600GB Samsung DVD+RW Windows 7 Home Premium x64 Ubuntu Server Customised 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Triple Dell U2412M Sidewinder X6 Corsair TX750 Fractal Design R4 
Mouse
Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
A fair number of people rag on nVidia for not catering to surround/extreme resolution gamers with their standard card, but while AMD do do better on that front with their 2GB as standard on the 6900 series, I'm growing increasingly of the opinion that for Surround, classically "insane" amounts of VRAM are required. When AMD ship a card with 4GB of VRAM per GPU, then I'll think they're actually taking it really seriously. Same with nVidia.

However VRAM usage doesn't scale in a linear fashion to number of screens used. Framebuffer scales linearly, but nothing else does. In any given scene, the wider it is, the more likelihood there is that you'll need more textures, but for most cases, if you've got a few hundred textures loaded they'll probably cover it. Look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution; perhaps not the best example, but the VRAM usage in Surround goes up only marginally from VRAM usage on a single monitor. Now, either it's got a really fantastically efficient texture load/unload algorithm going on behind the scenes, or Surround VRAM utilisation is tremendously engine-dependent.


I believe I can present an explanation; or at least one that explains some of the exhibited issues...

The framebuffer reserves an amount of VRAM for each frame as it is being drawn/set to monitor, plus room for however many frames you have set to render ahead. Because it stores this as raw pixel information, it's not exactly small. You have 8-bit data for each of RGB, and on modern cards alpha as well. When you include overhead, such as lookup tables and other 'housekeeping' info for the card, each frame starts to get a bit on the large side. This limits how much you can fit in the rest of it, as it's essentially not there for other purposes - textures, shader code, etc.

This means that you'll start seeing what AMD/ATi termed "Hypermemory" and nVidia terms "TurboCache" swapping to system RAM when the GPU runs out of texture room. And compared to VRAM, which can transfer at rates easily topping 150GB/s on higher-end cards, system RAM is slow. Almost glacially so. And you won't get the raw speed of system RAM, either, as it has to talk through both a DirectX layer, and a driver layer, and a kernel layer, before getting to what the card needs. Add on the latency inherent, and when calling info for the GPU out of system RAM (PCI-E bus latency, PCI-E controller, memory controller, RAM, then all the way back again) the card needs to still need it once it's arrived - because it takes a long, long time.

Now, if your situation is anything similar to mine when I went investigating this a while ago (over a year, now!) if you monitored system RAM usage, you'd probably see it absolutely full to bursting when the huge framerate dives happen.

This is when the caching to system RAM fails, and it falls back to a pagefile on your HDD/SSD. Which, regardless of whether you're running the latest Sandforce SSD or a 4200RPM HDD, is so epically slow, it's like watching Grand Prix Continental Drift occurring in real time. Whenever I saw huge fps drops when testing, it was always when I'd pushed my GPU too far in terms of how much I was asking it to load, and it was paging first to system RAM, then to a pagefile. I confirmed this by stuffing another 6GB of RAM into my system and seeing if it still did it at the same points. It did not. Don't get me wrong - framerates were still appalling, but because it wasn't hitting up the HDD for texture memory, they didn't drop into the low-single-digits, and instead remained in the teens.

You'll possibly also see some odd behaviour at times - where, if you're asking the GPU to load too much in terms of textures, it doesn't even try to fit them into VRAM, and just goes straight to system RAM... in these scenarios, you can be seeing what amounts to a random VRAM usage number in monitoring software, and high system RAM usage levels, but also at the same time terrible framerates.

At least, this is the hypothesis I've formed after significant testing; I have no way of actually confirming whether when system RAM is full Windows is intelligent enough to load other stuff that is less access-speed dependent into the pagefile first, but it seems to tally up with all the evidence I've gathered.
Good explanation. +rep
Dark Armour
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K Asus P67 Pro MSI 7970 OC G.Skill 2133 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
Crucial M4 + Samsung Spinpoint  Samsung BluRay Combo XSPC Rasa water block XSPC RX360 radiator 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Black Ice SR1-240 radiator Lamptron FC2 6 channel fan controller Windows 7 x64 24" 1920x1200 + 42" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX850 Armor+ MX-518 Razer ExactMat 
AudioAudioOther
X-Fi Sony STR-DA2400ES Onkyo SKSHT528 
  hide details  
Reply
Dark Armour
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2600K Asus P67 Pro MSI 7970 OC G.Skill 2133 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingCooling
Crucial M4 + Samsung Spinpoint  Samsung BluRay Combo XSPC Rasa water block XSPC RX360 radiator 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Black Ice SR1-240 radiator Lamptron FC2 6 channel fan controller Windows 7 x64 24" 1920x1200 + 42" 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Corsair AX850 Armor+ MX-518 Razer ExactMat 
AudioAudioOther
X-Fi Sony STR-DA2400ES Onkyo SKSHT528 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paradigm Shifter View Post
...system RAM usage, you'd probably see it absolutely full to bursting when the huge framerate dives happen.
Thanks, I'll check that when full version comes out. Either way, SLI's no longer an option since I'd be stuck w/ the 1GB version. Guess, I'll have to wait it out for awhile and see what happens.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jodiuh View Post
Thanks, I'll check that when full version comes out. Either way, SLI's no longer an option since I'd be stuck w/ the 1GB version. Guess, I'll have to wait it out for awhile and see what happens.
i have 2 GTX590's and with mulit monitor settup, Vram concrete wall comes at you very fast, and hits you very hard, its a pitty you cant tell each of the 4 GPU's to each use its own Vram, but nooooooooooooo..... instead all 4 GPUs use shared 1.5G Vram :
Kira
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsHard Drive
2600k P8Z68 Delux GTX590 OCZ Revo 2 SSD PCIe x4 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win7 x64 3 X samsung syncmaster 2233 3D G19 / G13 Corsair HX 1050 
CaseMouse
Corsair RAT9 
  hide details  
Reply
Kira
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsHard Drive
2600k P8Z68 Delux GTX590 OCZ Revo 2 SSD PCIe x4 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Win7 x64 3 X samsung syncmaster 2233 3D G19 / G13 Corsair HX 1050 
CaseMouse
Corsair RAT9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 30
Got back 200 megs by disabling Aero for BF3!

Under BF3's properties, tick "disable desktop composition."

-credit zupawhez0e
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Graphics Cards - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › Graphics Cards - General › Do you need 2GB VRAM?