Originally Posted by ronnin426850
You fail at life.
Unimaginably foolish you are, friend. This thread has nothing to do with the previous.
Actually, I linked to my own post in that thread which does have relevance. Just so I can make it obvious to you, I showed you a memory limitation then, and I'm showing it to you again - especially for all that effort I put into making my pretty little video for you.
I even promised you that if I upgraded to Surround or a 30" monitor I would show you further VRAM limitations. Well, now that I *do* have Surround, would you like to see further pretty videos of Crysis making current generation cards weep?
Originally Posted by almighty15
Heck I could find even more games, Bad Company 2 uses around 850Mb maxed out with 8xMSAA. That figure was only from one level, What happens if you play a level that uses even more VRAM?
To be fair, I did play BC2 at 1920x1200 with 32XCSAA (which is the highest AA settings available for Nvidia cards) and it did hover around the 1GB mark, but I didn't experience any severe performance penalties from it. In Surround, this is a completely different story. Just for giggles, I just tried to load the game up with 32XCSAA at 3900x1920 resolution, and it stuttered to the point where I could not even get into the game and had to end it with the task manager.
However, with 2XMSAA, I'm right around the 1022MB mark, but when the action gets heavy enough performance dips are very much noticeable, even though I still have approximately 200MB of VRAM left before topping out.
So I cannot attribute performance solely to VRAM limitations, as I find the Frostbite engine to be rather forgiving in this regard, but performance does scale fairly linearly with graphic settings.