Entirely depends on your display resolution and the graphics level you intend to play one, number of monitors and so on. BF3 can use over 1GB ram on max with a 1080p screen, games are only advancing so get the 2gb model. If you plan on higher resolution or multiple monitors then defs get 2gb one.

Its just the amount of storage it has for the game to use basically. So bigger resolution more it has to render and store.

As for the performance difference. If you use the extra ram then it is massive, As there is nothing bottleknecking the card. But if you cant make use of the memory then nothing.

 

basically the only difference is high resolution gaming if you were to game at 1080p then 1gb would be enough but overall but any higher resolution then 2gb would be recommended.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selvanthos

Entirely depends on your display resolution and the graphics level you intend to play one, number of monitors and so on. BF3 can use over 1GB ram on max with a 1080p screen, games are only advancing so get the 2gb model. If you plan on higher resolution or multiple monitors then defs get 2gb one.
Its just the amount of storage it has for the game to use basically. So bigger resolution more it has to render and store.
As for the performance difference. If you use the extra ram then it is massive, As there is nothing bottleknecking the card. But if you cant make use of the memory then nothing.

Thank you very much. Just the answer I was lookign for.

 

1gb is the min now. also having 2gb is good for cf or sli since the memory is not doubled.

 

At 1080p/1200p a 2GB card is a lot more futureproof. 1GB Vram is becoming obsolete. Just look at BF3 and Metro 2033. If you want to CF/SLI your 1GB card later on down the line you will more than likely run into a bottleneck. That's why I sold my 6870 and bought a 6970.

 

512mb is good for 900p or lower, 1gb for 1080p, 2gb for 1200p-1600p. More pixels to fill requires more use of vram. If you use up all that vram, you notice lower frame rates as it takes more time to process them.

 

In terms of GPU processing power clock per clock, NONE.

 

So an Xfx 6870 Black edition 1Gb< Xfx 6870 2Gb. My plan was to Xfire may 6870 BE, but i saw newegg had the xfx 6870 2gb and thought to myself...2gb or 1gb... The reviews say the 2gb gets hot and is loud. I would rather xfire the 2gn over the BE's though. Thoughts on the subject?

 

If you are just gaming on a single monitor. 1gb is enough. Don't need to blow the extra $ on the 2gb.

Well if I was getting a 2gb card, I`ll get a 6950 or wait for the upcoming amd gen cards and see how the price of the previous gen cards drop

 

But then the GPU itself is also a very important factor in determining performance, more so than the RAM. For example, the GTX 570 (1.25GB) still does better that the 6970 (2GB) in BF3 @ 2560x1600, Ultra settings...

 

2GB cards are far more future proof. Games such as BF3 will utilize more than 1GB of VRAM at 1080p resolutions. Same with The Witcher 2. Given that there are games that already demand more VRAM, it makes far more sense to go for that 2GB card.

I have 1GB of VRAM on my card right now, and I wish it had two. My next build WILL have 2GB+ VRAM as I can feel it in BF3.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by akazzz

If you are just gaming on a single monitor. 1gb is enough. Don't need to blow the extra $ on the 2gb.
Well if I was getting a 2gb card, I`ll get a 6950 or wait for the upcoming amd gen cards and see how the price of the previous gen cards drop

I plan on waiting for the new 7XXX series to come out before I buy the cards. Got that 2gb vs. 1gb lingering in my head now though. hmmmmmm. Definately should get a 2Gb... Ok follow up question.

What about just running a second monitor in general? having one screen gaming and another for say wiki/web browser. Is that still eyefinity? Not gaming on both monitors simultaneously, but just having Two monitors?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andstraus

I plan on waiting for the new 7XXX series to come out before I buy the cards. Got that 2gb vs. 1gb lingering in my head now though. hmmmmmm. Definately should get a 2Gb... Ok follow up question.
What about just running a second monitor in general? having one screen gaming and another for say wiki/web browser. Is that still eyefinity? Not gaming on both monitors simultaneously, but just having Two monitors?

Nah, seperate clocks will be running it from a single card. I always have a second monitor going with webpages such as OCN while I'm playing games on my primary. Real nice when questing/looking up information/playing BF3 and launching the game from one monitor and having it pop up on the other (I keep my Everest Temperature monitoring on my second monitor too, to ensure there's no overheat issues with my OC).

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaClownie

Nah, seperate clocks will be running it from a single card. I always have a second monitor going with webpages such as OCN while I'm playing games on my primary. Real nice when questing/looking up information/playing BF3 and launching the game from one monitor and having it pop up on the other (I keep my Everest Temperature monitoring on my second monitor too, to ensure there's no overheat issues with my OC).

So If I had a second monitor for multimedia purposes. It would not be taxing on my gaming graphics and Vram?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andstraus

So If I had a second monitor for multimedia purposes. It would not be taxing on my gaming graphics and Vram?

I wouldn't say not taxing on them, but more so on the CPU. Depending on your browser and how you have it configured, you're probably not running it with GPU hardware rendering enabled. Almost everything that happens inside your browser window is done by the CPU. It'll take some GPU power and RAM to put it on the screen, but that about ends it.

Ever played Farmville? That game destroys PCs, mainly because the GPU isn't doing any of the work really, and the CPU is trying to render and draw the whole thing.

Another example: I'll watch youtube vids while playing WoW, SW:TOR, Minecraft, etc. I will not play around in my other monitor at all when playing BF3 or just about any FPS game for that matter.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaClownie

I wouldn't say not taxing on them, but more so on the CPU. Depending on your browser and how you have it configured, you're probably not running it with GPU hardware rendering enabled. Almost everything that happens inside your browser window is done by the CPU. It'll take some GPU power and RAM to put it on the screen, but that about ends it.
Ever played Farmville? That game destroys PCs, mainly because the GPU isn't doing any of the work really, and the CPU is trying to render and draw the whole thing.
Another example: I'll watch youtube vids while playing WoW, SW:TOR, Minecraft, etc. I will not play around in my other monitor at all when playing BF3 or just about any FPS game for that matter.

Makes sense. Thanks for the info. I think I definately have a better idea of how I want my gaming experience to be. I don't think I want to go Eyefinity. Sounded great to begin with, but I don't feel like I have a competitve edge palying with extra 2 monitors. I get competetive and would rather have a clean looking game then extra monitors that I'm not use to. More money than it is worth in my opinion thank you DaClownie.

 

The *speed* of the memory is more important than the amount of it I would think!