Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-22-2013, 04:34 PM   #1
AngleSlam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9
Default 660ti 2gb essentially 1.5gb?

So based on my experience I've never seen my 660ti ever use more than 1.5gb of ram.
I looked into it and realized that the 192 bit bus is a mismatch with 2gb ram. it has 3 64 bit controllers for 512mb then what happens to the lat 512mb?

It got me thinking about the gtx 670 how it is has 256 bit bus scales perfect with 2gb and has more bandwidth.

Anyways I only play on 1080p and I use msaa up to 4x. So far I haven't ran into any real lag in any of my games but for some reason I feel like I'm bottlenecking my cards full potential cuz it never goes past 1.5gb.
In practice I probably won't need more than 1.5gb but the card was advertised as 2gb and I feel disappointed.
AngleSlam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:51 PM   #2
Durvelle27
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 4,102
Default

have you tried Skyrim maxed at 1080p with Mods
Durvelle27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:52 PM   #3
AngleSlam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9
Default

Not yet but planning to..
AngleSlam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:53 PM   #4
Durvelle27
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 4,102
Default

as i know for a fact that games uses more than 1.5GB of RAM when Maxed with MODs
Durvelle27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 02:26 PM   #5
jimhsu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 702
Default

I'm guessing it's a bandwidth bottleneck.

From the 660Ti review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/t...60-ti-review/2

Quote:
Of course at a low-level it’s more complex than that. In a symmetrical design with an equal amount of RAM on each controller it’s rather easy to interleave memory operations across all of the controllers, which maximizes performance of the memory subsystem as a whole. However complete interleaving requires that kind of a symmetrical design, which means it’s not quite suitable for use on NVIDIA’s asymmetrical memory designs. Instead NVIDIA must start playing tricks. And when tricks are involved, there’s always a downside.

The best case scenario is always going to be that the entire 192bit bus is in use by interleaving a memory operation across all 3 controllers, giving the card 144GB/sec of memory bandwidth (192bit * 6GHz / 8). But that can only be done at up to 1.5GB of memory; the final 512MB of memory is attached to a single memory controller. This invokes the worst case scenario, where only 1 64-bit memory controller is in use and thereby reducing memory bandwidth to a much more modest 48GB/sec.

How NVIDIA spreads out memory accesses will have a great deal of impact on when we hit these scenarios. In the past we’ve tried to divine how NVIDIA is accomplishing this, but even with the compute capability of CUDA memory appears to be too far abstracted for us to test any specific theories. And because NVIDIA is continuing to label the internal details of their memory bus a competitive advantage, they’re unwilling to share the details of its operation with us. Thus we’re largely dealing with a black box here, one where poking and prodding doesn’t produce much in the way of meaningful results.

As with the GTX 550 Ti, all we can really say at this time is that the performance we get in our benchmarks is the performance we get. Our best guess remains that NVIDIA is interleaving the lower 1.5GB of address while pushing the last 512MB of address space into the larger memory bank, but we don’t have any hard data to back it up. For most users this shouldn’t be a problem (especially since GK104 is so wishy-washy at compute), but it remains that there’s always a downside to an asymmetrical memory design. With any luck one day we’ll find that downside and be able to better understand the GTX 660 Ti’s performance in the process.
jimhsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 05:47 PM   #6
rich_
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
Default

660 and 660ti are very over priced and very over-hyped. 7870's are beating the 660 AND 660ti in benchmarks that have taken place post-catalyst update starting late 2012. They are over-speccing and over-charging for a mid range 660ti, calling it a high end card.
rich_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:10 PM   #7
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,267
Default

Memory is not used unless it is needed. If you've never seen over 1.5 Gb of use, you have not needed more than 1.5Gb of memory...

Having gobs of unused memory is not helpful, but running out is even worse.
Ferzerp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 06:13 PM   #8
BallaTheFeared
Diamond Member
 
BallaTheFeared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,128
Default

At 1080p for most titles 1GB is enough, for a select few 1.28GB is min, and for one or two 1.5GB is required for AA...

You aren't using more than 1.5GB because the games you're playing don't need more than that, there is nothing wrong with your card.

Performance wise your card is fine as well!

BallaTheFeared is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 09:47 PM   #9
BoFox
Senior Member
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 689
Default

Try Hitman: Absolution with MSAA, or Max Payne at high rez with MSAA, and see???

Did anybody ever prove if 660 Ti can actually use more than 1.5GB of VRAM? That'd be interesting!
BoFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:01 PM   #10
parvadomus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 529
Default

Obviously the access to the last 512mb is much slower than the others, so its probably disabled at driver level for some games (marked as a memory hole), and enabled for the ones that really needs them. Well this is just one theory, anyways i never really liked 660TIs.
parvadomus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2013, 10:05 PM   #11
notty22
Diamond Member
 
notty22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Beantown
Posts: 3,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
Try Hitman: Absolution with MSAA, or Max Payne at high rez with MSAA, and see???

Did anybody ever prove if 660 Ti can actually use more than 1.5GB of VRAM? That'd be interesting!
Nvidia uses this memory aproach on some pro- cards as well. Gtx 550ti, one model of the gtx 460se 1gb-192mb interface. It's named Asymmetrical memory technique, Ryan, or other reviewers can't explain it because Nvidia does not spell out how it works in Layman terms, it's a trade secret.
I believe there have been 3gb 660ti comparisons to 2gb 660ti versions, and they matched up.
It's been noted the 1gb 460's with 192mb interface used up to 1gb of Vram.


Crysis 3, results are as expected compared to gtx 670


__________________
i5 4670K@4100mhz, 32GB Kingston 1600,H50
MSI GTX 970 gaming Seasonic SS-760XP2

240gb SSD, Win 8.1
Let's make sure history never forgets... the name... 'Enterprise'. Picard out.

Last edited by notty22; 02-23-2013 at 10:41 PM.
notty22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 06:30 AM   #12
AngleSlam
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 9
Default

I did some research and from what I learned. The vram ram is only useful relative to the amount of horsepower a gpu can supply. The 660ti only has so much power by the time I'm maxing out at 2gb or even 1.5gb of vram the settings are probably too high anyways. So if I'm not mistaken I'm more likely to run into my gpu bottlenecking before vram bottlenecking.
AngleSlam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 06:55 AM   #13
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngleSlam View Post
I did some research and from what I learned. The vram ram is only useful relative to the amount of horsepower a gpu can supply. The 660ti only has so much power by the time I'm maxing out at 2gb or even 1.5gb of vram the settings are probably too high anyways. So if I'm not mistaken I'm more likely to run into my gpu bottlenecking before vram bottlenecking.
Erm, then can you explain the GTX670? It has the same processing power as a 660Ti. Both are 1344 CUDA core parts. The GTX 660 is GK106 and has 960 CUDA cores and that has performance just under (sometimes over depending on game and settings) GTX 580 which is very similar to 7870 performance. 660Ti is generally faster than GTX 580 and 7870 usually falling right below 7950.
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 GTX980 SLI

Last edited by Keysplayr; 02-24-2013 at 07:00 AM.
Keysplayr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 06:58 AM   #14
amenx
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_ View Post
660 and 660ti are very over priced and very over-hyped. 7870's are beating the 660 AND 660ti in benchmarks that have taken place post-catalyst update starting late 2012. They are over-speccing and over-charging for a mid range 660ti, calling it a high end card.
See the charts above and tear your hair out.
amenx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 06:59 AM   #15
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amenx View Post
See the charts below and tear your hair out.


Yes, rich is quite incorrect. Overpriced? Maybe the 660Ti is at about 100 bucks over the 660. The 660 is probably one of the best cards for the money right now.
I got mine for 209.00 and there are some even less expensive right now. It reminds me of 8800GT or GTX 460 values.
I'm thinking of getting a second 660 for SLI.
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 GTX980 SLI

Last edited by Keysplayr; 02-24-2013 at 07:02 AM.
Keysplayr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 09:02 AM   #16
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Default

Normally, a 192-bit bus would take an odd amount of memory like 384MB, 768MB, 1.5GB. But Nvidia uses double density chips on the 3rd (I think) 64 bit memory register essentially bumping up the memory amount up another 512MB. It's a trick they've been using since the GTX550Ti I believe with 1GB of RAM on a 192-bit bus instead of 768MB. Upping it an additional 256MB.

So, what I can see happening on that "3rd" register is it takes twice as long at it's current transfer rate to fill the memory there as it is essentially twice as "deep" so to speak. Unless the memory controller runs that register at twice the clock of the other two 64 bit registers, it has no choice but to take longer to fill. Physics.
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 GTX980 SLI

Last edited by Keysplayr; 02-24-2013 at 09:15 AM.
Keysplayr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 09:05 AM   #17
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 5,267
Default

You replied to a spammer trying to up a google search rank. Edit out his spam image link so when the mod deletes the post and bans the account it won't still be there?
Ferzerp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 09:16 AM   #18
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferzerp View Post
You replied to a spammer trying to up a google search rank. Edit out his spam image link so when the mod deletes the post and bans the account it won't still be there?
Wow, didn't even realize. Thanks Ferzerp.
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 GTX980 SLI
Keysplayr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:23 AM   #19
BoFox
Senior Member
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 689
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by notty22 View Post
Nvidia uses this memory aproach on some pro- cards as well. Gtx 550ti, one model of the gtx 460se 1gb-192mb interface. It's named Asymmetrical memory technique, Ryan, or other reviewers can't explain it because Nvidia does not spell out how it works in Layman terms, it's a trade secret.
I believe there have been 3gb 660ti comparisons to 2gb 660ti versions, and they matched up.
It's been noted the 1gb 460's with 192mb interface used up to 1gb of Vram.


Crysis 3, results are as expected compared to gtx 670


Would the 2560x1600 result with 4x SMAA actually use more than 1.5GB of RAM, or does it need to be MSAA or at least 8x SMAA?

Yeah, regarding GTX 550 Ti - I tried to point out all the problems I could find with it:
http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewto...gts+450#p79775

Nvidia did it a little bit different with GTX 660 Ti, by not using different-density RAM chips.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/6159/t...60-ti-review/2
Still,
Quote:
The best case scenario is always going to be that the entire 192bit bus is in use by interleaving a memory operation across all 3 controllers, giving the card 144GB/sec of memory bandwidth (192bit * 6GHz / 8). But that can only be done at up to 1.5GB of memory; the final 512MB of memory is attached to a single memory controller. This invokes the worst case scenario, where only 1 64-bit memory controller is in use and thereby reducing memory bandwidth to a much more modest 48GB/sec.
Perhaps that's why we haven't really seen anything.. YET. Like it took almost 1 year for us to see any problems with GTX 550 Ti (despite Deus Ex:HR using less than 500MB VRAM, which was strange), but I think NV did a better job with GTX 660 Ti this time.

Last edited by BoFox; 02-24-2013 at 11:25 AM.
BoFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:33 AM   #20
BoFox
Senior Member
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 689
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keysplayr View Post
Erm, then can you explain the GTX670? It has the same processing power as a 660Ti. Both are 1344 CUDA core parts. The GTX 660 is GK106 and has 960 CUDA cores and that has performance just under (sometimes over depending on game and settings) GTX 580 which is very similar to 7870 performance. 660Ti is generally faster than GTX 580 and 7870 usually falling right below 7950.
Well, well, what's interesting is that the GTX 660 Ti is actually performing worse than the HD 7870 here:

(1920x1080)


and 2560x1440:


I used to have GTX 660 Ti in the same class as HD 7950. Then after I dropped it into the same class as HD 7870 (with 660 Ti at the top, and 7870 at the bottom of that class), the prices started to come closer to each other - since 660 Ti was $310-330, and 7870 was $230.
Now, 660 Ti is as low as $270, while 7870 is $220.

Much better.

Hahaha,
now try your focus group tricks on that!
Gotcha!

Last edited by BoFox; 02-24-2013 at 11:43 AM.
BoFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 12:03 PM   #21
amenx
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoFox View Post
Well, well, what's interesting is that the GTX 660 Ti is actually performing worse than the HD 7870 here:

I used to have GTX 660 Ti in the same class as HD 7950. Then after I dropped it into the same class as HD 7870 (with 660 Ti at the top, and 7870 at the bottom of that class), the prices started to come closer to each other - since 660 Ti was $310-330, and 7870 was $230.
Now, 660 Ti is as low as $270, while 7870 is $220.

Much better.

Hahaha,
now try your focus group tricks on that!
Gotcha!
But what makes your source any more authoritative than the others? Virtually all other reviews out there contradict it.
amenx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 06:26 PM   #22
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amenx View Post
But what makes your source any more authoritative than the others? Virtually all other reviews out there contradict it.
He cherry picked to "prove me wrong" I guess. You can see the focus group pitchfork mentality kick in. But yeah, 7870 is generally slower than the GTX580 and so is the GTX660. The 660Ti is faster than the GTX580 and so it the GTX660Ti and 7950. But I'm sure Bofox might be able to find an instance or two where this isn't true if he looks long enough.

P.S. WTF Bofox. Have another beer.
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 GTX980 SLI

Last edited by Keysplayr; 02-24-2013 at 06:38 PM.
Keysplayr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2013, 11:26 PM   #23
BoFox
Senior Member
 
BoFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 689
Default

No taking up on the challenge then? Perhaps a couple beers would've made it fun for you to find at least 2-3 sources to counter-act this! It's your job after all! Ha ha (evil laughter)!

(Don't worry amenx, it's not authoritative enough to make me rate GTX 660 Ti less than HD 7870, ha! I kid like a fool!)
BoFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 12:46 AM   #24
Hdgamer
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 40
Default

If this were the case, with Titan being 384 memory bus, would it use all of the 6 gigs of Vram? I have yet to see my 660ti's go over 1450 vram on my 2560X1600 display. Playing games like the Witcher 2 and Skyrim just does not eat up the Vram that people say it does, but then again I don't mod games or care to.
Hdgamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 01:06 AM   #25
Jaydip
Diamond Member
 
Jaydip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,294
Default

Depends on the nature of the app.So far I'm not aware of any game which can utilize it but pro apps sure.
__________________
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit || i7 4770K @ 4.2 with CM V6-GT || MSI Z87 GD 65||MSI Gaming N780 TF 3GD5/OC GeForce GTX 780|| Corsair Vengeance 16GB 1600 || WD Cavier Black 1TB FAEX X2|| HAF-X || Corsair TX750 V2 ||AL MX 5021E || DELL U2713HM||SideWinder X4||Razer DA
Jaydip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.