GTX 460 SLI - what should I expect setting wise with BF3?

[Spurst]

CPU: 2500k
8 Gig DDR3
Z68 motherboard
GTX 460 768's SLI

What should I expect to see setting wise that will be playable for BF 3? I have the parts in front of me, and I just grabbed the 460's last week, so they are fairly new. I can easily trade/sell them for what I paid and upgrade to something with more vram - because I know its going to hold me back at my monitor's native red (1900x1200). My monitor scales really well, so I can play at 16x10, too, but I'm really looking for suggestions to cut down the VRAM usage without destroying my performance.

Alternately, I'd consider selling/trading the cards.

 

[imaheadcase]

Those are fine for ram, i used a GTX 460 fine for 1900x1200. Played plenty of games on high with them.

No matter what video card you get, BF3 WILL use the available ram on card. My GTX 580 1.5 gig it uses all the ram. Not sure about 3gig versions, but thats just wasted money.

If you are set on SLI, you prob should of went with 1gig cards, plus overclock versions. A overclocked GTX 460 = GTX 470 in speed. They are not much more.

BF3 will play on ultra i believe, however some items will have to be put down, AA for one.

 

[Spurst]

Those are fine for ram, i used a GTX 460 fine for 1900x1200. Played plenty of games on high with them.

No matter what video card you get, BF3 WILL use the available ram on card. My GTX 580 1.5 gig it uses all the ram. Not sure about 3gig versions, but thats just wasted money.

If you are set on SLI, you prob should of went with 1gig cards, plus overclock versions. A overclocked GTX 460 = GTX 470 in speed. They are not much more.

BF3 will play on ultra i believe, however some items will have to be put down, AA for one.

I'm not set on SLI. I was set on a budget of ~$200. I happened to grab this pair within budget after reading all the reviews that they were faster than a 480 - then I ran into what I think is the VRAM issue. Initially I thought it was my CPU, but I'm thinking not.

So I just need to know how to monitor it in game, and /or some suggestions for tweaking my games to get the best quality while keeping the performance playable. Or... if I should sell the 460's and buy a single card with more vram that is still within that $200 budget.

 

[Termie]

Spurst - congrats again on the new system.

I didn't realize you had 768MB versions of the GTX460. Hmmm, that makes a big difference (I have one, and honestly I haven't bothered installing BF3 on that system). With SLI, you have the GPU power to push high settings, but not the VRAM. You could always give it a try and see what happens - maybe high without MSAA will work. If it does, your fps will be near 65, I'm guessing, based on my experience both with that card generally and HD5850 crossfire.

 

[Spurst]

the 768 VRAM is why i was contemplating upgrading the CPU - I was really just looking to match them. This 2500k is complete overkill, but it was a good deal, so I'm happy.

Right now my issue is... I need to figure out where the VRAM hits over 768 and then lock my settings there.

Then I need to figure out if im comfortable with the image quality there, or if I need to trade/sell my 460's for something else with more VRAM.

So what apps will tell me what my ingame VRAM usage is while im playing ingame, so I can test various settings?

I wonder if I even need the 2nd 460 in SLI mode. I might be capping out on VRAM before the GPU is even maxed.

 

[Termie]

the 768 VRAM is why i was contemplating upgrading the CPU - I was really just looking to match them. This 2500k is complete overkill, but it was a good deal, so I'm happy.

Right now my issue is... I need to figure out where the VRAM hits over 768 and then lock my settings there.

Then I need to figure out if im comfortable with the image quality there, or if I need to trade/sell my 460's for something else with more VRAM.

So what apps will tell me what my ingame VRAM usage is while im playing ingame, so I can test various settings?

I wonder if I even need the 2nd 460 in SLI mode. I might be capping out on VRAM before the GPU is even maxed.

You can use MSI Afterburner to track your VRAM usage on nVidia cards (doesn't work with AMD). One of our forum members posted a jpeg of it at the top of this page: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2200975&page=11

You'll still get some benefit from SLI. A single GTX460-768 wouldn't be able to get over 35fps at 1920x1200/high. I think you'll potentially duck in under the VRAM limit at high or at least at medium (which still looks good), and get at least 60fps.

BTW, I see what you're saying about the VRAM and your CPU upgrade (i.e., q9550 vs. 2500k). But it really wouldn't be "matching" to use the q9550 just because you have a VRAM limit. You would have hit the same VRAM limit with either CPU. A q9550 can definitely support pretty high settings on BF3. It's just that the 2500k was honestly a better deal.

 

[d4a2n0k]

I run BF3 at 19 x 12, everything on Ultra, motion blurring down all the way, no AA and HBAO on. MSI afterburner shows the memory usage at around 1000mb on my sli'd 460's, so they are maxed. I have another system with a 2GB 6950 in it. Using the same settings, memory usage goes up to 1500+mb.

But, the SLI system still has about 20+ FPS advantage over the 2gb 6950.

 

[Spurst]

I guess I have little choice but to dump the 768's and go with something else then.

Someone needs to post some tables showing VRAM usage and settings, and resolutions.

 

[Throckmorton]

The framebuffer is a very small portion of VRAM. People keep repeating this myth VRAM has something to do with resolution. It doesn't.
1920x1200x32bit = 9.2 megabytes
2560x1600x32bit = 16.4 megabytes

It's the other stuff that uses VRAM... Textures, polygons, shader stuff, whatever.

 

[Spurst]

The framebuffer is a very small portion of VRAM. People keep repeating this myth VRAM has something to do with resolution. It doesn't.
1920x1200x32bit = 9.2 megabytes
2560x1600x32bit = 16.4 megabytes

It's the other stuff that uses VRAM... Textures, polygons, shader stuff, whatever.

I wish to run @ 1900x1200. Which other settings are hardest hitting for performance that would drastically lower VRAM usage, with minimal impact to actual image quality?

Its too bad, I cant just solder some larger chips on it... sigh. lol

 

[GotNoRice]

I wouldn't really worry too much about your VRam. For the most part, the people making a big deal about VRam are the same people who obsessively need to run everything at Ultra or they feel like something is wrong. The difference between Ultra and High is small, and most people would probably not even notice much difference between Ultra and Medium. By going easy on the AA and adjusting individual game settings to accommodate your VRam, you should be able to get excellent performance from your cards.

 

[Spurst]

I wouldn't really worry too much about your VRam. For the most part, the people making a big deal about VRam are the same people who obsessively need to run everything at Ultra or they feel like something is wrong. The difference between Ultra and High is small, and most people would probably not even notice much difference between Ultra and Medium. By going easy on the AA and adjusting individual game settings to accommodate your VRam, you should be able to get excellent performance from your cards.

sadly, i guess im one of those people - i notice a significant drop in visual quality going from ultra to medium. i can live without AA at 1920x1080 - i dont notice a huge change there. i rather run at 1920x1080 than 1400x900 or 1366x768 simply due to the fact that i prefer sniper rifles, so the tighter the image res, the better i can spot someone.

 

[Termie]

sadly, i guess im one of those people - i notice a significant drop in visual quality going from ultra to medium. i can live without AA at 1920x1080 - i dont notice a huge change there. i rather run at 1920x1080 than 1400x900 or 1366x768 simply due to the fact that i prefer sniper rifles, so the tighter the image res, the better i can spot someone.

This thread may help: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1641406

Looks like you may be able to run all ultra with medium textures, no MSAA. At the minimum, you should be able to go with high, medium textures.

 

[Termie]

OP - I hope you haven't dumped your 460SLI set up yet. Read this post:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32527465&postcount=348

 

[lopri]

The framebuffer is a very small portion of VRAM. People keep repeating this myth VRAM has something to do with resolution. It doesn't.
1920x1200x32bit = 9.2 megabytes
2560x1600x32bit = 16.4 megabytes

It's the other stuff that uses VRAM... Textures, polygons, shader stuff, whatever.

And Anti-Aliasing. ^^

 

[Puppies04]

OP - I hope you haven't dumped your 460SLI set up yet. Read this post:

Same here, all this running around like headless chickens and I still don't see 1gb vram cards getting unplayable 1920 x 1200 framerates.

 

[houe]

If you have windows7 aero running turn it off. That can save 30-40MB vram.

 

[Termie]

If you have windows7 aero running turn it off. That can save 30-40MB vram.

Can you remind me how to do that? I think that's what's breaking the camel's back on my system. I can run ultra at 1920 until I alt-tab to the desktop. Then it gives me an out of VRAM error and BF3 crashes. Given the need to see the BattleLog from time-to-time, that's a deal-breaker.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Can you remind me how to do that? I think that's what's breaking the camel's back on my system. I can run ultra at 1920 until I alt-tab to the desktop. Then it gives me an out of VRAM error and BF3 crashes. Given the need to see the BattleLog from time-to-time, that's a deal-breaker.

Go into themes and change it to basic.

 

[ArchAngel777]

The framebuffer is a very small portion of VRAM. People keep repeating this myth VRAM has something to do with resolution. It doesn't.
1920x1200x32bit = 9.2 megabytes
2560x1600x32bit = 16.4 megabytes

It's the other stuff that uses VRAM... Textures, polygons, shader stuff, whatever.

I certainly am not going to dissagree with the math, but that doesn't seem to jive with benchmarks. For instance, a 560 TI did perfect with ultra settings at 1680x1050 (with AA) and completely took a huge performance dive when moving up to 1920x1200 (with AA). If the only thing that changed was another few megabytes, I doubt it would have a dramatic performance impact. Just doesn't make sense to me, which means something else is going on that takes extra Vram at higher resolutions.

 

[ArchAngel777]

BTW - BF3 runs perfect on a 460GTX 1GB SLI. Well, asside from the GAME bugs (which no other games exibit). OF course, you have the 768 version and I am not sure if I seen the results of BF3 with a 768mb version of that card.