Video memory hogs , get in here and fight.:) 6950 2gb a waste unless crossfiring

[happy medium]

Instead of taking another thread off topic, I decided to bring my question here.

Can you name 1 game that a 6950 can play at a miminum 40fps while utilizing more than 1.25gb of memory.

I used 40fps because, race games need more, some games less.

No mods or aftermarket texture packs allowed, unless released by the game makers.


The answer I came up with is none. You need 2 6950's utilize more than 1.25gb of memory.



How about a game with a 6950 utilizing more than 1gb of memory with a minimum of 40 fps.?

Can you do it?



My thinking................

In general .............
A 5870, 6870, 6950, gtx560ti's are all too weak to utilize more than 1gb of memory while gaming at a minimum of 40 fps.

A gtx570 might use 1.25gb before it runs out of fps in game.
A single 6970 2gb will never use more than 1.5gb of memory unless its crossfired before it runs out of fps in game.

6950 2gb and 6970 2gb cards were made to crossfire.
If you dont crossfire them chances are you never used more than 1gb of its memory before the cards run out of gas.


I read this comment, I thought "people actually believe this sh!t"?

"My 6950 regularly sees about 1.5GB of usage across all multiplayer maps, and occasionally goes up to around 1.8GB.

This is based on what Afterburner graphs tell me. "


Ok I wanna know what settings his 6950 was running to use 1.8gb of memory and play at over 40fps minimum. Complete BS.

I have 2 6870's with 2gb each, and @ 1900x1080 I rarely, if ever, go over 1gb

 

[happy medium]

WOW, no one wants to admit it?

 

[ThatsABigOne]

I use Evga GTX570 SC version Oced to 940mhz core. I see 1.1gb of ram usage sometimes when playing BFBC2 at 1920*1200 at 90fps, so I am not sure if I am valid.

 

[happy medium]

I use Evga GTX570 SC version Oced to 940mhz core. I see 1.1gb of ram usage sometimes when playing BFBC2 at 1920*1200 at 90fps, so I am not sure if I am valid.

MAX settings?
I have to say looking at these benchmarks I dont see even @ 2500x1600 a 1gb card not being enough?


look at the gtx560ti x2

 

[jackstar7]

Eyefinity.

 

[happy medium]

Eyefinity.

? can you elaborate, did you read the OP?

Name a game........

 

[RussianSensation]

In general .............
A 5870, 6870, 6950, gtx560ti's are all too weak to utilize more than 1gb of memory while gaming at a minimum of 40 fps.

In general true, but

1) Some people want a future CF/SLI upgrade path

2) 6950 2GB can be flashed/unlocked into a full-fledged 6970. Maybe 1GB cards can be flashed too, but earlier in the year when we used the "bios unlock" that wasn't the case. So you wanted a 2GB card.

3) Some people play at 2560x1600 where the difference can be a slideshow vs. somewhat playable (you can still change some settings in Metro 2033 and get the game to 30 fps on a single 6950 2GB, but 6950 1GB is a disaster!). Now of course if you want 60 fps in Metro 2033, then 30 fps is still too slow, but it's still playable. An overclocked 6950 2GB --> 6970 gets almost 30 fps vs. 5.4 for the 1Gb version....

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...t-amd-radeon-hd-6990/17/#abschnitt_metro_2033

4) Shogun 2 - Can't use AA even at lower resolutions without exceeding 1GB of VRAM:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/test-19-grafikkarten/24/

5) Bulletstorm - 2560x1600 8AA
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/test-19-grafikkarten/13/#abschnitt_bulletstorm

6950 1GB = slideshow

I would agree that for 1920x1200 or below, 1GB is sufficient for 99.9% of games). But next generation high-end GPUs better have 2GB of ram. Games will be more intensive. If Kepler only has 1.5GB of VRAM, it would be a major flop imho.

Also, people think 2GB of VRAM > 1GB. Good marketing

Your argument doesn't take into account any possible high-rez texture pack mods btw!

 

[WMD]

If you have a 1.2GB card and the game uses 1.1GB. It does not mean the game will choke on a 1GB card. This has been discussed before in the BF3 thread. Someone hit 1.15GB on his gtx570 at 1280x960 Ultra 4XAA. But it never went above 900MB on my 1Gb at 1680x1050 Ultra 4XAA and the game plays smoothly. Pls stop this nonsense unless you have a 1GB card to compare and can confirm stuttering and severe fps loss.

 

[Silverforce11]

I think we found 1 definitely, Shogun 2, turning on AA, cards with 1gb vram gets 0 fps. Even at 1680 x 1050!!

Your example of BC2 is irrelevant, its not a new game. Compare Witcher and BF3 etc.

 

[BD231]

Dunno what's gotten into you lately, but knowledge isn't it. 2gb cards are for eye-finity, there were tons of threads made about this when 2gb cards started becoming more popular. Across three screens you're going to need the extra texture memory because of the high resolution, get it? Thats why I roasted you for swearing up and down a 2gb card would get me better gains than adding a second GTX 460 on a single monitor .

If someone is lying don't make a thread about it, use your head and prove the poster wrong if its really that important to you.

 

[7earitup]

My 6950 2GB regularly uses between 1.2 GB and 1.5 GB in BF3.

So...you are wrong.

 

[happy medium]

In general true, but

1) Some people want a future CF/SLI upgrade path

True, I agree,but not this late in the cycle, they wait for new cards

2) 6950 2GB can be flashed/unlocked into a full-fledged 6970. Maybe 1GB cards can be flashed too, but earlier in the year when we used the "bios unlock" that wasn't the case. So you wanted a 2GB card.

This is not relevent I said 69502gb not 6970 2gb

3) Some people play at 2560x1600 where the difference can be a slideshow vs. somewhat playable (you can still change some settings in Metro 2033 and get the game to 30 fps on a single 6950 2GB, but 6950 1GB is a disaster!). Now of course if you want 60 fps in Metro 2033, then 30 fps is still too slow, but it's still playable. An overclocked 6950 2GB --> 6970 gets almost 30 fps vs. 5.4 for the 1Gb version....

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...t-amd-radeon-hd-6990/17/#abschnitt_metro_2033

Metro 2033 gets 24.1 fps with a 6950 2gb not playable


4) Shogun 2 - Can't use AA even at lower resolutions without exceeding 1GB of VRAM:

The 6950 2gb runs at 33.5 fps @ 1600x1050 vs the 1gb card crashing.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/test-19-grafikkarten/24/

5) Bulletstorm - 2560x1600 8AA
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/2011/test-19-grafikkarten/13/#abschnitt_bulletstorm

6950 2gb runs at 27.3 fps, not playable
6950 1GB = slideshow

I would agree that for 1920x1200 or below, 1GB is sufficient for 99.9% of games). But next generation high-end GPUs better have 2GB of ram. Games will be more intensive. If Kepler only has 1.5GB of VRAM, it would be a major flop imho.

ANd for 2500x1600 you need crossfire anyway with 2gb cards

Also, people think 2GB of VRAM > 1GB. Good marketing


Your argument doesn't take into account any possible high-rez texture pack mods btw!
I commented on that read the op russian.

Looks like SHogun 2 is a winner, if you call it that.

 

[3DVagabond]

My 6950 2GB regularly uses between 1.2 GB and 1.5 GB in BF3.

So...you are wrong.

3...2...1 Here comes the, "It's not really using it. It's only caching it", argument. Of course, that would mean that it's caching it for absolutely no reason at all, except to be appear as a resource hog.

 

[happy medium]

I think we found 1 definitely, Shogun 2, turning on AA, cards with 1gb vram gets 0 fps. Even at 1680 x 1050!!

Yea , I seen that but vs a 69502gb card is at 33.5 fps at 4x aa.
A gtx570 with 1.25gb runs fine also.

I think this one is good for the 1gb catagory, not the 1.25gb catagory

SO far 1 game uses more than 1gb of memory (barely at crappy settings) and none use more than 1.25gb.

 

[happy medium]

My 6950 2GB regularly uses between 1.2 GB and 1.5 GB in BF3.

So...you are wrong.

Show me a review/ benchmark, where there is a difference.

like a gtx560ti 1gb going from 35fps to 5 fps.

or

A 6950 1gb having 20 fps vs a 6950 2gb with 40 fps with the same settings.

 

[schneiderguy]

People said the extra memory on the 640MB 8800GTS vs the 320MB version was useless, and they were wrong. I expect you will be wrong also, give it a year

 

[happy medium]

People said the extra memory on the 640MB 8800GTS vs the 320MB version was useless, and they were wrong. I expect you will be wrong also, give it a year

I hope by then we will have new cards with 3 and 4gb's.

You have a game? if not stop trolling.

 

[jackstar7]

? can you elaborate, did you read the OP?

Name a game........

I read your OP. I gave you a reason for the larger memory.

Sorry you don't care.

You're not the target market.

 

[Elfear]

Why would you eliminate high-res texture mods as a reason to get a 2GB 6950? Skyrim is one of the biggest AAA titles of the year and already has some nice texture packs available. I guarantee you the extra 1GB will come in handy even with a single card. Go look at the Skyrim thread in the PC Gaming section if you don't believe the anticipation is high for vram gobbling texture mods.

Besides that multiple people have posted screenshots of vram usage >1GB in BF3 and a few other games. Until you show some solid evidence that the game is merely caching the data and not actually utilizing the storage space you can't discount those results either.

 

[toyota]

I can go over 1gb with my card, sometimes even at just 1680 at settings the 6950 can handle in a few games. Crysis 2 in DX11, Clear Sky, and GTA 4 for sure. there are also a couple of games where if I crank the AA to 8x or more it will go over 1gb at what would still be playable settings for a 6950. an example Batman AC on DX9 very high settings was using around 1100mb of vram with 8x AA and a 6950 could handle that with ease. that does not even cover mods that many people like to use for games like Crysis, Fallout 3, or Skyrim. so again it CAN go over 1gb in a some games.

here is an ass ugly Crysis 2 shot sucking up 1202mb of vram at just 1680 using DX11 Ultra and high res texture pack. but EVEN in DX9 and without high res texture pack it was using that much vram. I normally play at 1920x1080 but I did not want the excuse that a 6950 could not handle the game at that res so I took a screenshot at just 1680x1050.


hosting images


Batman AC at 1920x1080 on DX9 very high and 8x AA with vsync on. the settings can be cranked even more so vram usage would go even higher while still being perfectly playable.


image upload

 

[Silverforce11]

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...eforce-gtx-560-ti-2win-dual-gpu-review-4.html

gtx560x2 card gets excellent scaling and fps, as soon as MSAA is turned on, performance tanks hard, thats at 1920 res. At 2560 res, its a joke.

mind you thats in SP which is light-load compared to 64MP maps.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

People said the extra memory on the 640MB 8800GTS vs the 320MB version was useless, and they were wrong. I expect you will be wrong also, give it a year

These are actually words of wisdom

 

[Mistwalker]

Happy, remember some months back when I told you about the importance of things like context, and not to constantly demand specific metrics so you can hear what you want to hear?

Why demand 40 fps? Because of racing games? Gamers want 60 fps in racing games and a maintainable 30 fps is widely considered the minimum playable for most other genres. Splitting the difference makes no sense.

Why don't you acknowledge the ability to flash 6950 cards into 6970s, thus making 6970 benchmarks relevant? Regardless, they can be overclocked to 6970 speeds regardless of whether the shaders are unlocked.

Why do you disallow mods and texture packs? In games that allow them VRAM is one of the most important limiting factors. This bizarre addendum alone invalidates whatever you're trying to prove.

You set up these ridiculous challenges that ignore very real circumstances for no good reason. I reiterate: stop ignoring the full picture so you can feel like you've proved a point.

If you want to say 2GB is largely wasted at the 6950 performance level, fine--don't add arbitrary restrictions if you're confident no one can disprove it.

 

[chimaxi83]

Edit: my 6950 is locked at 1408 shaders, and clocked to 980/1510. Also, I just realized my Afterburner screencap cut off my FPS graph. Oh well, I'll do it again tomorrow or something.

OT question: why do my screenshots look so damn blurry? I'm using postimage.org for hosting. Sucks because Afterburner graph can't be seen clearly. Anyone have tips on how to fix? I uploaded them at their full size and chose not to resize them. Thanks.

Back on topic, since you took something I said about my 6950 and used it to contribute to this thread, here's my contribution to your thread.

My BF3 settings:

A screencap of Afterburner and Fraps min/max/avg, post Caspian 64:

It shows that it did dip down to 23, but I'm not sure when that was. For the settings I'm running, I'm perfectly happy with the experience my rig gives me, no stuttering or choppiness.

BF3 has been the most taxing for my system so far, however I've never played Crysis or Metro etc., so I can't really comment on that level of performance. I plan on it sometime soon, though.

 

[MrK6]

More games that use more than 1GB of memory: Skyrim, GTA IV, STALKER: CoP. The thing is, why WOULDN'T you want extra vRAM on your card?