Skyrim + the Skyrim HD texture pack is using close to 1800MB of vRAM. Can't wait for these 3GB cards .
But there was never a response to the challenge of that inane argument/clause, so I'm leaving it at that.No that doesn't count...texture packs and anything that makes vram usage go over 1gb not allowed.
Im actually hopeing the 7xxx series only comes with 1.5gb.
Because that way they probably save abit on production cost of card => cheap consumer prices.
Memory is cheap, no reason not to load up the cards with plenty of VRAM.
Skyrim + the Skyrim HD texture pack is using close to 1800MB of vRAM. Can't wait for these 3GB cards .
Stock Skyrim on Ultra sits at about 800 MB on my 22" monitor. You can pile mods on top of anything to the point it'll make 1024MB insufficient. Doesn't mean its inherently insufficient for most.
Intel HD 3000 graphics are sufficient for most games. How come you wasted money on a GTX 460? See how inane that argument is?Stock Skyrim on Ultra sits at about 800 MB on my 22" monitor. You can pile mods on top of anything to the point it'll make 1024MB insufficient. Doesn't mean its inherently insufficient for most.
Exactly.Nobody is saying "most". It's just if you have 2 cards, similar perf/$ would you want 1gb of vram or 2? People have shown the benefit for the 2gig cards.
he has 2 6950 gb in crossfire. I am pretty sure that's actually just using 1250-1400 not 2500-2800. vram usage in crossfire gets reported in a way that seems to show twice of what the actual amount is being used.The driver will in cases fill it's own vram buffer and redraw/reload as necessary. If you have a 1gb card, in demanding games it will show the whole buffer being full. In games with high detail and large field of views it would aid in the user not seeing screen drawing happening. To see a 3gb card use near it's full memory buffer is not surprising.
And playing Batman with PhysX on is visually better, should you only buy a card with PhysX because of that ? There are pro's and con's with either vendors models. Without absolutes ruling the final decisions of potential end users.
In my opinion the choice to use "only" 1.5 GB of memory per GPU is reasonable, since almost no gaming scenario requires more memory than that. Maybe at 3x 2560x1600, but certainly not below. That's why I actually prefer the MARS II with 3 GB memory total, instead of a card that's $200 more expensive with an extra 3 GB of useless video memory.
Exactly...What does PhysX have to do with this discussion. Oh ya, it's Nvidia...and some people can't help themselves without throwing their favorite company into the mix. I have seen my secondary rig with a GTX 480 at 1900*1200 pushing almost 1.5 gigs with a mix of ultra and high with 2X MSAA...So, no, 2 gigs is not a waste. I'd rather have more of it, than less of it.PhysX is not the subject here. The subject is video memory and the thread says "6950 2gb a waste unless crossfiring". I'd hate to see this thread devolve into a "PhysX sucks"/"No it doesn't" debate.
Crysis 2 uses every bit of my 1.5gb of vram even in DX9. GTA 4 and few other games like Clear Sky can use over 1gb of vram. and there are plenty of games that will use over 1gb with 8x AA.BF3 is the first game I've seen that 1GB is not enough for 1080P on max settings, I've heard Shogun 2 is also a member of that club. Don't have that game myself though.
I can tell you from my experiences at 1600P, there are quite a few games that need in excess of 1.2 to 1.4GB of VRAM to run on their highest settings.
If BF3 is anything to go by, the trend is moving towards making use of more VRAM and it's best to get as much as you can.
How about opinion from a reviewer ? I'm sure you will find reason to discount those as well ?
ASUS Mars II 3 GB Dual GTX 580
From these comments, the 5970 with it's 1gb was never the fastest video card, it was just a pretender.
And playing Batman with PhysX on is visually better, should you only buy a card with PhysX because of that ? There are pro's and con's with either vendors models. Without absolutes ruling the final decisions of potential end users.
How about opinion from a reviewer ? I'm sure you will find reason to discount those as well ?
ASUS Mars II 3 GB Dual GTX 580
You either don't understand the discussion or are purposefully convoluting it on (another) pro-NVIDIA rant. Which is it?From these comments, the 5970 with it's 1gb was never the fastest video card, it was just a pretender.
How about opinion from a reviewer ? I'm sure you will find reason to discount those as well ?
ASUS Mars II 3 GB Dual GTX 580
In my opinion the choice to use "only" 1.5 GB of memory per GPU is reasonable, since almost no gaming scenario requires more memory than that. Maybe at 3x 2560x1600, but certainly not below. That's why I actually prefer the MARS II with 3 GB memory total, instead of a card that's $200 more expensive with an extra 3 GB of useless video memory.