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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Skyrim + the Skyrim HD texture pack is using close to 1800MB of vRAM. Can't wait for these 3GB cards :D.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
No that doesn't count...texture packs and anything that makes vram usage go over 1gb not allowed. :D
But there was never a response to the challenge of that inane argument/clause, so I'm leaving it at that. :cool:
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
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.

They'll likely make both, just like the 6900's.

Memory is cheap, no reason not to load up the cards with plenty of VRAM.

Amen! :thumbsup:

The only reason this thread was created was to sell the 560 ti 448 to folks by insisting the 6950's memory buffer is a waste. It's fail.
 

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
Considering the GTX 560 TI 1 GB memory is FULL without any AA in BF3 at a low resolution of 1680x1050, 1 GB is insufficient. I don't think throwing 10GB on a limited bus/clock cycle card will make a spec of difference, but if the card can handle the memory (wide enough bus/logic) then 2 GB is certainly beneficial. If anything there should always be a little to spare.
 

Leyawiin

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2008
3,204
52
91
Skyrim + the Skyrim HD texture pack is using close to 1800MB of vRAM. Can't wait for these 3GB cards :D.

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.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
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.

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.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
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?
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.
Exactly.
 

njdevilsfan87

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2007
2,327
249
106
Skyrim with some texture mods at 1080p, 4xAA, 16xAF = me breaking 1700MB. It's hardly useless. If you're not going to download texture packs, you might as well just get the 360 version. I'm pretty sure I was hitting 1300MB in RIFT as well.

I remember once when I went with the "oh but _ is enough and _ is a waste"... never again.
 
Last edited:

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
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.
 
Last edited:

Bobisuruncle54

Senior member
Oct 19, 2011
333
0
0
BF3, playing at 2048x1152, Afterburner reads from "GPU1 memory usage" at 1.8GB within minutes of playing BF3 and up to over 3GB in some instances. Most of the time it's at the 2500-2800MB mark.

Take it or leave it. Got a screenshot to show it below, have two even.

Is Afterburner wrong?! Is it quoting memory usage for both cards even when it specifically states it's for GPU1?

bf320111213024106348.jpg


bf320111213024159084.jpg
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
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.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
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.
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.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
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.

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.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
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.
 
Last edited:

Awkward

Senior member
Mar 29, 2011
274
0
0
What's it like fanboying a company that doesn't care about you?


Thread-crapping and personal insults are not acceptable.

Administrator Idontcare
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Firestorm007

Senior member
Dec 9, 2010
396
1
0
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.
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. :rolleyes: 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.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
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.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
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.
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.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,096
640
126
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

For the GTX 580 the reviewer's statements make a lot of sense but a couple points:

1) That test was from August and couple demanding games have since been released (Skyrim and BF3) that both use a lot of vram. The conclusion might change if the review were done today.

2) You can't get any AMD or Nvidia cards with 1.5GB of vram expect the 580 or 480. So with any other enthusiast card you basically have to choose between 1GB and 2GB (except the GTX 570). There has been ample evidence in this thread where 1GB just won't cut it so your point is moot except for the very specific instance of choosing between a 3GB and 1.5GB GTX 580. In that case, I agree, 3GB is probably a waste.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
From these comments, the 5970 with it's 1gb was never the fastest video card, it was just a pretender. :)
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,096
640
126
From these comments, the 5970 with it's 1gb was never the fastest video card, it was just a pretender. :)

Lol. It was the fastest video card for quite a while however in a few vram-limited games the GTX 480's greater memory proved beneficial.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
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
From these comments, the 5970 with it's 1gb was never the fastest video card, it was just a pretender. :)
You either don't understand the discussion or are purposefully convoluting it on (another) pro-NVIDIA rant. Which is it?
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
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.

Funny using the $1500 Mars II to defend not spending extra for more vram. :\ The most expensive card on the planet.

Two hundred dollars for 3gig of ram? What orifice did w1zzard pull that statement out of? Sorry. I really like w1zzard's reviews, but he's showing a bit of bias in this case. Maybe because it's an Asus card? Maybe he had to give a 590 a good review to get back into good grace with nVidia? Maybe he feels guilty about detonating the other 590's? Or maybe he's trying to subtly tell us how overpriced the card is already and if it had 3Gb (x2) of vram it would be $300 more expensive at it's mark up/BOP?