680 Discussion (2gb not enuf Vram - agree or disagree)

[Russell_PC]

The 680s are amazing yes!..
but, I cant accept the 2gb Vram limitation,
yeah I know "2gb is fine and dandy cause no current games ever use more than 1.9gb at 1080p etc etc etc" ...
BUT, 2gb is not enough for future proof reassurance, there's a couple games almost maxing out the 2gb limit as is, and give it 2 years, maybe even 1 year, and games will well undoubtedly breach those 2gbs.

And not to mention SLI future proofing,
I mean if you wanna plug in 2 or even 3 extra 680 into your system down the road sometime for that extra power, well shame, cause the 2gb is gonna bottleneck the additional power due to the graphical demands of the future, and a lot of that extra processing power from 2way, 3way, and especially 4 way SLI will go to waste.

Anyway,
The reason for this Discussion is to vent some of my frustration while I wait for the 4gb cards to be released.
And that's when the 680 will really be amazing! (in terms of future proofing).

What ever you point of view, if disgree or agree, feel free to comment, justify, & discuss bellow

My point of view:
I'm not saying 2gb isn't enough VRAM - for now,
What I am saying is that it wont be for long.

 

[bystander]

I play a modded Skyrim at 1920x1200 and I've maxed out my 1.5 gb limit on my 3 way 580 sli set up. I understand the OP's point about wasted power. Though the memory is not shared, frame rates are capped by the swapping of textures into system memory which is horribly slower than the gpu's on board memory. The VRAM bottlenecks and I'm getting 40 fps in some cases. Before anyone starts with the "that's more than playable" argument. I think most sli users are hoping for "more than playable" for the amount invested. I should be getting a solid 60 fps and I'm not because my VRAM is maxed. All it takes is a few high res textures and you are stuttering all over the place. I think currently 3 gb's is the sweet spot. Given my experience I'd wait for a 4 gb 680.

You are assuming that with the modded Skryim, the reason you drop to 40 FPS occasionally, is due to vram and not the cpu. Skyrim is known to get CPU bottlenecked in certain areas causing some FPS dips.

 

[alrobichaud]

Even at 5760x1200, the extra 1GB of VRAM didn't give the 7970x2 an advantage over the 680SLi.

Doesn't the 680 throttle down the framerate on the peripheral monitors when running in 3dsurround in order to increase FPS on the focus monitor? Could be one of the reasons why the 680's were able to keep up with only 2GB VRAM.

 

[PCgamer81]

Doesn't the 680 throttle down the framerate on the peripheral monitors when running in 3dsurround in order to increase FPS on the focus monitor? Could be one of the reasons why the 680's were able to keep up with only 2GB VRAM.

The 680s were able to "keep up"?

You act as if the 680 were the inferior card. The 680 is superior. That is my point. VRAM is never a reason to choose a weaker card.

 

[PCgamer81]

I play a modded Skyrim at 1920x1200 and I've maxed out my 1.5 gb limit on my 3 way 580 sli set up. I understand the OP's point about wasted power. Though the memory is not shared, frame rates are capped by the swapping of textures into system memory which is horribly slower than the gpu's on board memory. The VRAM bottlenecks and I'm getting 40 fps in some cases. Before anyone starts with the "that's more than playable" argument. I think most sli users are hoping for "more than playable" for the amount invested. I should be getting a solid 60 fps and I'm not because my VRAM is maxed. All it takes is a few high res textures and you are stuttering all over the place. I think currently 3 gb's is the sweet spot. Given my experience I'd wait for a 4 gb 680.

Somehow, everything you said seems incorrect in light of...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-go-vs-1-go-sli-surround.html

...actual data.

 

[alrobichaud]

The 680s were able to "keep up"?

You act as if the 680 were the inferior card. The 680 is superior. That is my point. VRAM is never a reason to choose a weaker card.

Well, I say they are roughly equal. I never said inferior. Not sure why you think the 680 is superior but everyone has their own opinion so I am not going to call you wrong. My point was in widescreen resolutions the 680 and 7970 generally have about the same framerate and the point I was trying to make was the 7970 maintains the same framerate across all 3 monitors and the 680 only maintains a high framerate on the center monitor while giving a lower framerate on the peripheral monitors. Would the 680 be able to keep up in widescreen gaming if it tried to maintain the same high framerate across all 3 monitors with only 2GB VRAM. That is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Russell_PC]

To be honest no one has said anything that's incorrect.
the statements about 2 gb being enough vram are correct in the context used, & are well justified.
It all really just comes down to preference, and yes for most people 2gb is more then enough vram, but for us SLI hungry, futureproofing peoples out there with multi mon/3d setups the 4gb seems to be the safer choice, if not right now then definitely in the future.

I wouldnt go saying anyones wrong here and that u definitely need 4 or 2 gb of vram, and as alrobichaud just said it really is determined by preference.

and i completely agree with who ever said that they wouldnt let 2gb vram stop them from getting the 680 over the 7970 haha
the 680 is still the better card.

but for a minute few, (me included) the 2gb is really pushing it for what our goals are.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

wow alot of people throwing around the non existent " future proof" in this thread.

 

[Russell_PC]

Somehow, everything you said seems incorrect in light of...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-go-vs-1-go-sli-surround.html

...actual data.

btw he said modded skyrim (probably heavily modded too) they didn't test that in the review u posted here. these reviews are only testing games that barely push the 1.5gb limit as it is and therefore no, or very minimal vram bottlenecking. heavily modded skyrim uses upto 2.5 gb of vram, and i do say HEAVILY, and in this scenario I can most definitely see how his statement would be true.

 

[Russell_PC]

wow alot of people throwing around the non existent " future proof" in this thread.

read the thread properly this time.

 

[Russell_PC]

sorry, uncalled for i know. my bad
all i mean to say is that the term futureproofing in this scenario refers mainly to the use of future sli upgrading when ur current card falls behind standards.

 

[Russell_PC]

+1 my thoughts exactly

 

[Russell_PC]

Somehow, everything you said seems incorrect in light of...

http://www.hardware.fr/focus/50/test-geforce-gtx-580-3-go-vs-1-go-sli-surround.html

...actual data.

oh and also look at the graph for metro 2033 maxed out (2nd table) 1.5gb vs 3gb. its the only game there thats uses more than 1.5gbs of vram

the scaling for 1.5gb is a fraction of that of the 3gb.

so ur posted review actually proves him right

sorry

 

[PCgamer81]

oh and also look at the graph for metro 2033 maxed out (2nd table) 1.5gb vs 3gb. its the only game there thats uses more than 1.5gbs of vram

the scaling for 1.5gb is a fraction of that of the 3gb.

so ur posted review actually proves him right

sorry

Uh, no. Metro 2033 is one game. One game out of many. In light of how DEAD EVEN every other comparison was, I am inclined to chalk that one up as an anomaly, and in light of the evidence - you know, actual evidence - every reasonable minded person would do the same.

Look at the actual resolutions being used (insanely high), coupled with the fact that even at such insanely high resolutions (which are beyond the scope of 99% of gamers), 3GB of VRAM nets virtually one big goose egg of a performance increase over it's 1.5GB counterpart.

So in the end, I think MY POINT is the one that's proven, and rather thoroughly.

Sorry.

 

[Russell_PC]

yeah and we also referenced modded skyrim, which, doesn't have to be at insane resolutions

and i have 3 x asus vg278h which i use in 3d.

it's necessary.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

Uh, no. Metro 2033 is one game. One game out of many. In light of how DEAD EVEN every other comparison was, I am inclined to chalk that one up as an anomaly, and in light of the evidence - you know, actual evidence - every reasonable minded person would do the same.

Look at the actual resolutions being used (insanely high), coupled with the fact that even at such insanely high resolutions (which are beyond the scope of 99% of gamers), 3GB of VRAM nets virtually one big goose egg of a performance increase over it's 1.5GB counterpart.

So in the end, I think MY POINT is the one that's proven, and rather thoroughly.

Sorry.

i thought this would never happen.....
but i agree with pc gamer
there i said it LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!

 

[Russell_PC]

That's pretty fail logic... "Well that data point doesn't fit my assumption, and if true completely invalidates my argument, so I'll just assume it's an anomaly and ignore it." So yeah, your point is proven rather thoroughly, except for, you know, the couple of data points that completely invalidate it.

That Metro data point shows that there do exist situations right now where having only 1.5 GB of vram renders a game unplayable at maximum settings. Others exist as well. Generally, they do not exist at 1080p yet, although as has been said, if you mod a game like Skyrim enough, it can easily use 3GB of vram at a meager 1080p (it's really high res texture mods + ugrids increases + higher-than-ultra graphics settings on things like draw distance and shadows that cause such insane vram use... my skyrim regularly sits at 2.7-3.0 GB of vram usage).

Extra vram does not really help performance, but it prevents complete performance crashes that occur if you run out of vram.

+1 totally agree.

 

[PCgamer81]

I'm having trouble deciding between a 1GB 560Ti and a 2GB 4870.

Any help there?

I am also having a bit of trouble deciding between the 6990 (4GB), and a dual 680SLi graphics solution (2GB).

Input?

The point it, VRAM is important...after you've considered just about everything else that is even more important.

In a race for which is fastest, let us not stop and consider size...at least not until everything else is first considered.

Gawd, people.

 

[Guest]

I personally think that in 2 years time the 7970 will be faster then a gtx 680 by then i could see alot of games that will take up more then 2 gb.I think as time goes on the 7970 will gain in performance and possibly surpass it when new graphics engines are released that are vram hogs

 

[PCgamer81]

I have no problems with your argument as a general starting point. I just thought it was worth pointing out that that your link above actually shows that vram CAN be crucial to a purchasing decision, at times even moreso than what GPU you want to get.

My point is simply that it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. As a generalization, I agree with you, I just think that happens to be a fairly risky generalization to make.

Also, the 6990 and 680SLI have the same amount of usable vram, so that particular example doesn't matter to a vram discussion

OK, daddy mack.

At what point would you surmise that a weaker card would be a better option?

In what instance would you generalize a weaker card being superior to a stronger card on the basis of VRAM alone?

I'm waiting...

 

[Russell_PC]

mikem711 just said why

 

[PCgamer81]

I am flabbergasted that you would overlook such a clear cut example and use an anomaly as an excuse to ignore the facts.

Do you really think a 580SLi gets 1fps in Metro 2033, even at 5760x1080?

 

[PCgamer81]

Unless I'm really missing something here, the 6990 only has 2GB x2 of vram... 2GB for each GPU chip, just like a normal CF/SLI setup. I know that's how the GTX 590 works, anyways. So I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm pretty sure it has 4GB...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_lcs_hd6990_4gb/3.htm

 

[FlintIronStagg]

I'm pretty sure it has 4GB...

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_lcs_hd6990_4gb/3.htm

sorry but its 2x2gb not.4gb

 

[PCgamer81]

sorry but its 2x2gb not.4gb

Well, regardless. It's billed as such. It has 4GB plastered all over it. In every review, on every box, plastered there, plain as day...

So if I made a mistake, all but the crappiest of trolls could excuse me for doing so.

 

[PCgamer81]

Oh and it's pretty much the exact same thing as cards like the GTS 430 being given 4GB of vram and marketed as 4GB graphics cards... it's all designed to trick people who haven't done their research into buying something that really isn't as good as it sounds.

Shows over.

Thanks for playing.

*takes bow*