Most Demanding Game

[PCgamer81]

Well the more important question is, "am I interested in SLI?" Personally it's something I like to avoid. The question beyond that is when to pull the trigger and do it. People do always say, "I'll buy one of these now and crossfire it later!" But when later comes it's not always a good choice to go for the crossfire setup. In this case. games are encroaching on 1.28gb vram and that is one thing that SLI can't fix. If the 570 had say, 2gb or 3gb of VRam, I think SLI'ing it would be obvious and cleanly head and shoulders. With it having 1.28gb, at least my model anyway, I think there is a much larger grey area between buying for speed now or choosing a new platform that will potentially have enough VRam that even a year down the road, there will be enough headroom in the frame buffer department to justify SLI'ing/crossfiring for speed.

Personally I wouldn't pull the trigger and SLI the 570's now that hardware is moving in the direction of larger amounts of VRam, which likely means games are going to go the route of consuming it since it's there. Personal call though. The 570 has a ton of positives going for it and it's not a bad platform to SLI on. It just won't be the one I choose to SLI on.

I can understand that. I can't argue that games aren't gobbling up more V-Ram, because they are. I believe that there are other factors one has weigh out. And that is why I think dual 570s are the better option. But, that is a personal call.

There are a lot of people that will always take bigger card over two smaller, faster cards. SLi and Crossfire has gotten so popular recently, I guess it's easy to forget that.

I would always prefer speed over size, but then again, I have always driven Mazda and it's just ingrained into my psyche. 😉

 

[casualcolors]

It's not really that one is "bigger" and the other is "faster". It's just that the delta between crossfire 7970's and sli 570's is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenormous and the 7970 is likely not at risk of stumbling on its VRAM for years. The 570's VRAM is getting sketchy just today, let alone a year from now. That means investing in 2 of them is doubly sketchy.

If you were planning to SLI 2 3gb 570's it would be a good call. I can tell you though from first hand experience with the hardware and relatively good knowledge on the subject in general, you'll be a lot happier in the end if you were to sell your 570 now to offset some of the cost of a 680/7970 as opposed to forking out another 300 bucks on a 1.28gb 570.

If anything else were on the block as a shortcoming, SLI could be the answer. But VRAM is the one thing that will screw you no matter how many cards you have. And 1.28gb is just not a top tier amount of it anymore. I can actually consume my framebuffer just in BF3, which has been out closing in on half a year already at this point. I definitely agree with mikem on this one. It's a no brainer.

 

[PCgamer81]

I am sorry that I myself cannot. I haven't seen any data that proves what he's saying. But I have posted many examples to the contrary.

Here is a good very short article I want both of you to read. It is only a few sentences long and explains it better than I can.

http://www.gpureview.com/framebuffer-article-345.html

 

[casualcolors]

The article is about the speed of the memory (which is increasing in each generation). The problem is that you're kind of assuming to be true that the 570's memory is so fast already that there won't be any need in the near future to upgrade, which is false. There is software already that is exposing the limitations of 1.28gb onboard VRAM regardless of speed, and even with the large mem bus on the 570 (shared by the 7970 but abandoned by GK104 Kepler). That's why the amount of onboard VRAM is pivotal at this point, in this particular comparison.

 

[PCgamer81]

I challenge anyone who's reading this to post a clear example of V-Ram making a difference.

580 1.5GB vs 580 3GB is the best comparison that comes to mind.

But, feel free to post any example.

Benchmark, youtube, review, anything.

 

[casualcolors]

I challenge anyone who's reading this to post a clear example of V-Ram making a difference.

580 1.5GB vs 580 3GB is the best comparison that comes to mind.

But, feel free to post any example.

Benchmark, youtube, review, anything.

Ah see, you're overlooking something. BF3 is one of the biggest VRAM consumers out there right now and it is just barely barely barely capable of saturating 1.5gb. It can more than saturate 1.28gb without any convoluted scenarios though, which is particularly critical to the point of discussion since we're talking about the 1.28gb 570, not the 1.5gb 580.

 

[PCgamer81]

The article is about the speed of the memory (which is increasing in each generation). The problem is that you're kind of assuming to be true that the 570's memory is so fast already that there won't be any need in the near future to upgrade, which is false. There is software already that is exposing the limitations of 1.28gb onboard VRAM regardless of speed, and even with the large mem bus on the 570 (shared by the 7970 but abandoned by GK104 Kepler). That's why the amount of onboard VRAM is pivotal at this point, in this particular comparison.

I realize that demands are getting bigger.

I am saying that today, size>speed. But, that's not always true. And it is becoming less true with each generation. I get that.

What I am saying, is that it is true in the case of 570SLi vs 7970. It is true with the 570 1.2GB which stomps the 6970 2GB. It is true with the 1.5GB 580 which is every bit as powerful as the 3GB version. It is true with the 6970x2 that is as good as the powercolor release, despite less V-Ram.

It is true is many, many cases. Mikem has yet to show a single example to the contrary.

 

[casualcolors]

I realize that demands are getting bigger.

I am saying that today, size>speed. But, that's not always true. And it is becoming less true with each generation. I get that.

What I am saying, is that it is true in the case of 570SLi vs 7970. It is true with the 570 1.2GB which stomps the 6970 2GB. It is true with the 1.5GB 580 which is every bit as powerful as the 3GB version. It is true with the 6970x2 that is as good as the powercolor release, despite less V-Ram.

It is true is many, many cases. Mikem has yet to show a single example to the contrary.

The point mikem was making is not that a 7970 is faster than sli 570's. That's untrue but he's well aware of it. The futureproofing of 3gb (or 2gb even) onboard VRAM is so important right now because of where game design is heading though, that it alone is a justification to step off the 1.28gb platform. That is mikem's point. And he's exactly right, beyond any shadow of doubt even.

A way to think of it is like this: 3gb of VRAM might provide enough physical overhead that 2 years from now, you could still look at a 7970 and say "yeah it's worth crossfiring that" because the VRAM still won't be getting fully consumed, therefor it is no risk to impede the otherwise fast speed of 2 7970's.

You can't say the same thing about 2 570's though, and you couldn't say it about them 6 months ago or even a year ago. That's the perspective that he's applying to my situation. It's exactly the same way that I look at it because it is the most logical when you're talking about investing money in one product vice another.

 

[PCgamer81]

Ah see, you're overlooking something. BF3 is one of the biggest VRAM consumers out there right now and it is just barely barely barely capable of saturating 1.5gb. It can more than saturate 1.28gb without any convoluted scenarios though, which is particularly critical to the point of discussion since we're talking about the 1.28gb 570, not the 1.5gb 580.

I understand that you are probably right. I am not trying to argue with what you are saying, I just think you misunderstand me.

I realize that V-Ram is becoming more and more important. I don't dispute that.

I am saying that for 1080p gaming today, V-Ram is not that important, as long as you have at least 1GB.

Again, I could be wrong. After all, it wasn't that long ago that I thought Crossfire/Sli doubled the V-Ram one had. I have only been into PC's since 05, and only been into desktops since 08. I am sure you have more experience. I just think you misunderstand what I am saying.

I haven't seen any examples where the amount of V-Ram is more pertinent to better benchmarks than speed in 1080p gaming today. That is what I am saying. And until I do, I would be hard pressed to recommend the 7970 over two 570s.

I am sorry if I seem obtuse or stubborn.

 

[casualcolors]

I understand that you are probably right. I am not trying to argue with what you are saying, I just think you misunderstand me.

I realize that V-Ram is becoming more and more important. I don't dispute that.

I am saying that for 1080p gaming today, V-Ram is not that important, as long as you have at least 1GB.

Again, I could be wrong. After all, it wasn't that long ago that I thought Crossfire/Sli doubled the V-Ram one had. I have only been into PC's since 05, and only been into desktops since 08. I am sure you have more experience. I just think you misunderstand what I am saying.

I haven't seen any examples where the amount of V-Ram is more pertinent to better benchmarks than speed in 1080p gaming today. That is what I am saying. And until I do, I would be hard pressed to recommend the 7970 over two 570s.

I am sorry if I seem obtuse or stubborn.

Edited my above post with a little glimpse into the logic that you should check just because I think it more accurately explains our position. You're right that today 1920x1080 is largely ok for 1.28gb. That's true. The problem is that in my shoes, I'm not going to spend another 300 dollars on a second card when the amount of VRAM on the 2 cards might not be sufficient in under a year down the road. When I'm facing that situation there is no question I would rather sell my current card for 200 bucks, put that toward offsetting the cost of a gtx 680 at 499.99, and come out investing the same 300 dollars out of pocket for a new platform that will likely stand the test of time a little better.

It's all about the futureproofing. SLI 570's aren't any more important to me here today than a 680 or a 7970. Any of the 3 solutions will play my games and do a damned good job of it. But I'm not worried about the games I'm playing today 😉 For them, even a single 570 is fine at my resolution. Hell, more than fine even.

 

[PCgamer81]

Edited my above post with a little glimpse into the logic that you should check just because I think it more accurately explains our position. You're right that today 1920x1080 is largely ok for 1.28gb. That's true. The problem is that in my shoes, I'm not going to spend another 300 dollars on a second card when the amount of VRAM on the 2 cards might not be sufficient in under a year down the road. When I'm facing that situation there is no question I would rather sell my current card for 200 bucks, put that toward offsetting the cost of a gtx 680 at 499.99, and come out investing the same 300 dollars out of pocket for a new platform that will likely stand the test of time a little better.

It's all about the futureproofing. SLI 570's aren't any more important to me here today than a 680 or a 7970. Any of the 3 solutions will play my games and do a damned good job of it. But I'm not worried about the games I'm playing today 😉 For them, even a single 570 is fine at my resolution. Hell, more than fine even.

Then it looks like we're in agreement.

(VRAM becoming more important but the size/speed ratio making the dual 570s the better option for the near future)

And I agree that 570 is a great card for today. I almost went with the 570 but it chose the 6970 because of Dirt 3 and poor advice, I wouldn't have had to add another 6970 if I had gone with the 570.

 

[PCgamer81]

I do have one last question...

Even though we have seen (and I have demonstrated) that the 580 1.5GB is every bit the equal of the 580 3GB (even so much as not providing even a minimal increase in 99% of games, regardless of the resolution), do you think that 5 years from now that will change? And if so, how much?

And at what point do you think that the 2GB 6970 will overtake the 1.5GB 580?

 

[bystander]

Then it looks like we're in agreement.

(VRAM becoming more important but the size/speed ratio making the dual 570s the better option for the near future)

And I agree that 570 is a great card for today. I almost went with the 570 but it chose the 6970 because of Dirt 3 and poor advice, I wouldn't have had to add another 6970 if I had gone with the 570.

Why would the 6970 require crossfire and the 570 wouldn't? They have very similar performance.

As to your question about when games will need more than 2GB, I'll say that the gaming industry will always work with the hardware available at the time. If cards are starting to be build with 2GB-3GB as the norm, you can expect developers to take advantage of it as much as they can. There aren't enough of these cards out there with that kind of vram, but all the latest cards are being built with it, so I expect things to change soon.

 

[PCgamer81]

Why would the 6970 require crossfire and the 570 wouldn't? They have very similar performance.

As to your question about when games will need more than 2GB, I'll say that the gaming industry will always work with the hardware available at the time. If cards are starting to be build with 2GB-3GB as the norm, you can expect developers to take advantage of it as much as they can. There aren't enough of these cards out there with that kind of vram, but all the latest cards are being built with it, so I expect things to change soon.

It is not that the 6970 requires crossfire and the 570 doesn't. In my opinion, a single 570 owns a single 6970 at 1080p and below.

I added a second card because I lacked the "oomph" I wanted for 1080p gaming. A 570, while not being much better, would have provided a few fps more and as a result I probably wouldn't have bothered upgrading.

 

[PCgamer81]

Also, higher resolutions require a larger framebuffer. As the average resolution of gamers grow larger and larger, more and more V-Ram is required.

The jump in V-Ram corresponds to the jump in resolutions. A 512MB 8800 was good when people were gaming in 1280x1024, but as resolutions are getting better and better, the amount of V-Ram is becoming more and more important. But within a given resolution, the speed of the memory is far more important than the size. As such, 1GB-2GB will always suffice for 1080p as long as it's fast enough.

 

[casualcolors]

I do have one last question...

Even though we have seen (and I have demonstrated) that the 580 1.5GB is every bit the equal of the 580 3GB (even so much as not providing even a minimal increase in 99% of games, regardless of the resolution), do you think that 5 years from now that will change? And if so, how much?

And at what point do you think that the 2GB 6970 will overtake the 1.5GB 580?

I think that the 3gb VRAM on the special 3gb models is more future proof than the 1.5gb models and I do think that within the next 5 years (and much sooner) that will be reflected with desirable games, yes.

To your second question, I think that in terms of enjoyable play experience, a 2gb 6970 might provide a better experience in some titles than a 1.5gb 580 when you finally have a game that can often saturate 2gb of VRAM at a ubiquitous resolution like 1920x1080. That's hypothetical though since the debate will be moot by the time that it's the case. When games are consuming in that area between 1.5 and 2gb all the time, you'll always be able to disable multisampling on the 580 and it will push faster framerates (enough so that the 6970 will likely even out performance-wise with its lower core clocks). If you wanted to do a test here and now to exhibit the hypothetical though, a good comparison would be the 768mb gtx 460 vs. a stock 1gb 460. Not quite the same margin as 1.5 to 2gb but since 1gb is the standard, would reflect the same result in essence.

 

[PCgamer81]

I think that the 3gb VRAM on the special 3gb models is more future proof than the 1.5gb models and I do think that within the next 5 years (and much sooner) that will be reflected with desirable games, yes.

To your second question, I think that in terms of enjoyable play experience, a 2gb 6970 might provide a better experience in some titles than a 1.5gb 580 when you finally have a game that can often saturate 2gb of VRAM at a ubiquitous resolution like 1920x1080. That's hypothetical though since the debate will be moot by the time that it's the case. When games are consuming in that area between 1.5 and 2gb all the time, you'll always be able to disable multisampling on the 580 and it will push faster framerates (enough so that the 6970 will likely even out performance-wise with its lower core clocks). If you wanted to do a test here and now to exhibit the hypothetical though, a good comparison would be the 768mb gtx 460 vs. a stock 1gb 460. Not quite the same margin as 1.5 to 2gb but since 1gb is the standard, would reflect the same result in essence.

Very good answer, thank you.

 

[casualcolors]

Very good answer, thank you.

Actually let me refine my answer a little bit. It's hard to say "the day that games use 1.6-2gb vram constantly will be the day the 6970 will equal the 580 in performance" because there is a little more to it than that. The 580 has more processing power overall so the 6970 is actually trying to bridge an existing gap on the existence of more vram alone in that scenario. How I actually expect it to go is like this (these numbers will be exaggerated but it's only to reflect the point):

We're 3 years in the future and games all use 1.6gb to 2gb vram all the time. You have the 1.5gb 580 and a 2gb 6970. You have them both at stock clocks and the 6970 is pulling 40 fps in game X. The 580 is pulling 50 fps. You're running both instances of the game at max settings but with 0x anti aliasing for these measurements.

Now, you enable 4x multisampling. the 6970's fps drops from 40 to 37. The 580's drops from 50 to 40.

The 6970 still pulls slightly less fps overall, but the impact that the multisampling has should be drastically less than on the 580 where vram was already being choked just running the game without anti aliasing at all.

That's all hypothetical, but that's more specifically how I see the scenario between those 2 cards specifically. I probably should have included all of that above.

 

[jfizzle4321]

arma II by a landslide. I get 60+ fps in bf3 maxed whereas I need to turn everything to high instead of very high and turn view distance to 3600 to 60 fps. No competition.

 

[casualcolors]

arma II by a landslide. I get 60+ fps in bf3 maxed whereas I need to turn everything to high instead of very high and turn view distance to 3600 to 60 fps. No competition.

Check the post at the top of the page. The top competing games were benchmarked. From most to least demanding it went Arma 2, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Crysis.

 

[PCgamer81]

arma II by a landslide. I get 60+ fps in bf3 maxed whereas I need to turn everything to high instead of very high and turn view distance to 3600 to 60 fps. No competition.

Yes, but ARMA 2 is ugly as sin and doesn't have crossfire support.

 

[PCgamer81]

Actually let me refine my answer a little bit. It's hard to say "the day that games use 1.6-2gb vram constantly will be the day the 6970 will equal the 580 in performance" because there is a little more to it than that. The 580 has more processing power overall so the 6970 is actually trying to bridge an existing gap on the existence of more vram alone in that scenario. How I actually expect it to go is like this (these numbers will be exaggerated but it's only to reflect the point):

We're 3 years in the future and games all use 1.6gb to 2gb vram all the time. You have the 1.5gb 580 and a 2gb 6970. You have them both at stock clocks and the 6970 is pulling 40 fps in game X. The 580 is pulling 50 fps. You're running both instances of the game at max settings but with 0x anti aliasing for these measurements.

Now, you enable 4x multisampling. the 6970's fps drops from 40 to 37. The 580's drops from 50 to 40.

The 6970 still pulls slightly less fps overall, but the impact that the multisampling has should be drastically less than on the 580 where vram was already being choked just running the game without anti aliasing at all.

That's all hypothetical, but that's more specifically how I see the scenario between those 2 cards specifically. I probably should have included all of that above.

Thank you for your excellent answer.

Again, I have noticed that the increase in V-Ram corresponds to the increase in gaming resolutions. Now days, more and more gamers are going up to 2560x1600 and beyond, and many are gaming on multiple monitors. It only stands that future GPUs will come bigger and bigger, not just faster and faster.

What I find curious, is that the 3GB 580 offers virtually no advantage over the 1.5GB version, even at insanely high resolutions. It is true that it has a lot to do with the games today, and that the games in the future could change that. But I firmly believe that when the future games do change that, it will be at the higher resolutions, and not so much at the lower resolutions - but again, such things are subjective and have more to do with personal needs and personal tastes.

 

[PCgamer81]

Check the post at the top of the page. The top competing games were benchmarked. From most to least demanding it went Arma 2, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Crysis.

He did a good job proving that ARMA 2 is the most demanding game he owns for his particular system.

Out of the games I have played on my system, Crysis/Crysis 2 DX11 are the most legitimately demanding.

And from what I hear, Witcher 2 would be even more so.

As for Metro 2033 being more demanding than Crysis...

I am afraid that is not the case, at least not for my system.

I max Metro 2033 at about 60-80fps. In Crysis, I get 50-60fps.

 

[casualcolors]

He did a good job proving that ARMA 2 is the most demanding game he owns for his particular system.

Out of the games I have played on my system, Crysis/Crysis 2 DX11 are the most legitimately demanding.

And from what I hear, Witcher 2 would be even more so.

As for Metro 2033 being more demanding than Crysis...

I am afraid that is not the case, at least not for my system.

I max Metro 2033 at about 60-80fps. In Crysis, I get 50-60fps.

Metro also scales better in crossfire. Is newer, programmed a little better, and so on.

 

[bystander]

He did a good job proving that ARMA 2 is the most demanding game he owns for his particular system.

Out of the games I have played on my system, Crysis/Crysis 2 DX11 are the most legitimately demanding.

And from what I hear, Witcher 2 would be even more so.

As for Metro 2033 being more demanding than Crysis...

I am afraid that is not the case, at least not for my system.

I max Metro 2033 at about 60-80fps. In Crysis, I get 50-60fps.

No, you prooved that Metro 2033 was more demanding on your system, unless you turn off DoF.