GTX 560ti 448 to replace the originals?

Shago said:
I want this new turd because in my country a GTX570 costs at least € 300 ($ 400). So if I could save € 80 ($100) to get a slimmed down GTX 570, why not?
Click to expand...


So now that it is out and I guess you have read some reviews, what do you think? Is it a good buy compared to the 570 (in your country)?



apoppin said:
Have you considered that perhaps they are keeping their naming options open?
. . . 565 ... 575 ... 585?
:eek:
Click to expand...


Sure that is something to consider but going back to post #7 (posted a day before u) you can see that someone already the retail box :D
 
Frito said:
well reviews are now coming out, its just barely slower than the 570, no surprise there because its a 570 with 14 shader cores disabled :)
Click to expand...

Waiting for the Hardocp review where the 6950 somehow beats it by 7 %. but every other review on the internet says the 6950 is slower.:rolleyes:
 
cannondale06 said:
so now you decide which games qualify? some people put tons of hours into GTA 4 and Clear Sky so to disregard those is silly. and AGAIN I said the 6950 is capable of running a few games at settings that will exceed 1gb. that is 100% FACT. I can post screenshots all day long showing you vram usage over 1gb at settings that are playable for that card. all you keep doing is looking at performance compared to other cards when I never said anything more than it would be playable.
Click to expand...

My 6950 2gb is consistently in-between 1800 ~ 1900mb used in BF3 at 1920x1080 with 4xAA....I average around 60fps, pending map.
 
happymedium said:
ANd a 6950 1gb card will run the same settings at the same speed.
Click to expand...


But using less memory.

So what does that mean? That less textures will be loaded up? Something is different between the two. You don't just get additional memory being filled up with no benefit.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
But using less memory.

So what does that mean? That less textures will be loaded up? Something is different between the two. You don't just get additional memory being filled up with no benefit.
Click to expand...

RUns the same, looks the same, is the same. Memory is streamed when needed.

Picture a 1gb pool of memory and the game needs say 750mb to run, it will just take memory as it needs it and puts memory back into the pool. at the same time.

Now take 2gb pool of memory and the games still needs 750mb to run, it will still take the memory it needs and puts the memory back into the pool also.

The difference is Afterburner measures the pool of memory, not the amount being streamed.

Why else would a gtx 560 ti 448 core with 1.2gb of memory be kicking the 2gb 6950's ass @ 1900x1080p ultra settings ?
I dont think the card is running out of memory.

How mant times have you heard my card uses 1.5gb of memory with a 6950 2gb? How can a gtx560 card with 1.2 gb use 1.5gb of memory? The answer is the game dosent need it and the card will run the game exactly the same as a 6950 2gb..

GTX-560-448-ROUNDUP-60.jpg
 
Last edited:
happymedium said:
RUns the same, looks the same, is the same. Memory is streamed when needed.

Picture a 1gb pool of memory and the game needs say 750mb to run, it will just take memory as it needs it and puts memory back into the pool. at the same time.

Now take 2gb pool of memory and the games still needs 750mb to run, it will still take the memory it needs and puts the memory back into the pool also.

The difference is Afterburner measures the pool of memory, not the amount being streamed.

Why else would a gtx 560 ti 448 core with 1.2gb of memory be kicking the 2gb 6950's ass @ 1900x1080p ultra settings ?
I dont think the card is running out of memory.

How mant times have you heard my card uses 1.5gb of memory with a 6950 2gb? How can a gtx560 card with 1.2 gb use 1.5gb of memory? The answer is the game dosent need it and the card will run the game exactly the same as a 6950 2gb..

GTX-560-448-ROUNDUP-60.jpg
Click to expand...



BF3 and other titles are like Windows 7 with Superfetch: it caches what is available for the most part, it doesn't mean it *NEEDS* all of the RAM/VRAM available. It will fill it oftentimes if available, but it can run properly without. Good post, sir happymedium.
 
A modded Fallout 3 install will stutter when it runs out of vram. The same goes for New Vegas and Oblivion. I would imagine that Skyrim will do the same. Doom 3 with texture mods uses well over 1GB of vram, I haven't tested performance in that one much. The source port Darkplaces with the texture packs that I use use over 1GB of vram. Serious Sam 3 BFE need more than 1GB of vram to play smoothly on max settings. I'm sure that there are more examples especially once you start talking mods.

Yes, BF3 and Crysis 2 cache into vram. That doesn't mean that more than 1GB of video memory isn't useful in other games.

8u2mB.jpg
 
happymedium said:
RUns the same, looks the same, is the same. Memory is streamed when needed.

Picture a 1gb pool of memory and the game needs say 750mb to run, it will just take memory as it needs it and puts memory back into the pool. at the same time.

Now take 2gb pool of memory and the games still needs 750mb to run, it will still take the memory it needs and puts the memory back into the pool also.

The difference is Afterburner measures the pool of memory, not the amount being streamed.
Click to expand...



I don't understand what you mean.

Using your first example, if 750MB were needed for the game, would it take it and hold on to it? Versus taking it and immediately putting it back? I don't understand that.

And you say afterburner measures the "pool" of memory, what does that mean? My card is 1GB but on monitoring when it has memory usage enabled it always shows a number less than that. That number changes depending on game and even within the same game depending on what settings are being used.

So if someone states that at 1920x1080 they see up to 1800MB being used (like they did above), you say that there isn't a single difference between that and someone using a 1GB card? If so, why is the extra memory being held onto or what purpose does it serve if there isn't a single difference.
 
GoldenTiger said:
BF3 and other titles are like Windows 7 with Superfetch: it caches what is available for the most part, it doesn't mean it *NEEDS* all of the RAM/VRAM available. It will fill it oftentimes if available, but it can run properly without. Good post, sir happymedium.
Click to expand...


By running "properly" does that means that it runs exactly the same? If so, why would it use or hold the extra memory at all if there is no difference?

I'm not understanding that part.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
By running "properly" does that means that it runs exactly the same? If so, why would it use or hold the extra memory at all if there is no difference?

I'm not understanding that part.
Click to expand...

It caches textures that its not using at the moment into the video memory. So that way it doesn't have to grab them on the fly when the bandwith could be used for other purposes.
 
So if textures are being cached, does that mean that with similar settings, a card with 2GB of memory would have better FPS because textures are accessible quicker (vs. using system memory)?

Or is it that caching isn't necessary because it can grab those textures just as quickly so you wouldn't notice a difference in FPS anyways?

or is it something else?
 
needmorecarnitine said:
So if textures are being cached, does that mean that with similar settings, a card with 2GB of memory would have better FPS because textures are accessible quicker (vs. using system memory)?

Or is it that caching isn't necessary because it can grab those textures just as quickly so you wouldn't notice a difference in FPS anyways?

or is it something else?
Click to expand...

Most peoples computers have way more memory bandwith than games take advantage of these days. Should be able to stream them out of memory more than quickly enough.
 
needmorecarnitine said:
So if textures are being cached, does that mean that with similar settings, a card with 2GB of memory would have better FPS because textures are accessible quicker (vs. using system memory)?

Or is it that caching isn't necessary because it can grab those textures just as quickly so you wouldn't notice a difference in FPS anyways?

or is it something else?
Click to expand...

You'd get minute, tiny hitches (called load stutters) generally... however, I have an SSD and load stutters = non-existent. I run BF3 for example on maxed settings, no MSAA, + Medium FXAA setting, looks gorgeous, runs gorgeous, no load stutters, and yes I only have 1280mb of VRAM on my GTX 570 SLI (2560x1600 resolution) ;). I play a hell of a lot of games, and other than trying to pump up MSAA too high to where I would run out of GPU horsepower even if the VRAM were present, I am not limited by by VRAM at all. The whole "OMG YOU NEED 2GB/3GB" thing is currently way, way overblown.
 
BababooeyHTJ said:
Most peoples computers have way more memory bandwith than games take advantage of these days. Should be able to stream them out of memory more than quickly enough.
Click to expand...


So even though the card may load larger amounts of texures into memory, you wouldn't notice a difference with a card that has less memory assuming its memory access is quick enough?
 
happymedium, you were already told in another thread about how BF 3 works. yes it will use more memory if you have it available and NO its not wasted in that game because you get more detail loaded in with more vram. so yes the actual framerates may be the same but the 6950 with more vram has loaded up a little more detail. I am too lazy to look for the link but even screenshots were provided.
 
So if you were to bump up MSAA in BF3 you would suffer from a severe lack of VRAM with 1.2G? The graphics in BF3 with MSAA enabled look gorgeous and I would hate to have to limit that beauty.

Very interesting topic. Please continue the discussion because the talk of the town is to get more VRAM but I would like to stick with Nvidia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top