Yes! The card has 4GB but only 2gigs dedicated per gpu. You don't get 4 gigs shared. Either way if the card performs, who gives a rats but how much vram it has? So many times [H] has done reviews on cards showing lower vram cards outperforming higher vram cards at higher resolutions. It's been proven over and over and over again like beating a dead horse to death for the fifty millionth time yet people keep coming on here complaining about how nVidia is gimping their cards with lower vrams....lol
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
NVIDIA to launch GeForce GTX TITAN Black Edition and GeForce GTX 790
- Thread starter PRIME1
- Start date
Yes! The card has 4GB but only 2gigs dedicated per gpu. You don't get 4 gigs shared. Either way if the card performs, who gives a rats but how much vram it has? So many times [H] has done reviews on cards showing lower vram cards outperforming higher vram cards at higher resolutions. It's been proven over and over and over again like beating a dead horse to death for the fifty millionth time yet people keep coming on here complaining about how nVidia is gimping their cards with lower vrams....lol
failwheeldrive
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 530
Yet if you look at all the benchmarks out there, the 690 and Mars 760 handle 2560x1440 and even 4k without aa just fine. Check out the link I posted above. Shows benchmarks for both cards running at 4k.
but but his card has lower vrams... it can't handle high resoutions or aa...... LOL
Matthew Kane
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,233
Just checked out the benchmarks. The Mar's 760 does offer pretty good performance for the money compared to the Titan and the 780 and for less, man the last Mars card I looked up was the dual gtx580's, yonks ago.
i had a 690, fell for the "4 gb" label when in fact its only 2 gb usable like someone mentioned. At 1600P, i was hitting the vram ceiling. upgrading to 2x 780's alleviated that, resulting in noticeably improved fluidity at a consistent 60 fps (though it still dips below occasionally), while allowing for FOV, resolution scale, and AA to be increased w/o penalty. these are tangible differences that bar graphs don't convey. perhaps we have different standards for "hd" gaming, but if you're happy with your experience then that's all that matters. just know that the ceiling is real, and that it may be hampering the full potential of your cards.
Last edited:
Then sell one of your GTX660ti's, make a few bucks, and run games Xbox style. Who really gives a shit? Some people can tell a difference, some people cant. Everyone is different.
For you to make a blanket statement and say there is no difference is totally absurd. There IS a difference and more VRam WILL help with performance in higher resolution, high eye candy situations. Whether you notice a difference is negligible.
There are millions of people out there who think the XBox 360 (hell XB1 for that matter) graphics are incredible. You might just fall into their category so Im not sure why you waste the extra money to play PC games.
Those 780's in sli perform much faster, not because of a vram ceiling, but because the cards are much much faster. Look at the benchmarks and [H] review. 780 sli destroy's the 690 because it has way more horsepower.... Just sayin.
I'm upgrading when Maxwell comes out. Not because I need more vram, but because I'd like a faster card. Same thing I've been doing for over 15 years in PC gaming. I know the trade, I've been in this hobby for a long time. Believe me I've been around when AA actually made a huge difference back in the day when 1600X1200 was the max resolution on them old crt monitors and turning AA up made the game look crystal clear. BF4 with MSAA does not do that to that degree. Trust me.
Why would we trust a guy who thinks vram bottlenecking is a myth, uses 660's at 1600p, and truly believes AA makes no difference?
BroHamBone
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,031
I guess he never really cycled through the AA and looked at the background, but rather looking at how high the AA goes up to and saying, "they are all the same style text, so it doesn't make a difference".
I guess the 1600p negates the reason for AA since it's so pretty...
. Really though, the only time VRAM goes above 3GB is modded games or high resolutions I.e 1600p or surround/eyefinity
I guess he never really cycled through the AA and looked at the background, but rather looking at how high the AA goes up to and saying, "they are all the same style text, so it doesn't make a difference".
I guess the 1600p negates the reason for AA since it's so pretty...
Really though, the only time VRAM goes above 3GB is modded games or high resolutions I.e 1600p or surround/eyefinity
I guess you didn't read my post a few up? I've been gaming on PC for over 15 years..... And yes 1600p is damn pretty. No need for AA in todays games with textures the way they are. Only way you can tell the difference between noAA in BF4 is by taking a still picture and even then comparing noAA, 2XMSAA, and 4XMSAA at 1600p is going to be very very small differences.
almendragrande
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2013
- Messages
- 71
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Aliasing is very obvious at 1600p.
How do textures cure aliasing?Also, I notice significant aliasing in BF4 at 2560, even with MSAA turned on.
Also, I notice significant aliasing in BF4 at 2560, even with MSAA turned on.
No guys. Trust him.
BroHamBone
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,031
Kinda like try to convince someone who visually sees only 720p to buy a 1080p screen....or 1600p rather!
Toms has a great write up debunking some VRAM myths:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html
I'll note that I play at 1600p, and I played at 1600p with 680 SLI for nearly a year (using 780 SLI now). I never encountered a game where VRAM exceeded 2GB, with some of the most demanding examples including Crysis 3 and Metro : LL. Now, theoretically, you can pass 2GB by modding, SGSSAA or OGSSAA. But those are situations where you're artificially inflating VRAM use through excessive amounts of SSAA. Adding on to this, Brent tested the GTX 680 at 5760*1080 after it launched and all titles worked fine with the available 2GB. Now, of course new games are available but at 1600p I never noticed anything passing 2GB with 680 SLI. I'm using 780s now, though, so I did not play BF4 on the 680 setup.
That said, i'm not saying that more than 2GB of VRAM has no merits. It surely does if you want to crank up the AA and modding levels - I would consider 3GB or greater cards to be ideal for surround or high resolutions. Also, I did not play BF4 on 680 SLI prior to upgrading. So i'm not sure. I suspect those reporting super high VRAM use in BF4 are using resolution scale, which is OGSSAA.
Also, I also strongly disagree with HDGamer that aliasing isn't noticeable at 1600p. Aliasing is VERY noticeable on a 1600p u3014. I always use AA at 1600p, but like I said, I limit myself to FXAA or 2X MSAA. Anything more than that quickly becomes a situation of diminishing returns IMO. And using too much AA uses too much VRAM with diminishing returns in IQ.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html
I'll note that I play at 1600p, and I played at 1600p with 680 SLI for nearly a year (using 780 SLI now). I never encountered a game where VRAM exceeded 2GB, with some of the most demanding examples including Crysis 3 and Metro : LL. Now, theoretically, you can pass 2GB by modding, SGSSAA or OGSSAA. But those are situations where you're artificially inflating VRAM use through excessive amounts of SSAA. Adding on to this, Brent tested the GTX 680 at 5760*1080 after it launched and all titles worked fine with the available 2GB. Now, of course new games are available but at 1600p I never noticed anything passing 2GB with 680 SLI. I'm using 780s now, though, so I did not play BF4 on the 680 setup.
That said, i'm not saying that more than 2GB of VRAM has no merits. It surely does if you want to crank up the AA and modding levels - I would consider 3GB or greater cards to be ideal for surround or high resolutions. Also, I did not play BF4 on 680 SLI prior to upgrading. So i'm not sure. I suspect those reporting super high VRAM use in BF4 are using resolution scale, which is OGSSAA.
Also, I also strongly disagree with HDGamer that aliasing isn't noticeable at 1600p. Aliasing is VERY noticeable on a 1600p u3014. I always use AA at 1600p, but like I said, I limit myself to FXAA or 2X MSAA. Anything more than that quickly becomes a situation of diminishing returns IMO. And using too much AA uses too much VRAM with diminishing returns in IQ.
Last edited:
Nope, the TITAN is the "TITAN".
This. This so much. I've been gaming on a 1440p screen for ~2 years and you will definitely want to use AA in games. I typically use 2X or 4X MSAA. I hate FXAA because of the texture blurring, so if you are like me, make sure you have enough horsepower to run 2X MSAA.
I'm gonna call BS. I had 2GB 680 SLI and I ran 1440p Ultra 2X MSAA without problems.
You wont have problems with a powerful GPU, you are right. It still does NOT get around the fact that some game titles will utilize more than 2gb @ 1440p+. Just because you ran it with 2x MSAA @ 1440p doesnt mean that you werent capped.
2.6gb w/ 4x MSAA and Ultra settings on BF4 @ 1440p here. I highly doubt going to 2x MSAA would lower it 600mb. You are probably ram limited to the SLIGHTEST degree but you dont notice it. And even though you dont notice it, it doesnt mean its not happening.
2.6gb w/ 4x MSAA and Ultra settings on BF4 @ 1440p here. I highly doubt going to 2x MSAA would lower it 600mb. You are probably ram limited to the SLIGHTEST degree but you dont notice it. And even though you dont notice it, it doesnt mean its not happening.