760 4gb or 670 2gb for 1920x1200

EQWoody

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
297
I'm currently running a 560ti 1gb on my older Dell 2405FWP at 1920x1200 and it works OKAY in games, but I think it's time to upgrade.

I feel like the 760 4gb gives me expandability to add additional monitors which I feel is in my near future. Do you think it's a much smarter choice of the 670?

Games I play at 1920x1200

BF3
Deus Ex
BL:2
WoW
League of Legends
Crysis 3
FC3: Blood Dragon
 

roki977

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
207
I Tested BF3 vram usage and it can use more than 2gb from time to time but it wont make any difference. Also in some games 3gb 580 was slower for just a bit than 2gb. Dont know why. If game can use 2.2gb of vram or something like that you wont feel that 200mb for sure,.
Even in surround 2gb wont bi limiting factor with 760/670s. GPU procesing power will and most of new games will work with 2xmsaa or fxaa more often and those settings dont need more than 2gb. More than 2 is for 780, Titans and maybe 3 SLI and it wont make much difference in future, bcs. games will not use more ram and less procesing power of the GPU, i doubt that.
 

dhappy

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
115
Even in surround 2gb wont bi limiting factor with 760/670s. GPU procesing power will and most of new games will work with 2xmsaa or fxaa more often and those settings dont need more than 2gb.

FXAA will save you a ton of VRAM, just ask anyone who plays Skyrim :p
 

roki977

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
207
I know and i know that in reality most gamers will play 5760x1200 FXAA, with 760, 670 or 770 SLI. For that 2gb is sweet spot. With only one 760 talking about 2gb is not enough is bit crazy my opinion.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,515
I'm not buying that bf3 uses 2.6 gb of ram. I will test this myself with my system in sig. I'll run it 19x10 4xaa all setting at highest.
 

Sodapopjones

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
1,936
I think the most I saw was 1.5gb...

This is everything set as high as it goes at 1080p.

bf3_zps5e936062.jpg
 

CaptNumbNutz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
23,856
I'm currently running a 560ti 1gb on my older Dell 2405FWP at 1920x1200 and it works OKAY in games, but I think it's time to upgrade.

I feel like the 760 4gb gives me expandability to add additional monitors which I feel is in my near future. Do you think it's a much smarter choice of the 670?

Games I play at 1920x1200

BF3
Deus Ex
BL:2
WoW
League of Legends
Crysis 3
FC3: Blood Dragon
If you are even considering multi-monitor or higher than 1080p res, then get the 4GB. If not, 2GB is fine for almost every game out there at 1080p.
I think the most I saw was 1.5gb...

This is everything set as high as it goes at 1080p.

bf3_zps5e936062.jpg
That's a city map with lots of indoor areas. Load up the larger outdoor maps such as Bandar Desert with everything maxed out and MSAA, then get back to us.

Back when I played BF3 last year, I routinely saw 1700-1800MB of VRAM usage on Gulf of Oman while using some ultra settings and only FXAA on my 2GB 560ti. It wasn't very playable at around 30-40fps, so I had to lower some settings.

I imagine anyone running ultra settings with MSAA maxed out will easily run over 2GB VRAM use on the larger maps at 1080p, even more so if they were running multi-monitors.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,515
If you are even considering multi-monitor or higher than 1080p res, then get the 4GB. If not, 2GB is fine for almost every game out there at 1080p.

That's a city map with lots of indoor areas. Load up the larger outdoor maps such as Bandar Desert with everything maxed out and MSAA, then get back to us.

Back when I played BF3 last year, I routinely saw 1700-1800MB of VRAM usage on Gulf of Oman while using some ultra settings and only FXAA on my 2GB 560ti. It wasn't very playable at around 30-40fps, so I had to lower some settings.

I imagine anyone running ultra settings with MSAA maxed out will easily run over 2GB VRAM use on the larger maps at 1080p, even more so if they were running multi-monitors.

I don't think gram was the problem. A 560ti doesn't have the gpu power to run 1080p 4xaa. And I think the sp mode will use more gram.
 

Marcdaddy

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
3,633
Im running 3 780GTX cards in tri sli and playing BF3 on a 29 in ultrawide 2560X1080 resolution with everything at max and 2X Supersampling im still under 2GB VRAM , 4 gb is a waste unless multi moniter gaming
 

vjcsmoke

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
4,511
You don't need 4gB for 1920x1200 resolution. But if you plan do do multi-monitor someday, then the 4GB is a good investment.
 

tonyftw

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,817
Since you list BF3 (which can eat over 2 gig even at 1920x1080... http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=718118 ) and are thinking of maybe higher res, definitely go with the 4 gig card.

As someone who plays bf3 often, I'm calling bs on that guys v-ram usage. The most v-ram I've seen utilized in that game was 1.7gb, and even then it was probably just allocated memory.

For a single 1920x1200 monitor, 2gb of v-ram is all you need for now.
 

Sodapopjones

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
1,936
As someone who plays bf3 often, I'm calling bs on that guys v-ram usage. The most v-ram I've seen utilized in that game was 1.7gb, and even then it was probably just allocated memory.

For a single 1920x1200 monitor, 2gb of v-ram is all you need for now.
Exactly

If you are even considering multi-monitor or higher than 1080p res, then get the 4GB. If not, 2GB is fine for almost every game out there at 1080p.

That's a city map with lots of indoor areas. Load up the larger outdoor maps such as Bandar Desert with everything maxed out and MSAA, then get back to us.

Back when I played BF3 last year, I routinely saw 1700-1800MB of VRAM usage on Gulf of Oman while using some ultra settings and only FXAA on my 2GB 560ti. It wasn't very playable at around 30-40fps, so I had to lower some settings.

I imagine anyone running ultra settings with MSAA maxed out will easily run over 2GB VRAM use on the larger maps at 1080p, even more so if they were running multi-monitors.

I just did, you're still wrong.
bf3_zpsd766117b.jpg


I seriously can't wait till tomorrow when I get my UD3 and 4670k in place, my 1055T bottlenecks the crap out of my card sometimes.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
Back when I played BF3 last year, I routinely saw 1700-1800MB of VRAM usage on Gulf of Oman while using some ultra settings and only FXAA on my 2GB 560ti. It wasn't very playable at around 30-40fps, so I had to lower some settings.

You had to do that because your GPU wasn't powerful enough. VRAM does not get slower as more of it gets in use. It is only when a game requires more VRAM than is available that you will see an effect, and it will not be subtle: your FPS will drop to single digits and you'll have an unplayable slideshow.

"But but but people using 4GB cards at 1920x1080 are seeing more than 2GB of VRAM usage..." No. When you see Rivatuner/Afterburner or whatever reporting the VRAM usage, it's reporting the amount of VRAM that the game has allocated, not the VRAM that the game is actually using.

The sorts of resolutions and settings that require more than 2GB of VRAM are extremely high, not playable with only one GPU, and are not seen on single-monitor resolutions. See the HardOCP review of 2GB, 3GB and 4GB cards in SLI/Crossfire; on page 3, you can see what it takes to max out 2GB of VRAM and what happens to FPS when it does (see the red lines that drop to 0 FPS for part or most of the test).

On page 6 of that review, you will see that BF3 at 5760x1200, 2xMSAA and highest settings did not max out the VRAM; they were not able to make the game enable 4xMSAA for the 2GB cards, but that did not matter because it was already unplayable due to not enough GPU power at 2xMSAA.

So, if 5760x1200, 2xMSAA and highest settings in BF3 does not max out 2GB of VRAM, why do you think that 1920x1080 can?
 
Top