Hello downsampling and AA.
You don't buy a card like this to play in some lowly 1080p res at 2xMSAA. ( Unless you are gunning for 120FPS )
NVIDIA to release GeForce Titan
- Thread starter mkenyon
- Start date
Hello downsampling and AA.
You don't buy a card like this to play in some lowly 1080p res at 2xMSAA. ( Unless you are gunning for 120FPS )
I guess it does well at regular settings, but if you like AA or supersampling then the memory bandwidth starts to bottleneck. The regular 660 has the same bandwidth for comparison, but with a weaker core.
For sure, but I'd say that people looking for the best price/performance solutions will have to forego the luxuries of premium cards ( for example supersampling etc )
Or go AMD.
Eh, I don't know about that. With the new drivers fixing the memory/frame latency issues, the 7950 can not be beat in terms of price
erformance.Or go AMD.
Eh, I don't know about that. With the new drivers fixing the memory/frame latency issues, the 7950 can not be beat in terms of price
Be that as it may I'm sure the 660 ti isn't leagues behind so to speak.
Refreshment.01
Member
Im on out of the loop in terms of vidcards. So was there a turn around for AMD cards? As far as i remember Nvidia had them beat for price/performance/power consumption with the 600 series.Or go AMD.
Eh, I don't know about that. With the new drivers fixing the memory/frame latency issues, the 7950 can not be beat in terms of price
Edit: Corerected the number, Nvidia 600 series.
Terbinator
Member
Actually....
And that's an NVIDIA optimized game.
>Max details
>HBAO and MVSS off.
lol.
6000 series was definitely ahead of NVIDIA when it comes to power consumption. They were about equal in terms of priceerformance, but NVIDIA had the big 580 powerhouse that AMD couldn't compete with at the high end.
The discussion has changed from FPS metrics to frame latency, as some pretty interesting information was uncovered by the Tech Report. tl;dr, the way that FPS information is polled, it tends to hide a ton of data where things are going wrong, and has been found to be nearly useless when it comes to looking at performance.
AMD was found to be screwing up the memory interface which led to very stuttery performance, despite high FPS numbers. The reason why this existed is because their internal team had never even tested for frame latency, sticking to the same metrics that most review websites were using instead.
They've since addressed the problem, admitted fault, reasons for why they screwed up, and came out with a patch in a matter of weeks. Pretty fucking rad right there. It's supposed to continue to improve, as it's not exactly perfect yet.
Where NVIDIA kind of dropped the ball, so to speak, with Kepler is that they've basically been releasing what were initially tagged for mid-low range cards as the mid-high range cards. Because of this, a lot of the mid range ones have some pretty severe memory bandwidth issues, and they end up choking pretty hard when a game uses a high amount of VRAM, or you crank up the AA/Resolution. Basically everything from the 660Ti and below is only suited well to 1080P performance with low AA.
To top it off, NVIDIA's cards don't scale really well in SLI due to the limited memory bandwidth. With this in mind, the really high end setups for benchmarking/performance are pretty much limited to AMD right now, unless the person is just totally sold on NVIDIA as part of their identity. I'm talking about triple display type setups in this case.
erformance, but NVIDIA had the big 580 powerhouse that AMD couldn't compete with at the high end.The discussion has changed from FPS metrics to frame latency, as some pretty interesting information was uncovered by the Tech Report. tl;dr, the way that FPS information is polled, it tends to hide a ton of data where things are going wrong, and has been found to be nearly useless when it comes to looking at performance.
AMD was found to be screwing up the memory interface which led to very stuttery performance, despite high FPS numbers. The reason why this existed is because their internal team had never even tested for frame latency, sticking to the same metrics that most review websites were using instead.
They've since addressed the problem, admitted fault, reasons for why they screwed up, and came out with a patch in a matter of weeks. Pretty fucking rad right there. It's supposed to continue to improve, as it's not exactly perfect yet.
Where NVIDIA kind of dropped the ball, so to speak, with Kepler is that they've basically been releasing what were initially tagged for mid-low range cards as the mid-high range cards. Because of this, a lot of the mid range ones have some pretty severe memory bandwidth issues, and they end up choking pretty hard when a game uses a high amount of VRAM, or you crank up the AA/Resolution. Basically everything from the 660Ti and below is only suited well to 1080P performance with low AA.
To top it off, NVIDIA's cards don't scale really well in SLI due to the limited memory bandwidth. With this in mind, the really high end setups for benchmarking/performance are pretty much limited to AMD right now, unless the person is just totally sold on NVIDIA as part of their identity. I'm talking about triple display type setups in this case.
Er - my issue is more so with the memory usage, not the performance. Thing is, on Battlefield 3 with everything maxed out, I'm hitting 1740-1850mb. On Crysis 3 I can't even run everything maxed out, because it tanks past 2gb memory (if I lower one setting to high, it pushes 1940).
Even on something like Call of Duty Black Ops 2 (which IMO is a shit looking game) can hit 1700mb being used on my cards. Are you saying it's not typical for these cards to be using that kind of memory at the 1440p resolution? If so, I might need to get my stuff checked out. I just assumed the memory usage was higher, at the higher resolutions. (Again, not talking about FPS or performance).
My point was, I don't really feel comfortable gaming at this resolution with the 2gb limit (especially in the next couple of years). I just got in my 1600p monitor (haven't had the time to hook it up yet, but will do so in the next day or so) and if 1440p was pushing my cards to that high memory usage, I'm really afraid that I won't be able to do some of the games I am now - at max settings. So that's why I want more memory. Why I said I would have just done the 4gb 670's had I known.
But if I'm wrong, then I apologize. I'm far from an expert. Never claimed to be. Maybe these memory levels aren't typical, and it's a memory leak (if such a thing can exist). Drivers/ a problem in my overall setup. I don't know.
GHG
Gold Member
Im becoming less and less convinced with the "2 gb is enough" arguement with each passing day. I frequently see my vram usage go above 2gb on my 3gb 660 sli setup and i play everything downsampled from 1440p as a minimum.
With the price difference between the 2gb and 3/4gb versions of cards being nominal, i think youd be silly to get any 2gb version of card when the writing is on the wall.
With the price difference between the 2gb and 3/4gb versions of cards being nominal, i think youd be silly to get any 2gb version of card when the writing is on the wall.
childplease
Banned
Pretty funny even before next gen consoles are out a PC video card outclasses them and makes em obsolete.
I'd love to see some conclusive data about 2GB vs 4GB Kepler cards in SLI. I've seen the data for a single card, and the tl;dr is it doesn't matter in the slightest because the cards are already choking so hard on what they're trying to render.
SLI would seem to eliminate that, which might help bring the spotlight to the VRAM.
Still, "I go over" is not evidence that having more than 2GB has any positive impact. Outside of modded Skyrim, at least.
bee
Member
on another board there's a few of us with 670/680 sli and we play in surround at 5760x1080 and above, not a single game tested has gone above the 2gb vram limit (including 3d surround) , the cards simply run out of power before the vram limit becomes an issue. obviously modded skyrim will but that's the exception
there's a graph with games and usage on it somewhere, i'll try to find it when i finish work
lots of games will report higher vram usage with 3 or 4gb cards but that's just the games use the extra space to cache more data but they work just the same on 2gb cards
Crysis 3 can easily eat more than 2gbs of VRAM from what I've read.
papersleeves
Member
Eight hundred ninety nine American dollars.
Please do so. Because for some reason, I'm pushing 1940mb on my 1440 monitor, and I would have assumed that 1600p resolution would tip me over past 2gb on some games. (Battlefield 3). I'm going to hook up my 1600p monitor tomorrow, so I guess I'll know for sure then.
I'm starting to wonder if my memory usage on my cards is not normal, as I keep reading posts that say NO game pushes past 2gb at these high resolutions. Yet I'm bumping it with 1440p. Maybe I have a setting on, or something about my setup if off. But I would be interested in seeing that chart, if you ever do find it. Greatly appreciate it.
bee
Member
depends what aa setting you use, 4xaa on bf3 at 5760x1080 will push you over the vram limit but will also result in an unplayable experience on a 3/4gb card as the cards simply can't handle it, i play bf3 in surround at 2xaa and it averages around 60fps and is around 1.7 - 1.8gb
not my graph but his results mirror my own, the resolution used is 5760x1080, keep in mind that sleeping dogs on extreme aa is a slideshow and metro with 4xaa is also unplayable
disabling visual themes and desktop composition is a must also
depends what aa setting you use, 4xaa on bf3 at 5760x1080 will push you over the vram limit but will also result in an unplayable experience on a 3/4gb card as the cards simply can't handle it, i play bf3 in surround at 2xaa and it averages around 60fps and is around 1.7 - 1.8gb
not my graph but his results mirror my own, the resolution used is 5760x1080, keep in mind that sleeping dogs on extreme aa is a slideshow and metro with 4xaa is also unplayable
disabling visual themes and desktop composition is a must also
Actually looks pretty close to what I'm getting. Should I be worried that I'm getting those similar readings for BF3 at 2560x1440p?
Or am I putting too much emphasis on higher resolutions causing higher vram usage?
Also thanks for clarifying about the 3/4gb performance issues. I didn't know. So if the rumors are true, and Titan is 85% of the 690, and GTX 680 in SLI is basically a 690 with better performance, what is the appeal of the Titan? (I'm fully admitting I'm a noob in this regard. So was just wondering if there is something being said about this card, that would make it superior).
bee
Member
not sure on bf3, what aa do you use? try setting up the executable so its like this, then see what vram usage is like
the appeal of titan is it wont have any sli issues (not that there are that many in my experience) yet be around the same performance or faster in most games depending on the sli scaling and the fact you can get quad sli performance while still getting dual card sli compatibility and scaling, oh and of course epeen
i personally won't be going anywhere near them due to pricing, wait for gtx 770 imonot sure on bf3, what aa do you use? try setting up the executable so its like this, then see what vram usage is like
the appeal of titan is it wont have any sli issues (not that there are that many in my experience) yet be around the same performance or faster in most games depending on the sli scaling and the fact you can get quad sli performance while still getting dual card sli compatibility and scaling, oh and of course epeen
I was actually maxing out my AA
I guess I should tone it down, given the higher resolution.Also, thanks for the tip about the executable. Never knew about that. I'll report back tomorrow when I get time (currently tied up with work/school). But I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things.
Battlefield 3 has dynamic Vram usage, so it'll always eat up a lot of the Vram but it's not an indicator that it's being starved.
As for my Vram usage, vanilla games is a moot point - It's all about the modded games. So many modded games with some insane texture slapped in there that made my games stutter like hell and blew through the Vram roof. All that has been sorted after going 4GB for me. I remember STALKER Complete i believe it was had some real problems.
As for my Vram usage, vanilla games is a moot point - It's all about the modded games. So many modded games with some insane texture slapped in there that made my games stutter like hell and blew through the Vram roof. All that has been sorted after going 4GB for me. I remember STALKER Complete i believe it was had some real problems.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Running out of VRAM manifests itself as stutter (basically drops to single digit FPS) as memory gets swapped. A game that's programmed well is going to cache as much as it can.
This is definitely the most compelling argument, and something that I've experienced as well. I don't think this is necessarily indicative of future games with the nature of mod code being what it is.
Yeah, that much is clear. But there's no data to suggest that games currently out suffer from this issue when you have them use more than 2GB, outside of mods.
1st Course
Member
I'm pretty sure that Max Payne 3 can use 2GB+ of vram easily. I expect 2GB vram to be the norm when next generation consoles are out.
We are talking about a $800 video card, not exactly surprising.
Maybe someone can explain this to me, but does this ( and other high-end gpus ) really only support a max resolution of 2560x1600 ? Or am I missing something?
Also yeah 1300 USD is about what I'd expect for Scandinavian prices.
Nah. A GTX 680 is capable of doing 4096x2160 through digital.
Even then, if you want a GPU to render at anything higher, you can. Just getting it to the monitor might be problematic.
Tarin02543
Member
900 $
zephervack
Member
I think only AMD supports 4k at the moment.
Still, if you are willing to plug in more monitors you can go all the way to 5760 * 1200 or even more if you get 30" screens.
I'd say we're like years away before a developer targets the performance of a Titan with their game.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
If I'm not mistaken, that $1300 is with VAT included. Without it, it should fall right around $900.
Anyway, I decided I'm definitely getting one of these. My computer is on its last legs, and I want this fucking 5870 gone.
Anyway, I decided I'm definitely getting one of these. My computer is on its last legs, and I want this fucking 5870 gone.
Hi, fellow 5870 user.
I sold my rig with i7 860 with 5870 and about to build new uber rig from scratch. I am just waiting for Titan release as well.
memecomplex
Member
You can't play through Rage with 16K textures, some areas just go beyond 2GB VRAM and most areas stutter like mad till cached; which is all the time.
So any news of Titan? Where can we get one?
memecomplex
Member
Thanks!
Dang looks like it'll be a biatch to get one...
Dang looks like it'll be a biatch to get one...
metareferential
Member
Damn, I want it.
I know I don't need it, but I still want it. And the worst part is I can afford it, so I might even end up buying it.
It's next-gen proof, at least. Couple it with a good cpu and 16gb ram and you're good to go.
6gb gddr5 is more than any console will ever get.
I know I don't need it, but I still want it. And the worst part is I can afford it, so I might even end up buying it.
It's next-gen proof, at least. Couple it with a good cpu and 16gb ram and you're good to go.
6gb gddr5 is more than any console will ever get.
Only problem is that there's currently no game on the market that will make effective use of so much power - unless you've got a a dual or triple monitor setup. Why not wait a year and get something better for less money?
I can easily afford this too, I've got a bad case of gearlust in general, but still ... since I'm gaming on a 1080p HDTV I won't see much difference when I'm already getting more than 60fps in every game with a GTX 680.