• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

enough vRAM for new games?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
What resolution were you at for those screenshots, Hicksimus?

Those were 1680x1050 I scaled them down a wee bit after by 20% IIRC. The only difference I noted were the zipline to the tower and a bit of the tower before shrinking and the shrink hasn't changed those.

I just decided to hook up to my 42 inch 1920x1080 monitor though and I've got to say :drool: Seriously, I've been playing it on a 1680x1050 22 inch of mainstream quality and it just doesn't communicate how the game looks at all. When I switch to the 1080 screen with Dirt 3 or BF3 it's just a bit brighter(and larger) but not a major change to the visual experience. That's not the case with Far Cry 3, by the standards of most games and certainly open world games it's very pretty.

But more to the topic of the thread. The game seems to be holding itself to about 960mb of VRAM at 1680x1050 and it does the same 960mb thing at 1920x1080. I had spikes to about 1150mb at either resolution but I'm not sure if those would adversely affect the gameplay as they were very short spikes in places where I would not be able to explain why they happened.
 
But more to the topic of the thread. The game seems to be holding itself to about 960mb of VRAM at 1680x1050 and it does the same 960mb thing at 1920x1080. I had spikes to about 1150mb at either resolution but I'm not sure if those would adversely affect the gameplay as they were very short spikes in places where I would not be able to explain why they happened.

That's somewhat disappointing in my opinion. :(
 
1080P is the best compromise between performance and quality. However, in most terms the sofware is not ready yet to make use of resolutions much higher than that. Ultimately: 1080P is critical, else the quality impact could be huge, so i consider it as the "sweet spot".
 
Huh? Sweetspot for quality? Things look incredible at 2560x1440. Not sure, again, what you are getting at.
 
That's somewhat disappointing in my opinion. :(

King107s may be happy about it though. :D

Far Cry 3 won't win any awards for texture quality. Fortunately most of the textures are hidden in tall grass...just like all of the dangerous animals. It has been a while since I played Crysis Warhead but in general I think Far Cry 3 has better visuals and even if it doesn't win there it comes close and it offers a whole lot more gameplay.

Here's a short run up a hill available in 1080p. There is no action in it, it's purely to give you an idea of what the game looks like as you explore. Don't let VRAM use deceive you, it looks pretty good for something only using as much as Skyrim.

Language Warning!It's Far Cry 3, it's hard to avoid. Also, that slow down(or 2) in the video isn't you, just my processor taking a break because I'm recording.

 
So if I got a second 7850 1GB and crossfire it, will that combine to 2GB? Or if I got the 2GB Core Edition version...
 
I've been thinking about getting either two 7870 2GB cards in cross fire or maybe a single 7970 3GB (about the same amount of money)... the dual 7870s destroy the single 7970 in every game ive seen (except crysis 2 which has the DX11 patch conflict with cross fire that was never resolved, DX9 version works but sucks).

I probably should have noted that I play BF3 a lot too but it runs smooth with my 1GB cards on fairly high settings (although I can't recall how high i have them).
 
I've always been of the opinion that SLI/CF is something one does if they have already owned a card for a while and want performance gains or if they are building a new rig and want top of the line. I've never really thought it made sense to build a new rig with two "second-tier" cards in SLI/CF.

I would go for the top end 7970 and add another in crossfire later.


EDIT: And as has been mentioned, you'll get more vram with the 7970 :)
 
Just saw a benchmark on BF3 where the average FPS @ 1920x1200 for a single 7970 was 59.28 and the 7870 CF was 104.48...

76% more FPS for the same amount of money is something to consider.
 
I can't get to it from work because its blocked but it was by "Tek Syndicate" they posted a You Tube video and have something up on their site. I was trying to find the benches on Tom's Hardware...
 
Here's the link: http://teksyndicate.com/videos/amd-radeon-hd-7870-crossfire-vs-radeon-hd-7970-vs-nvidia-gtx-680

CF 7870s definitely are beast, but I can't imagine a 7970 being in the 50s. Maybe a low of 50?

Here's another sample. Doesn't show the 7970, but with the 7950 at ~60, it would put the 7970 probably in the 70s or higher.

bf3-1920.png


While the crossfire 7870s would indeed be impressive, I don't like that there's nowhere to go with them. A single 7970 will give you all the performance you need now, plus the ability to maintain that performance level or better even when the next gen games are released.


EDIT: That is crazy high for the CF 7870s, though. Way more than I would have guessed.
 
Impressive numbers for sure. But I take it they used singleplayer for the chart and/or no AA.

My average FPS for an overclocked 7850 2Gb in 6 10 minute multiplayer benchmarks on Ultra@1680x1050 came in at 51FPS. At 1920x1080 I'm in the low 40's. I get that using single player makes things easier to replicate, it's just not relevant. Unless lots of people buy it for the single player, but I don't know any of them.

The video does it more justice. 104fps from 2 7870's is what I'd expect from them at 1920x1080 Ultra in Crossfire. Just like I'd expect to get to get about 80 from 2 7850's if they scaled well.
 
EDIT: That is crazy high for the CF 7870s, though. Way more than I would have guessed.
In my testing here, I got around 122FPS with 7850's with our settings (Ultra) and benching which is usually higher than most other sites as the passage we use isnt the most strenuous in the game.
 
While the crossfire 7870s would indeed be impressive, I don't like that there's nowhere to go with them. A single 7970 will give you all the performance you need now, plus the ability to maintain that performance level or better even when the next gen games are released.

Well, I don't think i'll need anything more than dual 7870's for a while...

What am I gonna do with dual 7970's that I can't do with dual 7870s at 1920x1080 and where is the extra ~$370 (-100 for depreciation over time) going to come from?

I always go for best bang for my buck :)
 
I've been thinking about getting either two 7870 2GB cards in cross fire or maybe a single 7970 3GB (about the same amount of money)... the dual 7870s destroy the single 7970 in every game ive seen (except crysis 2 which has the DX11 patch conflict with cross fire that was never resolved, DX9 version works but sucks).

I probably should have noted that I play BF3 a lot too but it runs smooth with my 1GB cards on fairly high settings (although I can't recall how high i have them).

Well, I don't think i'll need anything more than dual 7870's for a while...

What am I gonna do with dual 7970's that I can't do with dual 7870s at 1920x1080 and where is the extra ~$370 (-100 for depreciation over time) going to come from?

I always go for best bang for my buck :)

He mentioned single only (in what you quoted)...? Id still go single 7970.

Yes, I've been going off the assumption that you were trying to decide between the dual 7870s or the single 7970. These two options would run you about the same price. The 7870s perform very well now (better than the single 7970), but I think the two options will equalize a bit more in a year or two in terms of performance,l when newer games arrive demanding the 3GB vram.

When that occurs, you could be looking at sub-60FPS with the 7970 and maybe in the 80's with the dual 7870s and start thinking about an upgrade. If you have the 7870s, you will have no upgrade path except purchasing a new top-of-the-line card ($350). If, instead, you have a single 7970 at that point, you will have the additional option of adding another 7970 (for probably $150) and getting your performance back up to snuff.

$350 now + $350 in a couple years > $350 now + $150 in a couple years

It's entirely up to you, of course, I just think that since you're starting from scratch, a single, high-end card is the best "future-proof" option.

EDIT: Looked at prices and the dual 7870s would actually run you $400-450 (with only 2 free games), whereas the 7970 would be $350-400 (with 3 free games). Single card is looking sweeter and sweeter, in my opinion ;)
 
Back