guru3dStar Wars: Battlefront Beta VGA graphics performance benchmarks

[happy medium]

Modern games will use what they can. If there's less memory those games will just use less.

Tell that to the people that say 2gb cards are not enough........

 

[yepp]

Tell that to the people that say 2gb cards are not enough........

Yes some game use more of the vram pool than necessary if available. I don't think that is the reason why people who say 2GB cards are not enough. Try enabling ultra textures with 2GB cards in games like Shadow of Mordor or Lords of the Fallen etc... and watch your FPS tank and enjoy the stutter-fest. Some games won't even give you an option for ultra like Wolfenstein. These are just a few games I've encountered off the top of my head, I'm sure there is more and the trend is likely to continue. The fact that AMD and Nvidia are offering 4GB models for their mid-range cards is a good indication.

2gb cards are not enough........

 

[happy medium]

2gb cards are not enough

Modern games.......he said. not a chosen 2.

 

[yepp]

Modern games.......he said. not a chosen 2.

They are modern games... And he wasn't the one to misconstrue what he said to be the reason why 2GB are not enough...

 

[happy medium]

They are modern games... And he wasn't the one to misconstrue what he said to be the reason why 2GB are not enough...

WHat games with what cards with 2gb of memory can actually play games at a reasonable level of fps while passing the 2gb barrier ?:whiste:

For instance the AMD 285 2gb averages 42 fps, 33 min, with Shadows of mordor at 1440p, ultra details. DO you expect a 2gb card to play at 4k?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/shadow-of-mordor-performance,3996-4.html

Again with Lords of the Fallen, here a gtx770 2gb plays at 1440p, ultra settings @ 40fps and is faster than its 3gb 280x equivalent

. If you up the resolution and settings any higher it wont play at a playable fps.

My point? cards like the AMD 285, gtx960, gtx770 are really not powerfull enough to play at setting above 2gb anyhow.

 

[Techhog]

WHat games with what cards with 2gb of memory can actually play games at a reasonable level of fps while passing the 2gb barrier ?:whiste:

Why are you so obsessed with this topic?

 

[skipsneeky2]

I think the only game i have played where the 2gb on my 770 was a issue ended up being COD AW.Game didn't look fantastic enough to warrant its insane vram requirements anyways.

For BF4/Star Wars and BF:HL i was dropping settings before i could even fully utilize 2gb anyways.

 

[happy medium]

For BF4/Star Wars and BF:HL i was dropping settings before i could even fully utilize 2gb anyways.

Hurray, thank you, that was my point.

 

[happy medium]

Why are you so obsessed with this topic?

see my edit post 130...proved my point

 

[happy medium]

A GeForce GTX 780 Ti with its 3 GB of graphics memory normally should run into issues, but that's not the case in Ultra HD. So the game engine adapts with caches, and we think caches a little less to compensate.

Back on topic..
This is how modern games now handle memory.

Now would someone please show me games that will provide playable fps after you reach the 2gb barrier with a 2gb card such as the 285, gtx770 or gtx960.

 

[Erenhardt]

Easy... Lower resultion and increase texture detail. Increasing resolution is they least effective way of increasing VRAM footprint - it kills the performance for very little more VRAM usage.

One does not expect a 50% drop in avg frame rates and 85% drop in min frame rate when going from Very High to Ultra preset.
Someone should make a test with r9 380 2GB and 4GB version with frame time analysis.

 

[monstercameron]

15W carrizo struggles in dx11 mode, can't wait to compare the dx11 vs. dx12/vulkan.

 

[Erenhardt]

Actually, here is a graph with all them cards... 4 GB, 2GB, 3GB, 1GB, you name it:

Even 1 GB cards are enough for 1080p Ultra. This game seems to now have too many textures.

 

[railven]

I finally got to play this game last night with the GF. We both had a blast.

We'll both be getting it, just not sure at launch or with a good sale.

 

[RussianSensation]

Actually, here is a graph with all them cards... 4 GB, 2GB, 3GB, 1GB, you name it:

Even 1 GB cards are enough for 1080p Ultra. This game seems to now have too many textures.

Surprised they didn't include 780Ti in their chart.

1GB enough for 1080P Ultra from their test but is that sufficient enough for the entire game though with 40 players on all maps/game modes? I think we'd have to wait for the full game to come out and more extensive testing before we can say 1GB is sufficient.

Either way the game is very well optimized imo for the level of graphics/textures it has. Looks better than BF4, especially the textures and lighting, and scales very well across faster NV/AMD hardware from various generations. One of the best cross-platform games as far as optimizations go in 2015.

Tell that to the people that say 2gb cards are not enough........

2GB cards like 950/960 at their respective prices are a bad buy right now for anyone who intents to maximize price/performance and keep them for 2-3 years.

280X costs $190, within a range of 285 2GB, 960 2GB, especially for the last 9 months when 285/960 were priced very similarly to a 280X and it absolutely can achieve playable FPS when 960 2GB bombs.

1. Dead Rising 3

2. Shadow of Mordor

380 4GB gets 54 fps at 1080P in SoM vs. 36 fps on a 960 2GB.

In 3. Batman AK, it's possible to enable HQ textures at 1080P on 7950/7970/280X at playable FPS but the latest build doesn't allow this on 2GB cards:

4. Wolftenstein NWO HQ textures, 5. Titanfall HQ textures are a GO on a 4GB 770/680/380 or a 280X/7950 3GB.

In 6. AC Unity, a mild overclock on a 280X will get close to 30 fps. Are those great frames? Nope but many console gamers play at 30 fps so a least the 280X would be playable.

Change a 2-3 more settings and you much faster on a 3-4GB card the likes of 960 4GB or 280X but the 960 2GB has almost half the performance which means it starts out of the gate way behind and will continue being a dog.

7. Mortal Kombat X.

Add to this, 8. GTA IV modded, 9. Skyrim modded, 10. Doom modded, etc. and we are quickly approaching at least 10 AAA games.

This doesn't even take into account the stuttering in some games with 2GB of VRAM that FPS graphs may not capture - Watch Dogs for example, or dropping below 30 fps in FC4 in minimums against a 4GB 960 that doesn't have this issue in the same testing area of the game:

Add to this Fallout 4 Mods and many future games coming out in 2016-2017 that should be more demanding than 2012-2015 titles.

2GB is not enough for a videocard anymore, especially in the context of someone buying a new $150-200 card today. 2GB is probably a major reason the 285 was DOA on arrival, along with a higher price that made 280 3GB a better pick. With prices of R9 380 4GB, 280X and GTX960 4GB where they are right now, 950/960 2GB are not worth saving $20-30.

Even if we ignore 2GB of VRAM, 950/960 are well behind 285/380/280X at 1080p in SW:BF as of the beta.

380 4GB 61 fps vs. 960 2GB 47 fps = that's a 30% difference

Even if we ignore VRAM for this particular title, the raw GPU horsepower / memory bandwidth of 950/960 is letting them down. Or NV needs a new driver.

 

[crisium]

Now would someone please show me games that will provide playable fps after you reach the 2gb barrier with a 2gb card such as the 285, gtx770 or gtx960.

I did, in the other thread. How the heck did you miss it? I'm surprised you never posted in that thread.

Other thread. Not this thread. Not Battlefront. Please stop derailment in the name of your 2GB crusade. You have 6 posts on this page and the only 1 relevant is a quote of an older post.

Take it here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2450718

 

[thesmokingman]

Actually, here is a graph with all them cards... 4 GB, 2GB, 3GB, 1GB, you name it:

Even 1 GB cards are enough for 1080p Ultra. This game seems to now have too many textures.

Look at how those numbers slot up. It's like they never even ran a bench. Just eyeball the "expected" results and print, voila. lol

 

[happy medium]

A GeForce GTX 780 Ti with its 3 GB of graphics memory normally should run into issues, but that's not the case in Ultra HD. So the game engine adapts with caches, and we think caches a little less to compensate.

I did, in the other thread. How the heck did you miss it? I'm surprised you never posted in that thread.

Other thread. Not this thread. Not Battlefront. Please stop derailment in the name of your 2GB crusade.

Take it here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2450718

see relevant to memory usage and to the battlefront review Crimson...

Don't tell me how and where to post. thanks

 

[yepp]

WHat games with what cards with 2gb of memory can actually play games at a reasonable level of fps while passing the 2gb barrier ?:whiste:

For instance the AMD 285 2gb averages 42 fps, 33 min, with Shadows of mordor at 1440p, ultra details. DO you expect a 2gb card to play at 4k?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/shadow-of-mordor-performance,3996-4.html

Here is an example already posted above, 4GB R9 380 holding up while the 2GB R9 285 tanks, the 4GB GTX 960 is also doing better than the 2GB variant.

I was thinking on the lines of 1080p, its what I play at and would expect it to be the target resolution for the people using or looking at the cards you mentioned. 1440p would be too taxing majority of the time for those GPUs before they can utilize more than 2GB. I don't think anyone with a right mind would pair a 2GB with 4k for modern games. Not sure where you get the idea that I would expect a 2GB card to handle 4k.

Again with Lords of the Fallen, here a gtx770 2gb plays at 1440p, ultra settings @ 40fps and is faster than its 3gb 280x equivalent

. If you up the resolution and settings any higher it wont play at a playable fps.

AMD cards perform like a dog in LotF with it being a Gameworks title. In that bench the R9 280x hits a GPU bottleneck before It can make use of its extra RAM. It's also not clear what part of the game they tested, probably inside dungeon with narrow corridors where the game isn't memory intensive. Head outdoors and 2GB won't be enough with very high textures enabled, even at 1080p. That's where a 4GB GTX 770 would hold up, if you play this game you would know this.

From dsogaming on LotF: "Oh, and those wishing to enable the game’s Very High textures will need GPUs with 3GB of VRAM, otherwise they will encounter major stuttering issues on outdoor areas"
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/lords-of-the-fallen-pc-performance-analysis/

My point? cards like the AMD 285, gtx960, gtx770 are really not powerful enough to play at setting above 2gb anyhow.

True I weren't contesting this point but 4gb can give you the option to run ultra textures in certain games where 2gb would have issues.

So is 2gb enough? It's not cutting it for some games now.

 

[iiiankiii]

Back on topic..
This is how modern games now handle memory.

Now would someone please show me games that will provide playable fps after you reach the 2gb barrier with a 2gb card such as the 285, gtx770 or gtx960.

That's why you avoid those cards like the plague. They are really crappy cards. 2GB or 12GB. It just doesn't matter. Stay away from those cards as they're not good enough going forward.

 

[PPB]

So much for the "AMD on DX11 sucks! No command lists = horribad performance blablabla" crowd. Are they hiding under a rock or something? This game seems to run great for AMD regardless of being DX11.

 

[AtenRa]

Look at how those numbers slot up. It's like they never even ran a bench. Just eyeball the "expected" results and print, voila. lol

https://translate.googleusercontent...3.html&usg=ALkJrhhLdKrk_jK3T18uUtLtNsi2bdip8g

Place the test and methodology

Graphics cards tested in single player missions, in which we Rebel soldier. The aim is to survive for a few minutes on the planet Tatooine, fending off attacks another, fairly large groups of stormtroopers of the Empire. Performance measurements have performed with increased field of view (FOV) that the standard value of 55 switched over to the game menu at 90.

PClabs.pl StarWars Review and everyone else that benchmarked SP is irrelevant.

 

[happy medium]

Here is an example already posted above, 4GB R9 380 holding up while the 2GB R9 285 tanks, the 4GB GTX 960 is also doing better than the 2GB variant.

Look again it using a ultra high texture pack in your benchmark. Hey I'm going to out and buy a gtx960 or 380 to use a ultra high texture pack in said game? No I don't think so.
I used benchmarks with the release version of the game.
Keep trying.

Truth is I don't think game makers are stupid enough to release said game that wont run well on a 2gb card @ 1080p, since 75% of cards out there have 2gb or less memory.

 

[thesmokingman]

https://translate.googleusercontent...3.html&usg=ALkJrhhLdKrk_jK3T18uUtLtNsi2bdip8g
PClabs.pl StarWars Review and everyone else that benchmarked SP is irrelevant.

I think you missed the point.

 

[AtenRa]

I think you missed the point.

I know what your point was, I was just making another point my self.