just using common sense would tell you that games will not be needing more than 1280mb at 1920 for the next couple of years.
just using common sense would tell you that games will not be needing more than 1280mb at 1920 for the next couple of years.And you know how games in the next two years will run how ? How do you know in 2 years, 2gig wont make a big difference ?
just using common sense would tell you that games will not be needing more than 1280mb at 1920 for the next couple of years.
yes I am dismissing it because it is not likely at all. above 1920 sure but at 1920 and below I have zero doubts that 1280mb will suffice for the next 2 years. if someone wants to buy a 6950 for the sole reason of having more vram than a 570 just to play at 1920 then thats their choice of course.No, it isn't common sense. It is your opinion. It is common sense to realize that "maybe" in the next two years, games just may be using it. You on the other hand, are dismissing it totally.
thats a crossfire card so the difference is between 1gb and 2gb of usable ram. in other words yes at really high resolutions, having more than 1 gb of vram can be helpful on the fastest gpu on the market. only at the really high resolutions is the additional ram helping though and most of the extra performance is because the card is clocked faster too. in fact the only reason its faster at lower resolutions is because its clocked much faster than a regular 5970.http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/xfx_hd5970_be_limited/6.htm
Based on this review here, even 4 gig makes a big difference at all resolutions.
well it was the truth based on your comments but I did immediately remove it anyway. you still dont seem to get it so maybe I should put it back in though, lol. again that 5970 is only faster across all resolutions because its clocked higher. only above 1920 is having more than 1gb beneficial even on that 5970 which is the fastest gpu made. and even at 2560 there are only a few of cases where having more than 1 gb helps. so getting back to your earlier comments about a gtx570, there is NO NEED for more than 1280mb at just 1920.And I know plenty about this topic, and GPU's in general. And the link was posted because I knew you were going to post exactly what you did. You really think I don't know that the 5970 has two GPU's ?
So your saying there is a difference between 1gig and 2 gig ? If the card is the same at any resolution ? I'm pretty sure you are.
So which is it ? 2 gig makes a difference "even a small difference is a difference" ? Or not ? You posted it didnt, now your posting it does.
And I'm pretty sure personnel attacks are not allowed. So do not assume you know my intelligence on the subject.
Well those games made to run on 512mb consoles are the ones that seem to be the worst resource hogs. So when consoles have 2gb RAM, your video card will need like 10gb, and you'll need 8 core processors.
What happens when future games have bigger textures?
I would disagree with this. There are still a TONS of repeated textures and other tricks in modern games to reduce the texture load. While the resolution likely doesn't need to be increased much further, more texture variety and attention to detail by artists can dramatically enhance a scene.
Nothing irks me more than when i can see repeating textures on the ground or on a wall in a game.
yes I am dismissing it because it is not likely at all. above 1920 sure but at 1920 and below I have zero doubts that 1280mb will suffice for the next 2 years. if someone wants to buy a 6950 for the sole reason of having more vram than a 570 just to play at 1920 then thats their choice of course.
TV's max out at 1920x1080, so remember that the core frame buffer size isn't likely to increase in size, even with the PS4/Xbox720.
1920x1080= ~2MB * 4 (RGBA)= 8MB for a single frame buffer
Games can have 10-12 targets, so you can eat 100MB just for frame buffers.
Turn on 8x AA, and you need 64MB just for the AA buffer.
(Not all buffers are 4 bytes, but this is a rough approx.)
What can change is the number of targets used; so while a typical game might use 10-12, who knows what we'll be doing in 5 years. We may use 10-12 buffers just for different lighting effects.
Yeah, am I hijacking the thread too much if I gripe some more about console ports that don't really step up on the PC? I've seen too many bad UI's and too many cases where the PC could clearly handle cleaner textures.
At best youll get occasional pauses/hitches, while at worst performance will be constantly eroded. This is no different to something like Quake 3 running out of VRAM back in 2000 if you tried to run levels like Heros Keep on 32 MB cards without texture compression.Well, what does happen to performance when the textures in a game start to exceed the available buffers on the card? I know to an extent, textures can be cached in system memory and fed to the card as needed.
I dont think GTA 4s highest texture setting is available unless you have a 2 GB card.For whatever reason, GTA 4 would run at 60 fps all over the city on my 1 GB card despite not having enough texture ram for the maxed out options I set it to.
It depends on the game and on the settings. I can get a 1 GB Radeon 6850 to texture swap in Call of Duty 1 by running it at 2560x1600 with 8xSSAA.as already mentioned by the time you need more vram the architecture itself will be the limitation.
really? how is that even possible in that really old game? even all but a few modern games are fine with 1 gb at 2560.It depends on the game and on the settings. I can get a 1 GB Radeon 6850 to texture swap in Call of Duty 1 by running it at 2560x1600 with 8xSSAA.
if you dont go 570 sli for over year or so then it would probably make more sense to get whatever new single card is out at that time anyway. I still dont see 1280mb being a worry at 1920 for at least the next 2 years though.All I'm saying is that if there were a single card as powerful as 2x570, you'd probably want more than 1.3GB of memory on it. How is this different than eventually going SLI 570s?
You barely ever see 4870 512's anymore; everyone that went SLI ended up with the 1GB version.