I don't really see how this is possible, since I went from a GTX460 to a GTX Titan and I don't really feel like it's 65% faster. :lol: (」・ω・)」
auxy wrote:I don't really see how this is possible, since I went from a GTX460 to a GTX Titan and I don't really feel like it's 65% faster. (」・ω・)」
I definitely wouldn't bother upgrading from a GTX560Ti, and certainly not to a card with a weaker memory interface. Even on your giant monitor, are you really having trouble running things? Granted I was only in 1080p, but on my GTX460 I had encountered very few games that I felt like I wasn't able to run.
Resolution has a big effect on your performance, due to exponentially increased demands on fill rate, but it has almost no effect on your VRAM usage. A 1920x1080x32bpp render target is only 24Mbytes triple-buffered; 2560x1440x32bpp is 45mbytes triple-buffered. Even if you add 2x2 ("4x") SSAA, that's 176mbytes triple-buffered at 2560x1440x32bpp. Whoop-de-doo! °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°Airmantharp wrote:Resolution is a bear. I did the same thing- a single HD6950 wasn't fast enough, and a single GTX570, while a little faster, only had 1.25GB of RAM, which also wasn't enough.
druidcent wrote:Sounds I should plan on the upgrade, (I've got about 2 weeks to decide), and I should either go for the 660 Ti+ at $283 or the 670 for $428? Is the $150 going to be worth it?
My math wasn't really off. I said 24MB for 1920x1080x32bpp triple-buffer (three 8Mbyte frames) and 45Mbytes for triple-buffer 2560x1440x32bpp. That's the size of the framebuffer before you start adding tricks like MSAA into the equation. I think your MSAA math might be wrong, though.morphine wrote:auxy, your math may be off.
- A single 1920x1080 frame is ~8MB. Multi-sampled 4x, it's ~126MB.
- A single 2560x1600 frame is ~16MB. Multi-sampled 4x, it's ~250MB ( (2560 x 4) x (1600 x 4) x 4 ).
The textures won't increase the size of the render target; or, to put it more clearly, the screen resolution has little-to-nothing to do with the amount of video memory the textures use.morphine wrote:Take into account extra VRAM requirements for double and triple-buffering, texture mip-maps (which will increase), depth buffers, etc, and - via Mark I eyeball - you can easily looking at half to a gig over the requirement for 1920, if not more.
You would think, but that only tells you GPU RAM usage, not which part is textures and which part is buffer.morphine wrote:Of course, someone with a 3GB graphics card can easily use GPU-Z for monitoring and put this dilemma to rest.
Unless you enable non-postprocessing anti-aliasing, like MSAA or SSAA; then the gap widens quickly. Those extra 64-bits of memory bandwidth -- and extra ROPs to go along -- help a LOT. Look here: Tom's Hardware: Seven GeForce GTX 660 Ti Cards: Exploring Memory Bandwidth The 660Ti loses out to a lowly Radeon 7870 at 8x MSAA.Voldenuit wrote:GTX 670 is, on average 17% faster than the 660Ti. Whether that's worth the 51% price premium is up to you.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], strangerguy and 10 guests