1440p and vram

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RaulF

Senior member
Jan 18, 2008
844
1
81
Games @ 1440p

All playable settings for my setup

Metro 2033 - AAA - Maxed out - 1557MB
Crysis 3 - FXAA on Very High - 1950MB
BF4 SP - 2XMSAA on Ultra - 2153MB
GTA 4 - Modded textures and ENB - Maxed out - 1500MB
Batman AO - Ultra with Max TXAA - 2100MB
Metro LL - AAA - Maxed settings - 1200MB
Skyrim - with 2K and 4K Texture mods with 2XMSAA - 2300-2500MB
Assetto Corsa - 4XMSAA - Ultra - 2450MB

Thank you.

Someone with some actual numbers.

I will do the same when i get chance.

And another thing to point out is fast fps vs regular game will make a difference, plus online vs single player.
 

RaulF

Senior member
Jan 18, 2008
844
1
81
BF4 Multi Shangai 48 players 2664MB 1080 rez all max res scale 100%

Titanfall 2997MB all max settings 1080 rez

COD Ghost multi various settings 1080 rez Stonehedge map 3307MB

And for COD Ghost, i have also run a 780Ti and 780Ti SLI and the 3GB of ram will make me run into the vram wall. I will stutter out of nowhere now and then.

Now with a 290 that has 4GB of vram the game runs fairly smooth.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
BF4 Multi Shangai 48 players 2664MB 1080 rez all max res scale 100%

Titanfall 2997MB all max settings 1080 rez

COD Ghost multi various settings 1080 rez Stonehedge map 3307MB

And for COD Ghost, i have also run a 780Ti and 780Ti SLI and the 3GB of ram will make me run into the vram wall. I will stutter out of nowhere now and then.

Now with a 290 that has 4GB of vram the game runs fairly smooth.

Read the thread...those aren't VRAM usage numbers. 1080p doesn't even get near 2GB in BF4.

I really wish AT would do an article explaining it to those who don't quite grasp it yet.
 

Majcric

Golden Member
May 3, 2011
1,409
65
91
Also unless you can have your eye on the Vram usage the whole time you're testing it's not very meaningful. I've seen Vram peg when there was nothing on the screen in benchmarks. In other words false readings.
 

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
Everyone lists really high numbers for BF4 but as I have shown quite a few times they are all wrong. Ultra settings with 2x MSAA initially on game load needs just 1200MB at 1080p. What then happens is that this climbs until it takes up all 2GB of VRAM on my 680's. Thus it looks like it uses 2GB of VRAM. We had guys test it at 1.5GB with similar settings and there wasn't any noticeable problems. Since January however there is a bug that causes very poor FPS at moments but that doesn't appear to be VRAM related (no amount of messing with settings removes it for me).

This is the problem with measuring it, in some games it works and GPU-Z will tell you the VRAM usage and its accurate enough. In other games like BF4 its a fabrication and depends on when you look at it. Since this myth has already been debunked I consider the people that keep pushing it aren't understanding the problem with their numbers and the process they go through to get them. The numbers are flawed.
 

Face2Face

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2001
4,100
215
106
Read the thread...those aren't VRAM usage numbers. 1080p doesn't even get near 2GB in BF4.

I really wish AT would do an article explaining it to those who don't quite grasp it yet.

I am seeing close to 2GB all of the time with Ultra settings at 1080p. That's just what I am seeing with my setup when playing SP, and I monitor it with an Riva Tuner's OSD the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUYCrkkmstg
 

RaulF

Senior member
Jan 18, 2008
844
1
81
Read the thread...those aren't VRAM usage numbers. 1080p doesn't even get near 2GB in BF4.

I really wish AT would do an article explaining it to those who don't quite grasp it yet.

So i am lying now? I guess i just pull numbers out of thin air to create arguments on the internet.

What exactly should i read in the thread? I dont have a 1440 screen, i can provide numbers for what i have. From there you can bet a 1440 screen will use more since it is more pixels.

Please once again, what do you want me to read?

I am seeing close to 2GB all of the time with Ultra settings at 1080p. That's just what I am seeing with my setup when playing SP, and I monitor it with an Riva Tuner's OSD the whole time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUYCrkkmstg

What about multiplayer?
 

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
F2F I'd be interested in also knowing your multiplier vram per OSD usage in Conquest 64 player in siege of Shanghai on 1080p/1440p, Ultra preset, if you still have the 1080P monitor if you have the time.
 
Last edited:

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
So i am lying now? I guess i just pull numbers out of thin air to create arguments on the internet.

What exactly should i read in the thread? I dont have a 1440 screen, i can provide numbers for what i have. From there you can bet a 1440 screen will use more since it is more pixels.

Please once again, what do you want me to read?

What you are reading is all that those monitoring programs can report, which is the amount of VRAM that the game allocates, which is based on the amount of available memory on whatever card is being used.

It is silly to believe that games are written for cards > 2GB, which only have ~10% market penetration. 4k is obviously a different story, but for now that is an outlier setup.

BF4:

 
Last edited:

Face2Face

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2001
4,100
215
106
F2F I'd be interested in also knowing your multiplier vram per OSD usage in Conquest 64 player in siege of Shanghai on 1080p/1440p, Ultra preset, if you still have the 1080P monitor if you have the time.

I should be able to try it out tonight or tomorrow night. I pretty much suck at BF4, but I will do it for Science
 

Fastx

Senior member
Dec 18, 2008
780
0
0
I should be able to try it out tonight or tomorrow night. I pretty much suck at BF4, but I will do it for Science

Sounds good.
Once you get better it's very addicting/fun game per MP, 3-4 hours go by like nothing at times for me in that game and I am not as competitive/good as I'd like to be yet.
 
Last edited:

BrightCandle

Diamond Member
Mar 15, 2007
4,762
0
76
With BF4 at least what used to happen was you would spawn in game and the VRAM would read something like 1200MB. Then over the next 30 seconds it would climb until it reached either the VRAM limit or somewhere around 2500MB. We don't really know if it really needed 1200MB, but the game was certainly playable before it cached all the other stuff into VRAM. The challenge with all these modern games is that the number itself isn't representative of need, I don't think the 1200MB is representative of need either.

The only practical way to test this is to get the same card with different amounts of VRAM and measure the performance, and its not until the performance shows drops that the VRAM made a difference. We don't have that capability beyond the very basics of 2/4 GB , 3/6 GB models and different cards with different VRAM amounts like 1.5GB. All the 2GB to4 GB reviews say the same thing, it isn't worth it. You just can't compare these numbers on a 3GB card for comparison to a 2GB card, just capturing the numbers is a flawed approach.
 

RaulF

Senior member
Jan 18, 2008
844
1
81
What you are reading is all that those monitoring programs can report, which is the amount of VRAM that the game allocates, which is based on the amount of available memory on whatever card is being used.

It is silly to believe that games are written for cards > 2GB, which only have ~10% market penetration. 4k is obviously a different story, but for now that is an outlier setup.

BF4:


Ok.

So when i run my 780Ti and raised the bar by going 200% resolution scale and the game starts to hitch from 15 fps to 60 non stop and makes it looks like a checker board, is just the game not really using vram?

But when i use the 290 that has an extra gig of vram the fps is steady and does not fluctuate!

So what am i doing wrong? Because by looking at MSI afterburner when i would exit the game it would show that in the Ti it would be pegged on vram. And i dont remember exatcly (my other 290 is getting RMA right now) but with the 290 i think it was around 3500 or 3700MB of vram and the game was smooth.

The same thing happens in COD ghost(and nvidia game BTW). With the Ti i will have random stutters and lock ups. I look at the vram usage under EVGA pressision X and it is pretty much pegged also. Some maps will run to 2900MB and will play fine. But others like the one with the snow in it (when it does snow) will make the game hitch. Again i check and the memory is pegged with the video card, or at least that's what "it shows" While the 290 plays it smooth with no issues.


I am saying this because i have personal experience with today's high end cards and pushing them till something says no more.


I hopes this is understandable and English is my second language.
 
Last edited:

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Ok.

So when i run my 780Ti and raised the bar by going 200% resolution scale and the game starts to hitch from 15 fps to 60 non stop and makes it looks like a checker board, is just the game not really using vram?

But when i use the 290 that has an extra gig of vram the fps is steady and does not fluctuate!

So what am i doing wrong? Because by looking at MSI afterburner when i would exit the game it would show that in the Ti it would be pegged on vram. And i dont remember exatcly (my other 290 is getting RMA right now) but with the 290 i think it was around 3500 or 3700MB of vram and the game was smooth.

The same thing happens in COD ghost(and nvidia game BTW). With the Ti i will have random stutters and lock ups. I look at the vram usage under EVGA pressision X and it is pretty much pegged also. Some maps will run to 2900MB and will play fine. But others like the one with the snow in it (when it does snow) will make the game hitch. Again i check and the memory is pegged with the video card, or at least that's what "it shows" While the 290 plays it smooth with no issues.


I am saying this because i have personal experience with today's high end cards and pushing them till something says no more.


I hopes this is understandable and English is my second language.

That graph did not show 200% resolution. Stop using it, and you'll not have a problem. AA can raise your vram usage, and 200% is like using SSAA x4, which we all know is extremely taxing. There are limits, but if you have a problem, it is almost always using too much AA.
 

blastingcap

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2010
6,654
5
76
OP, if you intend to buy a card and keep it for multiple years, you want it to be able to run BF5 (and Witcher 3, etc.) at 1440p--not BF4. If you plan to upgrade within 18 months, you are probably fine with 2GB VRAM at 1440p, unless you plan to do things like play Skyrim with mods that ratchet up the VRAM minimum or use crazy amounts of AA.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
40
86
Quote: Intel Xeon E3-1230v3

You'll be CPU bottlenecked before anything matters.

Get a 4670k 4.2ghz+ or better before even thinking about getting more than 1x 770 GTX.

Everything else discussed is 100% pointless in the OP's situation.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Quote: Intel Xeon E3-1230v3

You'll be CPU bottlenecked before anything matters.

Get a 4670k 4.2ghz+ or better before even thinking about getting more than 1x 770 GTX.

Everything else discussed is 100% pointless in the OP's situation.
lol his cpu is basically a 4770k so a 4670k would be a downgrade...
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
40
86
lol his cpu is basically a 4770k so a 4670k would be a downgrade...

Hyperthreading is pointless in real-time applications where maximum frame time is the only thing that matters.

Lower minimum frame times mean nothing in a real-time application, lower maximum frame times are what determine persistent fluidity and response time.

My CPU struggles to do more than 60 fps minimums in BF4.

My CPU is 4 core @ 4.5 ghz, his is 4 core @ 3.3 ghz, thats somewhere between
4.5 / 3.3 = 1.36363636364x higher performance and
4.5 / (3.3 x 1.1) = 1.23966942149x higher performance

And I was already bottlenecking my CPU with a 7970, let alone a 290.
@1080p a 7970 is bottlenecked by my CPU
@1440p a 290 is bottlenecked by my CPU

My CPU is at least 1.23966942149x higher performance than his, which bridges the 7970 to 290 gap and then some.

And this assumes his CPU is never throttling, an assumption that cannot be made if he is using the stock HSF.
 
Last edited:

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Xeon's tend to have very slow speeds, and a lot of cores. Gaming tends to favor faster cores to having more than 4. More threads are starting to play a factor more recently, but only a little on a few games.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
40
86
Xeon's tend to have very slow speeds, and a lot of cores. Gaming tends to favor faster cores to having more than 4. More threads are starting to play a factor more recently, but only a little on a few games.

That would be true if his CPU had more cores.

It doesn't.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Hyperthreading is pointless in real-time applications where maximum frame time is the only thing that matters.

Lower minimum frame times mean nothing in a real-time application, lower maximum frame times are what determine persistent fluidity and response time.

My CPU struggles to do more than 60 fps minimums in BF4.

My CPU is 4 core @ 4.5 ghz, his is 4 core @ 3.3 ghz, thats somewhere between
4.5 / 3.3 = 1.36363636364x higher performance and
4.5 / (3.3 x 1.1) = 1.23966942149x higher performance

And I was already bottlenecking my CPU with a 7970, let alone a 290.
@1080p a 7970 is bottlenecked by my CPU
@1440p a 290 is bottlenecked by my CPU

My CPU is at least 1.23966942149x higher performance than his, which bridges the 7970 to 290 gap and then some.

And this assumes his CPU is never throttling, an assumption that cannot be made if he is using the stock HSF.
the point is that a real upgrade would be a 4770k not a 4670k. Crysis 3 loves HT and needs it on top of 4 cores to keep the framerate up. he would lose fps in that game dropping to a 4670k.
 
Last edited:

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
40
86
the point is that a real upgrade would be a 4770k not a 4670k. Crysis 3 loves HT and needs it on top of 4 cores to keep the framerate up. he would lose fps in that game dropping to a 4670k.

I never said the 4770k was worse than 4670k, I only stated what mattered to the point the thread is addressing.

And he wouldn't be dropping in either case, he would be upgrading from his clock locked Xeon.

What you're saying doesn't refute my point?

"Get a 4670k 4.2ghz+ or better before even thinking about getting more than 1x 770 GTX."

Getting something >>better<< than the minimum I stated was also implied (scratch that, I didn't imply, it was explicitly stated .) to be an ok choice? .

I'm not seeing where we are disagreeing here.
 

RaulF

Senior member
Jan 18, 2008
844
1
81
That graph did not show 200% resolution. Stop using it, and you'll not have a problem. AA can raise your vram usage, and 200% is like using SSAA x4, which we all know is extremely taxing. There are limits, but if you have a problem, it is almost always using too much AA.



How about i use what i want! :\

What about COD Ghost? Any comment on that one?
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
How about i use what i want! :\

What about COD Ghost? Any comment on that one?

I don't know what settings or resolution you play at, nor do I know much about the game, but I'm betting your using a lot of AA/scaling.

If that is what is important to you, you obviously need a ton of vram, but if you are willing to be reasonable, you may find you don't need so much.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |