Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

2 GB RAM on a 560 Ti card.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 4, 2011 7:51:46 PM

Having trouble finding any reviews, opinions or thoughts on MSI jamming 2GB of RAM onto their OC'd 560 Ti card for $15-$20 USD more.

1GB version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

2GB version:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Is this a shot at some future readiness since a few games lately have been filling more than 1GB? How about the 256-bit memory interface? Is that going to be a potential "bottleneck" in delivering all the performance of the extra RAM on the 2GB card?

I'm aware that the 1GB 560 Ti does great at 1920x1080 on current games but I'm wondering if that extra GB on the other card will come in handy down the road.

Whats the opinion around here? Thanks.

More about : ram 560 card

a c 88 U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 8:09:18 PM

The 2GB of vram is a good way to go , currently games like BF3 use more than 1GB of vram and degrade your performance if you have a 1GB card. You will be far better off buying the 2gb for the extra 15 - 20 more. Wish I bought the 2gb versions, I regret getting the 1GB.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 8:09:57 PM

you have a golden chance get 2gb version nothing will be bottleneck don't worry the upcomming games should be need 2gb version and some current games also greedy for 2gb.
Score
0
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 8:28:40 PM

I don't know what planet you guys live on but I am forced to call bullsh!t on this. Unless you play at 2560 + resolutions with 8xAA the only reason for having more ram onboard is marketing purposes.

In fact many 2GB versions of midrange cards (lower midrange in this case) actually SLOW the card down.

Just ONE LOOK at the graphics charts will confim this. Also a recent article on here also says specifically this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-...

The vRAM is for storing the frame buffer. I don't care how OCed your 560ti is, it doesn't have the grunt to shift frames fast enough. only the ULTRA high end cards need this much frame buffer.

You guys are really really sad. Don't waste your money buying into marketing hype when the information is literally handed to you RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE....FOR FREE. A veteren of the forum? Really?



Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 9:45:34 PM

americanbrian said:
I don't know what planet you guys live on but I am forced to call bullsh!t on this. Unless you play at 2560 + resolutions with 8xAA the only reason for having more ram onboard is marketing purposes.

In fact many 2GB versions of midrange cards (lower midrange in this case) actually SLOW the card down.

Just ONE LOOK at the graphics charts will confim this. Also a recent article on here also says specifically this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-6950-1gb-...

The vRAM is for storing the frame buffer. I don't care how OCed your 560ti is, it doesn't have the grunt to shift frames fast enough. only the ULTRA high end cards need this much frame buffer.

You guys are really really sad. Don't waste your money buying into marketing hype when the information is literally handed to you RIGHT HERE ON THIS SITE....FOR FREE. A veteren of the forum? Really?



You know, I was kinda thinking the same thing. I have 512 gig cards, and was maybe wishing I had went for the 1 gig since I have them in SLI, they maybe could have been strong enough together to make use of a gig of frame buffer, but 2 gig? I am skeptical, I would have to see some serious benchmarking done to believe it. I have been wrong before, but this time, I don't know.....an article with the numbers would be very interesting to see.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 10:10:17 PM

I did link to article^ plus lets look at the charts... "gamer index"

Radeon HD 6950 1GB 130.82 fps
Radeon HD 6950 2 GB 129.34 fps

Fastest 560ti has 1GB onboard...

Also, your 480 is faster anyway and your statement does not in any way prove that have 1.5GB onboard actually increases FPS. My firefox can use up 2GB of system memory and that does not make it NEED that much ram to run at full speed.

Show me a comparison anywhere that shows the benefit and I will take back my words, but you can't and I won't. So whatever dude.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2011 10:21:20 PM

americanbrian said:
I did link to article^ plus lets look at the charts... "gamer index"

Radeon HD 6950 1GB 130.82 fps
Radeon HD 6950 2 GB 129.34 fps

Fastest 560ti has 1GB onboard...

Also, your 480 is faster anyway and your statement does not in any way prove that have 1.5GB onboard actually increases FPS. My firefox can use up 2GB of system memory and that does not make it NEED that much ram to run at full speed.

Show me a comparison anywhere that shows the benefit and I will take back my words, but you can't and I won't. So whatever dude.



I did see that, was wondering about the 560ti's with 2 gig. I am with you that 2 gig seems like nonsense, but still would like to see them benchedl.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 7:48:52 AM

What exactly does that show? That at different points in the game the FPS changes?

Did you somehow limit the available vRAM? and do repeated runs of the same unchanging sequence???

Then why are the FPS captures shown at different areas?

You have shown exactly nothing. Maybe my attitude is the way it is because I dislike people getting ripped off, valuable memory chips being wasted on poor design choices and worse still people who should know better feeding the hype to uneducated users who will listen to the "expert".

P.S. the 480 has a more powerful GPU that can actually start to use the extra frame buffer in some situations. 1.5GB vRAM on your card is possibly defendable, however 2GB on a 560ti is completely undefendable.

And I was in a bit of a harsh mood earlier, I am not trying to be overly offensive, just voicing my distaste at what I see as misleading advice.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 8:04:56 AM

As far I understood 384-BiT showed us that is it possible to use more than 1GB vRAM in 1080p. Almost 50% more to be precise.

And the GTX 480 isn't THAT much stronger than GTX 560Ti.

I think that depending the game it's a good idea to get the 2GB vRAM GTX 560Ti. BF3 is an example, GTA IV too. I have SLI GTX 460 (1GB)... have plenty power, but can't max GTA IV due to memory limit
Score
0
a c 175 U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 8:11:12 AM

In some games 2GB will be needed, so it is good to get 2GB.

I heard that 2GB 6950 is little bit slower than 1GB. I don't know about 560Ti though. Or maybe the 2GB 6950 is slower only in less resource demanding games, in high resource demanding it should be faster.
Score
0
a c 142 U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 9:19:36 AM

I'd say only get the 2GB version if you plan to do SLI, or you are planning on sinking hundreds of hours into BF3. One 560Ti will not be able to push out enough frames for RAM to be an issue at any resolution below 2560x1440 under virtually all circumstances, GTA IV and BF3 being the only possible exceptions. Every benchmark I've seen has shown no advantage to the extra RAM outside of possibly those two games below the ultra high resolutions, and even at 2560x1600, a 2GB card only gives you a performance boost in a very small handful of titles. If you plan on getting 2 560Tis you may want the 2GB because a 560Ti SLI will actually have enough power to need the extra RAM outside of a couple of very specific circumstances.
Score
0
a c 273 U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 12:55:57 PM

Supernova1138 said:
I'd say only get the 2GB version if you plan to do SLI, or you are planning on sinking hundreds of hours into BF3. One 560Ti will not be able to push out enough frames for RAM to be an issue at any resolution below 2560x1440 under virtually all circumstances, GTA IV and BF3 being the only possible exceptions. Every benchmark I've seen has shown no advantage to the extra RAM outside of possibly those two games below the ultra high resolutions, and even at 2560x1600, a 2GB card only gives you a performance boost in a very small handful of titles. If you plan on getting 2 560Tis you may want the 2GB because a 560Ti SLI will actually have enough power to need the extra RAM outside of a couple of very specific circumstances.

I've got two 1GB cards in Sli, why should they have been 2GB cards?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 5, 2011 1:27:16 PM

^^ +1

If you are using a triple monitor setup with absurd resolution THEN you need a really big frame buffer. A single monitor which in all likelyhood will be 1920x1080 tops the extra vRAM is a significant cost with 0 added value.

@vitornob, what you say is true about using the extra buffer, yes it fills up, but does it improve performance? That is what has not been illustrated. Every properly run test has shown that 2GB is superfluous to requirements unless you are really using the most exclusive cards to their maximum.

Also, true, the 480 isn't a huge step up from a 560ti. It also doesn't have 2GB vRAM.

An analogy might be consider the vRAM as a big Gasoline Tank. It keeps the GPU (engine) fed. If the engine is VERY powerful you need a big tank with big bore pipes (memory bandwidth) so that it doesn't run out of gas. Put a medium power engine on and yeah, you might keep the tank full but it doesn't help the engine run any faster.

The key is balancing the engines (GPU's) flow (bandwidth) requirements with a suitable sized container (vRAM). Having a big tank just costs more money and doesn't improve anything.



Score
0
December 5, 2011 2:11:56 PM

Actually, the GTX480 still sits nicely between a GTX570 and GTX580 preformance wise.

Memory Bandwidth
The GeForce GTX 480, in theory, should perform a small bit faster than the GeForce GTX 570 overall. (explain)


GeForce GTX 480 177408 MB/sec
GeForce GTX 570 152000 MB/sec
Difference: 25408 (17%)

Texel Rate
The GeForce GTX 570 should be a bit (about 5%) better at AF than the GeForce GTX 480. (explain)

GeForce GTX 570 43920 Mtexels/sec
GeForce GTX 480 42000 Mtexels/sec
Difference: 1920 (5%)

Pixel Rate
If running with a high screen resolution is important to you, then the GeForce GTX 480 is the winner, but it probably won't make a huge difference. (explain)

GeForce GTX 480 33600 Mpixels/sec
GeForce GTX 570 29280 Mpixels/sec
Difference: 4320 (15%)
Score
0
December 5, 2011 9:27:58 PM

So the 256bit interface would hold the 2GB RAM back even if it was called upon in some crazy game we haven't even heard of yet?

Im learning a lot and following along with threads and info as best as possible but I notice all the tests/benchmarks/standards are all surrounding BF3. While I understand why (because its the newest created for PC requirements monster) what about down the road, lets say, a year or 2 when the PCIE-3 cards might be dropping...etc. The 2GB might not be needed NOW for things like BF3, but what about for the games of next year or after? I understand tech needs to be upgraded all the time to keep pace but dropping $300-$600 bucks a year on a card to keep up is pushing it. I just dont want to look back a single year from now and think "damn, $20 bucks kept me from the RAM needed to push this new tech game @ 1080 on my system".

If its truly irrelevant then F it. But if it will be relevant LATER then I might as well try and be prepared.
Score
0

Best solution

a b U Graphics card
December 6, 2011 9:21:55 AM

It is a case of design limits placed by the GPU. It simply can't process the data fast enough for it to reach the limit of the frame buffer.

See my engine analogy, it explains why it will not ever matter. A big gas tank on a little engine does nothing to make the engine work faster.
Share
December 6, 2011 8:23:18 PM

Best answer selected by CoolAid.
Score
0
December 6, 2011 8:24:31 PM

Thanks. Looks like I'm better off with (2) hawks, (2) 448s or a 570/580.
Score
0
!