10mb/s for 1 frame x 30fps = 3000mb/s estimated at this resolution x3 monitors 9000mb/s Possibly x4 more for your desired settings...36 gig/s
About 10mb/s per player..with cable of atleast 1mb/s that's 6 gigs/s mostly system and cpu memory is used here. But memory will also be dedicated on vcard for physics and player models. When SHTF rams usage could be 4-8x more...
we're looking at a theoretical in game overall ram usage of 15 - 36gigs a second demand. minimum. On video memory alone.
You could see only 2-4 gb's reserved in task manager...But i'm talking about how much data, in theory...is passing through the cpu/gpu and network interfaces. At any given moment.
Depending on the hardware used...This could be too much, or just fine.
Virtual ram will use only what you tell it to. Video ram is often shared with system resources. So not everything is stored on the card's memory alone. This also depends on the map used, and it's size. I believe bf3 used 2048x2048 max? Another 4-8 gigs a second. 48gigs a second at this point. minimum. and 192gigs/s maximum during heavy fighting.
So if you have the ram available, physically or virtual...you could see 8-10gb reserved in task manager during heavy gameplay.
^Man that was a complicated answer. I consider myself pretty techy, but u lost me on that one. Simple answer : an peak of 2.6gb of VRAM use on BF3 ultra 5760x1080. I read this on a different forum with a guy with a 7970CF rig. The one thing I don't understand is how Tomshardware shows the 680sli 2gb higher fps than the 7970cf if the 7970 has 3gb of VRAM and the 680s should be hitting their VRAM ceiling. Unless testing map used a lot less VRAM?
Its not just vram thats important in a game like BF3, the 680 appears to be doing really well with only 2gb of vram due to the gpu's power, if you got something like a 560ti 2GB SLI with that high resolution in BF3 , it would probably hit a wall compared to the 680 with 2gb of vram. Both vram and gpu power is important in a set up like this, dont get me wrong the 7970 performs very well too , but the 680 shows it has more guts with less vram to the 7970 with 3gb in games like BF3. It will be interesting to see if the fps increases with the 680 4GB cards that are coming out soon , Id really like to see the if there is much of a performance increase on a 3 monitor set-up at 5760x 1080 compared to a 680 2GB.
Ok Im confused. Does Crossfire record both mirrored vram used? So you have to divide by how many cards are used, which would be 2. And SLI records total VRAM? So 7970cf with FXAA would actually use 1770mb of VRAM at this resolution. Someone tell me if im correct.
If this is correct is 680 SLI reaching its VRAM limit with FXAA? It only rises 10-15 mb with each raised AA. Unlike 7970cf where it raises substantially @700mb each AA increment(or 350mb if divided by 2).
I agree with Swolern. I don't understand how Tomshardware shows the 680SLI 2GB or even 670SLI higher fps than the 7970CFX in 5760x1080p...I think they are suspiciously getting in favor of Nvidia...Here in Tom's always compare games that favor Kepler arquitecture, and avoid crucial topics like 5760x1080p
IMO we'll have to find the answer in another website