yea, but it's SLI...

i hate posting last on pages....

here's my 3dmark11 w/ a single-570:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2055172

Quote :

"From most of the reviews I've read the 580's still come out slightly on top especially the MSI/EVGA 3GB versions. Plus I'd rather have the 3GB onboard memory than just the 2. "

So the extra 1GB of VRAM is worth $500... oh ok.

Ok, so let's be clear, you all are talking about 1900x1200 resolution.

Let me just post this image again:



1900x1200 resolution, EVERYTHING ON ULTRA, and I still see a 570 with lower VRAM than the 480 come out on top. The only thing I can think of is that you're using Nvidia supersampling (outside of BF3) as to why your VRAM is so high.

<insert obligatory comment about how user doesn't trust TechSpot now and hasn't since 2000>

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 1:23:14 PM

You said:

Quote :

"(2) 6970's would still be better and only $700... "

For the price? Yes. For performance clearly that chart has the 2 580's averaging 76 compared to 2 6970's averaging 53. That's quite a big difference.

Quote :

"1900x1200 resolution, EVERYTHING ON ULTRA, and I still see a 570 with lower VRAM than the 480 come out on top. The only thing I can think of is that you're using Nvidia supersampling (outside of BF3) as to why your VRAM is so high."

I don't believe this fully addresses the issue though. The vram issue/frame drops doesn't effect the overall average. I can run through a multiplayer map with great FPS on Ultra but still have stuttering/frame drops and they won't effect the overall average that much. I've just been reading reviews where people get great FPS with 1.25/1.5 cards but still hit the VRAM wall and have frame drop issues.

My point is money aside 2 580's is a better choice. That's all.

10/31/2011 1:34:08 PM

For the price yes.

I agree with that. Frame drop is another issue than FPS, maybe I just misunderstood the argument then... I thought it was about sustained FPS which BlackDog was alluding to (I thought). It sounded like he was saying once the VRAM limit was hit you'd see a massive drop in overall FPS, which isn't the case. Occasional frame drop I can understand, but I don't see that being a big enough issue to spend bank on.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 1:37:05 PM

If you care about 3D Tech at all with your ACER, just go ahead and eliminate any ATI cards from your mind entirely.

10/31/2011 1:46:58 PM

It is and it's annoying. I get great FPS but every minute or 2 I get a massive FPS drop and it's makes the game unplayable for a couple seconds. It's really frustrating especially in multiplayer. Big explosion=frame drop. Helicopter crashes=frame drop. I even experienced this in Metro 2033. If I'm upgrading I want a card where ram can't possibly be the limiting factor. Plus I'd like more FPS for the 120hz monitor.

^yes I forgot to mention that. I'm sticking to Nvidia. I don't game in 3D all the time but it's really fun every now and then.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 1:48 PM. Reason : s]

10/31/2011 1:47:58 PM

I don't see any frame dropping with my 3GB of VRAM.

If you get 2x TFIII MSI GTX 580 Lightning Xtremes, you will have 6GB of VRAM and easily hit 120FPS sustained on that epic ACER... lol

If you can sell enough stuff to make up for the immense cost, you will have next generation gaming experiences, with the 3D option to boot.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 1:51 PM. Reason : -]

10/31/2011 1:50:26 PM

The vram doesn't double (unfortunately) when you're running 2 cards in SLI. Otherwise I wouldn't be running into issues with 2 1GB 460's. 3GB should be plenty though.

Stimwalt
I've read of users with 1.5GB 580's having great FPS in SLI but then all of a sudden having these massive frame drops due to the vram limit being reached. You don't get any drops with 1 580?

10/31/2011 2:13:36 PM

I don't get any frame drops, but I'm at 1050, so higher resolutions and multi-monitor setups are probably the only impacted. Unfortunately no one benchmarks this grey-area either, so you kind of just have to monitor your VRAM yourself per your individual setup.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 2:15:10 PM

Yeah I doubt you would have issues at 1050. I have AA turned completely off so my ram isn't maxed at 1gig and I'm monitoring it on another monitor and every time it hits max I get massive frame drops despite great FPS otherwise. To completely get rid of them I have to turn all AA off and put settings at medium or high.

10/31/2011 2:20:34 PM

I have a GTX 570 on an i5 2500K OC'd to 4Ghz with 16GB of RAM and the game is installed on a SATA III SSD.

I have not experienced any frame drops at 1600x1200 ... plays like a champ. I have everything on Ultra except for AA, I think that's at 2x.

I'm usually one of the first people to spawn on a map, but not that it matters much since there's a wait time before the level starts.



[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 2:30:47 PM

on high settings, BF3 only touches about 800-900 mb of vram. ultra maxes it out at 1250mb and I have seen the dreaded frame drops, but only on a few occasions on large maps and like only once or twice in a round. Doesn't slow down due to explosions.

Funny enough, I thought I had a huge issue with frame drops and found out that the default keys for record (which maxes at 30fps) was my f3 key so every time I jump around in a vehicle, I go ape shit thinking my SLI was fucked up.

10/31/2011 2:31:27 PM

^what resolution?

Quote :

"I have a GTX 570 on an i5 2500K OC'd to 4Ghz with 16GB of RAM and the game is installed on a SATA III SSD. I have not experienced any frame drops at 1600x1200 ... plays like a champ. I have everything on Ultra except for AA, I think that's at 2x. I'm usually one of the first people to spawn on a map, but not that it matters much since there's a wait time before the level starts."

I have the same setup, same outcome. 1600x1200 still isn't as high of a resolution as 1920x1080, so it may still happen at higher resolutions....

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 2:37:59 PM

1920x1200

10/31/2011 2:40:54 PM

I'm not seeing any frame dropping with my card.

10/31/2011 3:07:30 PM

why would you enable 4x MSAA when you have the other AA on?

From what I read the other AA (low/medium/high) is cheaper and roughly the same quality. From what I understand there is no point in enabling both.

I think it just seems so ridiculous to spend $1200 on video cards when I'm averaging probably about 70fps in BF3 with all Ultra @ 2560x1440 with two 6950 TOXICS (although they are 6970s now). Idk why you need more performance unless its eyefinity or 120hz at high resolution.

10/31/2011 3:19:40 PM

^because neodata has 120Hz monitor. but i'm completely with you on spending that kind of money on frames over 70-80fps. anti-aliasing post performs a lot better than deferred.

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 3:40:26 PM

Quote :

"Idk why you need more performance unless its eyefinity or 120hz at high resolution."

Yeah 120hz/3D plus Nvidia surround. Plus if people are reporting the game hitting close to 2GB of ram then I'd much rather have 3GB than 2 for future games.

Again I'm justifying the purchase if I sell a bunch of crap. Not trying to spend money on it.

10/31/2011 3:51:42 PM

I sold a ton of stuff, but had to upgrade my whole computer.... I wish I could have spent it all on GPU/monitors

10/31/2011 3:53:30 PM

i really wish squad voice chat was available when playing with random people

seems like it would really increase teamwork. Also miss the idea of a commander, was always sort of cool to think there was a bigger strategy at play. I hope they add it back in with a future expansion or something

10/31/2011 3:56:59 PM

It's always good in theory but then it just turns into a yelling contest with no one listening and everyone rushing.

10/31/2011 3:57:54 PM

Commander only works in league play, pick up groups are simply chaos.

10/31/2011 4:08:01 PM

Chaos is an understatement.

10/31/2011 4:11:07 PM

Well 90% of the time it was a whiny 9-year old with a high-pitched voice... but the other 10% of the time, even w/out voice commands, the commander could make a very noticeable difference in the game with radar frequency and position, calling out enemies across the entire map, strategic ammo drops and artillery strikes it could easily turn the tide of the game with an intelligent commander.

To all of our Battlefield 3 fans: We are listening, keep sending valuable feedback
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/31/thanks-for-your-feedback.aspx

Mid-air helicopter pickup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Rv9X-TqMg

[Edited on October 31, 2011 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2011 4:53:16 PM

Yeah, pub play is pretty chaotic. Even a good working 4 man team will dominate a 32 man map.

10/31/2011 5:01:58 PM

If I was only going to buy one for PS3, should I buy Battlefield 3 or MW3?

10/31/2011 8:07:57 PM

COD is better on consoles IMO.

10/31/2011 8:35:05 PM

^^ MW3

I think BF3 is about 75% chaos at any map above 32 people. Walls exploding, helicopters diving in, rockets blowing up all around you. You pretty much just want to hide in a corner until it all quiets down...

10/31/2011 8:56:14 PM

thanks for the advice

10/31/2011 11:20:24 PM

yeah, even I concur, COD will spank BF3 on consoles.

10/31/2011 11:34:18 PM

Quote :

"Status Update By Battlefield Be advised! We are boosting the capacity of our Battlefield 3 servers tonight. As such, all platforms will be down for maintenance and performance upgrades at 2AM PDT for about an hour. Thank you for your patience!"

10/31/2011 11:38:15 PM

So should that help the terrible lag I saw on some servers this weekend?

Also, why the heck didn't they put in a ping indicator in-game?

11/1/2011 12:10:12 AM

^

I rubber band on almost all 64 player servers....hopefully whatever they are updating fixes it across every server

11/1/2011 9:30:07 AM

I wish I could play

These Botox injections are kicking my ass, but today has been the best it has been without heavier meds in terms of flexibility. I hope by the end of the week I will be back in game. Also like I said earlier at 1920x1200 (telling us about your lower res performance doesn't matter, we are running different setups) with 2xMSAA and High AA Post Processing + Ultra settings I maintain VRAM usage at 1.3Gb during the loading screen, 1.4Gb-1.5Gb usage in game. I do not see how anyone could play at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 with Ultra settings and MSAA without breaking 1Gb-1.2Gb. However I don't have a 1080 monitor and don't really care to play below my native res just to find out. Mainly because the time I can spend playing is limited right now. I'm still trying to get my joystick configured for the game, that is how little I can play.

Also Prospero, I hope you are breaking 6000P in 3DMark11 with the newest chipset and the 2nd fastest CPU plus the 2nd or 3rd fastest single GPU card in 3DMark11. However if you read any of the pages where I posted my setup (including page 1, 2nd post), I am running a S775 board with a med-high OCd Q9550. To break 6000P with a first gen Fermi and an E0 C2Q is pretty damn hard for even a veteran OCer. You act like I am one of those guys that bought the 480 when it first came out for $500 and feel like I need to defend it. However (again if you read) I did 3 RMAs on my GTX 295 and eventually was sent a GTX 480 for nothing. I post what the card does and what the game requires according to Rivatuner (through MSI Afterburner) on my G15 heads up display.

Again, that single website benchmark does not address the issue of large FPS spikes. Who cares if you are running at 50 FPS most of the time, but then drop down to sub 30's or high 20's when lots of action is on the screen? When you experience the FPS spike is when you need FPS the most during heavy fighting and running at 50fps when nothing is going on is great for doing nothing. Not to mention I have yet to see a BF3 benchmark program, which means websites are using FRAPS to avg out their FPS which is not a way to compare hardware in a game like BF3. They could run it 10 times and get 10 different results (even getting the avg of 10 runs is not how most games are benchmarked); not to mention some maps push VRAM high and others keep it pretty steady in comparison. What map were they on? How many people? What was going on during the benchmark?

When there is a BF3 benchmark program released, then we can see some FPS comparisons. However, even a synthetic benchmark using BF3 still can't tell you what you are going to experience in a large MP game like BF3. You may play 4 maps and have no problem and then on the 5th hit your VRAM wall and drop to 25 fps during the heaviest of fights. This is why people want the highest VRAM possible in BF3, it is the first game to push cards past 1.5Gb at normal resolutions (1920x1200 and below). Basically there is no perfect way to get a FPS reading in a game like BF3. The best way to find out is to play the game and there is no way to play the game twice exactly the same (this isn't Crysis), even if the players remain the same and the map too. They can make a very good synthetic benchmark that uses the most action possible, but it still won't tell you what is going to happen when you play from one day to the next. You can play at sub HD resolutions and get a steady reading because your VRAM is never pushed close to the wall, but that isn't what we are talking about with needing the most VRAM possible. Have fun playing and thanks for whoever made the Platoon for not sending me an invite..

11/1/2011 3:44:12 PM

Dude, I know your neck hurts, but no one owes you anything. Stop acting like it.

11/1/2011 3:50:57 PM

When did I ask anyone for anything? How do you read my above post and come out with a one sentence response about me being owed something? Did you even read the post? Or just the first few sentences?

I'll cut it down for the people so sensitive to me talking about myself in a post:

Quote :

"Again, that single website benchmark does not address the issue of large FPS spikes. Who cares if you are running at 50 FPS most of the time, but then drop down to sub 30's or high 20's when lots of action is on the screen? When you experience the FPS spike is when you need FPS the most during heavy fighting and running at 50fps when nothing is going on is great for doing nothing. Not to mention I have yet to see a BF3 benchmark program, which means websites are using FRAPS to avg out their FPS which is not a way to compare hardware in a game like BF3. They could run it 10 times and get 10 different results (even getting the avg of 10 runs is not how most games are benchmarked); not to mention some maps push VRAM high and others keep it pretty steady in comparison. What map were they on? How many people? What was going on during the benchmark? When there is a BF3 benchmark program released, then we can see some FPS comparisons. However, even a synthetic benchmark using BF3 still can't tell you what you are going to experience in a large MP game like BF3. You may play 4 maps and have no problem and then on the 5th hit your VRAM wall and drop to 25 fps during the heaviest of fights. This is why people want the highest VRAM possible in BF3, it is the first game to push cards past 1.5Gb at normal resolutions (1920x1200 and below). Basically there is no perfect way to get a FPS reading in a game like BF3. The best way to find out is to play the game and there is no way to play the game twice exactly the same (this isn't Crysis), even if the players remain the same and the map too. They can make a very good synthetic benchmark that uses the most action possible, but it still won't tell you what is going to happen when you play from one day to the next. You can play at sub HD resolutions and get a steady reading because your VRAM is never pushed close to the wall, but that isn't what we are talking about with needing the most VRAM possible."

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 4:02 PM. Reason : durrr]

11/1/2011 3:59:45 PM

Quote :

"Again, that single website benchmark does not address the issue of large FPS spikes. Who cares if you are running at 50 FPS most of the time, but then drop down to sub 30's or high 20's when lots of action is on the screen?"

This is pretty spot on. I get better FPS ON AVERAGE than a 580 with my 2 OC'd 460's with FRAPS but during intense scenes or on a couple maps I get crazy FPS drops down to the 20's and sometimes below at 1080p. This is annoying and frustrating.

11/1/2011 4:09:42 PM

I try to write something that hasn't already been said, at least in one post in a thread. Lol

11/1/2011 4:34:56 PM

BlackDog, a 3dmark is a 3dmark, I don't care how you got P6000, the higher number the better. And to be honest I don't see how it applies to Battlefield 3.

And again, some people don't framedrop, so it entirely depends on the individual's setup.

You keep talking shit, trying to say that new hardware should respond the same way old hardware does and that all that matters is a 3dmark score and amount of VRAM. You also keep talking shit about overclocking like "no one else is as talented as you are" in regards to their overclocking ability. None of this applies to Battlefield 3.

Quote :

"You can play at sub HD resolutions and get a steady reading because your VRAM is never pushed close to the wall, but that isn't what we are talking about with needing the most VRAM possible.""

There ARE scenarios where you won't hit the VRAM limit, I mean good gosh, you do realize that a multi-montior setup and a high enough resolution it could choke ANY GPU right? It's an issue, but you're making it out to be the biggest problem of all and that everyone should go out and buy a 4GB VRAM card to future proof themselves.

Quote :

"Again, that single website benchmark does not address the issue of large FPS spikes. Who cares if you are running at 50 FPS most of the time, but then drop down to sub 30's or high 20's when lots of action is on the screen?""

Again only applies to certain graphics cards.... neodata686 has already identified this issue because he only has 1GB of VRAM and is running a high resolution.... It's been identified as a problem, but it does not apply to everyone. Let's get off this topic already... Obviously you guys have an issue, gs7, JBaz and myself with 570's don't see this issue except for JBaz at a high resolution and once every game or so, not frequently like you two.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 5:26 PM. Reason : ,]

11/1/2011 5:08:23 PM

People say I take things so personally...

When did I say anything about anyone else OCing? All I said is it is hard to hit 6000P with a C2Q and a GF100 Fermi card for a veteran OCer. Just because I OC should have nothing to do with your response to what I say about other hardware. People obviously agree with some things I have said or you wouldn't see my name posted on the last page, even though I haven't posted for 2 days.

I posted my 3DMark11 score to let people know what my baseline is and let them know not to expect my posts to match my stock hardware from my first posts.

You have used this as a way to have an E-Peen contest and I explained to you why it is different hitting 6000P with a 2500k and a 570 vs a Q9550 and a 480. However I'm done talking about it and I said what I needed to say about the difference. By you trying to show off with your shiny new hardware you will only confuse people by the performance I post about my own system. I know the game doesn't respond well to CPU OCing up to a point, however it responds very well to GPU OCing. Once you hit the CPU performance of newer AMD CPU, you are basically at the CPU requirement of the game. For a C2Q, based on the model you need to be close to the stock performance of a Q9450. Anything more and you are just wasting power and producing more heat for this game. With your GPU, the sky is the limit.

We've pretty much run this into the ground and I'm tired of trying to explain this to people who think differently.

Like I said before enjoy playing the game.

11/1/2011 5:31:16 PM

No one's taking it personally but you. No one cares about how you got your 3dmark11.... I could go into how I got my score and my history of overclocking, but I know nobody wants to hear me rant on about it, so why bring it up? Everyone else wants to talk about the game.

Quote :

"We've pretty much run this into the ground and I'm tired of trying to explain this to people who think differently."

No, see everyone understands it, it's just that it completely depends on the individual setup, so you can't just come out and say everyone has the same issue, that's all I'm saying.... because clearly not everyone does.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2011 5:32:15 PM

Quote :

"You can play at sub HD resolutions and get a steady reading because your VRAM is never pushed close to the wall, but that isn't what we are talking about with needing the most VRAM possible."

No shit it depends on personal setups, I have said that over and over. That is mainly why I talk in resolutions when it comes to the game performance.

I don't experience performance FPS spikes, this should show how little you comprehend what I post. My VRAM usage sits normally around 1.4Gb and maybe 300-500mb more or less. When I noticed this huge requirement I made it known; my last video card has 896mb on each GPU and would be falling on its face. However my RMA GTX 480 has double that and performs very well, I only had to turn off NVIDIA Supersampling to stay below 1.5Gb (1536mb is my limit). Almost everything I have posted has nothing to do with my own system, but telling others what I have seen at 1920x1200 in terms of VRAM to warn them.


My posts are to help people like neodata686 who are playing at the same resolution and wondering why his FPS is spiking so bad. Someone with 1Gb of VRAM can't see the game using 1.4Gb, all they know is their game fell to shit.






[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 6:17 PM. Reason : _]

11/1/2011 6:01:38 PM

I hear what you're saying, but even at higher resolutions, not everyone is experiencing it, which you seem to be missing.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 6:09 PM. Reason : So sick of this.]

So I don't see why you keep commenting on the 570.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2011 6:07:21 PM

This is a very circular discussion. What exactly are you refuting Blackdog?

11/1/2011 6:07:44 PM

Yeah this is going in circles.

Quote :

"I hear what you're saying, but even at higher resolutions, not everyone is experiencing it, which you seem to be missing."

I don't know. If you're gaming at 1080p or higher and you're turning up settings you're going to hit your ram limit. I don't see how you couldn't unless you have a 2GB or higher card seeing as the game has reportedly consumed close to that. Even more if running on multi-monitor.

If you're not seeing it at 1680 by 1050 then good for you. Even JBaz says he's noticed the spikes with a 570 at 1.25. I'm sure he can turn up AA and run on Ultra at 1080p but he's going to hit the VRAM limit and hit the spikes with only 1.25GB of ram.

I've noticed this in Crysis, Metro 2033, and now Battlefield 3 with only 1GB of ram at 1080p. I guess point being if you're buying a new card get one with at least 2GB of ram.

11/1/2011 7:15:10 PM

Sorry for interrupting the technical chit chat but I wanted to announce I successfully shot down my first jet while flying another jet .

11/1/2011 8:33:23 PM

I still haven't done that. Joystick or no joystick?

11/1/2011 8:36:12 PM

no joystick. I had been playing hardcore games only which means you cant use the chase cam. After i played 1 normal game I used the chase cam to help spot the other jets sooner which let me shoot them down easier.

11/1/2011 8:41:43 PM

It's funny, every time I get into a jet, I'm thinking to myself "this time it will be different" Then a few minutes later, I'm locked onto, and shot down, with nothing to show for it! I have used the chase cam, but I need a lot more practice with just flying and maneuvering in order to actually be decent. For the time being I'm just shooting people out of the sky with my stinger on the Engineer out of spite, lol.

[Edited on November 2, 2011 at 8:46 AM. Reason : -]

11/2/2011 8:43:25 AM

I just unlocked heatseakers on the jets, but have yet been able to lock onto something with them and shoot. It seems to take forever to lock onto a helicopter, by the time I get a successful lock I'm flying by them at full speed.

Is there a way to actually slow down the jets like in BF2? It seems the minimal speed is also the standard speed

11/2/2011 9:41:59 AM

Quote :

"It's funny, every time I get into a jet, I'm thinking to myself "this time it will be different" Then a few minutes later, I'm locked onto, and shot down, with nothing to show for it! I have used the chase cam, but I need a lot more practice with just flying and maneuvering in order to actually be decent. For the time being I'm just shooting people out of the sky with my stinger on the Engineer out of spite, lol. "

lol, it's BF2 all over again.

11/2/2011 10:10:31 AM