The Gigabyte GTX650Ti Boost with Windforce cooler is tested in both single card and SLI configurations. How does it perform?
Continue Reading
Continue Reading
Last edited:
Gigabyte GTX650Ti Boost SLI Review
- Thread starter tinytomlogan
- Start date
murphy7801
New member
1 big card always is better.
Permafrost
Compo Whore
nice dude a good read, I love when 2 cheap card give a £300+ card a kicking, any chance of a HD 7870 Tahiti LE crossfire?
alienware
Banned
No point in doing 7870 LE CFX as it doesn't work properly and so the results won't be worth the charts they're displayed on tbh.
It's a shame that a pair of Boosts cost so much. The last few cheeky SLI systems to have worked out much cheaper than their big single card counterpart but Nvidia have been upping prices of lower model cards and have ruined the fun a bit.
Shame
Permafrost
Compo Whore
No point in doing 7870 LE CFX as it doesn't work properly and so the results won't be worth the charts they're displayed on tbh.
It's a shame that a pair of Boosts cost so much. The last few cheeky SLI systems to have worked out much cheaper than their big single card counterpart but Nvidia have been upping prices of lower model cards and have ruined the fun a bit.
Shame
how do you know CFX as it doesn't work properly
That's why you do 660 SLI because they still cost under £300 and are faster
660 SLI will easily beat 680/7970.
alienware
Banned
That's why you do 660 SLI because they still cost under £300 and are faster
660 SLI will easily beat 680/7970.
Indeed yeah. The Boost was worth having for about a week, then the 660 dropped to the same price
how do you know CFX as it doesn't work properly
http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?t=52258
alienware
Banned
Nah it's not. BF3 in single player uses up to 1.5gb of vram and after that it performs texture streaming using the paging file on your hard drive.
I had serious issues with it and my GTX 470 1.2gb.
OK strange, I've never seen this issue in reviews:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7850_RoyalQueen/31.html
A 1GB 7850 almost matches a 3GB 7950 here.
It'll suffer at 1600p but in dozens of reviews 1GB never seems to hurt performance @ 1080p.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Club_3D/HD_7850_RoyalQueen/31.html
A 1GB 7850 almost matches a 3GB 7950 here.
It'll suffer at 1600p but in dozens of reviews 1GB never seems to hurt performance @ 1080p.
alienware
Banned
Have a read of this.
http://www.geforce.com/optimize/guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide#1
And on Page 5 we have -
As the graph shows, higher settings for Texture Quality do not significantly affect FPS. However as texture detail rises, so too does the amount of Video RAM (VRAM) needed to hold these textures on your graphics card for quick access. In BF3, textures are streamed in as required, but your Texture Quality setting determines the texture pool size, which is the amount of VRAM allocated to storing textures at any one time. At the Low setting, 150MB is allocated to the texture pool; Medium = 200MB; High = 300MB; and Ultra = 500MB. Keep in mind however that your VRAM also stores a range of other game information, and that an average multiplayer level in BF3 can have 1.5GB or more of textures, so it can't all be stored on your GPU at once. Thus setting this option too high may result in stuttering or visible texture streaming. The Ultra Texture Quality setting for example is designed specifically for GPUs with 1.5GB or more of VRAM.
Emphasis added. Note it mentions texture streaming? that's when it runs out of vram and uses your paging file on the hard drive. This in turn causes serious lag, and most importantly input lag. Try doing the sniper in the mall part with that input lag it makes it impossible.
So yes, I can safely say that 1gb is not enough for BF3 even in single player. I tried all sorts, reducing the FSAA turning the settings down but nothing alleviated the awful input lag I was getting that made the game completely unplayable
As soon as I switched to a 6970 Lightning 2GB? I completed the game in a matter of hours, where as I spent hours in the sniper mall level and kept dying as I couldn't reload or aim fast enough.
1.5gb vram for gaming, even vanilla games these days is just about enough. Add some texture mods to Skyrim and you need 2gb+ Even Fallout 3 can use up to 1800mb with high res textures..
Now I'm not saying that 1gb cards are not worth having at all, but there are specific titles that just won't like them at all.
http://www.geforce.com/optimize/guides/battlefield-3-tweak-guide#1
And on Page 5 we have -
As the graph shows, higher settings for Texture Quality do not significantly affect FPS. However as texture detail rises, so too does the amount of Video RAM (VRAM) needed to hold these textures on your graphics card for quick access. In BF3, textures are streamed in as required, but your Texture Quality setting determines the texture pool size, which is the amount of VRAM allocated to storing textures at any one time. At the Low setting, 150MB is allocated to the texture pool; Medium = 200MB; High = 300MB; and Ultra = 500MB. Keep in mind however that your VRAM also stores a range of other game information, and that an average multiplayer level in BF3 can have 1.5GB or more of textures, so it can't all be stored on your GPU at once. Thus setting this option too high may result in stuttering or visible texture streaming. The Ultra Texture Quality setting for example is designed specifically for GPUs with 1.5GB or more of VRAM.
Emphasis added. Note it mentions texture streaming? that's when it runs out of vram and uses your paging file on the hard drive. This in turn causes serious lag, and most importantly input lag. Try doing the sniper in the mall part with that input lag it makes it impossible.
So yes, I can safely say that 1gb is not enough for BF3 even in single player. I tried all sorts, reducing the FSAA turning the settings down but nothing alleviated the awful input lag I was getting that made the game completely unplayable
As soon as I switched to a 6970 Lightning 2GB? I completed the game in a matter of hours, where as I spent hours in the sniper mall level and kept dying as I couldn't reload or aim fast enough.
1.5gb vram for gaming, even vanilla games these days is just about enough. Add some texture mods to Skyrim and you need 2gb+ Even Fallout 3 can use up to 1800mb with high res textures..
Now I'm not saying that 1gb cards are not worth having at all, but there are specific titles that just won't like them at all.
murphy7801
New member
Even with improved scaling anything with alot lighting and shadows is better on bigger cards. I would still take the 1 big card over 2 smaller ones. I have done both 1 large card always works better less issue and bugs.
Rastalovich
New member
It'll actually use the computer's main memory before this. Which isn't a big issue.
I have issues with the whole posting tbh, but this is the most blatant.
(Holy thread revival!)
vRam isn't as important as implied. As soon as I seen the Fallout reference, I was baffled. Sure it's 'good' to have it, but it's not a big game-stopper, especially with user's having over 4g of main memory and 32bit games.
