560ti sli 1 or 2 gig?

[demonking]

Hey boys and girls merry xmas

I'm looking to get a second 560ti, ive always had sli systems right back since the 6800 (remeber you used to have to have identical cards god i loved those cards) anyways, i currently have a MSI twin frozer 560ti 1gb OC model unfortuntly i can't spend fortunes on cards anymore as nappies are kinda more important else i'd just get a 7 series AMD + ive always been an nvidia fan boy.

My question is..... is it worth buying a 2gb 560ti to go along with it or just another 1gb one?

Sounds silly really, the numbers should say it all. but will i get much more performace running sli with a 1gb+ a 2gb over 2x 1gb?

i game @ 1080p at mostly high settings. exeption of metro.

anyone done this set-up? or got some more tech knowledge than me?

 

[alienware]

Waste of money.

Firstly there's no point in getting a second 2gb card as it will default to 1gb.

Secondly it will add more FPS but you won't see any of them and you're just doubling noise heat and power usage.

If the card isn't good enough any more (which for games like BF3 it isn't) then sell off the card and get a card with a nice chunk of vram instead.

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

You don't need more than the combined 2GB VRAM; 1GB cards are all you need and 2GB cards will probably slow things down at 1080p in actuality, as the memory not being used still wastes time being addressed (to determine if it is the correct bank location or not)

 

[Lollipop]

You don't need more than the combined 2GB VRAM; 1GB cards are all you need and 2GB cards will probably slow things down at 1080p in actuality, as the memory not being used still wastes time being addressed (to determine if it is the correct bank locationor not)

Wrong.

Sell the 1gb card and either get a 2gb version or upgrade your GPU, one with more vram.

 

[f0x.]

That card is fine for BF3 unless your talking very High res (above 1080p) My 3 Year old GTX260 plays it on medium/high with no FPS loss at 1080p, If your hearts set on SLI, just get the 1gb.

And they WILL be cheaper in January if you hold out with the release of ATI's 7 Series.

 

[alienware]

That card is fine for BF3 unless your talking very High res (above 1080p) My 3 Year old GTX260 plays it on medium/high with no FPS loss at 1080p, If your hearts set on SLI, just get the 1gb.

And they WILL be cheaper in January if you hold out with the release of ATI's 7 Series.

1gb of vram is not enough any more. If you already have it? live with it.

Why does one SLI a pair of 560s? to turn everything to ultra yes? well, you can't.

So there is no point in SLI 560 any more. And before you say it yes, it is only BF3 that currently pigs on vram. Thing is? once a game looks like that every other game coming out after it does also. Thus, things are heading down the "enormous great textures because you can't be bothered to do it the hard way" route.

RAGE has locked textures for the same reasons.

I would sell what you have now (the 560 1gb) and buy something with at least 2gb vram.

If you want a 570? that's awesome. Get the 2.5gb one.

If you want a 580? even better, get the 3gb one.

It's hilarious when you realise that you are actually cheaper and safer with a 2gb 6950 or 6970 card these days.

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Wrong.

Sell the 1gb card and either get a 2gb version or upgrade your GPU, one with more vram.

Crysis on my 1600x900 monitor doesn't use more than 1.2GB (and that's modded to be as demanding as you can possibly make it, 4096x4096 is the highest res textures and shadows you can use without getting a blank screen on startup) of the 2GB VRAM available, I can't belive BF3 would need more than 2GB at a slightly higher resolution

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

It's hilarious when you realise that you are actually cheaper and safer with a 2gb 6950 or 6970 card these days.

For games, yes. Folding, no.

 

[f0x.]

To the OP: What screen are you using, and what resoloution does it run at?

For notes: Agreed on the high VRAM usage, it uses more than 1gig on high at 1080p. However (And I dont know if frostbite even lets you use this) if the game is using SFR it will let each card use its cache of VRAM for each half of the render.

Edit: Just did some digging, the latest Nvidia drivers removed SFR, however, you can re-enable it.

Its a solution if your heart is set on the SLI route, however, I agree with Z0mB13 that in the long run, you are probably better off with a 2.5gig 570, as the money you get for your 560 and what another would cost you would be near a 570's cost anyway(This ofc, assuming you don't want ATI ;D)

 

[alienware]

For games, yes. Folding, no.

It's only a minority that fold that buy a GPU specifically for it. At which point you don't need SLI, heck, you don't even need a bridge.

Just throw in as many GPUs as you can to provide higher PPD.

 

[Lollipop]

Crysis on my 1600x900 monitor doesn't use more than 1.2GB (and that's modded to be as demanding as you can possibly make it, 4096x4096 is the highest res textures and shadows you can use without getting a blank screen on startup) of the 2GB VRAM available, I can't belive BF3 would need more than 2GB at a slightly higher resolution

Why is Crysis still used as a reference? IT LOOKS HORRIBLE! Even worse than some DX9 games.

 

[SmoulderingCircuits]

Why is Crysis still used as a reference? IT LOOKS HORRIBLE! Even worse than some DX9 games.

The point is it's very demanding, for whatever reason

 

[alienware]

Why is Crysis still used as a reference? IT LOOKS HORRIBLE! Even worse than some DX9 games.

Because it's all PC gamers have left to cling onto when talking about important things.

Because it's the last bastion of PC exclusivity, so you have to keep clinging on?

The reason nothing could run Crysis when it launched is because it was crap.

 

[yassarikhan786]

Because it's all PC gamers have left to cling onto when talking about important things.

Because it's the last bastion of PC exclusivity, so you have to keep clinging on?

The reason nothing could run Crysis when it launched is because it was crap.

Crysis will no longer have PC exclusivity as it is soon being released on consoles.

 

[demonking]

hi guys sorry been working last couple of days so missed out on all this,

right in answer to f0x im running a 32" samsung 1920x 1080

so SLI is not worth it?

if i do get a 2gig one it wont function as a 2g because its paired with a 1 g one?

Zombie.. my default seetings with one card are on ultra but i dont get stable fps

from what ive seen looking around a pair of 560ti's and they are 880mhz ones (msi) should keep me going for a while. my last cards were a pair of 260s and they kept me going right up until BF3 and skyrim.

i don't belive i have ever used folding and cyrsis doesn't bother me. it took gfx cards years before you could max out oblivion so maxing out a game is not important to me.

I am an SLI die hard fan... i just needed to know if a 2gig one is worth the extra pennies with a 1 gig card.

If i wont see any perfromance stableabillty i shall just get a second 1g one and buy some extra toys for my little boy

 

[alienware]

The reason you don't get stable FPS is because your card doesn't have enough VRAM to hold the textures for Battlefield 3 at those settings.

What's happening is your GPU is overflowing and then calling on your system's VRAM and paging files. The paging file is on the hard drive, hence the problems.

It narks me, because looking around at benchmarks you could think that a 470 is just as capable running BF3 as the 6970 Lightning card I got. Not so.

I have also heard people with GTX 570s complaining about lagging, and once again it all falls back to the fact that 1.3gb of VRAM for BF3 at ultra settings and 4XFSAA is not enough.

SLI won't add any VRAM for you mate, you will only use what the lesser card has. So whilst it may be possible to run a 2gb 560 with a 1gb 560 it won't help you any.

SLI just will not help you here your problem is not GPU power, but the VRAM needed to load in the textures you want. And that isn't going to be rectified by adding more GPU grunt mate.

I run Quad SLI. Between my four GPUs I should have enough power to put any game to shame. Sadly I fall back on 898mv VRAM which isn't enough enough for Fallout 3 with ultra textures loaded at the given resolution I play at. Nothing can fix it either, I have had to reduce the FSAA.

Personally there are three cards which can help you out right now.

The cheapest, and best value one is this.

http://overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-123-MS

It will also take some overclocking.

The second one is this, noting the VRAM.

http://www.dabs.com/products/evga-g...le&utm_medium=product+search&utm_content=Q200

Or either a 1.5gb (NOTE YOU WILL BE RUNNING IT CLOSE WITH BF3) or a 3gb 580. And they cost enough to make your eyes water.

 

[demonking]

ah ok that is all i needed to know thanks mate.... sorry son no nappies for you this week lol

 

[StreekG]

Amazing that even a 570 would lag at times.

Also find it amazing that my friend plays BF3 on Medium on a 9800GTX.

So does that mean that the step up from 9800GTX through the ranks all the way upto 560-570 hasn't shown that improvements?

I used to have a 9800GTX+ 1GB it was a great card.

 

[Ya93sin]

Instead of buying a new card to SLI with your current 560Ti, sell it off and buy a 570, or if possible a 580. You could go the AMD route with a 6970 too.

In answer to your original question, if the bottleneck on your fps atm is because it's running out of vram, getting a second 560Ti won't help, you either have to turn down a couple settings or get a new card with more vram.

 

[joner]

I'm kinda in the same boat as the Op and all the info online gives the same opinion as expressed by Z0mbI3.