Hud Dorph 22 Posted March 29, 2012 Here are some benchmarks on arma2oa with upcomming new Nvidia GTX680 http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/03/22/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680-2gb-review/8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 29, 2012 froggyluv already tested 7970 and 680 with a more recent arma version. Ok, some results here. All of my 7970 results were in the PC thread but I'll paste the important part here (if not allowed, mods please let me know and I'll just link the post). My specs are: I5 2500k @ 4.4 rock stable 16 gb 1600 ddr3 ram (12 for RamDisk) XFX 7970 Black OC edition @ 1000/1425 as well as OC'ed at 1125/1575 ----Drivers are 12.2/Catalyst 3 and all settings are either on Application controlled/Performance or disabled to get max FPS. Win 7 64 bit Arma settings set to Default which admittedly uses 1440 x 900 (I have no idea why) but should be fine for consistency and latest Beta patch. OC'ing the 7970 had very small noticeable effect maybe giving 3-4 fps on Benchmark 1 and 1-2 fps increase to Benchmark 2. All benchmarks run 5 times then averaged. XFX Black 7970 OC'ed edition results: Stock VC settings (1000/1425) - Bench 1 Avg:86 fps. After Ramdisk:87fps Bench 2 Avg: 23 fps. After Ramdisk:22 fps (strange I know) Bench (E0) 8 Avg: 97 fps (Ramdisk only) Overclocked VC (1125/1575) - Bench 1 Avg:89 fps. After Ramdisk:87fps (?) Bench 2 Avg: 23 fps. After Ramdisk:24 fps Bench (E0) 8 Avg: 96 fps (Ramdisk only) EVGA 680 GTX results: Stock VC Settings (706/1502) *Note this card uses dynamic clocks which at this point can't be disabled. Overclocking can not be cemented to one speed but you can adjust the Offset to an extent in which gives the 680 more latitude on how much IT wants to overclock* RamDisk is used in all of the below and the VC driver is the version that comes on disk. All other settings are as above. Bench 1 Avg:85 fps Bench 2 Avg:21 fps Bench (E0) 8 Avg:94 fps Again I ran these tests a minimum of 5 times (actually alot more) and 7970 pretty consistently had a few FPS advantage. Nvidia settings were again set to Application Controlled/Performance or Off and I hope this gives parity to the tests as they both have different options some of which Im not entirely familiar. Running Unigine's Heaven 3.0 with Tesselation to Extreme; Resolution at 1680/1050; AA Off;Anisotropy @ 4x; all other settings on High (this is the benchmark standard Overclock.net): The 680 consistently beats the 7970 by 120-150 points as well as has a much higher Minimum FPS to the XFX: 34 - 14. Thoughts: I think its safe to say the 7970 slightly beats 680gtx 2gb in Arma benchmarking but the 680 tends to have a smoother visual feel. I did experiment with raising the 680's GPU Clock Offset (which again raises the Vanilla meter which sits at about 1050) by increments of 50%/100%/150%/@200%/250% as well as the Power Target to Max 132% -and these actually lowered Arma2's performance. Ive read this happening to others and Tom's HArdware had this to say about that: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-680-review-benchmark,3161-4.html ...tho these dramatically increased Heaven's score and performance. Just Arma don't seem to like it and which Im pretty sure has something to do with this TDP affair tho I understand little of that :) So was it worth the trade, mailing back my 7970 and ordering a similar one? I'd say yes. 680gtx is for one a sexy looking, compact well molded litttle card as opposed to 7970 being a far heftier, longer, and for me hotter running card. The 680's software is also pretty sexy and best of all -starts up consistently, quickly everytime (take note crappy CCC designers). 680 is just a lower maintainence card and it runs sturdy while the 7970 I always felt was on the verge of failing, buggin out, doing strange things to my desktop, CCC failure or 5 minutes to boot (happening to many). So thats pretty much it as far as Arma2 is concerned. I would like to see the 680's overclocking be a little more reliable as we are used to deciding our own break neck GPU's speed -but the new technology is pretty sweet as well and the Fan Curve kept my temps in low 70's while testing with WAAAY quieter fans then 7970 :) http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m594/froggyluv/rsz_1main.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) i could comfirm, nvidias cards perform lot smoothers then ATI's in Arma, but all the things he said: buggin out, doing strange things to my desktop, CCC failure or 5 minutes to boot (happening to many). maybe the drivers aren't yet stable for 7970, i had absolutely no issues with my ATI 6970 and latest drivers, it performed well and smooth in most games, no bsods, weird things like he said and stuff, seems only arma is more nvidia friendly.So to sum it out: if you're arma 2 player only, then get nvidia for smooth gameplay experience, but if you're playing 10 other games besides arma 2, then get ATI 7970, it is still more powerfull then nvidias 680gtx, and they do cost about same price. Edited March 29, 2012 by NeuroFunker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hud Dorph 22 Posted March 29, 2012 So to sum it out: if you're arma 2 player only, then get nvidia for smooth gameplay experience, but if you're playing 10 other games besides arma 2, then get ATI 7970, it is still more powerfull then nvidias 680gtx, and they do cost about same price. Hmm as i read the tests the gtx680 outperforms the 7970 in all BUT Arma2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted March 29, 2012 It looks RAM starved to me. I'd like to see a 4GB version, I bet that would make a difference. Lol gief 8GB! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted March 29, 2012 can anybody explain me, what brings 4vram compared to 2, when arma with mods and max details never using more then 740mb vram with very hight video memory in game settings, and never above 1,4gb vram with default vram in game setting? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baff1 0 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) It's to do with the screen resolution you are running. The more you turn it up the more VRAM you will use. So if you have a big arsed high resolution monitor or run multiple screens, you will start hitting the RAM barrier. Edited March 29, 2012 by Baff1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leon86 13 Posted March 29, 2012 higher res and higher aa increase vram use dramatically, there's also some forms of aa you can force in drivers that eat even more memory. for 1080p I'd say 2GB is enough. if you go triple monitor you might run out if you have a fancy aa method on. I dont know how much of the vram use you monitor with progs like afterburner is actually required by the game and how much is just a buffer for a different area of a level and dumped if it runs out. But generally speaking it's just nice to have a lot of vram. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bangtail 0 Posted March 29, 2012 BF3 is pushing the barrier at 1600P, even with no browser etc open I am at 1.7GB and that is with SMAA. If I were to enable hardware AA, I would most definitely be over. Sweet cards but bring on the the 4GB - fecking slackers ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeuroFunker 11 Posted March 29, 2012 thats what i was thinking, 2gb 1080p for single monitor is enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
domokun 515 Posted March 30, 2012 Basically: 2GB is fine for <1080p even with 4xAA 4GB is fine for higher-resolution, e.g. triple-screen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Groove_C 267 Posted April 3, 2012 On my GTX 580 3GB, it comes easily over 2 GB VRAM (comes to 2.7 GB and than no higher) when playing MP on our russian ArmA2.ru PvE server! Mission: Evolution Free For All: Red 1.05g hard (30 slots) with 70+ AI and 10+ armor/vehicles and likely 10 helis/jets. View: 5000 m Res: 1680x1050 3D 100% Textures: very high VRAM default AA: high aToC: 0 AF: very high Terrain: very low (no grass) Objects: very high Shadows: very high HDR: normal (8 bit) Postprocess: very low V-Sync: on nVidia Control pannel: AA: application AF: application AA transparency: custom (2xSGSSAA via nVidia Inspector) Mipmap: allow Quality: very high Frames: 3 Tripple buffering V-Sync: application Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bangtail 0 Posted April 3, 2012 (edited) On my GTX 580 3GB, it comes easily over 2 GB VRAM (comes to 2.7 GB and than no higher) when playing MP on our russian ArmA2.ru PvE server!Mission: Evolution Free For All: Red 1.05g hard (30 slots) with 70+ AI and 10+ armor/vehicles and likely 10 helis/jets. View: 5000 m Res: 1680x1050 3D 100% Textures: very high VRAM default AA: high aToC: 0 AF: very high Terrain: very low (no grass) Objects: very high Shadows: very high HDR: normal (8 bit) Postprocess: very low V-Sync: on nVidia Control pannel: AA: application AF: application AA transparency: custom (2xSGSSAA via nVidia Inspector) Mipmap: allow Quality: very high Frames: 3 Tripple buffering V-Sync: application Yep, because you use a custom AA setting, you won't even come close to 2GB at 1680 x 1050 using regular AA settings. I remember you posting in the 'Will my PC run this' section ages ago. Sparse Grid uses a alot more VRAM and also comes with a fairly heavy performance hit. Most of the time, SGSSAA sacrifices too much performance in newer games but I do use it for some older games. Edited April 3, 2012 by BangTail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Groove_C 267 Posted April 3, 2012 Some screenshots showing VRAM usage on my rig: http://s017.radikal.ru/i418/1204/f6/811c79aef7ed.bmp http://s019.radikal.ru/i624/1204/e6/1ac2087026ce.bmp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grillob3 11 Posted April 5, 2012 BangTail How do you like ur gtx 680 compare to the 580 3gb? how much gain did you get? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bangtail 0 Posted April 5, 2012 BangTail How do you like ur gtx 680 compare to the 580 3gb? how much gain did you get? Averagely, about 30%. No VRAM issues as of yet although I use FXAA/SMAA in many titles where Hardware AA would probably push the memory barrier. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grillob3 11 Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) What resolution? I RMA my 7970s and got 2 580 3gb for the moment from frys so i can bring back and get the full money back. With the 580 3gb sli i get better fps on arma 2 than with the 7970 cf! So i am waiting for some 680! Got my gtx 680 sli and only 5 fps more in game then gtx 580 3gb sli....and bench 1 i got 101 fps on the 680s against 105 on the 580s... :( is that because drivers are not mature or the 3gb against 2gb? Is exactly the same setup!Both stock speeds on the vcards... Edited April 12, 2012 by Grillob3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites