HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

MustangSVT · Post by **MustangSVT** » 24 Sep 2009, 06:33

I'm debating whether I should wait for the 2GB card version (and pay more) versus getting the 1GB. What do you guys think? I'm thinking wait for the 2GB version. More video memory helps with higher resolutions, does it not? Also, I'd like to play Grand Theft Auto 4 in triple display, I know it eats a lot of video memory.

Anyone got ideas/comments on the video memory size debate?

Post by **BHawthorne** » 24 Sep 2009, 06:36

IMHO, the more video memory the better. And sense I've yet to see any 2GB or greater cards available, it means several weeks of the 1GB card guys figuring out all the bugs and workarounds for us while we wait. :wink:

Post by **Mach1.9pants** » 24 Sep 2009, 10:42

Is there any hard evidence to say a 2GB is on the way? Or is it just expected that OEMs will make 'em cos they can?

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 24 Sep 2009, 11:20

The 5870 'Six' is supposed to be 2GB only.

Makes sense - driving six monitors as one will mean some big VRAM gulps by games.

WaveZtream · Post by **WaveZtream** » 24 Sep 2009, 14:25

So now the question when will the 5870 "6" 2gb be out? :/ I don't wanna wait to long getting 2 excited. But maybe the 5870x2 "6" 2gb or 4gb will be better for us since it got 2 gpu's if it will ever be out that is.

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:30

But maybe the 5870x2 "6" 2gb or 4gb will be better for us since it got 2 gpu's if it will ever be out that is.

you mean the 5870X2 4GB (2x2GB with 2GB of usable framebuffer)

since one with only 2GB would only have a 1GB framebuffer, that seems a bit on the low side...

GTA4 asks for 1530MB @1280x1024 all options ON

MustangSVT · Post by **MustangSVT** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:43

I'd love to play GTA 4 at 5040x1050 with all the options on, or maybe just like medium settings. But that might still be unrealistic expectation.

Post by **BHawthorne** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:48

For me it's more about the ability to run more than 3 screens at all vs splitting hairs on what the performance might be. If there ends up being a 5850 Six or a 5870 Six 1GB I'll ponder those as options too. For me it's not about the fps, but merely being able to do it at all. I'm sure I'd prefer 2GB or 4GB version of the card, but only if it's not going to do a gut check on my pocketbook. As is I have a rather large exponential issue with whatever projectors I pick. The more I dig the more I'm not sure what to do on that front. 5x $599 goes a lot further than 5x $999. I know it's an apples vs orange argument, but there are a lot of variables to take into account with this new greater than 3 display gaming concept now.

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 24 Sep 2009, 15:53

I'd love to play GTA 4 at 5040x1050 with all the options on, or maybe just like medium settings. But that might still be unrealistic expectation.

resolution don't increase the GTA4 Graphics memory requirements by that much in fact, so with a 2GB framebuffer it's doable ...
on the framerate side ... well it's another story

my GTX285 [email protected] can handle all options ON but there's a bit of slowdowns, moreso when fighting, in this case the framerate drops below my needs and I begin to be killed cause I can't fight back at 100% effectiveness

that said the "100% vehicle density" setting is pure awesomeness !

Post by **Downtown1** » 25 Sep 2009, 02:48

For me it's more about the ability to run more than 3 screens at all vs splitting hairs on what the performance might be. If there ends up being a 5850 Six or a 5870 Six 1GB I'll ponder those as options too. For me it's not about the fps, but merely being able to do it at all. I'm sure I'd prefer 2GB or 4GB version of the card, but only if it's not going to do a gut check on my pocketbook. As is I have a rather large exponential issue with whatever projectors I pick. The more I dig the more I'm not sure what to do on that front. 5x $599 goes a lot further than 5x $999. I know it's an apples vs orange argument, but there are a lot of variables to take into account with this new greater than 3 display gaming concept now.

Sure at 40 vs 80 FPS it may not matter much in single player, but once you drop to like 10 FPS then it's completely unplayable. So you really do need some consistent FPS that doesn't dip.

Post by **BHawthorne** » 25 Sep 2009, 02:56

Sure at 40 vs 80 FPS it may not matter much in single player, but once you drop to like 10 FPS then it's completely unplayable. So you really do need some consistent FPS that doesn't dip.

What games are you suggesting would drop to 10 fps in a surround screen game? Nothing I currently play with my GTX260+TH2G setup get that crappy of a fps, so why would a better card do worse? I don't buy your hypothetical reasoning there. :wink:

Post by **Downtown1** » 25 Sep 2009, 03:03

[quote]Sure at 40 vs 80 FPS it may not matter much in single player, but once you drop to like 10 FPS then it's completely unplayable. So you really do need some consistent FPS that doesn't dip.

What games are you suggesting would drop to 10 fps in a surround screen game? Nothing I currently play with my GTX260+TH2G setup get that crappy of a fps, so why would a better card do worse? I don't buy your hypothetical reasoning there. :wink:

Well I saw GTA4 benchmarks of 3x2560x1600 as "average" 27FPS on Tom's Hardware, which means it probably drops to 10 pretty often during huge gunfights.

Post by **BHawthorne** » 25 Sep 2009, 03:06

[quote][quote]Sure at 40 vs 80 FPS it may not matter much in single player, but once you drop to like 10 FPS then it's completely unplayable. So you really do need some consistent FPS that doesn't dip.

What games are you suggesting would drop to 10 fps in a surround screen game? Nothing I currently play with my GTX260+TH2G setup get that crappy of a fps, so why would a better card do worse? I don't buy your hypothetical reasoning there. :wink:

Well I saw GTA4 benchmarks of 3x2560x1600 as "average" 27FPS on Tom's Hardware, which means it probably drops to 10 pretty often during huge gunfights.

3x2560x1600 is largely irrelevant to me and I would think most surround screen budgets. :wink:

Post by **thales100** » 25 Sep 2009, 03:10

I'd love to play GTA 4 at 5040x1050 with all the options on, or maybe just like medium settings. But that might still be unrealistic expectation.

Why ? I play it all maxed at 5040x1050, including visible distance at 100, you dont need a "next gen" GPU for this.

skeeder · Post by **skeeder** » 25 Sep 2009, 03:42

[quote]I'd love to play GTA 4 at 5040x1050 with all the options on, or maybe just like medium settings. But that might still be unrealistic expectation.

Why ? I play it all maxed at 5040x1050, including visible distance at 100, you dont need a "next gen" GPU for this.Any console port you really don't. The 8570 is probably 10x more gpu than the xbox.

MustangSVT · Post by **MustangSVT** » 25 Sep 2009, 03:49

[quote]I'd love to play GTA 4 at 5040x1050 with all the options on, or maybe just like medium settings. But that might still be unrealistic expectation.

Why ? I play it all maxed at 5040x1050, including visible distance at 100, you dont need a "next gen" GPU for this.
What video card do you have? Also, keep in mind that this game is CPU limited, looks like you have a better CPU than me. And the game runs considerably better on nVIDIA (unfortunately for me) than on ATI. :(

cybereality · Post by **cybereality** » 25 Sep 2009, 06:44

The 8570 is probably 10x more gpu than the xbox.

Well for a video card from 3 years in the future I should hope so.

Post by **thales100** » 25 Sep 2009, 11:58

What video card do you have? Also, keep in mind that this game is CPU limited, looks like you have a better CPU than me. And the game runs considerably better on nVIDIA (unfortunately for me) than on ATI. :(

A pair of GTX 280, a quad at 4 Ghz makes 1 Gb VRAM to be the limit in fact, but its very playable all maxed, including clip capture on. :wink:

geniv2 · Post by **geniv2** » 30 Sep 2009, 16:13

If you guys don't care about FPS or playing games and just want the ability to run MANY MONITORS AT ONCE

You can get the ATI FireMV/FirePro 2400, they have PCI (I don't recommend this connection though) , PCIe x1, PCIe x16 flavors.

Each can run up to 4 monitors via dvi (or VGA with adapter). and NONE of that active adapter bs to deal with.

I have the PCIe x1 version and it runs perfectly. just not a gaming card. they go for around $100-$200 per one on ebay.

You can get two of the 2400 fire cards and easily run up to 8 monitors in one machine.

Post by **BHawthorne** » 30 Sep 2009, 17:50

If you guys don't care about FPS or playing games and just want the ability to run MANY MONITORS AT ONCE

You can get the ATI FireMV/FirePro 2400, they have PCI (I don't recommend this connection though) , PCIe x1, PCIe x16 flavors.

Each can run up to 4 monitors via dvi (or VGA with adapter). and NONE of that active adapter bs to deal with.

I have the PCIe x1 version and it runs perfectly. just not a gaming card. they go for around $100-$200 per one on ebay.

You can get two of the 2400 fire cards and easily run up to 8 monitors in one machine.

The key question is are they EyeFinity compatible? If I just wanted more 2D desktop display any old graphics card can do that.

Widescreen Gaming Forum

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

HD 5870 1GB vs 2GB

Who is online