Graphics Upgrade VRAM Question

[anomenx]

I am looking to upgrade my graphics card and I need some opinions.

 

I am currently running the following:

 

Intel i7 2600k

Nvidia 550ti 1gb VRAM

8gb Corsair Ram

Windows 7

blah blah blah

 

 

I am looking to upgrade my graphics card, to one of the following;

 

Nvidia 570 gtx 2.5gb VRAM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130687

 

or

 

Nvidia 670 FTW 2gb VRAM

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130787

 

Which would be more beneficial to running skyrim with mods? I know that the texture packages and additional NPC mods are very VRAM intensive, so I am leaning toward the 570 gtx. Is this dumb? what do you guys think? The difference is about 80-90 dollars and I want to know if its worth paying more for the 670... or will I not notice any difference in skyrim.

 

**Edit:

 

I forgot to mention, I have an ASRock extreme3 gen 3 mobo, and the Nvidia 570 is only PCI express 2.0, where as the 670 is PCI Express 3.0 ... would this make any noticable difference in performance? I am kind of a newbie when it comes to graphics cards.

Edited July 29, 2012 by anomenx

[FMod]

Neither. 2.5GB on a 570 is like magnesium wheels on a pickup truck.

It's the "550" that is keeping you down, not the 1GB of RAM. Even modded Skyrim is perfectly playable on cards like 560Ti or HD6950 with 1GB. I can't imagine how NPC mods would be VRAM intensive, but maybe. Still.

 

If you want as much VRAM as possible on a card that can actually use it, get a HD7950.

670 is a pretty good card as well, despite its limited RAM, it tends to be a bit faster than 7950 stock, and I wouldn't diss anyone for buying it. But as an overall package - 7950 loses in energy efficiency, but wins in driver quality, computing, memory, build quality, overclocking potential - making it a slightly better choice in my opinion.

 

Also, don't fall for EVGA unless they're the cheapest card available. Their cards are dead stock, it's not good. For both 670 and 7950, non-stock is a must. Best price/quality ratio is Gigabyte for 670, best quality Asus. For 7950, since it's based on a quality 7970 PCB, you have more choice - anything with 2-3 big fans is OK, Sapphire (again 2-fan one) is better, Asus DCII is best but a bit expensive.

[MTindle]

Neither. 2.5GB on a 570 is like magnesium wheels on a pickup truck.

It's the "550" that is keeping you down, not the 1GB of RAM. Even modded Skyrim is perfectly playable on cards like 560Ti or HD6950 with 1GB. I can't imagine how NPC mods would be VRAM intensive, but maybe. Still.

 

If you want as much VRAM as possible on a card that can actually use it, get a HD7950.

670 is a pretty good card as well, despite its limited RAM, it tends to be a bit faster than 7950 stock, and I wouldn't diss anyone for buying it. But as an overall package - 7950 loses in energy efficiency, but wins in driver quality, computing, memory, build quality, overclocking potential - making it a slightly better choice in my opinion.

 

Also, don't fall for EVGA unless they're the cheapest card available. Their cards are dead stock, it's not good. For both 670 and 7950, non-stock is a must. Best price/quality ratio is Gigabyte for 670, best quality Asus. For 7950, since it's based on a quality 7970 PCB, you have more choice - anything with 2-3 big fans is OK, Sapphire (again 2-fan one) is better, Asus DCII is best but a bit expensive.

 

HD 7950 has better drivers? ROFL.

 

I agree with everything else though, in skyrim 7950 vs 670 won't make much difference, but you can decide for yourself which one you want. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/598?vs=550/400x/24115208.jpg

AMD has massive advantages in compute this gen though, but it won't make a lot of difference to much users.

 

EDIT; 1gb of VRAM is not sufficient if you want to run any texture packs, as there's not enough room in video memory and your PC will constantly be swapping textures to and fro between GPU and Harddrives not good.

Edited July 29, 2012 by MTindle

[FMod]

HD 7950 has better drivers? ROFL.

Yes.

 

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/688816-nvidia-30142-driver-problem/

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/739254-driver-performance-loss/

Also confirming from my personal experience on two PC.

 

Historically Radeons have had more driver issues - but their problems have been limited to things like AA not working in a new game, or Crossfire not yet supported, or not releasing something in time. They've never been anywhere this bad; it seems like when NV fails its drivers, it goes all the way. And the issues have't been fixed for 4 releases already.

 

I'm still running 301.24 Beta, as it's the last reliable version. Will the problems be fixed? Maybe, if not, we have 301.24. That's OK though, my 580's are over a year old.

But would I buy a new card with a good risk of being permanently stuck with drivers older than the card itself? You know the answer.

[MTindle]

HD 7950 has better drivers? ROFL.

Yes.

 

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/688816-nvidia-30142-driver-problem/

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/739254-driver-performance-loss/

Also confirming from my personal experience on two PC.

 

Historically Radeons have had more driver issues - but their problems have been limited to things like AA not working in a new game, or Crossfire not yet supported, or not releasing something in time. They've never been anywhere this bad; it seems like when NV fails its drivers, it goes all the way. And the issues have't been fixed for 4 releases already.

 

I'm still running 301.24 Beta, as it's the last reliable version. Will the problems be fixed? Maybe, if not, we have 301.24. That's OK though, my 580's are over a year old.

But would I buy a new card with a good risk of being permanently stuck with drivers older than the card itself? You know the answer.

 

Fair enough. I actually still have 301.24 myself, so I haven't experienced any issues. Never owned an AMD GPU before though. Just speaking from the crazy amount of people that rant about Catalyst, shouldn't have said that so hastily.

 

I could rant on to you, but I'm sure you don't want this to turn into a AMD vs Nvidia war. :laugh: :laugh:

Edited July 29, 2012 by MTindle

[JimboUK]

ATIs drivers used to be terrible but they're a lot better now, I've been using ATI for the last five or six years now and have only had slight issues with a few of the drivers.

[anomenx]

I would personally like to stay away from ATI cards... I have had a bad history with them. I have never had any problems with Nvidia, so I would prefer to stay with a brand that I am familiar with.

 

The reason I was looking into the 570 gtx 2.5gb card was because I have been reading that the HD texture mods etc like to keep your VRAM around 1.3 - 1.6 gb. When I play, my VRAM is always maxed out (according to my Nvidia graphics and gpu meter) and it makes my game lag. Is it really that crazy of an idea having 2.5gb on a 570 gtx?

 

I am willing to fork out the money for a 670, but I want to know that it is worth it in terms of Skyrim specifically.

 

If you have another Nvidia card to suggest I can look into that, just as I said, I would prefer to stay away from ATI.

[FMod]

If you had owned two Hondas with no problems for a while, and now needed a car that sits 7-8, would you stay away from Toyotas despite owners saying new Hondas aren't as reliable, and despite the new Toyota model sitting 8 while the new Honda sits 7?

 

Right now, due to driver problems, it's NV one has to be wary about. Driver problems aren't all there is, but that's the killer, as far as I'm concerned, since for years the whole reason to pick NV over Radeon was the drivers.

 

There are only two new NV cards, 670 and 680. And out of 670, take Gigabyte, not EVGA.

Yes, having 2.5GB on a 570 is pointless, unless they're in SLI.

[eltucu]

Au contraire to what FMod said, 1Gb GTX 560 Ti may play Skyrim on HD pack pretty well BUT it stutters (i have one and only official HQ texture DLC, maxes out vRAM easily).

 

So 1Gb+ is a must, I'd choose the GTX670 instead of the GTX570 anyway. Its faster, cooler, and requires less power to work.

 

Having 2Gb+ of vRAM is more future proof. Today you might use 1,5Gb for some games (Skyrim, BF3, etc) and be happy, but mid 2013 2Gb vRAM might fall short, who knows (well, im pretty sure that you will need 2Gb to play nicely, a bit more to use higher settings) . So you might want to go the 3Gb uber kill AMD way IF the price is reasonable.

 

Remember than today you can find lots of 512x512 and 256x256 textures on videogames, with a few 1k/2k on the most detailed things BUT the day 1k becomes the bare minimum resolution for most textures (that means way more common 2k and 4k textures), possibly happening with next gen consoles launch, then we will need much, much more vRAM for nice stutter-free gameplay.

[Thor.]

HD 7950 has better drivers? ROFL.

Yes.

 

http://forums.nexusm...driver-problem/

http://forums.nexusm...rformance-loss/

Also confirming from my personal experience on two PC.

 

Historically Radeons have had more driver issues - but their problems have been limited to things like AA not working in a new game, or Crossfire not yet supported, or not releasing something in time. They've never been anywhere this bad; it seems like when NV fails its drivers, it goes all the way. And the issues have't been fixed for 4 releases already.

 

I'm still running 301.24 Beta, as it's the last reliable version. Will the problems be fixed? Maybe, if not, we have 301.24. That's OK though, my 580's are over a year old.

But would I buy a new card with a good risk of being permanently stuck with drivers older than the card itself? You know the answer.

 

 

I have to agree with Fmod, the drivers for the 7950 are rock solid. because i have two 7950's myself http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/biggrin.gif if ram is what you want, i highly suggest it.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Thor.