Different Question: 2GB GTX 460, or 1GB GTX 560 Ti?

[Sam DeathWalker]

As its for 5 boxing I say MORE VRAM!!!!

I was not aware you get get a 460 with 2G, guess you can humm ...

http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/8016...ream-card.html


You have to add all 5 clients resolutions to get "effective resolutions" if you use IsBoxer and full rendering on all slaves for fast swaping. So what you render may very well be way more then your monitors native resolution.

[Sajuuk]

As its for 5 boxing I say MORE VRAM!!!!

I was not aware you get get a 460 with 2G, guess you can humm ...

http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/8016...ream-card.html


You have to add all 5 clients resolutions to get "effective resolutions" if you use IsBoxer and full rendering on all slaves for fast swaping. So what you render may very well be way more then your monitors native resolution.

Told you so. And while more VRAM certainly won't hinder performance, only having 1GB won't hurt it, as many of us have been running 1GB

Unless I'm misunderstanding the way things work, if all 5 toons are in the same location, then the textures should only need to be loaded once in vram.

Surround gaming is definitely a different story though. In those cases, you need to add up the resolution of all the monitors to get your effective resolution, as you said.

For us multiboxers, we are far more limited by CPU and GPU horsepower than VRAM.

I wonder if there is a tool out there to measure VRAM usage...
Edit - Turns out GPU-Z can measure VRAM usage for Nvidia cards, but not ATI. Something about sensors.

P.S. Using AA will also increase VRAM usage.

We generally don't use AA when multiboxing to increase performance. Far as how many times things are loaded in VRAM, I am unsure. That would be handled on the code side of things, at least I think.

[Sam DeathWalker]

if all 5 toons are in the same location, then the textures should only need to be loaded once in vram.

Ya if the code was written with multiboxers in mind .... why would would that be the case?

The concept that one client knows about what other clients need or have in ram is just hopeing for way to much.

MAYBE windows might look into system ram to see if data is there before going to the hard drive for it but I really doubt that one client looks into another clients memory space to see if the other client has data it needs ......

I am not even sure applications under windows can share memory space. Microsoft word looking into Photoshop memory space to see if it has data it needs ....



I think that all would agree the IF data in vram is not shared at all and each client is given its own exclusive chunk of vram then with 5 clients and 1G you have like 200M of Vram per client. Clearly you would want more VRAM if that is the case.