Hello and thanks for the Praimus test.
I think we need to demystify a bit the issue of Vram. Firstly, because in Win7 it is impossible to know exactly how much is being consumed. Programs like Afterburner measure more the "allowed" memory located than the used one, and in addition, it adds the one that the system itself is eating which in Win7 is variable, therefore as I say we can make approximations but we can never say this game spends X Vram because it is impossible.
The normal thing is that a graphics card runs out of power much earlier than out of Vram. Even in multi-gpu configurations. There are very exceptional cases, like the dual AMD 5970 that only had 1GB of real Vram, which if they have extra power to move more, but they fall short of Vram in some specific cases, but it is the exception that confirms the rule.
It is also true that recently very demanding Vram games have come out, like BF3, the new MOFH, or games like Hitman Ansolution or Sniper Elite, which due to the somewhat indiscriminate and "marketiniano" use of MSAA have a very high cost, especially the last two that I mention.
But we are talking that for example to exhaust 1.5GB of Vram, it would take at least 3 graphics in TRI SLI like the GTX 480 of Praimus, a minimum resolution of 1440p, and those games mentioned at maximum or others with mods to exhaust Vram before the available power. Speaking always of course, of a search for frames good.No to the case made to exhaust the Vram and that the playability is disastrous...
But everything that has been said before I think it is extrapolable to that a single graphics card is not going to run out of Vram before running out of power, and many times people confuse lack of optimization of the game, drivers etc.. with lack of real Vram. A total lack of Vram produces a total collapse of the game leading it to 0 fps and being absolutely unplayable, until the buffer of the graphics card is filled again and you can play normally again... although again the collapse will occur again soon and we will enter a loop.
Best regards.
P.D.
On the subject of resolutions, indeed a 16:10, as it is not a multiple of 16:9 or 1080p some benchmarks are not totally reliable since they make a mess when passing resolutions 16:9 in 16.10. To make 1080p in a 16:10 you need to put black bands at the top and bottom, the Unigine on the contrary does not do it and fills the screen by elongating it, this translates into that although you select 1080p in the menu, the screen really tells you that it is passing to 1200p, and the results are a little worse than a 16:9, because obviously it passes it to more resolution. I recently did tests with the Unigine on my Dell U3011 of 16:10 and a native 1080p screen with a 660Ti, and indeed it gave 3 or 4 more frames on the 1080p screen with the same options and resolution due to the previously mentioned. I do not know if this is solved with some Unigine update or patch.. but what javete comments is true..
