Besidilo

The allocated virtual memory limit for applications with LAA patch under x86 is 4GB. Bear in mind, this is not just system RAM, it's total memory used (not pre-cached), so system memory + video memory. Google "Large Address Aware" if you don't believe me. EDIT: from what I'm reading right now, this brings me to question the logic behind getting a 4GB VRAM card specifically for Skyrim... https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132003/sponsored_feature_ram_vram_and_.php?print=1 https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91260

That's quite likely. I'm still using Internet Explorer 6. Old habits and all that.

You asked a wrong question, the host file itself has nothing to do with site content, (Ha! It even doesn't know anything about www :P ) it only intercepts connections to the bad guys.The problem is: some sites design & formatting relies of ads/other stuff which may be blocked by that hosts file. If so, they may look weird BUT I personally haven't ever stumbled upon such website I know how the hosts file works (redirecting requests), but my point is still valid. There are websites that rely heavily on advertising and these will not format with a blank space, like you would expect from an addon such as Adblock Plus, but will render the whole website in a funny way. Whether you mind it or not is not the point. I use the Spybot's Immunise function to block malicious websites this way.

Don't hosts files screw up formatting on some websites? I remember this being a case a couple of years ago when I used a custom hosts file.

I have Adblock disabled on Nexus, but I think NoScript is doing the job, and I'm not going to allow any unwanted scripts for sure. Case in point, I haven't seen any of these ads.

Why does nobody EVER post the screen resolution and AA method used when creating these threads?

Perhaps slightly decreasing the Alchemy skill gain from harvesting and increasing the ingredient requirements for making potions would be a good idea. I have to say, I haven't tested Alchemy (or this mod for that matter) enough to voice my opinion, but the mod looks very promising, especially since it randomises the amount of ingredients that are harvested at any time.

What you'd probably want is a Radeon Pro guide for AMD users, as that one has way more configuration options.

I have nothing interesting to contribute.

It actually makes sense for the dragon bones to be too heavy to move for the player. Whether it's realistic that they just disappear at some point is another matter.

That does sound quite bad indeed. I hope I didn't just get used to microstuttering and live with it, but I'll make sure to test it a bit more and report the findings. I get rather great FPS with no ENB.

I have a GTX 580 1.5GB at the moment too, and I'm getting by at 2560x1440. SMAA, no hardware AA, everything on Ultra, mix of 1024 and 2048 textures, a little DDSopt optimisation and making sure your system is not draining resources. Perhaps a little memory bandwidth overclock, ATTK, disabling Aero. I'm close to maxing out, but I manage. Almost upgraded to a 7970 3GB twice now, but the first time I would have to purchase two graphics cards, which was off putting (turned out to be a mistake to pass on that), the second time I had to decline the offer as the graphics card had no DVI-D Dual-link slots, even though it was top of the range of those series...

You have to forgive my attitude. I've long been a member of many hardware related forums, and the actual "poop" some of the users produce is incredible. Then you get controversial topics, like this case here with VRAM, where you know that the majority of users are wrong on the subject, but the only thing you can do to counter that, is bash your head against the wall. Whilst I don't think my condescending approach is any good or done in a healthy manner, I really do have the best intentions in mind and am not a Nazi when it comes to hardware. You'll hardly ever see me being a "fanboy" of any hardware team or a hardcore proposer of a theory that seems to make sense only to people , but I have a good set of hard rules that I've gathered over the years of playing with and learning about hardware that allows me to make an informed decision. My no means should I be taken as an authoritative figure in those matters, but I propose another point of view that I think is worth considering by people who are still on the fence with these things. I'd love a sensible debate on the matter, but I'm very time limited when it comes to these things and I'd be just glad if at least few of the users who consider buying a new graphics card now, would look into the topic a little more from the scientific or economic point of view. In my opinion, a good approach would be to decide whether one would be upgrading within a year and if they're willing to consider multi-GPU options, it's quite easy to estimate what you will get for your money in 1 or 2 years if you do the calculations, and almost every time it will prove more beneficial to get a mainstream card now and upgrade when it becomes necessary, than invest in something that may seem future-proof on the surface and becomes a rather poor purchasing decision in the long run. With the GTX 670 4GB in question, I really think the card will become obsolete faster than the 4GB VRAM will be necessary, rendering this upgrade a bit on the poor side, considering the cheaper and faster solutions with have on the market. I'll take a step back and reconsider posting before thinking next time something like this comes up. And just to add on top of that, it's not that I think 4GB VRAM would be absolutely useless, it's just that I don't think focusing on that exact thing is very well thought out, since you would run into other issues long before that becomes a problem. We could obviously throw a mix of 4K and 8K resolution textures at Skyrim and it pretends it somehow improves the graphics beyond infinitum, but we both know that it's not a solution to other important issues with the game, and it's easier to slightly cut down on VRAM usage and improving things that actually change how this, and let's not forget other games, look like.

I don't think you'd need a new PSU at all. The card should be using less power than two 5850s, unless you played with voltages a lot. BeQuiet's PSUs are usually quality make, so unless it is like a hundred years old, I wouldn't have any concerns. AFAIK, you'd need to use ENB's implementation of SSAO in Skyrim. We have a few Radeon users here so you're free to ask them that question, or I can just power up my secondary rig and see if I can get it running.

I'm not sure how you determine VRAM usage in Skyrim. I am fairly sure that it has been explained by sb4n and me on these very forums before that measuring this figure is at best inaccurate. I can tell you when you get to your VRAM limit - it is when the game starts stuttering like crazy when moving or crashes completely. I'm sure MSI Afterburner can give a fake result, but each time it gets full, thats exactly what happens, the game goes from smooth to completely unplayable, and way more unstable, especially during cell changes but also randomly. [EDIT] Im now talking about my old setup, when i had two ATI 5850 cards in crossfire with 1.5gb vram. And before you ask, yes, i know its very difficult to measure vram on ATI cards, which is why i had my friend download and install step with his 2gb card and then tell me how much it was using at that time... Radeon 5850s have 1GB VRAM. I should know, I've had two myself. ;)

I'm not very authoritative in my arguments since I'm not too bothered about what you or anyone else think. It does annoy me when authoritative figures like you make statements that will be taken for granted, since you are an official STEP member and I'm just a user. It's one thing to recommend something related And I can't honestly recommend buying a GTX 670 4GB to anyone, however good you might think the graphics card is. I am, however, sick of people who throw some terms around without backing them up or showing that they have any knowledge or idea behind their arguments. Case in point, you state that: a) 4GB VRAM is not a waste of money if you intend on maxing out Skyrim. Well, this is fundamentally wrong and it's an opinion that has no bearing in reality. Without defining what "maxing out" Skyrim really means, it's also irrelevant. You won't be able to max Skyrim out with just a large VRAM buffer. Your GTX 670 wouldn't be fast enough to handle the rendering despite its enormous buffer for textures. b) Showing average FPS rates would obviously not illustrate the benefits of extra VRAM to framerate stability That statement isn't any less truthful than the previous one. Whilst average framerates don't give us much information on their own, I have provided you with minimum and maximum framerates, as well as a graph that shows the fluctuations over the ran benchmark. It's not a singled out case since a VRAM limit leads to some very obvious consequences. c) in that example the cards have different clock speeds, as well as differing VRAM, making the comparison uninformative in any case And once again, you're entirely misreading the graphs. They clearly show that the extra core clock MHz don't account for much when rendering falls onto multiple other factors in that scenario. And putting VRAM above everything else is not very smart. Unless you can provide any data behind the apparent benefits of a single GTX 670 4GB over the 2GB at the common resolution, I hardly see how you can consider me giving you a proof as something that has to be done in order to settle this argument. I'm glad to provide more information or benchmark comparisons between the cards using higher and lower memory modules, but it would be hard for me to disprove my theory, since there is no data proving yours correct. I'll just say this, to wrap it up. NVIDIA has terrible value for money cards out on the market at the moment, and even though a few of my recent purchases were NVIDIA cards, I would not recommend one to a sane and sensible buyer these days. Two 7970s 3GB can be had for much less than the GTX Titan and are faster at 5760x1200 resolution despite having half the VRAM. It is also cheaper than a GTX 670 4GB, whilst being faster in most titles and including a bundle of games worth $50 or $100, so I see absolutely no reason to even consider the GTX 670 in this case. Now, don't get me wrong, I respect your opinions, and I just think you're misinformed. But I don't like misinforming other users, so there you have it. If you don't like it, I'm OK with leaving the forum.

I'm not sure how you determine VRAM usage in Skyrim. I am fairly sure that it has been explained by sb4n and me on these very forums before that measuring this figure is at best inaccurate. I can tell you when you get to your VRAM limit - it is when the game starts stuttering like crazy when moving or crashes completely.

4GB VRAM as such isn't a waste of money. A GTX 670 4GB is, as it will be obsolete by the time you actually NEED 4GB VRAM, unless you go Triple SLI up.

What does it mean you managed to get capped? And 2560x1600 takes just one 30" screen.

I could not recommend NVIDIA cards at the current prices. Not to mention that a 4GB VRAM card is a waste of money, unless you play at a very high resolution (2560x1600+), crank up the SSAA and use 4K texture mods.

Probably because they modify the LODs?

I don't want any demons waking me up in my sleep. :(