Anyone concerned that 2gb Vram will become obsolete once PS4 and Xbox One launch?

[shiningarmor]

I am sure AMD/NVIDIA will bump it up soon enough, anyway. They've been ramping it up all the time, and it's had nothing to do with consoles....

Somewhat old thread, but I hope so. But it may be that the economy remains in the doldrums, the talent of their recruiting pool dries up, they run up against ever more difficult to solve constraints of physics, and we enter an era of stagnation

 

[Scrubls]

You are an idiot.


You can NOT get 3.5GB and 5.5GB out of 8GB. Period.

I don't care what you "clarified" in the beginning of your non-sense post.

The fact is;

The console has 8GB of shared RAM.

Just leave it, it's too much for you...

Here is another VRAM test on Skyrim

 

[Disposed]

Here's an idea let's cherry pick a modded game to prove our failing point.

Oddly enough my 2gb 680 has no trouble playing a well modded skyrim across 3 monitors but then again he has a graph...

 

[Scrubls]

Here's an idea let's cherry pick a modded game to prove our failing point.

Oddly enough my 2gb 680 has no trouble playing a well modded skyrim across 3 monitors but then again he has a graph...

Well, if you can do that...then you don't have many texture mods for sure. By the way, what failing point?

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Here's an idea let's cherry pick a modded game to prove our failing point.

Oddly enough my 2gb 680 has no trouble playing a well modded skyrim across 3 monitors but then again he has a graph...

lol I know right?

My 1.25GB worth of VRAM on my GTX 470 has no problem playing a heavily modded Skyrim at 1080P either.

 

[LigTasm]

Here's an idea let's cherry pick a modded game to prove our failing point.

Oddly enough my 2gb 680 has no trouble playing a well modded skyrim across 3 monitors but then again he has a graph...

I only have 76 mods installed, 17 of which are high res textures. My game runs fine maxed out at 2560x1600 with 2GB 770's. It worked fine at 6000x1200 as well. If anything, the CPU is usually the limiting factor with Skyrim for me.

 

[wonderfield]

that does not make sense. if it has 3.5 of ram "dedicated" to the os then the video card cant borrow form that dedicated ram can it?

Games can requisition for an additional 1GB from the OS 'partition' via an API when needed. The OS then must fit within 2.5GB. It's all shared memory, so there are no physical partitions — only logical ones (I'm assuming).

Well, if you can do that...then you don't have many texture mods for sure. By the way, what failing point?

Note that Skyrim will generally suck up memory available to it, but may not unduly suffer if it has to release resources it doesn't need for the current frame. You can think of some of those un-needed resources as a sort of cache — they'll be resident the next time they're needed, which is good, but having to acquire graphics resources from RAM is not that big of a deal anymore. At least not for any engine that isn't virtualizing resources.

You really have to look at frame times to get a sense of how the additional resource acquisition from not having a large 'cache' hurts Skyrim. You can't tell what the actual performance implications are from a memory usage graph.

 

[dremic]

Just leave it, it's too much for you...

Here is another VRAM test on Skyrim

ive had 30 mods on skyrim and was barely breaking 2 gigs man. idk wtf youre doing but it isnt practical.


2gb is fine now and will continue to be fine. this topic is always debated. every release, is 1gb enough?!!? is 2 gb enough?!?! is 18 ?!?!

2gb is plenty. the only time its not is if you have a heavily modded skyrim game.. although you'll never get as high as this ridiculous chart displays.

 

[Rvenger]

I run a 1gb HD 7750 with a Celeron G1610 (I run this if my room is very hot in the summer) and I have no issues with the performance with the exception of BF3.

 

[Zarich]

Why do people forget that ram allocation is dynamic.
I suspect his graph is correct because the system CAN allocate that much.
It may not need it all, but it can so it does.
I am sure the graph is very representative of what a Titan has allocated when running overmodded skyrim.

of course my opinion is that no amount of modding will ever make that game fun.

 

[45454asasa]

Ok... "the PS4 will allow games to work with 5.5GB of RAM." That's 5.5GB.
"Furthermore, the operating system will have a dedicated 3.5GB of RAM. Yes, that would total 9GB." 5.5GB+3.5GB=9GB BUT
"The breakdown is such that the OS will have 3.5GB of dedicated RAM," That's 3.5GB
"games will have 4.5GB dedicated," 3.5GB+4.5GB=8GB
"but games will be able to take 1GB from the OS when necessary, raising it to that 5.5GB figure."

So in other words... it would total 9GB if it didn't take 1GB from the 3.5GB that is dedicated for the OS. So it's 8GB, witch is what I said at the start "Also next gen consoles will have 8 GB ram,".

Cool, kind of like my 256gb SSD is really a 266gb SSD, if Windows didnt take up 10GB?

 

[LigTasm]

Why do people forget that ram allocation is dynamic.
I suspect his graph is correct because the system CAN allocate that much.
It may not need it all, but it can so it does.
I am sure the graph is very representative of what a Titan has allocated when running overmodded skyrim.

of course my opinion is that no amount of modding will ever make that game fun.

Its not so much forgetting as it is completely ignoring. Same thing happens in every vram thread.

 

[Parja]

Now keep in mind PC version of games are always more demanding. 2GB VRAM wont make it past November, sorry.

I've got $1k that says 2GB video cards will do just fine past November.

Why do people forget that ram allocation is dynamic.
I suspect his graph is correct because the system CAN allocate that much.
It may not need it all, but it can so it does.
I am sure the graph is very representative of what a Titan has allocated when running overmodded skyrim.

Exactly. That same Skyrim setup would run fine on a 2GB card.

 

[RamonGTP]

Make that $2k... 2GB cards suddenly being obsoleted in November is a retarded claim.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

I'll get in on that bet too!!! Make it $3k!! Hell my 1.25GB will be fine lol

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Speaking of which, is there a way to see true VRAM usage, and not just allocation?

 

[Bankie]

I've got $1k that says 2GB video cards will do just fine past November.

Exactly. That same Skyrim setup would run fine on a 2GB card.

No, it won't. Back when I was playing modded Skyrim I bought a 2GB 670. It stuttered in places so I bought a 3GB 7970. It stuttered in places so I bought a 4GB 670. No stutter.

 

[257Tony]

No, it won't. Back when I was playing modded Skyrim I bought a 2GB 670. It stuttered in places so I bought a 3GB 7970. It stuttered in places so I bought a 4GB 670. No stutter.

Then why not take him up on his bet? Money talks....

 

[Disposed]

No, it won't. Back when I was playing modded Skyrim I bought a 2GB 670. It stuttered in places so I bought a 3GB 7970. It stuttered in places so I bought a 4GB 670. No stutter.

Modded skyrim, modded skyrim, modded skyrim.

One single fucking game, that has to be modded to boot...

Get a grip people.

 

[leh18621]

Just out of curiosity, how much VRAM does Skyrim normally use at 1080p with just the official HD pack? I know I played it that way with my GTX 470, all settings maxed out except shadows at medium, 4xAA and either 8 or 16xAF and I pretty much stayed between 50-60fps. If I remember correctly my VRAM was always maxed out according to EVGA Precision while playing but it never caused any problems that I experienced.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Just out of curiosity, how much VRAM does Skyrim normally use at 1080p with just the official HD pack? I know I played it that way with my GTX 470, all settings maxed out except shadows at medium, 4xAA and either 8 or 16xAF and I pretty much stayed between 50-60fps. If I remember correctly my VRAM was always maxed out according to EVGA Precision while playing but it never caused any problems that I experienced.

I'll check GPU-Z, but I don't know how accurate it is.

Okay - I'm sitting at 1026MB of usage, according to GPU-Z. Running at 1920x1080 with all settings up, using Bethesda's HD textures. Only mod my game has is a water mod that changes the shaders around. No texture mods. I'm using 4xAA and 16xAF.
Max it ever hit is 1049MB.

 

[RealityCrunch]

Modded skyrim, modded skyrim, modded skyrim.

It's the new "But can it run Crysis?"

 

[Scrubls]

...

ive had 30 mods on skyrim and was barely breaking 2 gigs man. idk wtf youre doing but it isnt practical.


2gb is fine now and will continue to be fine. this topic is always debated. every release, is 1gb enough?!!? is 2 gb enough?!?! is 18 ?!?!

2gb is plenty. the only time its not is if you have a heavily modded skyrim game.. although you'll never get as high as this ridiculous chart displays.

30 mods? well I have 290 mods. And its pretty practical since the game runs smooth as silk.

The graph is right and I'll show you why.

Why do people forget that ram allocation is dynamic.
I suspect his graph is correct because the system CAN allocate that much.
It may not need it all, but it can so it does.
I am sure the graph is very representative of what a Titan has allocated when running overmodded skyrim.

of course my opinion is that no amount of modding will ever make that game fun.

The graph is indeed correct, but its also using what it says it's using, and I'll show you why.

I've got $1k that says 2GB video cards will do just fine past November.




Exactly. That same Skyrim setup would run fine on a 2GB card.

"That same Skyrim setup would run fine on a 2GB card" Really?

For all of you bla bla bla Graph is wrong, bla bla bla can run on 2gb card, bla bla bla not using whats its showing, Check out what happens when I put the exactly same Skyrim on a 660 TI 3GB edition.

At around 80 Samples a bunch of textures went missing, (purple objects, npc's with white heads, white walls etc) and a few seconds later, guess what? the dam game CRASHED, want to know why? LOOK AT THE GRAPH, no more VRAM available.

So I guess the graphs are telling the truth, It's really using over 4GB VRAM.

 

[Zero989]

1) Who cares about Skyrim? (rhetorical) Most should be done with the game by now unless you play 5 minutes a day.

2) Those with 3GB/4GB 670/680/770/7950/7970 thinking they are future proofing will be in shock when their slow ass cards struggle to maintain 40, 50 let alone 60FPS in games. Hell, I got rid of a 7970 because it cannot maintain good enough frames in Tomb Raider, Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite. Can add Company of Heroes 2 to the list as well along with many other future games.

You guys are arguing over nothing. 3/4GB card yet it's too slow which nullifies these dumb arguments.

What a joke, thinking that those cards will handle future games with their VRAM alone. They are late 2011, early 2012 cards. Give me a break.

 

[LigTasm]

stuff

So by showing us that you had to add 270 mods and push the game engine to the limit on one of the few games that could even do so, you've essentially reinforced our point that 2GB is fine for right now in the majority of cases?

 

[Scrubls]

So by showing us that you had to add 270 mods and push the game engine to the limit on one of the few games that could even do so, you've essentially reinforced our point that 2GB is fine for right now in the majority of cases?

Did I ever say that it's not enough? Off course 2GB is enough (unless you mod Skyrim), and I believe that it will continue to be until next gen games, and when I say Next gen games, I mean MAXED OUT next gen games because, 2GB card's becoming obsolete by November it's just nonsense, they have to make the games playable on the majority of PC's to succeed and that's what lower setting will be for, just me guessing.

 

[wonderfield]

I suspect Skyrim is at fault for the issues you experienced, not the lack of video memory -- the lack of video memory just allowed the issue to bubble to the surface. Direct3D will continue to allocate from RAM in the event that all video memory is committed (swapping resources from video memory to RAM and back as needed), which should not result in a crash. Direct3D will actually do everything in its power to not crash applications over resource constraints.

There's either a defect in Skyrim's resource manager (Direct3D resources have to be explicitly released, and you can leak them) or, less likely, you actually had a single frame that required 3GB of resources, less the frame buffers. That is, to put it bluntly, absurd. At that point, your average texel density is many times greater than what you actually need for any display currently available (and shimmering must be absolutely atrocious).

 

[Scrubls]

I suspect Skyrim is at fault for the issues you experienced, not the lack of video memory -- the lack of video memory just allowed the issue to bubble to the surface. Direct3D will continue to allocate from RAM in the event that all video memory is committed (swapping resources from video memory to RAM and back as needed), which should not result in a crash. Direct3D will actually do everything in its power to not crash applications over resource constraints.

There's either a defect in Skyrim's resource manager (Direct3D resources have to be explicitly released, and you can leak them) or, less likely, you actually had a single frame that required 3GB of resources, less the frame buffers. That is, to put it bluntly, absurd. At that point, your average texel density is many times greater than what you actually need for any display currently available (and shimmering must be absolutely atrocious).

Maybe your right, maybe not. All I know is that the Titan reaches over 4GB VRAM and 660 TI 3GB crash's when reaching it's maximum VRAM. Maybe because of what you said or maybe because it's just to much to fit in.

 

[primetime]

Weather its needed or not, I would be more apt to buy a card with more memory if it is in my price range..tbh I probably am holding out for new generation card with at least 4gb ram,,,but i don't upgrade often either

 

[Deleted member 88227]

I sometimes wonder how stupid people think, and then I read some of the replies here on [H].

 

[RamonGTP]

Maybe your right, maybe not. All I know is that the Titan reaches over 4GB VRAM and 660 TI 3GB crash's when reaching it's maximum VRAM. Maybe because of what you said or maybe because it's just to much to fit in.

This response makes no sense if you actually understood what he said.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

This response makes no sense if you actually understood what he said.

That's asking way too much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go back to playing my modded Skyrim w/ 1.25GB of VRAM @ 1080P.

 

[Scrubls]

This response makes no sense if you actually understood what he said.

Like I said, I don't know if the game causes it or if Direct3D isn't swapping enough textures from VRAM to RAM for new textures when VRAM gets full, all I know is it doesn't crash on the Titan, and yes I know what he is talking about.

That's asking way too much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go back to playing my modded Skyrim w/ 1.25GB of VRAM @ 1080P.

Pppfffff.... have fun playing with Bethesda's "High-Res" texture pack.

I'll even bet it looks something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GkexUNh2Pc

 

[Bankie]

Then why not take him up on his bet? Money talks....

Did I say that 2GB wouldn't be useable past November? It most certainly will. It will probably take a couple of years before games start to push that barrier.

My point was that you can saturate 2GB of VRAM today. It doesn't take triple monitor gaming (I'm at 1920x1200) or extreme levels of AA (I run Skyrim with SMAA). All it takes is a big world and really nice looking textures.

 

[Parja]

Kind of off-topic, but why people are still, 21 months after release, putting tons of time and effort into making a meh game like Skyrim look better is beyond me.

 

[hdgamer]

Do you guys actually think that graphics are just going to marginally improve overnight once the consoles are released, or shittily ported so that it eats up more resources just because consoles have more memory? This really doesn't make sense as video game makers could have been doing that on PC a long time ago, especially since Crysis did so well as being a benchmark for so long.

My personal opinion on this is that when games in fact do use more than 2 or 3 gigs of vram, I will do a simple thing that I have always done and that's called upgrade. LOL

 

[Zero989]

Kind of off-topic, but why people are still, 21 months after release, putting tons of time and effort into making a meh game like Skyrim look better is beyond me.

This thread wouldn't exist in the way it does without Skyrim . But yeah, DUH, everyone still plays Skyrim .

My personal opinion on this is that when games in fact do use more than 2 or 3 gigs of vram, I will do a simple thing that I have always done and that's called upgrade. LOL

The VRAM/RAM/Multi-threading arguments always pop up. They're (the arguments) dumb as hell but people need to justify their purchases and feel like they have advantages. Your opinion might as well be a fact. By the time >2GB matters I'll have a R10 X1970 8GB GDDR5 512-Bit 649GB/sec GPU. Whoopteedo your 7950 has 3GB of RAM but you get amazing 10FPS dips in those games. Yawn.

 

[Solomutt]

Since I prefer no AA, and run 8X AF, I'll keep my max textures at 1080p for a long time. That's because I have a 7950 (1100/1400) with 3GB of VRAM.

Believe what you want. I've been in this game long enough to have bought the original Voodoo card, followed by Quantum 3D's dual Voodoo2 12 setup, and after that it was always the highest VRAM reasonably available. It has served me quite well, along with those that followed the same path.

Anyone thinking that resolution is the key to VRAM usage clearly hasn't been tracking texture usage for over 10 years. I upgrade every 2 to 3 years, because I don't use GPU killing options, but I do want highest res textures.


"They're (the arguments) dumb as hell but people need to justify their purchases and feel like they have advantages."

--Maybe you simply want to justify a bad purchasing decision....

 

[Zero989]

Anyone thinking that resolution is the key to VRAM usage clearly hasn't been tracking texture usage for over 10 years. I upgrade every 2 to 3 years, because I don't use GPU killing options, but I do want highest res textures.


"They're (the arguments) dumb as hell but people need to justify their purchases and feel like they have advantages."

--Maybe you simply want to justify a bad purchasing decision....

Not really as I upgrade every 6 months. I don't need to defend anything. By the end of the year I'll have better GPUs than those holding on to their "amazing 2GB+ dedicated Skyrim GPUs". Like I said before as well, a single 3GB is too slow for games now anyway with decent settings. Those cards lag in games which is why I upgraded. This thread is full of stupid.

You just won't see me making retarded arguments that require 50 mods @ 4K res to break 4GB meaning we all need to go out and buy 4GB+ cards as 2GB/3GB users are screwed.

I've been waiting for the new Radeon cards as I refuse to be one of those who think the 780 is a great deal at $649 MSRP because the TITAN is $1000 . Both of those cards are overpriced.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

For the ones who pack their Skyrim game full of mods, there's a valid argument for more VRAM. However, they're clearly in the minority and shouldn't be using that as the basis for advising purchases. Now SLI'ing two high-performance cards might make for a decent argument for getting more VRAM if it's a longer-term purchase, but with even $200 cards being able to play 1920x1080 with a good bit of eye candy, I think it's a moot point. AKA - upgrade when you need to. "Future proofing" is at best a decent game of prediction, at worst is just flat-out guessing.