Do we need 4GB of VRAM?

S

Sowexly

Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
544
For any setup with less than 6 Million pixels do we really need more than 2GBs of VRAM?

I ask because it's the range between a few small screens (1080p) and maybe a single 1600p
I know VRAM usage sky-rockets when you turn up MSAA but that should be less useful as you scale to a higher resolution right?

Not to mention the new types of AA being developed and used like FXAA
 
The reason people so many people here freak out about "only 2GB VRAM" is that the reference GTX 580 had 1.5GB of VRAM, which turned out to not be enough to max out some games, particularly on multi-monitor setups. The 3GB version of the GTX 580 fixed those problems, so some members of this forum fixated on an assumption that less than 3GB was not enough for a flagship video card.

Now that we have reference Nvidia cards with 2GB VRAM, it has turned out that in most of those cases, 1.5GB was just barely not enough, and 2GB was all that was needed. But the 3GB or more fixation remains.
 
You will eventually need more than 2GB if your going to keep the card for awhile.
 
Conker, you will eventually need a faster card if you need more than 2GB to run games in the future as well. When games are that powerful in graphics, the graphics card should be updated as well. Think about it, if you have more textures to load into the vram, is the gpu core going to be able to keep up as well?
 
It's unlikely you will need more than 2gb in a single 1080/1200p monitor anytime in the near future and if/when you do it would be time for a new card anyway.
 
Conker said:
You will eventually need more than 2GB if your going to keep the card for awhile.
Click to expand...

Not if more games switch to native FXAA implementations. The only reasons for needing more than 2GB are multi-monitor setups or very high levels of AA. In the first case, you will run out of GPU horsepower before you run out of VRAM on a single card (SLI may be different). In the second, FXAA and TXAA should start replacing the need for high MSAA levels.
 
Forceman said:
Not if more games switch to native FXAA implementations. The only reasons for needing more than 2GB are multi-monitor setups or very high levels of AA. In the first case, you will run out of GPU horsepower before you run out of VRAM on a single card (SLI may be different). In the second, FXAA and TXAA should start replacing the need for high MSAA levels.
Click to expand...

Not if you don't like FXAA and TXAA.
 
Final8ty said:
Not if you don't like FXAA and TXAA.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't matter. 2GB hasn't been shown to be a limitation for the GTX 680 in any reasonable test I've seen (not talking about situations where the card is already only getting 30 fps or something). All of the [H] testing has shown that 2GB is plenty.
 
Lets apply this concept to 1440p with something like SLI do we need more VRAM in that case?
 
Sowexly said:
Lets apply this concept to 1440p with something like SLI do we need more VRAM in that case?
Click to expand...

Not at 1440p, no. [H] did SLI testing at multi-monitor resolutions and found no problems. It's really only 3-way where it becomes a problem.

The biggest question in regards to performance and gameplay experience about GeForce GTX 680 SLI was if the 2GB of VRAM per GPU and lesser memory bandwidth compared to Radeon HD 7970 would be a hindrance. Our testing has clearly answered that question. In fact, in every game we tested, GTX 680 SLI offered a better gameplay experience compared to Radeon HD 7970 CrossFireX. We specifically tested at NV Surround and Eyefinity at the maximum resolution of our configuration at 5760x1200 to see if there would be any bottlenecks. We found that the new GeForce GTX 680 SLI has the performance where it counts.
Click to expand...

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/03/28/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_sli_video_card_review/1
 
im using a 2gb 6970 across 3 screens and doing just fine.
 
RamonGTP said:
It's unlikely you will need more than 2gb in a single 1080/1200p monitor anytime in the near future and if/when you do it would be time for a new card anyway.
Click to expand...

This is not true. A couple of days ago, I maxed out BF3 in single player and was using 2.1GB of Vram. I used even more vram when I maxed out Crysis 2. This is all on 1600p. So for a few games today, 2GB of vram is not enough. This will get worse in the next year with new, more demanding titles. Remember that some of us want to max out our games for maximum eye candy.
 
If Apple starts pumping out Retina displays with 5120x2880 pixels, then 4GB might be necessary.
 
Nvidia_ATI said:
This is not true. A couple of days ago, I maxed out BF3 in single player and was using 2.1GB of Vram. I used even more vram when I maxed out Crysis 2. This is all on 1600p. So for a few games today, 2GB of vram is not enough. This will get worse in the next year with new, more demanding titles. Remember that some of us want to max out our games for maximum eye candy.
Click to expand...

I clearly stated 1080/1200p your example is 1600p which is pushing quite a bit more pixels, twice as much actually. 4.24 million vs 2.3 million for 1200p and 2.07 million for 1080.
 
Last edited:
evilsofa said:
The reason people so many people here freak out about "only 2GB VRAM" is that the reference GTX 580 had 1.5GB of VRAM, which turned out to not be enough to max out some games, particularly on multi-monitor setups. The 3GB version of the GTX 580 fixed those problems, so some members of this forum fixated on an assumption that less than 3GB was not enough for a flagship video card.

Now that we have reference Nvidia cards with 2GB VRAM, it has turned out that in most of those cases, 1.5GB was just barely not enough, and 2GB was all that was needed. But the 3GB or more fixation remains.
Click to expand...

which games has issues with 'only' 1.5GB VRAM?...Battlefield 3?...anything else?...does this only concern multi-monitor setups?...for single display users is 1.5GB more then enough even with the most demanding games?
 
Nvidia_ATI said:
This is not true. A couple of days ago, I maxed out BF3 in single player and was using 2.1GB of Vram. I used even more vram when I maxed out Crysis 2. This is all on 1600p. So for a few games today, 2GB of vram is not enough. This will get worse in the next year with new, more demanding titles. Remember that some of us want to max out our games for maximum eye candy.
Click to expand...
Would you recommend looking for 4GB models of these cards to users pushing 1440/1600p then?

450 said:
If Apple starts pumping out Retina displays with 5120x2880 pixels, then 4GB might be necessary.
Click to expand...
No doubt about it, but will they be releasing panels with that resolution?
Not sure about that one.
 
For the price premium of those cards, honestly I don't feel it's worth it. If you really want more than 2 GB, get a 7970/7950... and then you get to deal with AMD's drivers.
 
Never went over 1.8gb with my 7970 on 1920x1200 w/ maxed out settings on BF3. I doubt Ill notice an issue w/ a GTX680 2gb model.
 
Forceman said:
Still doesn't matter. 2GB hasn't been shown to be a limitation for the GTX 680 in any reasonable test I've seen (not talking about situations where the card is already only getting 30 fps or something). All of the [H] testing has shown that 2GB is plenty.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with my point at all, the point is that not everyone likes FXAA and TXAA so don't start talking as if we all do, i have 2GB per gpu cards myself.
 
"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need."

'Nuff said.

And yes, I know Bill never actually said it, but the principle stands.
 
mobhill said:
"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need."

'Nuff said.

And yes, I know Bill never actually said it, but the principle stands.
Click to expand...

That means nothing in this instance. We all know that 2gb of ram wont always be enough, but right now it is. BF3 is one of the most demanding games and it doesnt need more than 2gb w/ just 1 monitor (even at higher res people are doing fine). Yes, if you are going w/ a 2 or 3 screen setup the extra ram will help but for the majority of users, 2gb is plenty.

There are the select few who utilize 16gb of ram as well, but how many people actually need that much? Very few... I dont even touch 6gb myself (and I have 8gb available).
 
mobhill said:
"640K is more memory than anyone will ever need."

'Nuff said.

And yes, I know Bill never actually said it, but the principle stands.
Click to expand...

The principle has fallen because no one here said 2gb is more than anyone will EVER need.

Like you said. 'Nuff said ;)
 
2GB hasn't been shown to be a limitation for the GTX 680 in any reasonable test
Click to expand...
Most people here are way beyond 'reasonable'. We push the limits, and usually want to max out everything. Those of us who keep our machines besides the new ones we build like to be able to use said machines for a while, so we try to 'future proof' as best we can, even though we know it's a futile exercise.
Originally Posted by 450: If Apple starts pumping out Retina displays with 5120x2880 pixels, then 4GB might be necessary.
Then Sowexly wrote: No doubt about it, but will they be releasing panels with that resolution? Not sure about that one.
Click to expand...
Sure they will. Just a matter of time, and when they do, we'll all want one. Hell, I bought a HD projector when they came out, now I want a 3D one.
The latest, greatest tech available. I don't care if I 'need' it. I want it. And I want it now. Gotta spend my hard earned cash on something as I sit in my basement playing pointless games and watching pron! Just gotta keep enough left over for ho's and blow.
 
Nvidia_ATI said:
This is not true. A couple of days ago, I maxed out BF3 in single player and was using 2.1GB of Vram. I used even more vram when I maxed out Crysis 2. This is all on 1600p. So for a few games today, 2GB of vram is not enough. This will get worse in the next year with new, more demanding titles. Remember that some of us want to max out our games for maximum eye candy.
Click to expand...

But you are running SLI - a single GTX 580 (or 680) wouldn't be able to run BF3 at those settings anyway. And, as has been discussed numerous times, BF3 uses dynamic memory scaling, so just because it is using more than 2 GB doesn't mean it needs more than 2GB.

stope21 said:
Do you need 4GB of VRAM? Best answer is - For right now, not really.

Will we 'need' 4GB of VRAM in the future? Certainly

According to this post: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=229497&page=6

You hit about 2.4GB on the latest game BF3 when running at 2560x1600, Ultra Settings, 4xMSAA.
Click to expand...

Ditto on that test.
 
Sorry if this looks like a Hijack attempt cuz its not :) I wanted to post it here since this thread seems to get attention and the ones I post never do :(

For someone who is going to run 3 27" 1440p monitors, which one will fare better, the 3gig 7970 or cfx 6970 at 4gig Vram? The setup is not for Eyefinity gaming, it will game on one monitor and display browser/pdf on others.
 
I'd definitely like more thant 2GB of VRAM. I hit the 2GB VRAM wall at 7680x1600, 4800x2560, and 8000x2560. But what get's me is that I was able to hit the wall at 5250x1680 @ 4x AA in some games.
 
Sowexly said:
No doubt about it, but will they be releasing panels with that resolution?
Not sure about that one.
Click to expand...

Its quite possible that the newest iMacs and Macbook Pros coming out soon will feature a "retina display" - which is their marketing name for quadrupling the pixel count or doubling the pixels on each axis.
 
450 said:
Its quite possible that the newest iMacs and Macbook Pros coming out soon will feature a "retina display" - which is their marketing name for quadrupling the pixel count or doubling the pixels on each axis.
Click to expand...

at what dpi is it considered a retna display?
 
suiken_2mieu said:
at what dpi is it considered a retna display?
Click to expand...

So far all they have done for retina displays is quadruple the pixels so existing apps will work. As a result, I don't think they were thinking about the DPI as much as compatibility.
 
Andyk5 said:
For someone who is going to run 3 27" 1440p monitors, which one will fare better, the 3gig 7970 or cfx 6970 at 4gig Vram? The setup is not for Eyefinity gaming, it will game on one monitor and display browser/pdf on others.
Click to expand...

CFX 6970s is still only 2GB. The RAM isn't added in CrossFire, it is mirrored.
 
Final8ty said:
Not if you don't like FXAA and TXAA.
Click to expand...

I understand FXAA, TXAA looks pretty good so far, however we haven't seen it in any real world applications. As post AA gets better and better I'm starting to feel MSAA isn't worth holding on to.

Edit: I'm aware we are not there yet though. BF3 with 4xMSAA and low FXAA is the best implementation of AA I've seen in a while.
 
JayJapanB said:
I understand FXAA, TXAA looks pretty good so far, however we haven't seen it in any real world applications. As post AA gets better and better I'm starting to feel MSAA isn't worth holding on to.

Edit: I'm aware we are not there yet though. BF3 with 4xMSAA and low FXAA is the best implementation of AA I've seen in a while.
Click to expand...

Is what i use, but if a had a 7xxx cards it would be SSAA or AMSAA.

Roadhog_ said:
Here we go. 4x MSAA vs 4x Adaptive MSAA vs 4x SSAA.

Click the pics for full res.

V4vkv.png


4x MSAA:





4x Adaptive MSAA:





4x SSAA:



Click to expand...
 
Doesn't super sampling litterally render then image that ammount or times bigger and shrink it back down? So 1920x1080 4xSSAA = 3840x2160?
 
RamonGTP said:
I clearly stated 1080/1200p your example is 1600p which is pushing quite a bit more pixels, twice as much actually. 4.24 million vs 2.3 million for 1200p and 2.07 million for 1080.
Click to expand...

Ah, I missed your 1080p/1200p reference. Sorry, my bad ...
 
Sowexly said:
Would you recommend looking for 4GB models of these cards to users pushing 1440/1600p then?
Click to expand...

Yes, IMHO. If you want to max out the newest games at 1440p/1600p, get a 4GB card. Remember that new consoles are on the horizon so we should be getting more demanding console ports on the PC. I wanted to pull the trigger on 2x GTX 670s but their 2GB ram stopped me.
 
I just bought a 670 GTX 4gb. Yeah, it's a bit more, but I'm sure the extra ram will help down the road.

It's easy to saturate my old 8800GT with 512mb, but often the performance in some games is high enough that I feel like I should be able to push it higher.

I guess I just want some headroom. This console generation is reaching it's end (finally!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top