# The Slowing Growth of vRam in Games

Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by Nightfire, Nov 12, 2018.

1. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
With the release of BFV, I wanted to see what the requirements of vRam is in the current state. For most games, vRam requirements are as follows: Ax + By = C where x is the number amount of vRAm per 1 mega pixel and y is the "vram overhead" or amount of vRam that is always added on no matter what the resolution.

We know that 1080p is 2.07 Megapixels, 1440p is 3.7 MP and 4k is 8.3 MP.
So if a game has a y of 3 GB and an x of 0.1 GB, vram usage would be:
3.207 GB at 1080p (2.207*0.1+3) , 3.37 GB at 1440p (3.37*0.1+3)and 3.83 GB at 4k (8.3*0.1+3)
If a game has a high "y value" in relation to the x value, it seems inefficient imho.

Lets go way back to Crysis 1 in 2007 with much lower resolutions:

defaultluser reports .31 GB@ .48 MP, .36GB@ .79 MP .45GB@ 1.31 MP
and .575 GB at 1.9 megapixels

Using the highest and lowest res:
1.9x + y = .575 GB and 0.48x + y = .31 GB We can substitute for y and solve for x:
ie y = .31 - .48x which means...
1.9x + (.31 - .48x) = .575 or...
1.42x = .265 GB so x = .187 GB
We can than solve for y in the equation above.
y = .575 - 1.9(.187) so y = .22 GB
Here, x and y factors were VERY close.

This can be checked using the middle resolution
.79(.187) + .22 = .368 GB vs .36 GB that was recorded.

Moving to 2015 where the FuryX looked like it had a very bleak future with only 4 GB of vRam.
Starting with Tomb Raider in 2015 which uses 1.5 GB ram at 1080p and 3.1 GB with 4k
Now use 2.077 (megapixels) for 1080p and 8.1 for 4k
Using the same formulas above...
8.3.x + y = 3.1 .... and 2.07x + y = 1.5 .... using substitution,
8.3x + 1.5 - 2.07x = 3.1 ...reduce to x and
x=.257 or in other words .257 GB needed for each Megapixel
now we can solve for y:
2.07x + y = 1.5
y = 1.5 - 2.07x ....replace x with .257 and
Now lets test with 1440p: 3.7x + y = 1.92 vs 1.94GB Actual

But other game were far worse:
Take for example Middle Earth:SoM as recorded by Tweaktown. Using the above formulas...
x = .1 GB and y = 4.56 GB
I tested on 1440 p and got 4.93 GB vs. 4.97 GB Actual by Tweaktown.

Metro Last light was also tested
x = .115 and y = 1.06
testing with 1440p gave me 1.49 GB vs. 1.46 GB that they recorded.

And also Far Cry 4.
x = .43 GB/ megapixel (highest so far!) with y being 2.17 GB
Again testing on 1440p: 3.7x + 2.17 = 3.76 GB vs 3.77 GB actual by Tweaktown

So even in 2015, you had "y overheads" ranging from 1 GB to a whopping 4.5 GB.

Which brings us to 2018 with Battle Field V:
Both TPU and Guru 3d had Vram numbers:
Staring with TPU: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V/4.html
8.3x + 4.83 - 2.07x = 6.74
8.3x - 2.07x = 6.74 - 4.83
6.23x = 1.91 or x = .307 Now solving for y...
2.07x + y = 4.83
6.35 + y = 4.83 or y = 4.195 GB
testing with 1440p... 3.7x + y = 5.33 GB vs 5.36 GB actual

And then Guru3d: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_v_pc_performance_benchmarks,7.html
8.3x + 4.94 - 2.07x =6.99 ....
6.23x = 2.05 or x = .329 again solving for y...
2.07x + y = 4.94
.681 + y = 4.94 or y = 4.259
testing with 1440p... 3.7x + y = 5.48 GB vs 5.49 GB actual

Both Reviews had very close values.
The point here is that these numbers are no worse than what 2015 was getting us, despite the 10x increase going from 2007 to 2015. Also, let's not forget that vRam requested is not the same as vRam required. Vulkan perhaps being the exception.

** It is interesting to note that the FuryX was just behind the GTX 1070 in TPU and WAY behind in Guru3D
Perhaps the slightly higher settings and vRam requirements of Guru3d were JUST enough to put the FuryX on its face.

So, would I buy a mid to high end card with 4GB in 2018 to play the newest games? Hell no, but I am willing to wager that 8 GB will be sufficient for FAR longer than most anticipate.

DTN107, Red Falcon and N4CR like this.
2. ### Brian_B2[H]4U

Messages:
2,458
Joined:
Mar 23, 2012
I’m going to need to see a spreadsheet

Dudhunter, Axehandler, XoR_ and 3 others like this.

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
4. ### ArmeniusI Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

Messages:
16,765
Joined:
Jan 28, 2014
And people frequently complain about low texture resolution. 8GB is enough if you're satisfied with mediocrity, I guess. Frankly, with the push for 8K by the display industry I'm surprised we haven't seen 16GB cards in the consumer space, yet.

lostinseganet and Araxie like this.
5. ### Gideon[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,980
Joined:
Apr 13, 2006
No one is running out to buy over priced 8k screens. Almost all your high end cards have over 8 GB and the mid range have around 8 GB which is fine, why pay for more ram you will never use. 4K is barely seeing any traction since the prices are low enough for most now and the broadcast world is stuck on 1080p. 16GB consumer cards would be a waste and add 0 benefit.

knowom, daglesj, amenx and 3 others like this.
6. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
I am not sure what you mean by that as I have never seen "only" 8 GB ever being an issue. Even if a game requests mor3e than 8 GB, the dynamic ram is usually enough to fill the gap. Hell, most of the time, 4 GB sees no penalty over a similar 8 GB card when this much ram is requested - Vulkan not withstanding.

One of the advantages of having the extra vram is that you can get away with less system ram as some games have a combined ram requirement of 12 GB or more.

Techspot showed this when the 6gb gtx 1060 ran fine with all games with only 8gb of ram while the 3 GB gtx 1030 sometime had a penalty for less than 16gb of ram.

7. ### lostinseganet[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,127
Joined:
Oct 8, 2008
What about that pimax 8kx VR headset? 2 4K images @80+fps will need plenty of ram.

Armenius likes this.
8. ### Dan_D[H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

Messages:
53,138
Joined:
Feb 9, 2002
You should probably have led with this.

9. ### MangoSeedLimp Gawd

Messages:
338
Joined:
Oct 15, 2014
How long is far longer? The 8GB consoles ushered in the current wave of higher texture resolutions. If next gen goes to 12 or 16GB we'll see another bump.

Render resolution isn’t that important going forward. It’ll be texture quality and variety that drives memory consumption. Geometric complexity will bring another bump when raytracing takes off in the hopefully not distant future. Character and object detail is still a joke in 2018.

10. ### KazeoHin[H]ardness Supreme

Messages:
7,761
Joined:
Sep 7, 2011
Turn texture detail from Ultra to high = 1/4 the VRAM.

Nightfire likes this.
11. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
haha sorry.

Consoles are now 8gb and 12gb of vram, but that is the total combined. When you have 8gb video card with 16 GB of ram, you effectively have 24gb of combined ram minus overhead from Windows. The is assuming the game can leverage the dynamic range which many dx12 games do a great job.

An article from techspot illustrates this.

12. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
I was curious to see how other 2018 games compared to older versions from 2015.

Now lets look at Shadows of the Tomb Raider. The 2015 version was one of the most ram efficient games back then.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
For 1080p it uses 6.4 GB and 4k uses 7.25 GB so...
8.3x + 6.4 - 2.07x =7.25
6.23x = .85 or x = .136 GB. Strangely, this is about half of what the 2015 version was.
2.07x + y = 6.4
y = 6.4 - .282 or y = 6.12 GB
Damn, that is over 6x that of the 2015 version. Laura got her a fat ass!
Confirming with 1440p ... 3.7x + y = 6.62 GB vs 6.60 GB actual.

Next is let's look at Far Cry 5 compared to FC4. The 980ti graph was used.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_5_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html
8.3x = 2.99 - 2.07x + 3.99
6.23x = 1 or x = .161 This is about 1/3 of that of FC4!
2.07x + y = 2.99
.333 + y = 2.99 or y = 2.66 GB - slightly more than FC4
1440p calculated is 3.7x + y = 3.26 GB vs 3.36 GB actual

Finally we have Middle Earth: SoW (2017). We know that ME: SoM was already a pig, so let's see ho this one did.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,8.html
8.3x + 8.75 - 2.07x = 9.31
6.23x = .56 or x = .090 GB / MP Once again this is lower than the previous version and the lowest of any game on this list.
2.07x + y = 8.75
.186 + y = 8.75 or y = 8.564 GB. This is almost twice as much its fat older brother.
1440p check gives 3.7x + y = 8.90 GB vs 8.88 GB actual.

Somebody mentioned 8k, so we can estimate that value using 33.2 Megapixels for 8k.
lets start with the above game, which use a whopping 8.75 GB at 1080p.
33.2x + y = 11.55 GB at 8k.

Now compare this to FC4 which used only 3.06 GB at 1080p with only a 2.17 GB y value, but had a huge x value of .43 GB.
33.2x + y = 16.45 GB at 8k. So at 8k, that game would actually use more than ME: SoW.

Last edited: Dec 31, 2018
Dudhunter and N4CR like this.
13. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
I realize I am beating a dead horse at this point, but now we get a first look at how Ray Tracing will affect vram usage:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/4.html

First without:
8.3x + 4.45 - 2.07x = 6.50
x = .329 GB
2.07x + y = 4.45
y = 3.77
1440p check: 3.7x + y = 4.99 GB vs 4.95 actual

And now with Ray Tracing
8.3x + 5.52 - 2.07x = 7.56
x = .327 GB
2.07x + y = 5.52
y = 4.84 GB
1440p check: 3.7x + y = 6.05 GB vs 6.14 actual

So yep, once again the x value did not increase. Ray tracing just added 1.1 GB across all resolutions.

Since you are forced to run 1080p with the best video cards with DXR, you will actually need LESS vram

GoldenTiger likes this.
14. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
Goddam it, I need to find something better to do with my free time.

I left out the two Middle Earth games as their vram usage seemed to be a cache fill since lower vram cards did not suffer.

Metro Exodus is very efficient given the world size and visual quality.

15. ### ArmeniusI Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

Messages:
16,765
Joined:
Jan 28, 2014
The consoles have unified memory. Originally the Xbox One had 3GB of that 8GB reserved for the system, leaving 5GB TOTAL left for games. Meaning developers had to actively plan on how that memory was going to be allocated at any given time. You were basically looking at 2-3GB avaiable for video output. Today, the Xbox One and PS4 make 7GB out of the 8GB total available for games, while the One X makes 10GB out of 12GB available. Developers still have to carefully budget available memory between gameplay system and video needs. This is the primary reason why overall visual fidelity hasn't improved as much in recent years as it has in the past, as developers look for other visual tricks to improve it like photogrammetry.

vegeta535, Red Falcon and Nightfire like this.
16. ### geok1ng2[H]4U

Messages:
2,123
Joined:
Oct 28, 2007
all of that math makes me wonder if 6GB is too little for a new gaming card at 2019.

8Gb Vegas are becoming more tempting

N4CR, Armenius and Red Falcon like this.
17. ### Red Falcon[H]ardForum Junkie

Messages:
9,835
Joined:
May 7, 2007
I started noticing my GTX 980 Ti GPUs were becoming VRAM-limited with 6GB in quite a few games, and I don't even game at 1440p.
Never thought I would see the day where 6GB VRAM doesn't seem to be enough at 2K resolutions.

18. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
Curious as to which games run out and what happens. From what I gather, a game will simply pull from system ram, slow down, or drop some textures.

19. ### polonyc2[H]ardForum Junkie

Messages:
16,156
Joined:
Oct 25, 2004
even 6GB seems like it'll be enough for the foreseeable future

20. ### Red Falcon[H]ardForum Junkie

Messages:
9,835
Joined:
May 7, 2007
Massive slowdowns are what I see when it runs out (system RAM is way slower in data transfer rates than VRAM).
The big one that comes to mind is Fallout 4 with the HD texture pack installed with everything at high @ 2K.

knowom, N4CR, FlawleZ and 1 other person like this.
21. ### Ryoohki360Gawd

Messages:
605
Joined:
Aug 23, 2010
4k still need another 5 years to get to mainstream mid tier for 60fps+ ,also depending on how much ram the next gen consoles have. Remember everything is based on this... Now that most of the time the Xbox one x get ultra PC textures.

8k is a good 10-15 years away.. I update my videocard each 3 years so ..

22. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
From all of the tests we have seen and how little ACTUAL vram consumption has increased, the RTX 2060 will almost always run out of GPU power before hitting VRAM limitations.

It is the exact same scenario that the Fury X was on almost 4 years ago. So many made an issue of the frame buffer size being worried about "future titles."

Hardware Unboxed just did a test of Metro: Exodus, which is one of the most demanding titles to date, ignoring a bunch of gay texture modded games.

The Fury X did not take a vram performance hit, even at 4k ultra, despite it only having the gpu power to play 1080p ultra.

Even the 3 GB GTX 1060 did not get affected until 1440p ultra. It only managed 43 fps at 1080p ultra, so a higher setting/resolution is pointless anyhow.

Going further back and using 1080p Medium, the GTX 780 3 GB only managed 41 fps while the 2 GB GTX 1050 managed to get 43 fps with good minimums. So, you can be almost certain that the RTX 2060 will be fine 7-8 years from now with 6 GB as you will most likely need to play at medium settings anyhow.

GoldenTiger likes this.
23. ### vegeta5352[H]4U

Messages:
2,829
Joined:
Jul 19, 2013
Console ate not even using 8GB for games. 3 GB is reserved for OS and background tasks.

24. ### Supercharged_Z062[H]4U

Messages:
2,420
Joined:
Nov 13, 2006
When it comes to VRAM use, Raytracing hasn't really made a splash yet (more like a puddle... a muddy one at best... the kind that's already half dry). Tensor cores / AI nonwithstanding, I imagine the only other real need for extra large VRAM capacity would be CUDA cores for video processing / Adobe software use.

25. ### FlawleZGawd

Messages:
752
Joined:
Oct 20, 2010
This. I was running an R9 Fury until last year. Great card, but the newer games at 1440P+ chew up 4GB of VRAM fast. I was experiencing massive performance hits similar to the feeling when you ran out of system RAM years ago and Windows would start using your virtual memory on whatever old spinner HDD you were using.

26. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
FlawleZ and Red Falcon like this.
27. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
Like I said, vram scales much faster with settings than resolution. 1080P, 1440p, and 4k all need somewhere between 4 and 6 GB of vram, at least up to 2060 level of performance, yet 1080p medium needs less than 2 GB:

So it is a good bet that if a game needs more than 8 GB years from now, it will be fine with 4 GB with balanced settings.

GoldenTiger and Red Falcon like this.
28. ### ArmeniusI Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

Messages:
16,765
Joined:
Jan 28, 2014
"So it is a good bet that if a game needs more than 256MB years from now, it will be fine with 128MB with balanced settings."

Red Falcon likes this.
29. ### Red Falcon[H]ardForum Junkie

Messages:
9,835
Joined:
May 7, 2007
Meanwhile in 2004!

knowom, Armenius and Nightfire like this.
30. ### _chesebert_[H]Lite

Messages:
76
Joined:
Nov 2, 2016
Not to worry, just download some NexusMods 8K textures and you will max out your vRAM in no time.

31. ### crazycraveLimp Gawd

Messages:
340
Joined:
Mar 31, 2016
The things that impact RD 2 is resolution scaling and texture size as 2 and 3 Gb textures I would think means what it says, extra 2Gbs of vram needed over what the game needs .

32. ### daglesj[H]ardness Supreme

Messages:
5,019
Joined:
May 7, 2005
I never get these kinds of threads with people hand wringing over some new 'development or requirement' that might be coming over the hill in a couple of years time that will mean possible investment in new gear.

Like it was such a pain the previous 33 times this has happened in their computing history.

Do like I do, just don't worry about it, sit back let the early adopters soak up the R&D cost/bugs/pain/competing standards and then jump in when it's standardised and costs \$250.

You know, like how much did those folks pay for their 4K non HDR screens just three years ago?

33. ### XoR_Gawd

Messages:
658
Joined:
Jan 18, 2016
Here is the picture of basket of cats to heal math induced headache:

Dudhunter, knowom and Nightfire like this.
34. ### Nightfire[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017
Of all the 2019 games, I thought Division 2 was going to be a top candidate to smash the game 4 GB vram demand. However PC gamer shows 4 GB RX 570 is good through 1440p ultra:
https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-review/

Guru3d shows the 4 GB Fuji non-x breaking down at 4k ultra, but that is way beyond the card anyhow.

35. ### lostinseganet[H]ard|Gawd

Messages:
1,127
Joined:
Oct 8, 2008
SSSSOOOooo cute...until I realized their mouths, and noises are Yellow/Brown because they have been licking themselves

36. ### Dudhuntern00b

Messages:
58
Joined:
Oct 10, 2017
One of us, One of us, one of us...

Dayaks likes this.
37. ### AuerLimp Gawd

Messages:
429
Joined:
Nov 2, 2018
Interesting how Guru3D's charts show the optimization working well for AMD.

Nightfire likes this.

Messages:
1,398
Joined:
Sep 7, 2017