The Slowing Growth of vRam in Games

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

  1. Nightfire

    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:
    http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1456645

    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
    y=.968 or about 1 GB overhead
    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_B

    Brian_B 2[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.
  3. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,398
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
  4. Armenius

    Armenius I 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

    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

    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

    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. :p
     
    Armenius likes this.
  8. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ardOCP Motherboard Editor

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

    MangoSeed Limp 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

    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

    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.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techspot.com/amp/article/1535-how-much-ram-do-you-need-for-gaming/
     
  12. Nightfire

    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.
    We already see that BFV uses about double that of BF1.

    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

    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 :p
     
    GoldenTiger likes this.
  14. Nightfire

    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.
    Screenshot_20190217-150352_Excel.jpg

    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. Armenius

    Armenius I 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. geok1ng

    geok1ng 2[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

    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

    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

    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

    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. Ryoohki360

    Ryoohki360 Gawd

    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

    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. vegeta535

    vegeta535 2[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_Z06

    Supercharged_Z06 2[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). :D 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. FlawleZ

    FlawleZ Gawd

    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

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,398
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017
    FlawleZ and Red Falcon like this.
  27. Nightfire

    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:

    Screenshot_20190219-200334_Samsung Internet.jpg

    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. Armenius

    Armenius I 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

    Red Falcon [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,835
    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Meanwhile in 2004! :D
     
    knowom, Armenius and Nightfire like this.
  30. _chesebert_

    _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. crazycrave

    crazycrave Limp 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

    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. :D

    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_

    XoR_ Gawd

    Messages:
    658
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2016
    Here is the picture of basket of cats to heal math induced headache:
    160993-Cats-In-A-Basket.jpg
     
    Dudhunter, knowom and Nightfire like this.
  34. Nightfire

    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/
    Screenshot_20190316-163031_Samsung Internet.jpg

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

    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 :censored:o_O:oops::dead:
     
  36. Dudhunter

    Dudhunter n00b

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    One of us, One of us, one of us...
     
    Dayaks likes this.
  37. Auer

    Auer Limp Gawd

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

    index.png
     
    Nightfire likes this.
  38. Nightfire

    Nightfire [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,398
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2017