When is Vram important?

N

NastyNative

Gawd
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
522
When I made my 1st build I remember that you only needed more Vram (video ram) if you planned on using a big monitor. The bigger the monitor the more ram !

Lately I keep seeing post and hearing people talk about how a Video Card with more ram is faster/better than a card with less ram. I still believe this is true if you plan
on using a big monitor 30"+ or double/triple monitors and so on.

So a 770 2G should play a game like Arma 3 @ the same frame rates of a 770 4G if I plan on using a single 25" monitor @ 1080 p?
 
The larger the framebuffer, the more memory needed. The three major things that contribute to framebuffer size are textures (game-dependent), anti-aliasing, and resolution. More VRAM in a VRAM-limited scenario isn't going to give higher framerates, but it will prevent thrashing and improve minimum framerates. If you're going with a higher resolution, you will benefit from more graphics horsepower first before needing more VRAM. 4k is an extreme case where you need both, in addition to bandwidth. Physical size of the monitor has no bearing on framebuffer size or game performance.

For your example of ARMA III, you should expect similar framerates between a 2GB and 4GB card at 1080p.
 
I'm using a 27" 120hz 1080P monitor. I run two 680's (2GB) in SLI (a 680 being nearly the same as a 770). I actively monitor my VRam usage via EVGA Precision (same as MSI Afterburner) using the little screen on my G15 keyboard. I've not yet come across a situation where I've been limited by VRam. I plan to stick with my 1080P monitor for a while, as 120hz is more important to me than a higher res. Many of the early 4k displays only do 30hz :p
 
Its not necessarily the bigger the monitor but the higher the resolution that really needs more vram. Vram is also important if you're running like an eyefinity setup or something. Newer games are starting to push up vram requirements (like watch dogs) but for the most part your 680 sli should be pretty good for 120+ fps @ 1080p in almost all games (except the poorly optimized ones.)
 
GotNoRice said:
I'm using a 27" 120hz 1080P monitor. I run two 680's (2GB) in SLI (a 680 being nearly the same as a 770). I actively monitor my VRam usage via EVGA Precision (same as MSI Afterburner) using the little screen on my G15 keyboard. I've not yet come across a situation where I've been limited by VRam. I plan to stick with my 1080P monitor for a while, as 120hz is more important to me than a higher res. Many of the early 4k displays only do 30hz :p
Click to expand...

well, since you only have 2gigs of ram, it would be pretty hard for your montioring program to show using 3.

lol

You would never know other than performance if you were ram limited.

i can guarantee on modern games with ultra settings and/or 4xAA you are limited. Not that youd see it, they swap out.
 
The Mac said:
well, since you only have 2gigs of ram, it would be pretty hard for your montioring program to show using 3.

lol

You would never know other than performance if you were ram limited.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you thought your reply was witty and funny. Anyone who actually has a G15 keyboard and uses it in conjunction with something like MSI Afterburner knows that VRam usage is displayed in real-time. If my VRam is cruising along at 60% usage, I'm *probably* not VRam limited :rolleyes:
 
Depends on the BUS, if you have a 124bit bus it doesn't matter if you have 4GB or 64GB of VRAM as you won't actually be able to fill it.

The bus is equally important.
 
i am using a G-19, i frequently push waaaaaayy over 2gigs, sometimes close to 4gigs

If you are cruising along at 60%, correct you are not limited.

If you are pushing 100% however, you would not know, as it swaps out when it hits the limit.

However, if you are pushing 60% of 2gigs, (1.2gigs), i can guarantee you arent using ultra settings, HD textures, or high AA so its irrelevent anyway.
 
So Vram does affect Framerates if you plan on maxing everything out?

It doesn't matter if you plan on using x1 25" or 1"50 display? Vram would be irrelevant?
 
it doesnt effect frame rates per-se, only if you hit the wall.

If you hit your 2gig max lets say, it will effect frame rates only to the extent it has to swap out textures as thats an expensive operations time wise.

If you gobble up all your memory using high AA, or a high resolution, there is less available for textures, so you end up with the same swapping problem.
 
Last edited:
The Mac said:
If you are pushing 100% however, you would not know, as it swaps out when it hits the limit.
Click to expand...

I've been able to artificially force it to hit the limit and it's pretty obvious what is happening when you see your VRam maxed out. What is it exactly that you are claiming that I "would not know"? You don't think I know what it means when it shows my VRam maxed out?

The Mac said:
However, if you are pushing 60% of 2gigs, (1.2gigs), i can guarantee you arent using ultra or high AA so its irrelevent anyway.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how you can even make a statement like that without so much as even knowing what games I play? Reality check: You can't.
 
NastyNative said:
So Vram does affect Framerates if you plan on maxing everything out?

It doesn't matter if you plan on using x1 25" or 1"50 display? Vram would be irrelevant?
Click to expand...

Screen size doesn't matter. Screen resolution does.

i.e. A 20" 1080P monitor for all intents and purposes of this discussion (and to the GPU) is identical to a 120" 1080P projector.
 
GotNoRice said:
Explain to me how you can even make a statement like that without so much as even knowing what games I play? Reality check: You can't.
Click to expand...

sorry, farmville doesnt count.

No matter how you sllice it, 2gigs is insufficent for modern games at decent high resolutions and quality settings.

You can argue about it all you like, it doesnt change reality.

3gigs is on the border, but if you are buying a new card for the next couple years, it would be imprudent to touch anything below 4gigs.
 
The Mac said:
sorry, farmville doesnt count.

No matter how you sllice it, 2gigs is insufficent for modern games at decent high resolutions and quality settings.

You can argue about it all you like, it doesnt change reality.

3gigs is on the border, but if you are buying a new card for the next couple years, it would be imprudent to touch anything below 4gigs.
Click to expand...

This thread is about 1080P, though I know how much you wish it wasn't so your posts wouldn't look so silly :p

I know plenty who game happily with 6870 1GB cards at 1080P. My 2x 4870x2 setup that I ran until 2012 was limited to 1GB ram also and it was never an issue. Granted, I don't artificially crank my AA to unnecessary levels just to stroke my E-Peen either.

What games to you feel 2GB at 1080P is insufficient?
 
The Mac said:
sorry, farmville doesnt count.

No matter how you sllice it, 2gigs is insufficent for modern games at decent high resolutions and quality settings.

You can argue about it all you like, it doesnt change reality.

3gigs is on the border, but if you are buying a new card for the next couple years, it would be imprudent to touch anything below 4gigs.
Click to expand...

lol based on what? The only game I know of that ncan use more than 2gb vram at 1080p is watch dogs, and thats because its a poorly optimized port. I'm sure there a few others though.
 
Ok so resolution is the 1st aspect that would dig into your Vram, followed by textures and other things. So more Vram is pinnacle to better FPS and a better gaming experience.

I would love to see a Benchmark done for Arma 3 running on max settings @ 1080p showing the
difference if any on a 2GB or a 4GB card. From what I hear there should be a difference but I wonder
how big if any the difference would be.

Because there is a theoretical and a practical. Theoretically the 4GB should perform at a higher FPS
 
not nessisarily.

only if more than 2 gigs of vram is consumed.

I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion here.

More vram will allow you to add more eyecandy in the form of higher res, HD textures, and SSAA (although SSAA is a bit different, as it requires GPU power as well), but it doesnt nessisarily effect FPS directly unless you run out..
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
This thread is about 1080P, though I know how much you wish it wasn't so your posts wouldn't look so silly :p

I know plenty who game happily with 6870 1GB cards at 1080P. My 2x 4870x2 setup that I ran until 2012 was limited to 1GB ram also and it was never an issue. Granted, I don't artificially crank my AA to unnecessary levels just to stroke my E-Peen either.

What games to you feel 2GB at 1080P is insufficient?
Click to expand...

indeed, i game at 1080p

the following games use way more than 2 gigs on my system:

Skyrim, DA2, DA:0, ME3, BF4, AC4, Watchdogs, Sleeping Dogs off the top of my head, there are many more.


as i said, if you dont want HD textures, ulta settings, or AA, then by all means 2 gigs is fine for now.

So, my statement stands.
 
NastyNative said:
Ok so resolution is the 1st aspect that would dig into your Vram, followed by textures and other things. So more Vram is pinnacle to better FPS and a better gaming experience.

I would love to see a Benchmark done for Arma 3 running on max settings @ 1080p showing the
difference if any on a 2GB or a 4GB card. From what I hear there should be a difference but I wonder
how big if any the difference would be.

Because there is a theoretical and a practical. Theoretically the 4GB should perform at a higher FPS
Click to expand...
Have you not been reading the other posts? More VRAM will not equate to higher framerates with all things being equal. When thrashing starts to happen with textures needing to be swapped out of VRAM, you will see severe drops in framerates. This does not mean that your maximum framerate will be lower. Which is way I said in my original post that minimum framerates will be improved, and thus average framerates will also be improved, but your maximum framerate is always going to be limited by the processing power of the GPU. It's true that modern games are starting to push 3GB of VRAM usage at 1080p, but your experience with a 2GB card should be no different from a 4GB card at this resolution if you're not pushing AA. The extreme exception to this is a heavily modified Skyrim install, and I won't even discuss Watch Dogs.
 
I have been reading just confused that's all.

I understand the process of how Vram is accessed and consumed now.
What I don't understand is why would it reach its peak? What would cause it to reach its peak? That's what I want to know. I don't want to know that with out it reaching its peak it will perform fine I get that. I'm interested in knowing what happens once all the Vram is consumed because I currently have a 570 1.2 GB and I play Arma 3 on medium because if I max it out the frame rates drop drastically and no 100% Vram usage. Like it was mentioned before my EVGA precision still only shows about 800-900 mb at most on medium setting. So I'm getting frame drops on medium with out reaching 100% usage of my Vram?

i5 2500K
MSI
8 GB Corsair
570 GTX 1.2 GB
 
ARMA III is a pretty running on a pretty unoptimized engine from what I've read, and it's pretty hard on the hardware. I would say that the 570 simply is not powerful enough to run using higher settings, but I have read about performance issues with this particular game and video card. You should be able to find a number of postings about it using Google or your search engine of choice.
 
Yeah my buddy with a 560 was getting better frame rates with a less powerful CPU!

I will look around for the perfect video card for Arma 3.
Im actually thinking of getting a 780, just was not sure if I want 2 GB or 4GB. Although the price difference is not much!
 
Hold onto your money for a bit and get one of the newer Nvidia 800 series cards coming this Fall. If you want to get something now, then the lowest card I would get is a 780. For the level of smoothness that you want in an online shooter, it is the only logical choice. A GTX 770 is just a 680 in wolf's clothing. Do realize though that games have been hitting the 3GB limit of some cards for awhile now. I'd wait a little bit and see what the pricing on the 800 series is as they should have more VRAM onboard.
 
NastyNative said:
Yeah my buddy with a 560 was getting better frame rates with a less powerful CPU!

I will look around for the perfect video card for Arma 3.
Im actually thinking of getting a 780, just was not sure if I want 2 GB or 4GB. Although the price difference is not much!
Click to expand...

Does your friend have a 2gb or 1gb 560 gtx?
 
NastyNative said:
He might!

Good question I will ask him about this.
I think I heard him say 1.2 GB just like mine.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 1.2 GB GTX 560. The only cards with 1.2 GB of VRAM are the GTX 570 and GTX 470. He either has 1GB or 2GB.

Also, you can think of it as a picture. The larger the picture (higher resolution), the more VRAM is needed. When it exceeds the VRAM, it needs to transfer part of it out to the system RAM, and then back in to display it onto the screen. This transferring in and out is very slow, causing lag. AA and textures make the picture take up more memory.
 
Yeah I thought that getting 4GB of VRAM would be over kill since I only game on 1 monitor @ 1080P.
The more I read the more I realize that Vram is important when you want to have a good gaming experience with the high end games. I will most likely be getting a GTX 780 4GB since the price
difference is marginal.

He does have a GTX 560 Ti 2GB and I think because of the extra Vram he was getting better FPS than me.
 
Ohh nice I thought I was only getting 4 GB and a closer look it is a 6GB card..
I still want it and its about $60 more than the 3 GB one.
 
Now 6 is deff overkill right now, but its because of the bus width. it has to be multiples of 3.
 
The Mac I think I learned my lesson more Vram never hurt anyone..lol

Yeah but its only 60 bucks difference so no biggie!!
 
Alright so. This thread outlined a few points where more VRAM May be considered useful, including: Multiple/Large Monitor set-ups, heavily modded games, newer games may be pushing VRAM requirements but that should not effect game playability. Got it.
I've also read in places that more VRAM is better in multiple card setups, or anyone planning sli/crossfire with an additional card ie - two 2gb cards still only uses 2gb VRAM. Is that correct?

My other question is, gaming aside, what programs are there that benefit from more VRAM? (Please provide examples)

My question comes from my current budget workstation build, which I am hoping will be able to carry out all kinds of creative tasks and projects. Possibly including, but not limited to, cad and adobe creative suite programs.


edit: Or in other words is getting a 760 4gb in any way beneficial over a 770 2gb for creative tasks?
 
Last edited:
Pfff, none of the GPUs in this thread compare the awesome might of my GT430 with 4GB of VRAM! :eek: :p
 
VRAM is important when you worry about it. In that case, you go overkill to buy your peace of mind. ;)

I have to admit, it's nice not worrying about it at all. I can't remember the last time I checked how much VRAM any game used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top