2GB VRAM still worth for upcoming games?

[-slash-]

That is called circular logic. We need to prove that you need a card over 2GB, but since none of the data suggests you do, we cannot use it.

And yes, there is a graph for BF4 showing usage.

It's called irrelevant data. None of the benchmarks have a game that hits the 2GB barrier, or at least shows hitting the 2GB barrier. I do, therefore for me at 1080p 2GB is not enough. Everyones mileage will vary depending on the games they play, mods, gpu's, etc. It's akin to benching a Titan vs a 780ti on Counterstrike Source.

Benching something without pushing its limits is a poor test. If you take a 1GB card and pit it against a 2GB card it will give you a window into why 4GB can and will work better in the future as games designed eat up more vRam. You still need the HP to utilize it though.

 

[Rvenger]

That is called circular logic. We need to prove that you need a card over 2GB, but since none of the data suggests you do, we cannot use it.

And yes, there is a graph for BF4 showing usage.

I had a screenshot of my HD 7950 using 2200mb VRAM in BF4 @ 1080p. If I still have it I will dig it up at home. I could imagine a 2gb card may see texture popping.

 

[OCGuy]

It's called irrelevant data. None of the benchmarks have a game that hits the 2GB barrier, or at least shows hitting the 2GB barrier. I do, therefore for me at 1080p 2GB is not enough

Well let's get some real data up here so we can trash all this irrelevant data. I'm with you.

 

[-slash-]

Well let's get some real data up here so we can trash all this irrelevant data. I'm with you.

Already posted my graph of Skyrim at 1080p using 2000mb. Like I said I'll get some more shots this weekend with a few games and try to break that 2GB barrier at 1080p.

I'll also look into finding a 560ti 1GB card to bench against my 2GB card and see if there is a measurable difference in FPS on games utilizing more than 1GB memory.

 

[OCGuy]

I had a screenshot of my HD 7950 using 2200mb VRAM in BF4 @ 1080p. If I still have it I will dig it up at home. I could imagine a 2gb card may see texture popping.

Now that sounds tangible....I wouldn't mind seeing it. I just haven't seen any data to suggest it is even being approached at this point.

 

[McLovin42]

I had a screenshot of my HD 7950 using 2200mb VRAM in BF4 @ 1080p. If I still have it I will dig it up at home. I could imagine a 2gb card may see texture popping.

A. That's an AMD card..........do AMD cards and Nvidia cards use the same amount of VRAM on all games, and use it with equal efficiency?

B. Does that include caching?

C. Using one 780 Ti at 1080p with all settings and AA maxed in BF4 I never get NEAR 2gb of Vram........

Again 2gb of memory on a GTX 770 is more than enough for all games now and in the near future.

By the time more Vram becomes needed that GPU core will have already been the bottleneck for overall performance.

If people are going to post up shots of Vram usage, then make sure its from a GTX 770 and make sure it does not include caching.

Furthermore if someone is going to show that the GTX 770 2gb card is running into a performance wall due to the memory, then it needs to be compared directly to a GTX 770 with 4gb of ram(with same clock settings etc) for the comparison to be relevant.

 

[OCGuy]

Already posted my graph of Skyrim at 1080p using 2000mb. Like I said I'll get some more shots this weekend with a few games and try to break that 2GB barrier at 1080p.

Congrats, but using a game that is so leaky and with such bad texture issues that people are releasing their own optimizers to reduce VRAM usage is not exactly going to be ground breaking.

 

[Midwayman]

Get out. I'm talking about single-screen 1080p configurations. Those Titan users are probably going 4K multi-screen on that little crappy console port of a shooter.

They did a special PC only texture pack. Go google it if you don't believe me. VRAM use is very high on that game if you use max settings. Still fits in 2gb vram on high though.

 

[-slash-]

Congrats, but using a game that is so leaky and with such bad texture issues that people are releasing their own optimizers to reduce VRAM usage is not exactly going to be ground breaking.

Again Skyrim will not be the only sample game, but it is one I have shown to use 2gb. Also it is again irrelevant that it is "leaky" and has "bad texture issues". Are we now going to not play any game because it has texture issues? Usage is usage regardless of how badly made the game is because people are still going to play it. Also it is worth mentioning that again, most of my textures have been replaced with mods that have been properly compressed and made according to the earlier linked thread on the Skyrim forums. I'd wager a guess and say my game is optimized quite well as opposed to stock.

 

[-slash-]

I'd also just like to say thank you guys for making this an actual discussion and not a poo slinging argument riddled with insults. Not often you can have a debate with someone on the internet and not have it get flushed down the toilet.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its interesting people think BF4 is a good example because time and time again in this forum we have discussed that games usage and every time I have pointed to the fact the game caches extensively up to the VRAM limit. At the outset BF4 on ultra (MSAA 2x) needs about 1.2GB at 1080p. It can be made to use 1.4GB if you push a bit more on the AA but it doesn't need more than that. However if you leave it on the game for a little while the VRAM usage will climb until it hits the VRAM limit or about 2.5GB depending on which comes first.

Its thus a terrible example of a game to show vram data for because in practice it can run on 1.5GB without texture pop or any other issues. The reality is the game uses up a lot of VRAM in caching and we don't know why. But it doesn't have an ill effect not having the VRAM. So its a dreadful example of VRAM usage and anyone still using it is ignoring the facts that have been shown over and over and over in these very forums, on purpose.

There are a few games that you can coax into problems, Skyrim with very high quality texture packs is one of them.

Actually I think the better example is a pair of 770's at 4k resolutions. Recent tests show that the cards choke on 4k resolutions in a couple of games and perform worse than a single 780, yet they beat a 780 in all the other games. It is a telling sign for a future I have said is inevitable, but the presence of AMD cards with more VRAM or the consoles or any other reason is not going to change the basic history (which has had consoles and higher VRAM cards available etc etc over and over). The cards are still mid to high end today, they have the right amount of VRAM given there performance level and when that performance runs out most of the time you'll find it conincides with the VRAM equally not quite being enough and some settings will need to be turned down. Its going to happen soon than it would have than when I bought my 680's because its 2 year old technology now, that is why its cheaper than it was.

 

[-slash-]

Its interesting people think BF4 is a good example because time and time again in this forum we have discussed that games usage and every time I have pointed to the fact the game caches extensively up to the VRAM limit. At the outset BF4 on ultra (MSAA 2x) needs about 1.2GB at 1080p. It can be made to use 1.4GB if you push a bit more on the AA but it doesn't need more than that. However if you leave it on the game for a little while the VRAM usage will climb until it hits the VRAM limit or about 2.5GB depending on which comes first.

Its thus a terrible example of a game to show vram data for because in practice it can run on 1.5GB without texture pop or any other issues. The reality is the game uses up a lot of VRAM in caching and we don't know why. But it doesn't have an ill effect not having the VRAM. So its a dreadful example of VRAM usage and anyone still using it is ignoring the facts that have been shown over and over and over in these very forums, on purpose.

There are a few games that you can coax into problems, Skyrim with very high quality texture packs is one of them.

Actually I think the better example is a pair of 770's at 4k resolutions. Recent tests show that the cards choke on 4k resolutions in a couple of games and perform worse than a single 780, yet they beat a 780 in all the other games. It is a telling sign for a future I have said is inevitable, but the presence of AMD cards with more VRAM or the consoles or any other reason is not going to change the basic history (which has had consoles and higher VRAM cards available etc etc over and over). The cards are still mid to high end today, they have the right amount of VRAM given there performance level and when that performance runs out most of the time you'll find it conincides with the VRAM equally not quite being enough and some settings will need to be turned down. Its going to happen soon than it would have than when I bought my 680's because its 2 year old technology now, that is why its cheaper than it was.

Good to know about BF4, I hadnt heard that as I havent really kept up with it or had too much interest in playing it. Is there a way to limit the caching?

 

[McLovin42]

.........they have the right amount of VRAM given there performance level and when that performance runs out most of the time you'll find it conincides with the VRAM equally......

Thank you........exactly.

 

[BrightCandle]

I just came across this as well, thought it would interest you in regards to 2GB verses 4GB in pretty the whats what of games today and also eyefinity resolutions to give you an idea of what the future might look like as well:

 

[OCGuy]

I can't even fathom a reason that faced with all of that data, including multiple games, reviewer's conclusions, adoption rate data, etc, one would dig in on this one.

I highly doubt anyone here is a GDDR5 Account Executive, which leaves the purely psychological angles of wanting to justify one's own purchase, and/or not wanting to accept that one's size advantage over the huge majority that is < 2.1 GB users is not useful.

 

[-slash-]

I can't even fathom a reason that faced with all of that data, including multiple games, reviewer's conclusions, adoption rate data, etc, one would dig in on this one.

I highly doubt anyone here is a GDDR5 Account Executive, which leaves the purely psychological angles of wanting to justify one's own purchase, and/or not wanting to accept that one's size advantage over the huge majority that is < 2.1 GB users is not useful.

I dont have a 4gb card, I have a 3gb 780 and I justify my purchase way more based on FPS than vRam usage. I was hitting FPS limitations in Skyrim while only using 1500mb vRam which facilitated my purchase.

I do have personal data showing a game I play using 2gb vRam which is my justification for needing 2gb+. Did I buy a 780 just to play Skyrim, sadly yes Will it benefit me in other games, you bet.

I really wish I could afford to purchase a 2gb 770 and a 4gb 770 and run them against a game putting down 2gb+ and see if there is a performance difference. Again I'll state, my situation is the exception not the rule

 

[ShintaiDK]

I just came across this as well, thought it would interest you in regards to 2GB verses 4GB in pretty the whats what of games today and also eyefinity resolutions to give you an idea of what the future might look like as well:

Nice list. Pretty much 0 benefit from 4GB over 2GB.

 

[-slash-]

Nice list. Pretty much 0 benefit from 4GB over 2GB.

Pretty much 0 benefit from driving a Bugatti on a freeway with a speed limit as opposed to a Mazda 3 as well. He is trying to future proof for three years. I'd be willing to bet games this year will crack that 2gb mark on 1080p regularly. So what if the 770 4gb cant use all 4gb, it can use more than 2gb and still run the game. Why limit yourself?

 

[KingFatty]

I dunno, if you try to buy a video card for future unreleased games, that can be tricky and you might end up spending extra money for a super beefy card, and never actually take advantage of it. Just makes me nervous trying to buy a video card for the unknown future.

 

[Cerb]

And, if you expect to spend 1000 hours in a couple games, but only 10-15 in others, how should weigh that decision? Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim, the next Fallout, etc. are 300+ hour games, easy. Yes, multiple whole manweeks in a single video game. If you don't play with low difficulties, The Witchers take quite awhile, too. If nothing else could be made to use more, but you're going to play those, and mod them, then there you go. There's no need to have a laundry list of other games; and the cost to go over 2GB is less than two brand new games w/ no DLCs.

 

[-slash-]

I dunno, if you try to buy a video card for future unreleased games, that can be tricky and you might end up spending extra money for a super beefy card, and never actually take advantage of it. Just makes me nervous trying to buy a video card for the unknown future.

True but it is only ~$50 more for the 4GB vs the 2GB...

 

[Morbus]

Guy, loads of VRAM isn't future proof: a good powerful chip is future proof. In three years time, when there are many games that use more than 2GB of VRAM, their engines will require so much of the GPU that you'll need to tune the games down anyway, and the first thing you'll do is AA (VRAM usage), textures (VRAM usage) and shaders probably.

In other words, if you're buying a VGA with loads of VRAM now, in hopes that you won't reach the VRAM barrier with new games in 3 years time, get ready to NOT reach the VRAM barrier because of your 3 year old GPU holding you back...

 

[-slash-]

Guy, loads of VRAM isn't future proof: a good powerful chip is future proof. In three years time, when there are many games that use more than 2GB of VRAM, their engines will require so much of the GPU that you'll need to tune the games down anyway, and the first thing you'll do is AA (VRAM usage), textures (VRAM usage) and shaders probably.

In other words, if you're buying a VGA with loads of VRAM now, in hopes that you won't reach the VRAM barrier with new games in 3 years time, get ready to NOT reach the VRAM barrier because of your 3 year old GPU holding you back...

Again we go back to the 770 debate. Can a 770 utilize 2GB? Yes. Can it fully utilize 4GB, high doubtful. Can it utilize more than 2GB, yes, so why not get the 4GB to have the overhead. My 560ti can use the full 2GB and still be playable, no reason a 770 couldnt use up to 3GB and still be playable.

I do agree though, if he really wants to future proof his only option should be the 780 or AMD equivalent.

 

[ultimatebob]

Funny what the bitcoin craze can do.

Nobody is mining Bitcoin with video cards anymore because there is no money to be made in it.

I'm not sure what everyone is mining now... Dogecoin?

 

[ultimatebob]

"Future proofing" your system is usually a bad idea. Sure, that $500 video card will probably play next year's games just fine, but so will next year's $300 video card.