2nd GTX 680: Will VRAM be an issue?

[digitaldurandal]

@grooverriding
Here are some surroundview benchmarks of 570sli
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/11/amd_69706950_cfx_nvidia_580570_sli_review/1#.UVXPxhwQZp4

It proves my point from 20 months ago 100% in two ways
A) in most games 570sli ran the same settings as 580
B) in the games where it did not, the FPS was already so low that increasing settings even with infinite VRAM would cause the game to become unplayable
C) You can see from the time lapse graph that it is not hitting a VRAM wall, as caching issues show as a quick spike down for 1s
D) The 6950's extra VRAM didn't cause it to have better performance.

HENCE, the card was fine with 1.25gb of VRAM even in SLI and yes even in surroundview.

The benchmarks I posted for the CURRENT discussion which I will not veer off again for any flamebait and apologize to the OP for having to do so. Show clearly that even for 2560x1600 (OP wants 1440) 2gb is the better choice - actually being faster in most situations PERIOD.

 

[UaVaj]

It runs fine 5760x1200 on 2gb vram. I have it, I do it. If you run into vram issues it will be seen by extreme down spikes in fps for a moment. It has already been shown that the game will use more vram if you have it. I already discussed this detail about BF3 and some UE3 games.

It is not indicative of a vram wall without 2.6gb if you search around you can find this SAME discussion and some members tested and posted vram usage and fraps time lapses. There was negligible difference at all.

it runs fine with 1GB if that is all you got. texture will swap from ssd to vram. point taken.

the discussion here is about how much vram is necessary so that the gpu does not need to constantly swap. hence smooth rendering without any hiccups.

for bf3 at 5760x1080 with all the eye candy on. that number is 2.6gb.

 

[Majic 7]

My experience with Skyrim is as follows. I use the Hi Res DLC, SMIM, WATER, and a couple of facial mods, one of which changes over 400 faces. Not a lot of mods but I still hit 2100 vram usage with 4AA and close to 2400 with 8AA in Whiterun. Everything is at ultra high defaults in launcher. I did hit close to 3400 with a mod that puts ridiculous amounts of extra foliage in Whiterun. This is my real world experience. Outside of Whiterun is 2100 to 2300 usage. I read everyone's recommendations about vram when I got the 580, i.e. no one will ever need more than 1.5, got a Core 2 Duo because no one will need more than two cores. Not going to do that anymore. I can make my own bad decisions, thank you.

 

[UaVaj]

crysis 3 with 680 sli - 4gb.

-----

at 5760x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare. crysis 3 will max out 4gb of vram (who know how much actual vram crysis 3 actually sucked up - since i only have 4gb to test - perhap a titan owner can chime in).

this is moot becuase at 5760x1080 crysis 3 is unplayable. 19fps avg / 7fps min.

-----

at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare. crysis 3 vram usage is 2.500GB.

this is moot because at 1920x1080 crysis 3 is unplayable. 33fps avg / 15fps min.

-----

at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare, MSAA 4x. crysis 3 vram usage is 2.089GB.

this is semi-moot because at 1920x1080 crysis 3 is semi-playable. 62fps avg / 24fps min.

-----

at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare, MSAA 2x. crysis 3 vram usage is 1.843GB.

crysis 3 is finally playable at 1920x1080. 71fps avg / 32fps min.

------

as you can see. if you paid attention to post #9. you would realize that with 680sli. for crysis 3. all you need is the 2gb edition.

same cannot be said for bf3. 5760x1080 with all the eye candy. 60fps avg / 35fps min. vram usage is 2.621GB. you definitely want the 4gb edition for bf3.

 

[Cadarin]

Sure Skyrim + multiple mods and some games at 8xAA will cause vram issues with 2gb. Unfortunately a) the 4gb cards are slower period b) the gpu cannot handle those settings at that resolution anyways so it is a moot point.

If you want to post some evidence to the contrary feel free. Otherwise don't come in here bashing me.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this part isn't true. My modded Skyrim uses around 2.5gb vram and never drops below 60fps on a single 7970. Clearly the gpu is powerful enough to make use it.

Fallout: NV is also using almost 2gb vram with all my modding. Those big open worlds, texture packs, and high draw distances really suck vram up.

 

[Unoid]

crysis 3 with 680 sli - 4gb.

-----

at 5760x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare. crysis 3 will max out 4gb of vram (who know how much actual vram crysis 3 actually sucked up - since i only have 4gb to test - perhap a titan owner can chime in).

this is moot becuase at 5760x1080 crysis 3 is unplayable. 19fps avg / 7fps min.

-----

at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare. crysis 3 vram usage is 2.500GB.

this is moot because at 1920x1080 crysis 3 is unplayable. 33fps avg / 15fps min.

-----

at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare, MSAA 4x. crysis 3 vram usage is 2.089GB.

this is semi-moot because at 1920x1080 crysis 3 is semi-playable. 62fps avg / 24fps min.

-----

at 1920x1080 with everything maxed out except camera flare, MSAA 2x. crysis 3 vram usage is 1.843GB.

crysis 3 is finally playable at 1920x1080. 71fps avg / 32fps min.

------

as you can see. if you paid attention to post #9. you would realize that with 680sli. for crysis 3. all you need is the 2gb edition.

same cannot be said for bf3. 5760x1080 with all the eye candy. 60fps avg / 45fps min. vram usage is 2.621GB. you definitely want the 4gb edition for bf3.

SMAA 2x in crysis 3 sems best.

I played natural selection 2 with everything maxed and was regularly capping my 2gb vram on 680 sli never noticed hiccups or slowdowns tho

 

[Grooveriding]

Why is it weird to you that in a year and a half the amount of necessary VRAM for surround gaming has changed Grooveriding? I felt when half life 2 came out that 512mb was sufficient for 90% of gaming situations - does that mean I should have preffered 2gb at the time? It is natural for the requirement to grow - and especially because the GPU power grew so that more RAM was usable.

Look up comparisons of 570 1.25gb SLI surround vs 570 3gb SLI surround and you will find negligible difference - same with 2gb vs 4gb today. The gpu simply cannot handle all the vram being utilized anyways. Which is the same thing that I said to you like 20+ months ago when I was playing Mafia maxed with AA on 570s in SLI and you called me a liar because your setup had issues with it.

Just go back in your post history to your last 1.25GB rant. I showed you multiple instances at 2560x1600, never mind 5760x1080p, where VRAM was running out. Certainly not going to bother doing that comedy again while you put your blinders on once again.

This is the exact same argument I saw last time. It doesn't run out, except ...but ... only when ... so it does run out, but any scenario where it does run out is not relevant, so it doesn't run out... There are plenty of nvidia cards with 4GB out there, there is even one with 6GB - so this is not nvidia vs AMD.

...

 

[Fastx]

Thought I would just post this discussing amounts of VRAM and games FWIW.


We want to talk just a little about the 6GB of VRAM on the GeForce GTX TITAN. It may seem like overkill right now, what with current video cards having 2 or 3GB of VRAM and game's overall not demanding so much. However, we are starting to see some game's that do demand more. Hitman is one game that is extremely sensitive to VRAM capacity. We are seeing 2GB be an absolute bottleneck for the game, and 3GB not being enough either. Once we get to 4GB or 6GB of VRAM the game behaves much better at high MSAA settings at high resolutions. Another game, which came out last year, that is also sensitive to VRAM is Max Payne 3. While it doesn't seem right now that Far Cry 3 is that sensitive to VRAM, we haven't had a video card combination fast enough right now to run it at the highest in-game settings to really test that. As we move forward, we will find out. We haven't had much time to test Crysis 3 and its sensitivity to VRAM, but we will get to that when we can.

All that said, 6GB of VRAM on the GeForce GTX TITAN is all about the future. NVIDIA's comment on VRAM to us was, "Build it, and they will come." We have to say, we agree with this. We were happy and agreed with the decision when we were introduced to the AMD Radeon HD 7970 and 7950 back in 2011 to incorporate 3GB of RAM. At the time, this seemed like a lot of VRAM back in December of 2011. However, we are seeing today how the extra RAM on the HD 7970 and 7950 have benefited some of the latest games. In this same vein, down the road, this year, the next, we may even see how more VRAM impacts games to come.



We want game developers to utilize higher resolution textures, better AA settings, better quality settings that demand more VRAM. With the current price of GDDR on video cards being rather cheap, it really isn't that expensive to pack on the RAM these days, so why not? I'd rather have more VRAM than I need rather than being bottlenecked by VRAM. Plus, when you put three of these cards in 3-way SLI, the demand for higher framebuffers increases to get the most performance. Get used to seeing 6GB of VRAM on video cards, this won't be the last.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/...card_review/11

 

[digitaldurandal]

crysis 3 with 680 sli - 4gb.

as you can see. if you paid attention to post #9. you would realize that with 680sli. for crysis 3. all you need is the 2gb edition.

same cannot be said for bf3. 5760x1080 with all the eye candy. 60fps avg / 45fps min. vram usage is 2.621GB. you definitely want the 4gb edition for bf3.

Check your own post here. You are saying min fps for crysis to be playable is 32fps but for battlefield it is over 45? Or am I misreading your post?

 

[digitaldurandal]

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this part isn't true. My modded Skyrim uses around 2.5gb vram and never drops below 60fps on a single 7970. Clearly the gpu is powerful enough to make use it.

Fallout: NV is also using almost 2gb vram with all my modding. Those big open worlds, texture packs, and high draw distances really suck vram up.

Yes I agree that Skyrim with mods needs more VRAM, the way I typed the post perhaps was not clear. The point I am making is 90% of games 4gb is not only unnecessary but actually the benchmark I posted shows that the 4gb cards often run lower fps.

So the question the OP has to ask himself is - is it worth a few hundred dollars to run Crysis 3 and some heavily modded games with an extra 2xAA. If the answer is yes then by all means do it. If the answer is no then 2gb is the path to take.

Here is a review recently done by HardOCP. Showing that the difference between 4gb and 2gb is often irrelevant due to GPU processing limitations. And at best the difference between 2gb and 4gb is 4xMSAA instead of 2xMSAA.

This review exactly illustrates my point that I am trying to make.

Again you guys are free to disagree but this is the 3rd benchmark I am showing backing up my points here and the OP isn't even trying to hit surroundview resolutions. 2gb cards are going to be fine for OP.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...670_directcu_ii_4gb_sli_review/1#.UVXlbBwQZp4

 

[moonbogg]

it runs fine with 1GB if that is all you got. texture will swap from ssd to vram. point taken.

the discussion here is about how much vram is necessary so that the gpu does not need to constantly swap. hence smooth rendering without any hiccups.

for bf3 at 5760x1080 with all the eye candy on. that number is 2.6gb.

This right here is the thing. I had 570sli and I game at 1080p. I was playing BF3 maxed and guess what? FPS tanked to 30 and I had hitches and small freezes due to texture thrashing. 1.25gb wasn't enough then, and 2gb is not enough now for 1440, 1600p.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Just go back in your post history to your last 1.25GB rant. I showed you multiple instances at 2560x1600, never mind 5760x1080p, where VRAM was running out. Certainly not going to bother doing that comedy again while you put your blinders on once again.

This is the exact same argument I saw last time. It doesn't run out, except ...but ... only when ... so it does run out, but any scenario where it does run out is not relevant, so it doesn't run out... There are plenty of nvidia cards with 4GB out there, there is even one with 6GB - so this is not nvidia vs AMD.

...

Who ever said anything about AMD vs NV? The conversation is about VRAM and once again you come in here and say all of this stuff but offer no conclusive evidence of your argument effectively not adding anything to the post. Put your links where your mouth is.

Did I include some exclusions - yes, I did because I am trying to be INFORMATIVE and not a flamer fanboy. Is it true that Skyrim with mods wont be able to run 4xAA on 2gb cards - most definitely. Is that enough to make them obsolete for current gen games in surroundview (in the OP's case 2560x1440)? Definitely not 90% of games simply do not need 4gb and the 10% of games that can use it the difference in quality is minimal between the two period. I have provided that evidence already with 3 different sources.

You are welcome to add to the conversation and debate but if you continue to just flame my posts and call names and bash me without reason I am simply going to ignore you.

Provide evidence of your argument or please stop posting the rest of us are having a civilized conversation with the intent of giving the OP information about vram limitations.

 

[digitaldurandal]

This right here is the thing. I had 570sli and I game at 1080p. I was playing BF3 maxed and guess what? FPS tanked to 30 and I had hitches and small freezes due to texture thrashing. 1.25gb wasn't enough then, and 2gb is not enough now for 1440, 1600p.

If you were hitching at 1080p 570 sli something was wrong with your setup.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011...tiplayer_performance_iq_review/3#.UVXoYxwQZp4

Notice the time lapse graph at the bottom, there is zero evidence of hitching - that is just a single 570 but the vram is the same.

 

[moonbogg]

Who ever said anything about AMD vs NV? The conversation is about VRAM and once again you come in here and say all of this stuff but offer no conclusive evidence of your argument effectively not adding anything to the post. Put your links where your mouth is.

Did I include some exclusions - yes, I did because I am trying to be INFORMATIVE and not a flamer fanboy. Is it true that Skyrim with mods wont be able to run 4xAA on 2gb cards - most definitely. Is that enough to make them obsolete for current gen games in surroundview (in the OP's case 2560x1440)? Definitely not 90% of games simply do not need 4gb and the 10% of games that can use it the difference in quality is minimal between the two period. I have provided that evidence already with 3 different sources.

You are welcome to add to the conversation and debate but if you continue to just flame my posts and call names and bash me without reason I am simply going to ignore you.

Provide evidence of your argument or please stop posting the rest of us are having a civilized conversation with the intent of giving the OP information about vram limitations.

I defend Groover because groover is my friend. He makes me happy. You are a bad person, you make me sad. 2gb is not enough nowadays. Every time you speak, a puppy dies.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Thought I would just post this discussing amounts of VRAM and games FWIW.


We want to talk just a little about the 6GB of VRAM on the GeForce GTX TITAN. It may seem like overkill right now, what with current video cards having 2 or 3GB of VRAM and game's overall not demanding so much. However, we are starting to see some game's that do demand more. Hitman is one game that is extremely sensitive to VRAM capacity.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/...card_review/11

I do agree in the future 4gb is going to become necessary. However I also believe most people laying down a grand for Titan right now are going to buy a new card in a year or two. It is senseless to attempt to future proof your rig.

For example you can get two 670 2gbs for about 400 bucks cheaper than a Titan. You will get better performance in almost every single game for now. In a year you sell them and get the next generation cards. Even with depreciation you spent less overall than getting a Titan and you can have the best of both worlds - performance now and performance later too.

There are always going to be a game or two that is just ridiculously demanding on a GPU processiong, VRAM, or even CPU speed (see GTA) but unless you plan to spend a significant portion of your time in that game I do not think it merits spending 66% more money when for 90% of cases you are looking at the same settings with both setups, sometimes even less performance with the more expensive option, and in rare cases a small AA bump for the expensive option.

I just don't see the compelling argument there.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I defend Groover because groover is my friend. He makes me happy. You are a bad person, you make me sad. 2gb is not enough nowadays. Every time you speak, a puppy dies.

You two went to the same debate school I see. Ad hominem is the way to go. Keep up the mature conversation.

 

[Fastx]

I do agree in the future 4gb is going to become necessary. However I also believe most people laying down a grand for Titan right now are going to buy a new card in a year or two. It is senseless to attempt to future proof your rig.

For example you can get two 670 2gbs for about 400 bucks cheaper than a Titan. You will get better performance in almost every single game for now. In a year you sell them and get the next generation cards. Even with depreciation you spent less overall than getting a Titan and you can have the best of both worlds - performance now and performance later too.

There are always going to be a game or two that is just ridiculously demanding on a GPU processiong, VRAM, or even CPU speed (see GTA) but unless you plan to spend a significant portion of your time in that game I do not think it merits spending 66% more money when for 90% of cases you are looking at the same settings with both setups, sometimes even less performance with the more expensive option, and in rare cases a small AA bump for the expensive option.

I just don't see the compelling argument there.

I didn't post it regarding buying a Titan I posted about in thier comments/opinion regarding the amounts of vram and games which is what this thread is about.

 

[moonbogg]

You two went to the same debate school I see. Ad hominem is the way to go. Keep up the mature conversation.

For the record, I didn't mean it. I was being silly. I couldn't possibly be bothered with actually caring about this discussion enough to become emotional.
You are right about future proofing failure. I hope people don't buy Titan's to future proof their rig. New hardware always completely destroys last gen stuff, sometimes worse than other times. If I had enough extra cash, i'd get two titans for the performance right now, but where video cards are concerned, I had to learn OVER THE YEARS to always buy for right now, because these things are throw away products.
I still think its in the best interest of the OP to go the cheapest possible route now and hold off for just a few more months and then jump on a fresh, new product cycle.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I didn't post it regarding buying a Titan I posted about in thier comments/opinion regarding the amounts of vram and games which is what this thread is about.

Yes but without purchasing a card with that much VRAM the discussion on its benefit is moot.

 

[digitaldurandal]

For the record, I didn't mean it. I was being silly. I couldn't possibly be bothered with actually caring about this discussion enough to become emotional.
You are right about future proofing failure. I hope people don't buy Titan's to future proof their rig. New hardware always completely destroys last gen stuff, sometimes worse than other times. If I had enough extra cash, i'd get two titans for the performance right now, but where video cards are concerned, I had to learn OVER THE YEARS to always buy for right now, because these things are throw away products.
I still think its in the best interest of the OP to go the cheapest possible route now and hold off for just a few more months and then jump on a fresh, new product cycle.

Well, I apologize for taking you literally but I don't appreciate Groover's attack when he has not added anything to the conversation. It is fine if he is right and I am wrong but my statement is to provide evidence and not come into the thread being rude - which I believe is a very reasonable expectation.

I agree with your final statement buy a card now that gives you the performance you want at the price you can afford and jump ship when the opportunity and software align to present a decent upgrade path.

 

[Fastx]

Yes but without purchasing a card with that much VRAM the discussion on its benefit is moot.

I was looking at their comments on 3GB & 4GB vs. 2GB vram in which the OP was asking on if should go 680 sli 2gb and has some concern on 2gb limit. I posted their comments for op to read before he decides to go 680 sli.But it also a good read for guys buying cards today imo on vram amounts for games today, later this year and next like they were saying.

Jus trying to contribute.

 

[digitaldurandal]

I was looking at their comments on 3GB & 4GB vs. 2GB vram in which the OP was asking on if should go 680 sli 2gb and has some concern on 2gb limit. I posted their comments for op to read before he decides to go 680 sli.But it also a good read for guys buying cards today imo on vram amounts for games today, later this year and next like they were saying.

Jus trying to contribute.

No, I agree that you are contributing to the conversation in a mature way and I appreciate that.

My statement was just piggybacking off of yours even though you used the Titan to illustrate a point I was just saying that while valid it doesn't matter much. If someone makes enough bank to buy Titans right now they probably don't care what we say about 6gb ram etc. And I agree with you that 4gb+ is the future too but I also think that if I were purchasing cards right now I would still go with 670 2gb SLI with no regrets and plan to upgrade in a few months to a year.

That could change once AMD finishes cleaning their drivers though. They say they worked out dx9 crossfire response variances and they are working on dx10/11. This is the reason why I went Nvidia after my 5870 and I got flamed for that too with many AMD fans saying there were no issues with crossfire. If AMD had fixed their issues a year ago I would likely have two 7950s.

I think that it will be interesting to see what amount of VRAM is standard on the next generation of cards from both parties and how quickly they can put out drivers for surroundview and eyefinity for new games.

I am disappointed with the news about next gen consoles and I think it will create some stagnation in GPU and game advancements. I hope that steambox might help to push the envelope a little in mainstream territory so that we can see more games that have technology requiring more VRAM.

 

[UaVaj]

Check your own post here. You are saying min fps for crysis to be playable is 32fps but for battlefield it is over 45? Or am I misreading your post?

no wonder grooveridling is on your case.

you proven you obviously have no clue regarding vram usage in relation to gpu power. go and read post #9.

if you still lost. i will try to explain again.

 

[Saffron]

This right here is the thing. I had 570sli and I game at 1080p. I was playing BF3 maxed and guess what? FPS tanked to 30 and I had hitches and small freezes due to texture thrashing. 1.25gb wasn't enough then, and 2gb is not enough now for 1440, 1600p.

If you were hitching at 1080p 570 sli something was wrong with your setup.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011...tiplayer_performance_iq_review/3#.UVXoYxwQZp4

Notice the time lapse graph at the bottom, there is zero evidence of hitching - that is just a single 570 but the vram is the same.

I agree with digitaldurandal,

I have an MSI GTX680 Lightning 2GB and can max BF3 100% at 1920x1080 resolution. I am capped at 60FPS (vsync enabled) and VERY rarely drops below below that.

I understand that the GTX680 and GTX570 and completely different cards, performance should be close to each other, but I don't think 0.75GB will make the difference between 30FPS with freezing and a steady 60FPS. Not to mention that you were running an SLi setup.

--

I don't play Skyrim so I can not comment on that, but I've owned: 128MB 256MB, 512MB, 1GB cards and now a 2GB card. I have never ran across an issue with the lack of VRAM, though, I have never played above 1920x1080 resolution and I have never had an SLi/Crossfire setup. Anytime that my graphics card proved to not be enough for me to enjoyably play current games, it was after a generation or maybe two graphics cards have already been released.

It is my opinion that those with single 1080 monitors shouldn't need to worry about VRAM. As for my earlier inquiry about upgrading to a 4GB card, it was to see if a 4GB card and a 2GB card in SLi can retain the 4GB; apparently not. If indeed it was possible then why not get one and have a slightly more future proofed system? I believe that having the lack of VRAM on current generation graphics cards is a special circumstance, super high resolutions as well as games with installable mods or a combination of both; just my opinion.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Question is: why doesn`t it exist any reviews that have tested all the games and logged how much VRAM they use on different settings.

That way we wouldn`t have to deal with this and the 1000 other VRAM discussions that keep popping up all the time. We always fall to the "well in this game I had like 1.4GB of VRAM used" "But in Skyrim I had over 2GB used"
And no definite proof or argument have been given and we keep repeating it over and over again