[Hexus] Palit GeForce GTX 780 JetStream 6GB in SLI

[UaVaj]

I wish some well known website would dispel the misconceptions about VRAM. More VRAM is not about more performance. It is about more anti aliasing. More modding. Now at a certain point you will need more VRAM, but with 3GB cards you will be fine at 4k. Most people hitting VRAM issues are using too much special anti aliasing such as OGSSAA, BF4's resolution scale (same as OGSSAA), SSAA, or SGSSAA. If you go stupid with SSAA you will not only chop your performance by 50-75%, you will double to quadruple your VRAM use for no good reason. Other than anti aliasing.

Even with 2GB of VRAM, you can play surround 5760x1200 and never have a VRAM problem. Ever. If you have a VRAM issue, it's because you're using overkill AA or too many mods.

But yeah. More VRAM doesn't make your card faster. I'd like to say that eventually people will realize this, but I think AIB vendors want to sell more cards with more VRAM for profit so there's no compelling reason for them to spell out what more VRAM is for. This of course allows them to sell 4GB GTX 770 cards to suckers who think that it will benefit them at 1080p. Yeah, 4GB at 1080..........................waste of money. Unfortunately, there are a lot of suckers out there that think "oh hey more VRAM means more frames!" which obviously is NOT true. You can view a plethora of 2 vs 4 GB GTX 680 reviews, or 3 vs 6 GB 780 reviews and see this. The only thing which will add performance is higher clocks for the core, VRAM on the same card. More VRAM? Same performance. More anti aliasing. More modding. And that's about it. Again, at a certain point more VRAM becomes desirable but you'd have to use an absurdly high surround resolution for that to come into play past 3GB. Perhaps 7680x1440/1600. I'd say 6GB makes sense there.

The sad thing is that the "next gen" consoles are so weak that we are using more VRAM for anti aliasing in PC games than we are for assets. This was not the case with prior generations. But when the next gen can barely push 720 or 900p at 30 fps, then yeah, we get slightly improved PC ports in which we can go nuts with SSAA. And then we'll feel better about hitting a VRAM wall because we're using 4GB-6GB of VRAM solely for more anti aliasing. Good times.

you have to know when to give up in attempting to educate folks who refuse to acknowledge this. cnfs.

ignorance is bliss.

 

[UaVaj]

Many of them have done so. There were reviews galore this year testing the impact of VRAM with 4k resolutions and surround and 1440p and 1080p in a variety of games. Its been tested to death on the review sites, I think Anandtech might be the only site that didn't do a review like that this year. But then they seem to have abandoned graphics and motherboards and such and moved into Mobile phone testing now so that doesn't say much about the lack of the anandtech review having anything to do with the myths just how much they have changed their focus.

Then you have gamegpu.ru which publishes the VRAM usage for every game on both AMD and Nvidia, so you can look through and not only see what high end settings require but on both platforms for every major game and release of major game going back several years. its invaluable data and extremely useful and insightful.

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling that the extra VRAM is going to waste. Tomshardware about 1-1.5 years ago did a review of scientific computing applications that ran GPGPU and there what happened was that VRAM mattered a lot. There was a sizeable performance difference if you didn't have enough VRAM on the card to do the calculation. That really is the target of all this VRAM, its for compute with particular types of high memory usage algorithms. Its not for games, they don't use that much normally, most are still hovering around 1.2-1.5GB on v high/ultra settings.

Maybe the guys arguing for people buying cards with more VRAM are undeclared reps from Hynix or one of the other memory manufacturers. Sure feels like there is an agenda that isn't based on gamers needing it but on shifting more units of VRAM, because the evidence against it is compelling.

all these so called vram test are full of holes. most, if not all of these reviews. the single gpu in the review is choking. so forget testing vram usage.

 

[rgallant]

you have to know when to give up in attempting to educate folks who refuse to acknowledge this. cnfs.

ignorance is bliss.

btw @ 3.1 gb [780sli-780ti sli ]the game stops with 3gb cards not that it needs 6gb of vram or I'm missing something just like bf3 on release when I went to 1440 with the same settings with 1.5 gb cards.

 

[KaRLiToS]

...

 

[UaVaj]

what pretending?
have quad 290x for cranking eye candy maximizing vram.

what part of single gpu choking did you not comprehend in those vram reviews?
especially when you own quad 290x yourself. unless those quad 290x is simply for bragging rights.
if that is so the case. I will zip it. cannot win a debate against bragging rights.

 

[KaRLiToS]

what pretending?
have quad 290x for cranking eye candy maximizing vram.

what part of single gpu choking did you not comprehend in those vram reviews?
especially from another guy with quad 290x. unless those quad 290x is simply for bragging rights.
if that is so the case. I will zip it. cannot win a debate against bragging rights.

Where did I brag about what?

What I mean is, GK110 will have marginal performance increase with 6GB over 3GB. It's not about the size of the VRAM, its about the width of the bus feeding it.

 

[blackened23]

Are you pretending to have better knowledge than the reviewers?



Denying the truth by accusing the reviewers methodology.

Where is the 18GB GTX 780 for those people whilling to throw their damm money out of they damm windows for their Nvidia GOD.

This is getting pathetic. People trying to defend Nvidia failures.

You have been told many times that more VRAM is not about more performance. Even these so called "NV fans" that you refer to know this. In fact, let's not pull punches here. I dare say, most of the nvidia "fans" here that you refer to and insult are well aware of what more VRAM does and does not do. Yet, I think a lot of VRAM myths lie on the other side of the fence. Not with the nvidia fans.

Yet confusingly enough, you keep thinking that these supposed "NV fans" that you refer to think that more VRAM is about ........... more performance. You've been told over and over that we know this. WE KNOW THAT MORE VRAM IS NOT ABOUT MORE PERFORMANCE. Yet every thread you continue to link performance charts. Why? WE KNOW THAT MORE VRAM IS NOT ABOUT MORE PERFORMANCE.

Once again: absurd amounts of VRAM is not about performance. WE. ALL. KNOW. THIS. The nvidia fans know this. Do the AMD fans know this? You keep insulting nvidia fans about this but truth be told, I think the nvidia fans that you continue to insult know what the real deal is about more VRAM. See my post linked at the top of this page quoted by UaVaj for the real deal.

More VRAM is about more modding and more special anti aliasing such as downsampling, OGSSAA (BF4's resolution scale is OGSSAA, SGSSAA, SSAA. Does going from 3 to 6GB increase performance? No. Does going from 2 to 4GB VRAM increase performance? No. 3GB cards are fine until you do something crazy such as 7680x1600. Or unless you go overboard with special types of anti aliasing such as the various forms of SSAA - which is fine, but the problem with SSAA is that it lowers performance too much. SSAA uses a TON of VRAM and also chops your performance by more than 60% in most cases. I'd say, most of the NV fans which you continually insult know that more VRAM beyond 3GB is generally, worthless. Yet you continue to insult the NV fans. Why? If the misconceptions about VRAM lie somewhere, i'd say it isn't with the folks that you insult non stop.

 

[KaRLiToS]

...

 

[blackened23]

Did you. Read it? Cuz I don't think you did.

You've been told a million times that most nvidia fans are aware that more VRAM is not about more performance.

Yet, even after being told this a million times, your continued rebuttal is "but it doesn't perform any differently!" WELL NO JOKE. And then, after being told that WE KNOW, you'll link performance charts between 3 and 6GB laced with insults at NV fans. So did you read it? I really don't think you did.

It's just. Never-mind. I'm trying to figure out what's going on here, but forget it.

 

[KaRLiToS]

...

 

[Silverforce11]

I dont see why you guys are here up in arms. The thread is in regards to a 6GB version card that retails for the same price as a 3GB card.. that's a win for consumers regardless of your views.

Also its short-sighted. A pair of 780s in SLI, OC, will have enough grunt down the road (just as a pair of 3GB GTX580 now!), who knows what future games or mods that come out that can saturate 3GB of ram?? Do you know all? No. So celebrate the fact its not a gimmick as usually high vram models sell for much more $ than the normal models, here, there's nothing to complaint about.

 

[toyota]

yeah if I had the money for 780/780ti sli and gamed in surround or 4k then why the hell would I care about the small additional cost of getting 6gb over 3gb?

 

[SirPauly]

You have been told many times that more VRAM is not about more performance.

But it does effect performance at times though depending on application and settings! Some enthusiasts don't desire, "it's good enough," and desire more ram considering they may own the platform for some time!

Was personally vocal about offering double-the-ram sku's for nVidia platforms!

More ram and technologies that offer less memory foot prints are very welcomed choices from AMD or nVidia!

 

[SirPauly]

More VRAM is about more modding and more special anti aliasing such as downsampling, OGSSAA (BF4's resolution scale is OGSSAA, SGSSAA, SSAA

One of the features offered by nvidia and AMD that isn't raised too much is CSAA and very welcomed. It offers more quality with traditional multi-sampling but with a significantly less memory foot-print!

I witnessed some discussion and sites offer x8 MSAA with surround gaming over time when a gamer may use CSAA!

 

[blackened23]

But it does effect performance at times though depending on application and settings! Some enthusiasts don't desire, "it's good enough," and desire more ram considering they may own the platform for some time!

Was personally vocal about offering double-the-ram sku's for nVidia platforms!

More ram and technologies that offer less memory foot prints are very welcomed choices from AMD or nVidia!

Sirpauly, I am not against more choice. If AMD/NV want to offer more SKUs with more VRAM, that is fine with me. Now, performance wise, it really isn't about more FPS with more VRAM, generally speaking. Here's the thing though. What I am for is everyone knowing what they get, so to speak, in this situation. Do you need 6GB for 1080p or 1440p? No, you truly don't. So when people have misconceptions that more = better, that really isn't the case. And AIBs aren't telling the consumers what the benefits are, because they would rather sell the higher VRAM GPUs.

I hope NV offer that (VRAM configuration options) on all cards in the future. While I like what NV offers hardware wise, i'm inclined to think that NV didn't offer 6GB GTX 780 variants until recently due to the Titan SKUs. While "right sizing" the VRAM is a valid argument, there's no harm in consumer choice. But I also wish that consumer choice was paired with someone, anyone, any website dispelling the VRAM myths and telling everyone what the benefits REALLY are. Let's face it, far less than 1% of the 1% need 6GB of VRAM. And as far as NV not offering 6GB 780s from the get-go - I don't think that's cool because the way I see it, titan is more for the CUDA development crowd. While I do like what NV has going on hardware/software wise, it feels like they intentionally restricted it. We should have had 6GB 780s from the start. But we didn't, oh well.

If someone is using 3 1600p panels in surround and want 6GB, hey, that's great. I don't have an issue there. It just goes back to the "use your head" rule. Do you need 4/6/8GB for 1080p? Nah. But people still buy more VRAM because they think more VRAM = more fps. Like I said, I wish some website would do a VRAM myth buster type of article to spell out exactly what you get with more VRAM. Know what I mean? Now at a certain point high VRAM amounts become desirable, but based on my experience, it is only at high surround resolutions. I am not against choice. It is confusing to see the myths about VRAM being correlated to frames per second so widespread though, you know. If someone wants more VRAM for more image quality with AA at surround though, that's great.

 

[mohit9206]

If someone is spending $1000 for 780 sli 3gb why not spend a little more and get the 6gb instead?What harm could it possibly do?unless you are the type who changes graphics cards every year.Under $100 1gb is enough because cards too weak to use more,under $200 always go for 2gb so avoiding 260x 1gb or 750ti 1gb is important,and anything over $300 you are better off having 3gb or more.This only applies to those who keep their cards for 2-3 years minimum not for those who upgrade every year.Cards like 760 4gb are not worthless like they are made out to be because if the 7950 could use more than 2gb so can the 760
Just be careful you are not paying too much extra.Also anyone who buys 770 obviously should avoid 2gb.But people never learn they make the same mistakes because forum experts advice then to avoid cards with higher vram just because they feel its worthless.

 

[rgallant]

I guess if nv releases their next high end cards with 3 gb we'll know that 3gb+++ won't be needed on the the next gen. of game engines for the next 2 yrs.
-but some how 4 gb is more likely imo.

 

[Headfoot]

It seems that at 4k the limiting factor is not 3GB or a 384-bit bus, rather that there are not enough ROPS (which is related to bus width, but not from a memory speed perspective). The 290x fares better at 4k than the 780 ti does considering the 780 ti wins pretty much across the board at lower resolutions. The 290x doesnt even have that much more bandwidth than the 780ti due to its high memory clocks. It really leaves ROPs as the primary high resolution deciding factor

 

[f1sherman]

I've seen more than 3GB VRAM reported by AB

Wolfenstein: The New Order @ 1080p :shock:

just saying...

 

[bystander36]

I've seen more than 3GB VRAM reported by AB

Wolfenstein: The New Order @ 1080p :shock:

just saying...

There is often a difference between how much memory is allocated and how much memory is needed. Just because it will allocate that memory does not mean it is needed for smooth game play.

 

[f1sherman]

yeh I know and that's why I said

just saying...

 

[k1zit]

When I say overkill settings, i'm referring specifically to various form of override SSAA. You can still max out your settings and use whatever MSAA setting you want up to 8X MSAA with 2GB of VRAM at 1600p. This I promise you. You're welcome to try it as well if you have a 2g 680 lying around - any MSAA setting, any game maxed out minus override SSAA or OGSSAA, you will not hit a VRAM wall. MSAA raises VRAM use but not ridiculously so. SSAA is the VRAM and performance killer, so I find any use of SSAA to be questionable at best. Frankly, if anyone wants to use SSAA as a justification for more VRAM - i'd have to seriously question what they're thinking because SSAA also carries a SIGNIFICANT performance detriment.

SSAA chops your framerate in half or more most of the time, as i'm sure you're aware - I never use SSAA unless the game is extremely old. You can use any MSAA setting you want, so this "lowest settings" statement is not accurate. You can use whatever settings you want. SSAA is what kills VRAM use, and mods can too. There's one game , well two games that I mod. Dark Souls and Skyrim. At this point, two years past release, Skyrim is pretty long in the tooth.

Your GPU will run out of horsepower well before VRAM is an issue with SSAA. VRAM doubling from SSAA use in surround is half the issue. Your framerate dropping by 50-75% is the much bigger problem. Now there are instances where more VRAM makes sense. But buyers need to use common sense here. Do you need 3-4GB for 1080p? No. 1440p? No. Would I get 6GB (with a 780) if I were using 7680x1600? Absolutely. At the super high surround resolutions, this is where more VRAM makes sense. But there are posters here pining for 3-6GB at 1080p/1440p. That just isn't needed.

What BC stated earlier is spot on. Seeing 3-4-6GB being touted for 1080p or 1440p is headscratch worthy. It isn't needed. This has been proven by websites TIME AND TIME AND TIME again. The additional VRAM helps at super high surround resolutions, but it isn't needed at the more common resolutions. If you want SSAA which can use the VRAM and all of it, I do hope you have 2-3 GPUs to handle it, cuz you aren't gonna run crysis 3 maxed out with SSAA unless you have 2-3 GPUs to spare. Basically you run out of GPU power well before the VRAM is an issue.

"But buyers need to use common sense here. Do you need 3-4GB for 1080p? No. 1440p? No. Would I get 6GB (with a 780) if I were using 7680x1600? Absolutely."

Just want to clarify for users pondering going 1440P on a single monitor. With 1440p you can't indefinitely say "NO.YOU ABSOLUTELY DON'T NEED 3-4GB OF VRAM FOR 1440P." It's not that simple. I game on a single Asus PB278Q at 2560X1440 and i actually do require at least 3-4 GB of VRAM. However, I do have to note, that this is only for 2 games.. so yes, most users can get away with just 3GB of VRAM at 1440P AT THE MOMENT. But for users who lets say are huge watchdogs and titanfall players at 1440P, 3GB of VRAM with insane/ultra textures and everything maxxed simply won't cut it.

I currently have 2x EVGA GTX 780 SC ACX 6GB in SLI and both watchdogs and Titanfall with all settings maxed out consume over 3GB. Usually they'll sit around the 3.5-3.8 range, easily surpassing the 3GB cap seen in most iterations of the GK110 chip. While past trends/testing seem to suggest we wouldnt need anything more than 3GB of VRAM ON A SINGLE 1440P monitor for a while, two triple titles (titanfall, watchdogs) have recently proved that to be false and have surpassed those boundaries when selecting ultra/insane textures on a single 1440P monitor.

My concern here is that while CURRENTLY most games won't benefit from more than 3GB of VRAM for 1440P how can we say FOR SURE that you absolutely won't need it in the near future for the highest textures for titles like Evolve, Destiny, The witcher 3, Bloodborne, etc. considering Watchdogs and Titanfall already are. All we can do is speculate. We simply cant say for sure.

So, given 2 recent triple titles games that are already utilizing more than 3gb of VRAM on 1440P with ultra textures, I'd rather take my chances with 6GB of VRAM than be sorry later with 3GB of VRAM. The extra premium you pay is most certainly worth it in my opinion. How can we say for sure that several of the next triple title games that are slated to be released soon won't use more than 3GB of VRAM like watchdogs and titanfall currently are on 1440P. Hell, paying that premium right now is worth it simply for titanfall and watchdogs. I drool everytime i play them and it finally got rid of my stutter on ultra/insane textures going from gtx 780 3gb SLI to 6gb SLI since it was capping out the VRAM.If you need screenshots let me know, I would be happy to supply them with VRAM being used over 3GB of VRAM on these titles on a single 1440P monitor.

 

[rgallant]

"But buyers need to use common sense here. Do you need 3-4GB for 1080p? No. 1440p? No. Would I get 6GB (with a 780) if I were using 7680x1600? Absolutely."

Just want to clarify for users pondering going 1440P on a single monitor. With 1440p you can't indefinitely say "NO.YOU ABSOLUTELY DON'T NEED 3-4GB OF VRAM FOR 1440P." It's not that simple. I game on a single Asus PB278Q at 2560X1440 and i actually do require at least 3-4 GB of VRAM. However, I do have to note, that this is only for 2 games.. so yes, most users can get away with just 3GB of VRAM at 1440P AT THE MOMENT. But for users who lets say are huge watchdogs and titanfall players at 1440P, 3GB of VRAM with insane/ultra textures and everything maxxed simply won't cut it.

I currently have 2x EVGA GTX 780 SC ACX 6GB in SLI and both watchdogs and Titanfall with all settings maxed out consume over 3GB. Usually they'll sit around the 3.5-3.8 range, easily surpassing the 3GB cap seen in most iterations of the GK110 chip. While past trends/testing seem to suggest we wouldnt need anything more than 3GB of VRAM ON A SINGLE 1440P monitor for a while, two triple titles (titanfall, watchdogs) have recently proved that to be false and have surpassed those boundaries when selecting ultra/insane textures on a single 1440P monitor.

My concern here is that while CURRENTLY most games won't benefit from more than 3GB of VRAM for 1440P how can we say FOR SURE that you absolutely won't need it in the near future for the highest textures for titles like Evolve, Destiny, The witcher 3, Bloodborne, etc. considering Watchdogs and Titanfall already are. All we can do is speculate. We simply cant say for sure.

So, given 2 recent triple titles games that are already utilizing more than 3gb of VRAM on 1440P with ultra textures, I'd rather take my chances with 6GB of VRAM than be sorry later with 3GB of VRAM. The extra premium you pay is most certainly worth it in my opinion. How can we say for sure that several of the next triple title games that are slated to be released soon won't use more than 3GB of VRAM like watchdogs and titanfall currently are on 1440P. Hell, paying that premium right now is worth it simply for titanfall and watchdogs. I drool everytime i play them and it finally got rid of my stutter on ultra/insane textures going from gtx 780 3gb SLI to 6gb SLI since it was capping out the VRAM.If you need screenshots let me know, I would be happy to supply them with VRAM being used over 3GB of VRAM on these titles on a single 1440P monitor.

ha your wasting your time , most of these high post peeps said the same thing about 512 mb -1 gb -1.5 gb 2 gb - 2.5 gb and now about 3 gb --never never will you ever ever need more than 512mb of vram ever when I asked when buying 8800gts 512 sli.--impossible

and that is why maxwell is coming in at 2 gb of vram.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Funny thread indeed LOL
Welcome to Anandtech k1zit, great 1st post
I agree with it 100%

 

[Jacky60]

I wish some well known website would dispel the misconceptions about VRAM. More VRAM is not about more performance. It is about more anti aliasing. More modding. Now at a certain point you will need more VRAM, but with 3GB cards you will be fine at 4k. Most people hitting VRAM issues are using too much special anti aliasing such as OGSSAA, BF4's resolution scale (same as OGSSAA), SSAA, or SGSSAA. If you go stupid with SSAA you will not only chop your performance by 50-75%, you will double to quadruple your VRAM use for no good reason. Other than anti aliasing.

Even with 2GB of VRAM, you can play surround 5760x1200 and never have a VRAM problem. Ever. If you have a VRAM issue, it's because you're using overkill AA or too many mods.

But yeah. More VRAM doesn't make your card faster. I'd like to say that eventually people will realize this, but I think AIB vendors want to sell more cards with more VRAM for profit so there's no compelling reason for them to spell out what more VRAM is for. This of course allows them to sell 4GB GTX 770 cards to suckers who think that it will benefit them at 1080p. Yeah, 4GB at 1080..........................waste of money. Unfortunately, there are a lot of suckers out there that think "oh hey more VRAM means more frames!" which obviously is NOT true. You can view a plethora of 2 vs 4 GB GTX 680 reviews, or 3 vs 6 GB 780 reviews and see this. The only thing which will add performance is higher clocks for the core, VRAM on the same card. More VRAM? Same performance. More anti aliasing. More modding. And that's about it. Again, at a certain point more VRAM becomes desirable but you'd have to use an absurdly high surround resolution for that to come into play past 3GB. Perhaps 7680x1440/1600. I'd say 6GB makes sense there.

The sad thing is that the "next gen" consoles are so weak that we are using more VRAM for anti aliasing in PC games than we are for assets. This was not the case with prior generations. But when the next gen can barely push 720 or 900p at 30 fps, then yeah, we get slightly improved PC ports in which we can go nuts with SSAA. And then we'll feel better about hitting a VRAM wall because we're using 4GB-6GB of VRAM solely for more anti aliasing. Good times.

I don't see how anyone can use 'too much' AA? If the options are there and you have the performance then why not. If you don't have the performance or specifically the RAM then obviously you turn settings down but advocating mediocre settings as a solution to a lack of RAM is a slippery slope at the end of which is a 14inch CRT in B/W at 800x600. I like my games to look amazing and beautiful not just 'OK'. As for mods, again anything that makes a game look prettier is good and should be applauded not derided as unnecessary or frivolous.