Is 2GB memory good enough for 1920 x 1080?

[Caveman]

My 23" monitor has a max resolution of 1920 x 1080 and will be be paired with a 2GB 770 GTX. Will I be disappointed or will 2GB be fine?

 

[jpiniero]

For now, it's fine, but it's only a matter of time. Remember that the consoles have at least 5-6 GB of memory available to them, so it's inevitable that starting with the second wave of games they are going to want to push beyond 2 GB for textures and such. This obviously impacts the PC since most PC games are basically console ports.

 

[Kenmitch]

I don't think I could pull the trigger on a 2gb GTX 770 purchase at it's current price point.

Buying new or used?

 

[Deders]

Might be worth it for a few games if you can get a 4GB model.

 

[Leyawiin]

Right now you should be fine. Might be a couple games you'll have to dial down the quality settings a bit, but really, the worst that can happen if you don't is a bit of a slowdown in certain areas while it swaps textures. Not like its going to grind to a halt or burst into flames if it encounters such a situation. For the most part 2GB is still O.K. for 1080p. Probably can get away with it for another year or two.

 

[Erenhardt]

Any latest tests with 2GB vs 4GB benchmarks?

 

[toyota]

2gb is not enough for all games if you want to run the highest settings a 770 is capable of using. do you already have the card and monitor? what are the specs for the rest of your pc as I know that sig cant be current?

 

[Deders]

Any latest tests with 2GB vs 4GB benchmarks?

For the most part there won't be any differences in a lot of games because they don't need more than 2GB for most games, things like Watchdogs and Wolfenstein can make use of more than 3GB or more with the highest settings and I would imagine games like GTA5 could also follow this trend.

 

[dn7309]

Unless you want to play Watch Dogs, and (maybe) future Ubisoft games like AC Unity or The Crew in high setting I wouldn;t worry.

 

[toyota]

Unless you want to play Watch Dogs, and (maybe) future Ubisoft games like AC Unity or The Crew in high setting I wouldn;t worry.

Wolfenstein and Daylight too. I would not buy a card like the 770 with only 2gb at this point. even on my 780 I had to turn off uncompressed textures in Wolfenstein because it was eating all of my 3gb of vram and becoming unplayable at times.

 

[Seba]

Buy a R9 270X 2GB or GTX 760 2GB. Higher level than those GPUs, go for 3GB or 4GB cards.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

if you have to blindly turn all the details up out of some sort of OCD compulsion, 2GB won't be enough

otherwise just turn the overkill settings down (if you even need to) and you likely won't miss or notice the difference

go back and play your favorites later on down the line when you have an even newer video card with even more memory and then turn on those overkill settings, and if the difference is noticeable, you get to enjoy a good game all over again all the more

For now, it's fine, but it's only a matter of time. Remember that the consoles have at least 5-6 GB of memory available to them, so it's inevitable that starting with the second wave of games they are going to want to push beyond 2 GB for textures and such. This obviously impacts the PC since most PC games are basically console ports.

this is potentially flawed/misleading thinking, as that 5GB pol of game-available RAM isn't just for the GPU

 

[skipsneeky2]

Already find the 2gb lacking on my gtx770 at a low resolution of 1366x768 in one of my games.

Titanfall has erratic fps issues with the very high settings,insane settings requires 3gb. 768p and this card is nearly overkill in everything i play but BF4 where its just enough for 60+fps.Guess Watchdogs has the same exact issue of gimped settings due to lack of vram as well so perhaps a new trend?

Toyota and his 3gb vram issue in Wolfenstein scares the hell out of me, 768p is a considerably lower resolution but i know the difference in vram wouldn't account for much and i would be gimped in that game as well,its one on my wishlist along with Watchdogs.:awe: End of year i will have 3 games gimped by vram at a lowly 768p resolution.

 

[Silverforce11]

I would not chuck away that much $$ now for a 2gb card, no way.

 

[poohbear]

All frostbite 3.0 engine games use more than 2gb (BF4, Dragon age 3 etc), Rome 2 uses more than 2gb, ubisoft games use more than 2gb, and skyrim with mods chokes hard on 2gb. I personally wouldn't be buying any 2gb card in September 2014 when Nvidia's next gen Maxwell cards are due out October/november.

 

[Deders]

Buy a R9 270X 2GB or GTX 760 2GB. Higher level than those GPUs, go for 3GB or 4GB cards.

I would say that even though a single 760 probably won't be able to make good use of a whole 4GB, it would still be fine with games that needed 3GB for textures like watchdogs, and unfortunately the only way to have 3GB on a 760 without limiting the memory bus to 192 bits is to have 4GB.

 

[RussianSensation]

With 280X providing similar performance at $240-260, I wouldn't buy a 770 2GB card. 770 4GB doesn't make sense either since the price puts it against a 25% faster R9 290. As others said, either get a 280/285/280X or move up to 290. It's nearly impossible to recommend any NV card from $160-400 today. Let's hope Maxwell brings much needed features/performance/performance per dollar because the pricing on 760/770/780/780Ti has been stagnant and unjustified given how old that tech is.

 

[96Firebird]

You'll be fine with a 2GB 770 @ 1080p.

 

[amenx]

I'm fine with my 2gb 770 @ 1440p.

Any latest tests with 2GB vs 4GB benchmarks?

Waiting for that too. From last year:

 

[Deders]

None of those games need more than 2GB, it's more a case of if you load up watchdogs with max textures on a 2GB or less card then there will be long pauses when you move the mouse and the viewpoint changes direction making the game unplayable. Same with Wolfenstien if you max all the settings out. Apparently Titanfall also has issues.

With consoles being given access to more memory, and the increased demand of things like AA and higher res textures it wouldn't be wise to get a 2GB card right now if you want to be able to play all games at max detail.

 

[Rickyyy369]

You'd probably be okay, but not in as good of shape as you'd be if you had a 3GB or 4GB card. I was glad I went with a 7970 when I saw CIV V sucking down 2300MB of VRAM.

 

[jpiniero]

this is potentially flawed/misleading thinking, as that 5GB pol of game-available RAM isn't just for the GPU

Right, but it's going to be a large percentage of the budget. Devs are going to budget 3, 3.5 easy.

 

[Fastx]

XFX DD 290 $364.99 ar shipping plus a USD $40 promotional gift card & 3 games w/ purchase, limited offer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150697

Sapphire Tri X 290 $335.00 Open Box in stock at the moment.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...2E16814202080R

 

[RaulF]

I'm fine with my 2gb 770 @ 1440p.





Waiting for that too. From last year:

Thanks for the chart.

But how so they play? I can get numbers all day long, is all about how fluid the game is.

 

[Madpacket]

I'm fine with my 750 TI having 2GB but cards with higher fillrates should probably have more VRAM. What AMD has done with the new colour compression techniques on the 285 series is interesting to save on VRAM but I wouldn't feel good buying it knowing console development is rapidly shifting to XBOX One and PS4.

Posting average FPS between 2 and 4 GB cards is also not a great way to determine if you have enough VRAM. Frame time variance needs to be measured as it'll be able to point out issues with swapping on the lower VRAM cards which average FPS speeds mask.

It would be great if a large tech site did a proper comparison of newer games to see if/when/where 2GB cards run into performance issues.