Discussion What is the minimum dGPU and VRAM for gaming 2019.

[whm1974]

This may up being an endless debate and could even get quite heated at that, but for 2019 and the near future what do you gerbil consider to be the bare minimum dGPU along with the amount of VRAM said card should have? Of course this would also factor in budget considerations as well.

Wasn't that long ago I would picked the 1050 Ti right of the top. But and yes there is a but here, AMD's Rx 570 and 580 graphic adapters that have 8GB of memory are not that much more while Nvidia's new 1660 can be option but I don't know the price off hand.

I agree that 4GB is way better then only having 2GB, but another but here, 8GB might be the new minimum here. Things to consider....

 

[ozzy702]

6gb is the least I'd consider for 1080p if buying new, but realistically I'd prefer 8gb. It really depends on the price point.

 

[whm1974]

6gb is the least I'd consider for 1080p if buying new, but realistically I'd prefer 8gb. It really depends on the price point.

I game at 1600p as that is my display's native setting. Granted I really don't any games right now that are very demanding on the GPU so my GTX 970 is all I need at the moment.

 

[ozzy702]

I game at 1600p as that is my display's native setting. Granted I really don't any games right now that are very demanding on the GPU so my GTX 970 is all I need at the moment.

In that case, 8GB for sure but you'll need some grunt to push that resolution moving forward.

 

[whm1974]

In that case, 8GB for sure but you'll need some grunt to push that resolution moving forward.

Indeed, and I'm wondering to extent I will get bottleneck with only a Haswell quad core.

 

[ozzy702]

Indeed, and I'm wondering to extent I will get bottleneck with only a Haswell quad core.

i5 or i7? Most games still run well @ 1440p with a Haswell i7, if you're rocking an i5 you may as well just upgrade your entire system to Ryzen 2 later this year.

 

[whm1974]

i5 or i7? Most games still run well @ 1440p with a Haswell i7, if you're rocking an i5 you may as well just upgrade your entire system to Ryzen 2 later this year.

I wish I could that, money is bit tight now and even if it wasn't, I have other need to spend it on.

 

[SPBHM]

I don't get it, you have a 970 and is considering a 1050 ti?!

970 is much faster,

also if you don't max settings 4GB is enough.

 

[whm1974]

I don't get it, you have a 970 and is considering a 1050 ti?!

970 is much faster,

also if you don't max settings 4GB is enough.

No I'm not, I was mentioning that I game at 1600p and not 1080p.

 

[mopardude87]

Given i game at 1440p which isn't to far off from 1600p,i wouldn't get anything less then a used 8gb 1070/1070ti.

If you care about raytracing you absolutely will want that 8gb,seeing that BF5 ate up a entire 6gb on the then new RTX2060.A entire thread is on these forums focused on the issue and that is only at 1080p.I guess in April anyone with 1060 or higher is going to get to enable RT when nvidia drops a driver to enable it.Going to be more of a sampling then the full experience but we will see i guess if 8gb will seriously be the new standard needed or not.Something tells me for 1440p it absolutely will be warranted.

 

[whm1974]

Is raytracing worth all the extra cost and performance hit?

 

[mopardude87]

Is raytracing worth all the extra cost and performance hit?

I guess the answer will come when the driver does.What i saw from Nvidia themselves anyone on a 1000 series starting with the 1060 is only going to be able to use the low rt settings and effects while if you got a RTX card you can enable the entire experience.Just maybe it would have the performance hit of something like Hbao?So i guess if you play BF5 or something the options for low will only be usable for a non RTX? Will be interesting how this is handled.

I do think the enabling of RT for a non RTX card may be a ploy to get more people to be like yeah i have to have RT and yeah i need to get myself a RTX series card.Its like a drug dealer giving you a free sample so you get hooked and just purchase from him.Its a brilliant move on their part.

 

[Shmee]

Probably 4GB, as cards like the GTX 980 and r9 290 and r9 Fury are still viable cards. Anything less than that or older probably would not work so well, however.

 

[Rayman30]

This is subjective for sure, but right now the RX580 with 8GB of VRAM can be had for under $200, and will handle 1440P at 60FPS for most titles. You could get 60FPS if you tone down certain settings in some games.

But if I was in your shoes, I would try to find a second hand Vega 64 or GTX 1080.

On Ray Tracing, I have an RTX2080Ti, which I purchased solely for its additional raster performance, if that tells you anything.

My opinion on VRAM in 2019

1080P - 4GB
1440P - 6-8GB
1600P - 8GB
2160P - 8-12GB+

 

[VirtualLarry]

My opinion on VRAM in 2019

1080P - 4GB
1440P - 6-8GB
1600P - 8GB
2160P - 8-12GB+

Sounds reasonable, except for the 2160P. Unless you're buying a Titan, which cards have that much memory? 1080ti has 11GB, but RTX 2080 only has 8GB, right?

But I agree, 4GB for 1080P gaming (the mainstream "sweet spot") should be viable for some time longer, I expect (*).

(*) Sans RTX effects.

I would go with an 8GB RX 570/580/590 though, if buying new, into that class of cards.

It's a real shame that NVidia went with 6GB for their 1660 / 1660ti / RTX 2060 cards, because if they had gone with 8GB, in my mind, they would be the clear winners over the 8GB RX 570/580 cards. As it is, the RX cards have a VRAM advantage, which may translate into better performance on high-VRAM edge-case games, that would otherwise slow down heavily due to the "VRAM cliff effect" on the 1660 / ti / RTX 2060 cards. (And NVidia's much-vaunted "memory compression" has to do with bandwidth reduction, NOT VRAM reduction.)

 

[MangoX]

Depends on the games you play. Triple A games like the ones that are used for reviews? It all depends on the resolution. I would say a 1060 TI level-card is minimum for 2019 at 1080p. I have been playing more of the Korean made MMOs and I have no issues getting great performance and 60fps at 4k with a 1070 Ti.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Probably 4GB, as cards like the GTX 980 and r9 290 and r9 Fury are still viable cards. Anything less than that or older probably would not work so well, however.

I would not want to game on a 290 today. A 390, sure, I could get by with that, maybe. I did until Jan 2018 in fact. But not a 290. Most 290s only have 4 GB anyway . . .

But if I was in your shoes, I would try to find a second hand Vega 64 or GTX 1080.

With some of the deals on Vega56 floating around, that might be a better option than Vega64. You can really push those things hard and get performance out of them if your PSU is up to the task. The card's VRM is sturdy. No idea how long the GPU will last, though . . .

Sounds reasonable, except for the 2160P. Unless you're buying a Titan, which cards have that much memory? 1080ti has 11GB, but RTX 2080 only has 8GB, right?

A used Vega FE might be the cheapest way to get into 16GB. And there's always Radeon VII.

 

[Guru]

This may up being an endless debate and could even get quite heated at that, but for 2019 and the near future what do you gerbil consider to be the bare minimum dGPU along with the amount of VRAM said card should have? Of course this would also factor in budget considerations as well.

Wasn't that long ago I would picked the 1050 Ti right of the top. But and yes there is a but here, AMD's Rx 570 and 580 graphic adapters that have 8GB of memory are not that much more while Nvidia's new 1660 can be option but I don't know the price off hand.

I agree that 4GB is way better then only having 2GB, but another but here, 8GB might be the new minimum here. Things to consider....

GTX 1050ti was NEVER a good option. They've always been overpriced and custom cards were always $20-30 more than the suggested MSRP, which even by MSRP was expensive, considering the RX 470 and then the RX 570 was 30% and more faster.

The only reason you would get one, was in the middle of the mining craze, those 3-4 months where all 470/570 were selling at $300+.

Even the GTX 1060 6GB was a bad value choice when compared to the RX 580 8GB, the 580 8GB generally outperformed it and cost a bit less. Again the only reason to get 1060 6gb over a 580 was due to those 3-4 months of all AMD cards getting sold out for mining. Nvidia cards, especially GTX 1070 and lower were not that good at mining. Later on some new mining techniques were developed, it made them better, but an AMD alternative card would still perform better.

If you want to play at 1080p with max settings right now, then the bare minimum is GTX 1070 or Vega 56. I'd say from the newest Turning cards the bare minimum is GTX 1660ti, the 1660 is useless, it's basically an overclocked 1060 in a sense(I know its new arch and stuff), but it is essentially OC'd 1060 version on 12nm. Its about 10-15% faster than the 1060 6gb. Which is good, but the 1070 wipes the floor with it and has more vram and you can get it cheaper used.

So in terms of Turing, the bare minimum is GTX 1660ti, preferably the RTX 2060 as it is the full RTX feature spec., has fast GDDR6 memory and essentially can match the 1080 in some games and even beat it in Vulkan games. Pascal was really bad at Vulkan, Turing has been optimized with Vulkan in mind as well.

So yeah, bare minimum GTX 1660ti or 1070, from AMD Vega 56. Right now I think the best value card is the RTX 2060, especially as it comes with 1 free game. So its essentially $300 dollars, just $20 more from the 1660ti, for up to 30% more performance.

 

[Shmee]

I would not want to game on a 290 today. A 390, sure, I could get by with that, maybe. I did until Jan 2018 in fact. But not a 290. Most 290s only have 4 GB anyway . . .



With some of the deals on Vega56 floating around, that might be a better option than Vega64. You can really push those things hard and get performance out of them if your PSU is up to the task. The card's VRM is sturdy. No idea how long the GPU will last, though . . .



A used Vega FE might be the cheapest way to get into 16GB. And there's always Radeon VII.

A 290 is still fine today I would argue, even the 4GB versions, as long as it had a decent cooler. For a 1080p screen or less it would be fine for most games. Keep in mind a 290 with a good cooler is roughly equivalent to an RX 570, possibly better in some areas. Both these are options and both can be had with the 4GB of GDDR5, which isn't really an issue so long as the GPU is fast enough. At least not for 1080p I suspect.

 

[guskline]

Bare minimum is probably 4G, but the jump to 8G is so close it is hard not to suggest 8G for a new purchase.

Obviously resolution has a ton to do with it. I would stay with 4g IF you play no higher than 1920x1080.

If you are 1440 or higher 8G.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Here's a twist. What about AMD's VSR feature? (Virtual Super Resolution)

It allows you to configure Windows' Desktop to display at 2560x1440, on a 1920x1080 (physical) monitor. IMHO, it looks quite good, but that can depend on your display. I haven't tried gaming with VSR Enabled yet.

But assuming that you can game at 2560x1440, on a 1080P screen, using VSR, would that make the minimum VRAM for an RX card necessarily 8GB? Just wondering for a friend.

I've already got dibs on a 4GB RX 570, but will that be too limiting, if I set up VSR on my friend's rig? (Assuming that his monitor co-operates, and he likes the "look" of that feature.)

 

[DrMrLordX]

Pretty sure using VSR is going to impose all the memory requirements of the higher resolution.

I tried VSR 4k on my 1440p monitor, and I did not like it. It was blurry on the desktop. Never tried it in any games.

 

[Stuka87]

Yes, if you are using VSR, and rendering at say 1440 on a 1080 monitor, it will use the VRAM 1440 native would, plus a bit more, as the downscaling actually uses a bit of additional memory.

 

[loki1944]

This may up being an endless debate and could even get quite heated at that, but for 2019 and the near future what do you gerbil consider to be the bare minimum dGPU along with the amount of VRAM said card should have? Of course this would also factor in budget considerations as well.

Wasn't that long ago I would picked the 1050 Ti right of the top. But and yes there is a but here, AMD's Rx 570 and 580 graphic adapters that have 8GB of memory are not that much more while Nvidia's new 1660 can be option but I don't know the price off hand.

I agree that 4GB is way better then only having 2GB, but another but here, 8GB might be the new minimum here. Things to consider....

Realistically; 3GB/4GB cards can still get by @1080p in current games, but for some like Ghost Recon Breakpoint, you'll have to go with the low preset. 6GB RAM is plenty for 1080p.

 

[DeathReborn]

Realistically; 3GB/4GB cards can still get by @1080p in current games, but for some like Ghost Recon Breakpoint, you'll have to go with the low preset. 6GB RAM is plenty for 1080p.

I ran 1080p Medium/High mixed settings on a R9 290 4GB in Breakpoint just fine, a 7870 2GB did a mix of Low/Medium settings at 1600x900, however once I saw my cousin playing it like that I bought him a 580 8GB.