Which games, if any, benefit from 8GB video card RAM over 4GB, and how much benefit?

[Craig234]

See title. Since I just got an R9 390, I'm looking for things to justify it.

 

[Teizo]

Only 1 I can think of below 4K is Assassin's Creed Syndicate with Nvidia Gameworks features enabled and maximum MSAA settings (which last I checked was broken anyway).

There may be others, but not sure (Grand Theft Auto IV and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt maybe).

For the most part, 8GB is not necessary for now, and if it was AMD would have put more on the Fury cards, but in about 2 years 8GB will probably be mandatory.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe in a few years it will matter. The 390 is also a decent Performance bump, so even if you don't ever need >4gb Memory, it still wasn't a bad choice.

 

[Red Hawk]

Shadow of Mordor, it literally will not run its highest texture setting unless you've got 6 GB or more of VRAM.

 

[dogen1]

Shadow of Mordor, it literally will not run its highest texture setting unless you've got 6 GB or more of VRAM.

I've heard it actually runs alright with 4GB.

 

[hawtdawg]

Shadow of Mordor, it literally will not run its highest texture setting unless you've got 6 GB or more of VRAM.

In my experience, you can max out everything fine at 1080p with 3 gigs, but 3 gigs wont cut it at 1440p, you'll get intermittent hitching. 1080p is silky smooth though.

 

[2is]

Only 1 I can think of below 4K is Assassin's Creed Syndicate with Nvidia Gameworks features enabled and maximum MSAA settings (which last I checked was broken anyway).

There may be others, but not sure (Grand Theft Auto IV and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt maybe).

For the most part, 8GB is not necessary for now, and if it was AMD would have put more on the Fury cards, but in about 2 years 8GB will probably be mandatory.

No, they wouldn't have. They were limited to 4GB with HBM. That's why it has 4GB and not 6 or 8

 

[Seba]

For the most part, 8GB is not necessary for now

The real question should be when more than 4GB will be necessary. It does not have to be 8GB, just a little over 4GB.

 

[therealnickdanger]

No, they wouldn't have. They were limited to 4GB with HBM. That's why it has 4GB and not 6 or 8

AMD also tried to spin this as a positive, that more than 4GB wasn't necessary when using HBM for this generation. Joe Macri of AMD claimed that HBM has secret sauce that makes 4GB of HBM capacity > 4GB GDDR5 capacity. What he was actually talking about were better drivers to manage the memory (which probably helps in every situation).

http://wccftech.com/amd-addresses-capacity-limitation-concern-hbm/

As far as I've seen, the 4GB capacity has NOT proven to be a limitation, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. For AMD's next flagship, they need to take that wide&slow mentality and make it wide&fast.

 

[Mercennarius]

I've had ARK Survival use more than 4.5GB of VRAM on several occasions. Newer games will continue to use more and more VRAM.

 

[therealnickdanger]

When given the choice, I'll go for the larger VRAM version a of GPU (assuming it's not slower DDR3), but there is plenty of evidence to show that it really doesn't matter. There's really no such thing as "future proof". More VRAM can help you play older games with max scaling/AA enabled and high res texture packs, but if a new game comes along with more complex geometry or effects, then VRAM does nothing - you need rendering power. The latter is the most typical scenario when discussing the future.

The 390 8GB is a great card TODAY because of its rendering capabilities. By the time games require 6-8GB VRAM, the rendering power needed will eclipse the 390's capabilities. Then buy a second one and it may help.

 

[steve wilson]

When given the choice, I'll go for the larger VRAM version a of GPU (assuming it's not slower DDR3), but there is plenty of evidence to show that it really doesn't matter. There's really no such thing as "future proof". More VRAM can help you play older games with max scaling/AA enabled and high res texture packs, but if a new game comes along with more complex geometry or effects, then VRAM does nothing - you need rendering power. The latter is the most typical scenario when discussing the future.

The 390 8GB is a great card TODAY because of its rendering capabilities. By the time games require 6-8GB VRAM, the rendering power needed will eclipse the 390's capabilities. Then buy a second one and it may help.

Agree with the first paragraph, but not the second. Going crossfire with older cards can be a pain in the arse. I'd much rather sell the 390 and go for what ever single card solution is appropriate for you at the time.

 

[tential]

When given the choice, I'll go for the larger VRAM version a of GPU (assuming it's not slower DDR3), but there is plenty of evidence to show that it really doesn't matter. There's really no such thing as "future proof". More VRAM can help you play older games with max scaling/AA enabled and high res texture packs, but if a new game comes along with more complex geometry or effects, then VRAM does nothing - you need rendering power. The latter is the most typical scenario when discussing the future.

The 390 8GB is a great card TODAY because of its rendering capabilities. By the time games require 6-8GB VRAM, the rendering power needed will eclipse the 390's capabilities. Then buy a second one and it may help.

The biggest reason I want to upgrade to the R9 390 8GB of VRAM is crossfire(From the R9 290). The GTX 970 SLI can't handle 4K. I don't even think this should need an explanation. But R9 390 8GB of VRAM Crossfire works at 4K.

Also, who cares about when games require 6-8 GB of VRAM?
Why are you even waiting that long? What happens when a game requires 3.7 GB of VRAM? The GTX 970 is switching between 2 memory pools, while the R9 390 is fine. What about 4.1 GB of VRAM? Then R9 390 is fine again, the GTX 970 is confused....

You have 2 cards:
1 card is only limited by GPU horsepower.
1 card is limited by GPU horsepower and VRAM pool....

I'll take the first card.... it just makes sense.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The real question should be when more than 4GB will be necessary. It does not have to be 8GB, just a little over 4GB.

This. A game may need 4.6GB at some settings, whether your card has 5GB or 100GB won't matter, but having 'only' 4GB will matter.

 

[cyclohexane]

I have the r9-390, so far no games really "need" the extra ram. They all run super smooth at 1600p

 

[moonbogg]

8 gigs won't help anything right now, but if a new high end card came out today, it should have 8gb of ram. 4GB is no longer enough and 6GB will stop being enough very quickly. Vram requirements has skyrocketed recently right along with disk space requirements.
I think its funny though, because I was playing Crysis 3 last night and that game looks totally stunning, better than any new game that I have seen or played myself. It looks better than Far Cry 4 and GTA V and many other games, yet Crysis 3 only uses about 2.5GB of Vram @ 1440p, fully maxed with 4XAA. How is that? How is that possible? I think new games simply inflate their requirements to sell GPU's or something funky is going on.

 

[Mercennarius]

8 gigs won't help anything right now, but if a new high end card came out today, it should have 8gb of ram. 4GB is no longer enough and 6GB will stop being enough very quickly. Vram requirements has skyrocketed recently right along with disk space requirements.
I think its funny though, because I was playing Crysis 3 last night and that game looks totally stunning, better than any new game that I have seen or played myself. It looks better than Far Cry 4 and GTA V and many other games, yet Crysis 3 only uses about 2.5GB of Vram @ 1440p, fully maxed with 4XAA. How is that? How is that possible? I think new games simply inflate their requirements to sell GPU's or something funky is going on.

Older games also have to be more efficient when coded as hardware at the time limited what was capable. And there are some scenarios where 8GB is helpful today especially at 4K gaming.

 

[Teizo]

No, they wouldn't have. They were limited to 4GB with HBM. That's why it has 4GB and not 6 or 8

I appreciate the clarification. I did not realize this.

They still market them as 4K cards, and with only 4GB of Vram...that does give insight when Radeon's top cards only have 4GB just how much Vram really is needed.

I do expect the cards coming out in 2016 to have allot more though simply because they can, irregardless if really needed.

 

[SirCanealot]

I've had ARK Survival use more than 4.5GB of VRAM on several occasions. Newer games will continue to use more and more VRAM.

Keep in mind though that games will cache date in VRAM when it came.

4.5GB of vram used does not = 4.5GB of vram needed

 

[2is]

Keep in mind though that games will cache date in VRAM when it came.

4.5GB of vram used does not = 4.5GB of vram needed

This may be true to an extent, but to what extent we don't know. When you see 4.5GB used, can you look at it and determine how much is actually needed? And if it is true, why only cache to 4.5GB if you have a 6 or 8 GB card? The only thing we know for sure is how much vram is being utilized, but what it's being utilized for is largely guess work.

 

[Deders]

In my experience, you can max out everything fine at 1080p with 3 gigs, but 3 gigs wont cut it at 1440p, you'll get intermittent hitching. 1080p is silky smooth though.

I'd get hitching after a while at 2560x1080 (ultrawide) making it unplayable. Still looked decent at the next highest setting especially if I sit back a bit.

 

[therealnickdanger]

This may be true to an extent, but to what extent we don't know.

Sure we do. Compare two of the same GPU (with different VRAM amounts) and test for min/avg/max fps and frame timing. I'm pretty sure that this has been done before and shown inconclusive results... or at least "academic".

http://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough

 

[RussianSensation]

See title. Since I just got an R9 390, I'm looking for things to justify it.

You are looking at it the wrong way. Even if R9 390 had just 4GB of VRAM, it would still be a better buy over the 970 from a raw perfomrance point of view.

1) Early DX12 benches show 390 winning

2) At 1440P, 390 easily wins which suggests it's betters suited for next gen games than the 970. 970 shows big weaknesses at 1440P, which doesn't inspire as much confidence once games get more demanding. Since you bought your card now, I am guessing you'll keep it for 2-3 years so 390 is a safer bet:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/powercolor-radeon-r9-390-pcs-8gb-review,1.html

3) You have peace of mind that AMD will continue to support GCN with driver improvements. Looking at R9 280X vs. 680/770/780, Kepler fell apart completely. 290 & 390X already beat 970/980 at 1440P. What's going to happen with Maxwell once NV moves on to Pascal? Since Fiji is also GCN, AMD will continue to optimize drivers for R9 290/290X/390/390X cards.

If two cards cost similarly and one performs much better at 1440P and has more VRAM as a bonus, it's a no brainer to pick that card -- and that's the 390.

It's also not about 4GB vs. 8GB since 970 doesn't have 4GB of fast GDDR5. It's more like 3.5GB vs. at least 4GB.

Once 970 exceeds 3.5-3.6Ghz of memory, it's game over for the card:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53mWbxcWAw4

Mods? Once again 390 wins. You can load up Skyrim, GTA IV/V, Doom with mods and not worry about VRAM, just GPU horsepower.

390 also beats 970 in SW:BF, the best looking PC game of 2015, if not of all time. That means you are better positioned for BF5 as well.

Good reasons to buy 970 are lower power usage, HDMI 2.0 and if you need NV-specific features like TXAA, PhysX or if you specifically play NV catered titles like ProjectCARS, Anno 2205, etc.

Otherwise, 390 is a much more well rounded GPU. Realistically I don't exactly expect Maxwell to crater as bad as 670/680/770/780 did but DX12 could be a big weaknesses for the 970. So again, 390 just seems like safer bet. You should be realistic with your expectations though. 390 is still a 2-year-old GPU (aka R9 290) so don't expect it to have the same staying power as HD7970Ghz did vs. HD5870/6970.

 

[Deders]

1) Early DX12 benches show 390 winning

I agree with most of your post, I'm just wondering if there are any more DX12 benchmarks out there other than Ashes of the Singularity. If not then your statement should probably read something along the lines of "The only DX12 benchmark we have so far favours AMD"

I'm not counting the 3Dmark benchmark as it is more of a demonstration of potential than it is representative of anything likely to be in the real world.

 

[MajinCry]

Eh. I'd imagine Fallout 4 would, especially when the texture mods come out. The textures are stupidly high res. Y'know the deal, 2048x2048 textures for grass meshes that don't go past yer ankles and the like.

I'm on an ol' 2GB card, and boy-oh-boy does Fallout 4 feel constrained; textures being super low-res as they are loaded in, due to the vRAM already being maxed out.

And once we get tools like FO4LODGen...Yeah, you're gonna want as much as you can get.