Toyota has a good point, my 2gb gtx770 tanks pretty hard in BF4 on my 26'' t.v @1366x768 with 200% scale resolution.I hit nearly 1800mb usage which is the most vram any of my games use and its sitting well below 60fps average lol.
Correct. This is exactly how I feel about the matter. Once you go that high with SSAA, GPU power becomes an issue well before VRAM does. It's like you have to go intentionally out of your way to use VRAM like that because in the real world, if you use FXAA or 2X MSAA, you won't approach a limit. Or you do the crazy thing and use 8X SSAA or downsample to 7680*1440 and hit the VRAM wall. Nevermind that your game is now running at 5-10 fps thanks to SSAA, but you did use up your VRAM. Is that a valuable way to use VRAM? IMO, no. But in BF4, resolution scale is OGSSAA. Applying more SSAA = more VRAM use. OGSAA = downsampling = OGSSAA is the most demanding form of SSAA = VRAM use skyrockets with SSAA.
The way I look at it is, I can take a 6GB Titan if I had one, right now, and fill half of the frame buffer and use 5gb of VRAM in nearly any recent AAA title I wanted with downsampling (OGSSAA). Does that make the case for more VRAM? Nevermind that SSAA uses so much GPU horsepower that all of these games run at 5 fps. Clearly that VRAM matters since you run out of GPU horsepower well before the VRAM becomes an issue anyway.
Personally I know that usage scenario is worthless. I know I gamed at 1600p, which most people here haven't, with 2GB, and I know it's fine. But if you want more VRAM you have that option. Even though you REALLY don't need it. You have that option if you want to go nuts with stupid settings such as SSAA out the wazoo.
If you think using 3/4ths of your VRAM for anti aliasing is a neat thing to do, you have that option. So here we are in a situation where anti aliasing is using more VRAM than game assets are using due to the pathetic next gen consoles. Does that mean you should get more VRAM? Just because you can use more SSAA? I'd say, no, I don't really play games that are running at 20 fps due to SSAA regardless of what the VRAM requirement is. But if you want to, go for it. Now at certain resolutions more VRAM makes sense. For 4k or 7680*1440, absolutely, get 4GB or 6GB - you have this option with the 770, 780 , or AMD. But 1440? You don't need more than 2GB. There are hundreds of reputable websites that have tested 2 vs 4GB and there is no performance difference at 1440p. Period end of story. You only get the option for more anti aliasing and more skyrim modding with more than 2GB. It really is up to the buyer in question - but to pretend that more VRAM somehow gives you more performance, yeah, that's not true, never has been, never will be.
Both cards are even in performance. Both cards are very viable for 1440p. But because of VRAM? nah.... My personal take is that OP should look at reviews through google and come to his own decision based on what games he plays. And take software and features in consideration. If performance and noise/temps are about even with custom models of both GPUs, that leaves cost and software/feature quality as the differentiation. Without necessarily listening to forum noise. Without listening to my advice or anyone's advice in this thread. So that's my opinion. OP should discard every opinion in this thread, including mine, and google the information for himself. View 2 vs 4GB benchmarks. View benchmarks of both cards in the games he plays. That way he gets the best information possible through objective and reputable websites. IMO.
Facebook
Twitter