YES MAYBE, but 6GB is still too much, but you might have no choice in the future
Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
vRAM - What will be enough in a few years?
- Thread starter Razyre
- Start date
YES MAYBE, but 6GB is still too much, but you might have no choice in the future
yes it's a program that you use to modify textures and effects etc, it's pretty good.
£600 is a lot to pay for 'fail safe' imo.
A 7950@~£230 is more realistic for a 'fail safe upgrade', rip it out, sell it on and getting the next gen gpu is more a 'fail safe upgrade' than a dual gpu setup which isn't necessarily going to work 100% of the time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,680
- Location
- The KOP
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 4,409
Seems like op has based his veiws on what people think on the internets
Only Nvidia fan boys bang on about the AMD driver issues in the past as its the only thing they can try to take a dig at. The next argument is "Nvidia has the worlds most powerful GPU, the Titan" to which my response is "yes they do and I would love to have one but unfortunately the part of my head keeps saying it costs £1000 and I could have 3 7970's for that"
Only Nvidia fan boys bang on about the AMD driver issues in the past as its the only thing they can try to take a dig at. The next argument is "Nvidia has the worlds most powerful GPU, the Titan" to which my response is "yes they do and I would love to have one but unfortunately the part of my head keeps saying it costs £1000 and I could have 3 7970's for that"
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 6,515
- Location
- Near Brighton
Then they follow up with the micro stutter argument as well.
I think the Titan is a hilariously crap card for the price. The power to price ratio is absolutely completely and totally horrendous. You can outperform it for £600-700.
As I said, my main beef with AMD is when you do have a driver problem they take years to fix it or never do and don't release drivers very often. Oh and CCC sucks, but as I stated before anyone else did, there is always RadeonPro.
I did testing with 2GB 680s at triple screen resolution and I was frame rate limited (i.e. low FPS) as opposed to VRAM limited.
As mentioned a few times above with today's cards in today's games you're limited by processing power. You might have games breaching 2GB in the future but the likelihood is that you wouldn't have playable frame rates on said settings anyway so you'll lower settings like AA and AO which will reduce the VRAM requirement away from the 2GB.
The AMD cards are cheaper and often a touch faster than their nVidia equivalent. But if you prefer nVidia and the price difference isn't an issue then go for it. You don't need to worry about VRAM side of things IMO, all the AMD 3GB cards really do is take the issue out the equation. But I don't think it's an issue in the first place.
As mentioned a few times above with today's cards in today's games you're limited by processing power. You might have games breaching 2GB in the future but the likelihood is that you wouldn't have playable frame rates on said settings anyway so you'll lower settings like AA and AO which will reduce the VRAM requirement away from the 2GB.
The AMD cards are cheaper and often a touch faster than their nVidia equivalent. But if you prefer nVidia and the price difference isn't an issue then go for it. You don't need to worry about VRAM side of things IMO, all the AMD 3GB cards really do is take the issue out the equation. But I don't think it's an issue in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Plus it's been mentioned several times by other posters that just because you see lots of vram usage, doesn't mean gpu is using all of it
The 600m series has been a bit of a suprise for me they get a lot of stick for being "older tech" but my GTX675m just works absolutely flawlessly - I've not had a desktop card run this well let alone a laptop GPU - even tomb raider just worked without a single issue out the box. Mine clocks to only about 5% short of stock 7970m performance.
As for future VRAM requirements - games are pretty close to pushing 2GB these days if you play at 1920x with high/ultra settings and more if you play on multi screen setups but I don't see them pushing that much higher - probably less than 3GB for quite awhile as many game engines are moving towards more advanced texture streaming, etc. instead of statically loading most assets into VRAM at level load time.
AMD have put a massive amount of effort over the last few months into upping their game but don't let your decision be lead by the heavy (and somewhat inaccurate) AMD bias on this forum.
http://forums.amd.com/game/categories.cfm?catid=454&entercat=y
https://forums.geforce.com/default/board/33/geforce-drivers/
See which gives the least issues. This forum tends to heavily favour AMD, so best to read what issues others are getting from both AMD and Nvidia.
https://forums.geforce.com/default/board/33/geforce-drivers/
See which gives the least issues. This forum tends to heavily favour AMD, so best to read what issues others are getting from both AMD and Nvidia.
Last edited:
I'm using a Kepler mobile card. The GT650m is a GK107 chip I believe and you can clock it up to and way beyond the GTX660M. I can get my particular 650m to clock at nearly 1.3GHz boost. That's insanity. It's 'necked by god awful GDDR3 memory, but I was willing to make the sacrifice since my laptop is so small. The Clevo W110ER is the world's most powerful 11 inch laptop and it's pretty cool. It beats many 15 inchers in the low-mid price range as well, certainly on processor performance.
I'll have a look through.
On a quick glance, a lot of people complaining about 314.22. Could be causing some of the worse problems that I have with Cry 3 - the game running like utter crap the whole way through gameplay. 310.90 seems pretty solid (using that on laptop).
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,666
As a side note, PS 4 has 8GB RAM for graphics and system together, there isn't a predefine value for each one individually.
I am/was on 314.22 but getting crashes in more or less every game. Going to roll back to the previous driver that was pretty solid for me on my 'Hilariously crap Titans'
Hilariously crap for the price.
The only reason I would ever buy one of those cards was if I had a rig so small I couldn't fit 2 cards in or wanted the equiv of 3/4 cards.
Price is much more of a concern to me or indeed a low price.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,236
- Location
- UK
The next GPU from NVIDIA brings Unified Memory Architecture (it's on the road map).
The point of this is to fix the "copying stuff from RAM to VRAM" problem.
However, why would they go from selling 2GB to selling 8GB when they can make us buy a 3GB, 4GB, 5GB, 6GB, and 7GB before we get there...
The point of this is to fix the "copying stuff from RAM to VRAM" problem.
However, why would they go from selling 2GB to selling 8GB when they can make us buy a 3GB, 4GB, 5GB, 6GB, and 7GB before we get there...
It's all good and you are entitled to your opinion, of which is fine/valid. The Titans were needed for me to driver 3 x 3D screens and nothing else would cope that is out. Vram was fine on the 2GB 680's I had previous and anytime it wasn't, the GPU grunt wasn't enough either. Scaling can be questionable even with 2 cards at times and 3/4 cards can have very little support.
As for the future, I wish I knew but I am sure I have enough to cope