Is 4GB of VRAM enough? extremetech article

[andybird123]

Fair conclusion on 4K with a single card, but I wonder why they didn't test any 2 GPU setups

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/2...y-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

While we do see some evidence of a 4GB barrier on AMD cards that the NV hardware does not experience, provoking this problem in current-generation titles required us to use settings that rendered the games unplayable any current GPU. It’s reasonable to ask why we didn’t fine-tune results, attempting to measure the impact of just going over the 4GB threshold with the GTX 980 Ti or Titan X, and then test with those settings. Unfortunately, GPU-Z simply doesn’t measure accurately enough to make this possible.

The most we can say of a specific 4GB issue at 4K is that gamers who want to play at 4K will have to do some fine-tuning to keep frame rates and resolutions balanced, but that’s not unique to any vendor. If you’re a gamer who wants 4K and ultra-high quality visual settings, none of the current GPUs on the market are going to suit you. HBM2 and 14/16nm GPUs may change that, but for now playing in 4K is intrinsically a balancing act. The Fury X may require a bit more fine-tuning than the 980 Ti or Titan X, but that’s not grounds for declaring 4GB an unsuitable amount of VRAM in today’s games.

 

[LambChop]

When Nvidia only had 4GB it wasnt enough, now they have more and AMD's top line cards only have 4GB its suddenly now not grounds for declaring its an unsuitable amount ? You gotta laugh you really do.

 

[Marine-RX179]

When Nvidia only had 4GB it wasnt enough, now they have more and AMD's top line cards only have 4GB its suddenly now not grounds for declaring its an unsuitable amount ? You gotta laugh you really do.

Wasn't it the Titan owners that claimed 4GB wasn't enough (when using more than two cards)?

Also ain't our understanding of 4GB being not enough for 4K base on our experience of using the cards with dx11 and older games? Do we know for sure that moving forward for new games that uses dx12, that they would require as much vram usage as dx11 does (especially considering dx12 is suppose to be a more efficient API than all previous versions of dx)?

And then there's the queston of memory usage on GDDR5 and HBM, are they apple to apple comparison?

 

[Mauller]

DX11 can have better memory use than in the majority of current games. But only if the game is set to use DX11 as its lowest compatible API.
This is because DX11 supports more efficient Texture formats which DX9 and 10 don't. So if they use 9 and 10 they won't use the more efficient formats since it means doubling up the number of textures you have.

 

[Gregster]

Wasn't it the Titan owners that claimed 4GB wasn't enough (when using more than two cards)?

Also ain't our understanding of 4GB being not enough for 4K base on our experience of using the cards with dx11 and older games? Do we know for sure that moving forward for new games that uses dx12, that they would require as much vram usage as dx11 does (especially considering dx12 is suppose to be a more efficient API than all previous versions of dx)?

And then there's the queston of memory usage on GDDR5 and HBM, are they apple to apple comparison?

And AMDMatt claimed that 4GB wasn't enough

 

[andybird123]

It was AMD themselves who did a big marketing piece saying 4GB wasn't enough when they released the 290 8gb versions. Then they released the FuryX and did another one saying that it was ok because they'd gotten around to doing colour compression (ignoring the fact that the 980 they'd previously disparaged had it already).

 

[LtMatt]

4GB isn't enough if you have the GPu grunt available. The problem is you need three or four GPU's to keep playable FPS and use more than 4GB and I've been saying that since the start.

4GB is plenty for one or two Graphics Cards. Still yet to find a single game that proves it's not the case.

Incidentally, GTA V running at ultra settings with X2 MSAA at 4K on 2x Fury X.

 

[Marine-RX179]

And AMDMatt claimed that 4GB wasn't enough

Yea was he referring to GDDR5 when he said it? He probably said it in the context of his experience with Tri-fire (or was it Quad-fire?) of 290x 4GB at 4K.

I guess would 4GB HBM be sufficient for 4K with dx12 only time would tell.

 

[P.B]

You just need equal vram to the amount of gnu power to tri titanx could justify having 12gb

 

[andybird123]

You just need equal vram to the amount of gnu power to tri titanx could justify having 12gb

I do love me some gnu power

 

[andybird123]

4GB isn't enough if you have the GPu grunt available. The problem is you need three or four GPU's to keep playable FPS and use more than 4GB and I've been saying that since the start.

4GB is plenty for one or two Graphics Cards. Still yet to find a single game that proves it's not the case.

Incidentally, GTA V running at ultra settings with X2 MSAA at 4K on 2x Fury X.

]

Did you read the article?
They found five games that evidenced visible problems with frame rate or frametime variance running on 4GB cards - two cards at their settings should be 50-60fps as they were showing 28-30 on 6/12gb cards

 

[LtMatt]

Did you read the article?
They found five games that evidenced visible problems with frame rate or frametime variance running on 4GB cards - two cards at their settings should be 50-60fps as they were showing 28-30 on 6/12gb cards

I have three of those games and there are no issues.

In every case, the games in question were pushed to maximum detail levels. MSAA was not used, since that incurs its own performance penalty and could warp results, but the highest non-GameWorks settings were used in all standard menus.

I was using Ultra settings and 2xMSAA in my GTA V video above, which significantly increases video memory usage. Yet there were no instances of memory going over 4gb, there was no stuttering either. The settings i use pop up at the end of the video.

Out of those 15 titles, just four of them could be coaxed into significantly exceeding the 4GB limit: Shadow of Mordor, Assassin’s Creed: Unity, Far Cry 4, and Grand Theft Auto V. Even in these games, we had to use extremely high detail settings to ensure that the GPUs would regularly report well over 4GB of RAM in use.

 

[MDPlatts]

Old news.

It just seems to be a re-hash article of the TechReport article from 3 weeks ago - http://techreport.com/blog/28800/how-much-video-memory-is-enough

I read it as there is a slight issue but something which improved compression in the AMD drivers might be able to improve.

 

[andybird123]

So are we discrediting extremetech now Matthew?
It seems you were quite a supporter of theirs at one point.

 

[LtMatt]

So are we discrediting extremetech now Matthew?
It seems you were quite a supports I theirs at one point.

Joel was fairly clear in the review that there is no accurate way to measure video memory usage and the problems that surfaced also occurred at lower resolutions, when there was no possibility of the video memory being exceeded.

None of the GPU tools on the market report memory usage correctly, whether it’s GPU-Z, Afterburner, Precision X etc.

First, there’s the fact that out of the fifteen games we tested, only four of could be forced to consume more than the 4GB of RAM. In every case, we had to use high-end settings at 4K to accomplish this. Of the three games profiled in this article, two of them were GameWorks titles with heavy, Nvidia-specific optimizations and did not run well on AMD hardware, even at resolutions where RAM was no issue.

As for GTA, you can see the results above showing that 2x Fury X offer the right amount of playable FPS at higher settings, whilst remaining under 4GB video memory usage.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Joel is uneducated on numerous topics he posts about as most journalists are and had to look to NVIDIA for clarification on VRAM reporting which is something I'd like to assume he knew already. The whole article doesn't serve a purpose given there are plenty of results for people to conclude the same end.

4GB is adequate, it's certainly not ample

 

[Gregster]

4GB isn't enough if you have the GPu grunt available. The problem is you need three or four GPU's to keep playable FPS and use more than 4GB and I've been saying that since the start.

4GB is plenty for one or two Graphics Cards. Still yet to find a single game that proves it's not the case.

Incidentally, GTA V running at ultra settings with X2 MSAA at 4K on 2x Fury X.

The trouble with your video is settings and you have a few settings off or lowered, which is fair enough but for those people who like to run with everything maxed out, you know as well as me that it isn't happening. I also agree that you need a couple of top tier cards as a minimum to run maxed settings, but the Fury X is breaching 4GB, so even if you have 2/3/4 cards, it won't matter a jot for some games as you will be stuttering like anything while the pagefile is being read.

As you have 4 Fury X's, you could disprove me by running and recording with everything fully maxed out in GTA V or am I right?

 

[SGTMASON]

I've always gone by the theory of "more is better" most of the time in life...

More beer... Better!
More meat.... Better!
More sleep... Better!
More VRAM... Better!

The list goes on...

 

[mmj_uk]

The moral of the story is you should all trust an AMD employee embedded in public forums for marketing purposes over an independent review site. AMD absolutely rubbish at marketing.

 

[Geeman1979]

So.... 4GB is the new 8GB now on high end cards.