• 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.

How future proof is 4GB VRAM?

Orch

Orch

Orch

Associate
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Posts
1,741
Location
Nr Salisbury
Currently weighing up between a 970 and 390x, before deciding on a G-sync or freesync monitor.

I was looking at the Sapphire 390x but that's gone out of stock overnight, typically.

However whilst looking at review I spotted this in the benchmarks - https://www.overclockers.co.uk/zota...ess-graphics-card-zt-90107-10p-gx-082-zt.html

The performance in 1080p and 1440p looked great and seemed to be reference 980s and even Titan X in some.

I've also got my eye on the Acer Predator XB240HA which is G-sync so I've nearly pressed the order button . . however how quickly will games start pushing the VRAM requirements past 4GB? I only really play BF4 and Battlefront, plus will be BF5 whenever it gets released.

Any help appreciated.
 
In those games 4gb is plenty. TBH it will be for a while as there are so many 4gb cards about and no game dev is going to exclude them selves from a mass market. We seem obsessed with Vram at the moment or at least Certain red fan boys do. I have a 980 (4gb) personally and my Mrs has a 390 (8gb) the only game i can get to exceed the 4gb that i personally play is call of duty. On my machine it sits at 3.98gb on my mrs she can hit 5-6gb Vram.....> However the 980 still gets better FPS despite being a theoretical Vram bottle neck. the 390 range with 8gb was imo a total marketing gimmick. It cant use it as a single card end of. By the time games come out that will actually benefit from 8gb Vram on a single card we will not be using our current cards. 4gb is enough for now and a couple of years i would think. Even when DX12 comes out its going to take time fer Dev's to then use it etc.
 
It's hard to say, quite a few recent games are pushing past 3gb quite easily and sitting between 3-4gb. Quite a few games i play seem to hover around 3.5 going upto near that 4gb margin. This is on 1080p. But this could just be the game caching textures for later use rather than keep loading them from files. Drivers can easily flush cached textures if it needs more memory. For 1080p i think you will be fine and just on the doorstep with 4gb but 1440p i think 4gb will be a limiting factor soon.
 
1080p 4GB will likely last awhile, 1440p I can get it a bit close to 3GB but 4GB won't immediately be a problem though might further down the line when developers really start using the full capabilities of DX12 (I'm not ignoring that DX12 has lots of capabilities for reducing VRAM usage by streaming resources). 4K and higher and/or multi-monitor setups another matter however as 4GB is cutting it fine today and potentially leaves very little future proofing at that resolution.
 
Are you going to run multiple GPUs? Are you going to run 4K or 3440x1440? If not then don't worry about VRAM limits. You're going to be fine at 1080p with the 970. I run 4K and have a pair of Titan X cards. They'll do me for the next year or two, maybe three. I regularly see VRAM usage exceed 4GB.
 
r7slayer said:
It's hard to say, quite a few recent games are pushing past 3gb quite easily and sitting between 3-4gb. Quite a few games i play seem to hover around 3.5 going upto near that 4gb margin. This is on 1080p. But this could just be the game caching textures for later use rather than keep loading them from files. Drivers can easily flush cached textures if it needs more memory. For 1080p i think you will be fine and just on the doorstep with 4gb but 1440p i think 4gb will be a limiting factor soon.
Click to expand...

There is a fair degree of caching going on - while not quite a level playing field there are a few games at 1440p that will use something like 28XXMB on my GTX780 and 36xxMB on the 970 I have in another system with identical visual quality/settings and no performance implications on the 780. From my dabbling in terms of actual VRAM use before you start to get performance implications there is a fair bit of headroom at upto 1440p at the moment though there might be the odd exception to that.
 
Thanks guys that's all really helpful. I think the 970 sounds a safe purchase for now and will hopefully get the best from the 144hz monitor for a couple of years.
 
Whilst we're at it, and to save another thread, is the Zotac I linked to in the OP a good buy or is there an other 970 I should consider?
 
been playing 3840x2160 as i high as i can on 980s

GTA V Ultra 3.8GB
Witcher 3 Ultra - 2.3GB (seen 2.7gb)

so it really depends on the game, but i would say

1080p Long time
1440p 1 year or more
higher less than a year
 
When looking at the GTX970 you should consider the peculiar memory configuration of that card. You have 3.5GB of fast memory and 0.5GB of slow memory, giving you 4GB total.
There was a storm over this earlier in the year as NVIDIA wasn't open about this fact. People felt they were lied too as in some games running at very high resolutions performance would fall dramatically as memory usage went over 3.5GB.
That said video memory usage varies hugely between games. And for those running very high resolutions they probably should be using a Fury/ 980 instead.
 
I would think its more likely people are to use VR before they upgrade to 4k, the 970 is the minimum spec for the upcoming devices so I wouldn't worry about it too much. The reality is that I think the 3.5 VRAM is one of the limiting factors of the 970 so if your trying to decide between it and a AMD with 8gb i'd go with the later esp as AMD copes better with higher resolutions.
 
Get a 390 with a freesync monitor and be done with it. It's a better card and at 1080p will only be faster again when dx12 takes away the amd cpu bottleneck. It's a more powerful card end of story. There is no vram worries and no drawback at the price.
 
thedandyp said:
Has anyone actually run into a real-world problem with 'only' 3.5 gb's of vram though?
Click to expand...

Personally no but I only use it for incidental testing so that isn't saying much - I got it from someone who swore it causes issues though and hence pretty much gave it to me - they've gone AMD on "principle".

I've had it loaded up over 3.5GB without any issues but with the same settings my 780 is often running fine with almost 1GB less VRAM used which probably means the extra it largely cached which will have far less of a penalty from the slower VRAM.
 
Last edited:
Hah - to be frank I'd feel like a bit of a mug personally buying a 970 if the 390 was also an nVidia card. Performance wise though in real world stuff and including overclocking that is a far less straight forward question.

I think nVidia got off way too lightly over the 970.
 
Personally I think if you are open to the idea of the 8GB 390, which is a great card in its own right you should, there are games out there wich do better on cards with more than 4GB even at 1080P. That will only get to be more the case not less.
 
Rroff said:
Hah - to be frank I'd feel like a bit of a mug personally buying a 970 if the 390 was also an nVidia card. Performance wise though in real world stuff and including overclocking that is a far less straight forward question.
Click to expand...

I just feel with the 390 you get an over specced card for the money but with the 970 you get just about enough. If he is keeping the card for a year or 2 then he has no worries with the 390 but a 970 would not give me that same feeling. The latest cod supposedly needs more than 4gb at 1080p and it is not the best looking game. Developers are being so lazy these days that it's not a far reach to say that 4gb might not be enough at 1080p for the grunt on offer.

I do like to play it safe so my opinion goes with that. I also see a pattern with AMD cards ageing well compared to there NV counter parts.
 
Last edited:
thedandyp said:
Has anyone actually run into a real-world problem with 'only' 3.5 gb's of vram though?
Click to expand...
don't know if it's a problem so much but if you crank the settings up in games like arkham knight or gta V they will use up to or more than 3.5Gb of vram at 1080. don't think it hurts it performance wise but some games are pushing the limit now so who knows what the next year will bring, will probably be a 2016 equivalent of titanfall that needs 4+GB or vram as apposed to 3GB+. always going to be some unoptimised games with high res textures.

I Know im kicking myself for getting a 4GB 290x, not the best card to match a 4k monitor with even if i game at 1440 most the time.
 
People used to recommend the gtx780 over the 290/x and say Vram is not a problem and never will be. The gtx780 at the time was as fast as the 290x so i can see why a little. The 290x had better specs though and look at it now. Those recommending the gtx780 mainly because it's Nvidia look daft. I can see dx12 making the amd cards look even better.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom