-
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.
Battlefield 4 Recommended Requirements - 3GB Vram
- Thread starter LtMatt
- Start date
Q1/2 2014. Many are sceptical though and think it will be more like the latter part of 2014.
Soldato
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
All I know is, my epeen demands 3GB. As that is "the lifestyle I've become accustomed to".
Size isn't everything, it's how you use it
In a game with all the bells and whistles on at 1600/1440p it certainly wont be vram that will be affected. I've read this full thread and you're a bit of a scaremonger and I'm pretty worried people may actually be influenced by what you say.
Forgive me for going on alpha benchmarks and recommended game requirements. I don't see how suggesting 2gb might be exceeded @higher resolutions and details is scare mongering. What we know so far all points to that being correct. I call it future proofing and to me and many others it makes good common sense.
If you add custom AA flags through Nvidia inspector like 4/8xmsaa+4ssgssaa (massive visual difference) then 2GB of ram at 1080p is not enough.
Also depends on wether your running at 60 or 120hz.
Last edited:
In the future, the speed/performance of any card will be its downfall before vram is affected. Vram is used and taken by whatever the game has available to it. This is seen with the same game using less than 2gb with 2gb cards being used and more than 2gb for 3gb card being used etc with no difference in performance. Games simply take whatever is available, and its quite greedy about it too.
I would be quite happy for you to show me the same game, same settings, and for a lower Vram card to struggle against a card with more Vram available to it.
Soldato
Way off the mark there bud. Being realistic about vram requirements for the future is not scaremongering especially considering the new consoles which are looming and the fact Amd are all over them, good sound advice from Lt Matt suggesting 2Gb may not be enough, particularly at higher res etc.
From an article: 'Lastly, 2 things effect bandwidth when looking at the specs. Memory clock and memory interface. Bandwidth will determine how much textures and such you can jam through your graphics card per frame pretty much. What's nice is higher bandwidth means more efficiently your Vram is being used. 2GB video cards with 256bit interfaces will use more Vram than a 2 or 3GB card with 384bit interfaces.'
Last edited:
Soldato
For the truth Matt: More from the above article:
'Vram is useless in lower end tier cards like a GT 630. Yes they make a 4GB version, but it's such a low end card you may only use 1GB MAX in any scenario. Vram or video memory is the graphics cards dedicate set of ram which is used to render textures, and the entire frame itself. As stated earlier, things like higher resolution, high amounts of textures and anti-aliasing require more and more Vram as time moves on. We are to the point where a lot of gamers are going beyond 1920x1080, to 2560x1440 as the prices of those monitor's are now down to $270.00 USD. The higher the resolution, the more dense the image, the more space it will take up in Video memory to render. 2GB for higher end gamers is actually not enough anymore and as 4K hit's 4GB+ is going to be the new standard. '
Soldato
To be fair at the start you suggested that 2GB might not be enough for 1080p with all the bells and whistles.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24913712&postcount=10
I said might, as i didn't want to guarantee anything only to have it bite me in the ass. I also said i think it will be ok. As always my point from the beginning which you kindly quoted is what i stand by.
By the way that might was based on the alpha vram benchmarks, which proved to be spot on according to the beta. Despite me getting told numerous times they were wrong.
Soldato
I said might, as i didn't want to guarantee anything only to have it bite me in the ass. I also said i think it will be ok. As always my point from the beginning which you kindly quoted is what i stand by.
By the way that might was based on the alpha vram benchmarks, which proved to be spot on according to the beta. Despite me getting told numerous times they were wrong.
Yeah, 'might' is a great word (I use fluffy words like that a lot). If 1080p is fine even with 4xMSAA or higher you can fall back on 'might' and if 1080p can't do more than 2xMSAA then you predicted it correctly all the way back on the 9th September but nobody listened! Win-win as you can't be wrong either way!
I made it pretty clear what i thought, that 1080p would be ok but above that the limit would be exceeded. I couldn't say with complete certainty either way, instead choosing to base my predictions on alpha benchmarks and official game requirements. Beta benchmarks have now proven me to be correct so ill leave it there.
Soldato
But they haven't though. They've shown 3GB cards using more than 2GB which has been shown a gazillion times before.
yeah but he is literally 'running'.. with the calc and vram in his pocket
Lots been made over the leaked 'strength' of the new releases, we all know it takes amd about 6 months to even release a decent driver.. til then the jury is out no?