Soldato
Time to join the red side again with 4gb cards.
No, quite happy with my Nvidia 4GB card.
-
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.
So...3GB isn't enough for the future?
- Thread starter Davanius
- Start date
No, quite happy with my Nvidia 4GB card.
Soldato
I hate when this gets touted like its easy to optimise a game engine for thousands of different hardware configurations. Titanfall devs done it which made the game circa 50GB and got criticised for it.
From my understanding, is that a few recent games use as much VRAM as is available and caches it for use hence why we don't see usage fluctuating like before.
Caporegime
@ OP wow, /me Throws out 780ti and refits 680 4GB FTW.
No need to do that. AMD have 4gb cards available faster than a 680.
Permabanned
Pretty much this.
If a game as beautiful as Metro Last Light can run less than 2Gb then that tells me the sign of things to come are:
1. "next gen ports"
2. Lazy coding
3. unoptimized games
But then you have to expect that from Ubisoft judging how crap AC and Splinter Cell in recent times were. It's a ploy to push hardware sales, that is all. Take Titfall for example, you trying to tell me on "Insane textures" that looked as good as a normal COD game? People just delude themselves but then a fool and his money are easily parted.
Caporegime
Here yer are' jh30uk... Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Vapor-X OC 8192MB.
8GB 290X, no need to worry about vRam for some time yet
really nice card too.
8GB 290X, no need to worry about vRam for some time yet
really nice card too.
Associate
No PhysX/CUDA -> No purchase (for me at least)
Anyway, with the regards to the original topic - my 780s are doing just fine, I posted a screenshot a while back showing Crysis 3 (still the most graphically intensive game) using less than 3GB VRAM maxed out at 1440p, i.e. you're going to hit the barrier of unplayable fps before you max VRAM usage out anyway.
Man of Honour
I think game Devs have got a nerve publishing games like this with excessive requirements for VRAM as I think it is totally uncalled for.
If you take Crysis 3 as the benchmark for graphically demanding games, it can be run at 1080p maxed out on 2gb cards (with CF or SLI). With the graphics detail in this game you can see why it is so demanding.
Having said that why are games Devs publishing games that are nowhere near as good graphically and also limited to 60fps that demand far more VRAM than Crysis 3 to run, the game Devs are having a laugh (probably all the way to the bank).
If you take Crysis 3 as the benchmark for graphically demanding games, it can be run at 1080p maxed out on 2gb cards (with CF or SLI). With the graphics detail in this game you can see why it is so demanding.
Having said that why are games Devs publishing games that are nowhere near as good graphically and also limited to 60fps that demand far more VRAM than Crysis 3 to run, the game Devs are having a laugh (probably all the way to the bank).
Man of Honour
I have cards with more than 4gb I could use but if a game came along in the near future that needed 5 or 6gb @1080p I would not buy or play it on principle.
Caporegime
Its not as simple as that. You can't just blame the Developer based on another Developer.
Cry-engine 3 uses long distance texture compression, the further out the textures are the lower quality / res they are, which is fine for small maps like Crysis3. for long distance view maps it looks horrible, i know this because i'm developing something for a bit of fun with the Free Cryengine 3 SDK.
Diffrent types of games can be optimised in different ways, with smaller maps you don't need longer high res tiling, so the vRam is a lot less, but if you want large open spaces to look good, you have to render higher quality at long distance, that uses significantly more vRam.
Permabanned
+1 Internets. I dont think 3 or 4gb is future proof so I will hang on to my 780s until the next gen of cards. I'm feeling very disenfranchised about PC gaming in general at the moment as the only 2 games I have played since I got my 2nd 780 dont even support SLI (Titanfall and wolfy).
Caporegime
I'd go out of my way to get it as demanding titles usually interest me more than non demanding ones. Its obviously not an exact science, but the demanding titles, be it in fps terms or vram usage definitely interest me.
That said i don't think we'll see 4gb breached for a while at 1080P or higher. The consoles and their limitations will see to that.
A number of these games were forgoing texture compression completely. This is OK for a console where you have a massive chunk of (albeit slower) VRAM. It's a bad idea for a PC which has mixed memory buses with relatively limited bandwidth between them.
There's no excuse for it, DXTC massively cuts down on the required VRAM with no noticeable loss in image quality.
There's no excuse for it, DXTC massively cuts down on the required VRAM with no noticeable loss in image quality.
Caporegime
PC is meant to be the pinnacle of Gaming, Texture compression is not good, Developers do it in modern games because of the lack of vRam available.
What this means is maps are generally small, if the maps are large developers use different ways to get around it, Cite 'Far Cry 3', bountiful maps with lots of texture, at high points you can see log distance, but because of the nature of the map and all the texture in it; to get around vRam limits they use distance blurring, so everything at longer range is a hazy blur.
BF4, big wide open Map? that would be Silk Road, but there is nothing in the map, no detail, no mixtures of textures.... the whole thing is just one texture, Sand.
PC Games are all about compromising.
Someone on this forum asked if GPU's are holding back PC Gaming.
Yes, they are. if we want photo realistic textures, at full view and all flavours, without IQ killing compromise.... we have to accept that games will start to use more vRam.
Soldato
"Future proof" is subjective. I mean, you would say that when trying to cover use for X years, giving a relatively long lifespan to a component/item. But you know the day will come. It's pointless just saying "the future" or "future proof" without stating a date/year/milestone in mind.
When UHD/4K becomes the norm then we'll be requiring over 4GB I'm sure. Given the fact that'll be a few years and graphics will be slightly more complex with age as well.
Until then, I'll be on 1920x1080 res which 2Gb is easily enough for currently. My GTX690 will struggle with power before VRAM issues, I have confidence in that.
Though having said that, I have been browsing/waitin for UHD and 4K screens and what red and green have to offer to power them. But now really isn't the time for me, current cards are priced high given the age and 20nm is next year.
When UHD/4K becomes the norm then we'll be requiring over 4GB I'm sure. Given the fact that'll be a few years and graphics will be slightly more complex with age as well.
Until then, I'll be on 1920x1080 res which 2Gb is easily enough for currently. My GTX690 will struggle with power before VRAM issues, I have confidence in that.
Though having said that, I have been browsing/waitin for UHD and 4K screens and what red and green have to offer to power them. But now really isn't the time for me, current cards are priced high given the age and 20nm is next year.
Caporegime
Soldato
What kind of VRAM usage can we expect at 4K watchdogs?
Picking up a 4K 65" set at end of next month
Picking up a 4K 65" set at end of next month
Caporegime
By the sounds of it, 6-8GB lol.
Soldato
oh nuts. I spent over £1000 early on for the 780s within days of release and now there is a game that needs the power they cap out on ram!!!!!! Are these really limiting me at 1600p with basic temperal AA? This is a 10 year turning point for me I may get rid of my pc.