bemaniac said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've been holding off pulling the trigger on some excellent deals that have come up on 780/780ti's precisely for this reason. Anyone in the market now for a new GPU is probably best of waiting till 8 series / 3 series. Lukily I had a few 290s spare from mining rigs to throw together a system for wolfenstein and watchdogs!

LtMatt said:

By the sounds of it, 6-8GB lol.

Click to expand...

Possibly even more for next gen games? If consoles at 1080p are using upto 6GB VRAM then with increased fidelity and resolutions on PC we could see requirement soar even more...

Craterloads said:

I've been holding off pulling the trigger on some excellent deals that have come up on 780/780ti's precisely for this reason. Anyone in the market now for a new GPU is probably best of waiting till 8 series / 3 series.

Click to expand...

That's a long wait.

Not if people stopped buying 780's it would not be such a long wait. Now the next phase is cat and mouse with the 6GB version. Anything to avoid having to dip into Maxwell now will suffice both camps but the horsepower is not even there on single card for games that require 6GB. For example you spend £600 on a 8GB card and run wolfenstein or Watchdogs as a res with AA that requires so much vram. Now watch as you cannot even maintain 60fps but have plenty of video memory lol.


Maxwell 6GB is a basic requirement of AAA games now Wolfenstein and Watchdogs are the two most recent and struggle. I have been looking at a 4K monitor too and whats the point without Maxwell?

Has anyone here seen Watchdogs on PC ? It is not a great looking game by any means. The fact it needs so much vram is certainly not due to the amazing graphics that's for sure.

It looks marginally better than GTAV and that ran with a Max of 512mb total ram on consoles. This games hardware demands are ludicrous. Its bad lazy coding at its finest..

Just been messing around with the settings of the game. There are some serious stutters when using ultra textures and msaa at 1080p with a gtx 780. Msaa doesn't do a great job and txaa gets rid of the aliasing at the cost of blurring.

The textures are not great anyway especially in the daytime but this game comes into it's own at night.

Vram usage maxes out straight away and drops back down to 2800mb sometimes. Not happy with the performance with ultra textures and aa.

Fps drops a low as 43 with 4x msaa but averages approx 55-60. Much better with 2x msaa though and 2x txaa, 60 fps and higher.

I have a 2600k @ 4.5ghz btw. My brother has a i5 3470 at stock and a 780 as well. He's getting minimum fps in the 30's.

There's a lot to mess with so I going to figure out the best playable settings.

This old chestnut again.

setter said:

Here we go again, the annual enough vram debate.

Click to expand...

it's not even annual, it seems to be every few days

pfft 3gb of RAM for watchdogs...

Child of light is still hell prettier

Keep your pricey AAA VRAM munchers ubisoft. I am perfectly happy with your glowy and pretty budget titles.

Will 128tb be enough for "the future"?

setter said:

Here we go again, the weekly enough vram debate.

Click to expand...

(Edited for accuracy)

LtMatt said:

I was saying this before the consoles launched. It was obvious it was going to happen really. Its hard to believe that you need 4gb though for 14400P in watchdogs.

Bet you're glad you didn't accept the community driven 780 now hey bumhug lol.

Click to expand...

14400P in watchdogs. 14k

hlennie said:

Well I have 4gb 680s flashed to 770 and the only two games I have seen use 4gb are watchdogs and wolfenstien drop settings and usage goes down slightly

think people are worring too much about there ram I mean has any one actually not been able to play a game because they don't have enough video memory?

Click to expand...

I think it's more a case of not being able to play the game the way you want to play it.

It reminds me of the other thread which was something like...

In an article Nvidia were like: "You don't really need more than 2GB of vram for 1920 res if games were well-coded and optimised"...

Me: "Well, unfortunate for us games in general ARE sloppy coded and poorly optimised"...


And blam! WatchDogs performance results is here to prove my point

Marine-RX179 said:

It reminds me of the other thread which was something like...

In an article Nvidia were like: "You don't really need more than 2GB of vram for 1920 res if games were well-coded and optimised"...

Me: "Well, unfortunate for us games in general ARE sloppy coded and poorly optimised"...


And blam! WatchDogs performance results is here to prove my point

Click to expand...

And considering it's Nvidia backed didn't they do well.

Thrust4Money said:

It is always worrying to think you might not have enough of something, I have the same problem with Viagra.

Click to expand...

A lol moment

This thread should get an award for most unintentionally funny title

Anyone who claimed 2GB is enough for a few years were guessing, pure and simple.

I roll my eyes when I see people say GPU grunt runs out long before VRAM limits become a problem. These people have obviously never seen how poor a game performs when it hits the VRAM wall. It is always better to go for more VRAM if you have the option. It's called future proofing. We are starting to see where games are demanding more VRAM. When a game stutters and jumps due to VRAM limits, the "2GB is more than enough" brigade will tell you it just a "poorly optimised game". Eventually the trickle of "poorly optimised games" will become a flood.