4GB VS 8GB

Watlinguk · 14 Feb 2015 at 22:45

Disco_P said:
You can save £100 per card by getting the 4GB version and turning the textures in SoM from ultra to high.

I was using a 2GB 680 up until July last year which did run out of VRAM in some games at 1440p. I replaced it with a 3GB 780 and haven't hit the limit yet. So all this talk of needing more than 4GB is a little odd.

That's only on the 290 versions and not the 290X right?

Gregster · 14 Feb 2015 at 22:48

From reading around these forums, the minimum I would want is 6GB for 1080P, because of the unknown future.

Geeman1979 · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:17

Don't believe all the crap that's written around these forums.

Strokes his Titans

Shiari · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:40

Gregster said:
From reading around these forums, the minimum I would want is 6GB for 1080P, because of the unknown future.

Apem · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:43

Guys looking for suggestions on either 295 x2 or 980's in sli for 1440p monitor possibly 4k monitor?

Geeman1979 · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:49

If monies not an issue, the 980's. For out & out value for money the 295 x2.

~>Dg<~ · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:52

stulid said:
3.5GB is plenty, no need for more.

tbh this is close to the truth.

why ?

games need to sell. so many on here keep falling for all the vram arguments.

if the vram is more than the masses posses then the game doesn't sell

.

3.5-4gb will be fine for 99 percent for next 2 yrs.

Geeman1979 · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:54

Agreed ^^^

Shiari · 14 Feb 2015 at 23:58

~>Dg<~ said:
if the vram is more than the masses posses then the game doesn't sell .

3.5-4gb will be fine for 99 percent for next 2 yrs.

That's exactly how I see things, yeah :cool:

Disco_P · 15 Feb 2015 at 00:02

I would estimate that most PC gamers are currently running 2GB or less cards just fine. Their games look great, run smooth and are enjoyable. To many a 3.5/4GB card is a dream

Watlinguk said:
That's only on the 290 versions and not the 290X right?

290, 290x. They're pretty much the same.

ginjaninja · 15 Feb 2015 at 10:58

Watlinguk said:
Ah cool good stuff im just literally about to bite the bullet and get two 290x 8gb for x-fire for 1440P 144hz gaming. most of the reviews I read say the frames arnt as high as lets says 980 sli but the gaming experience is a lot smoother

Which kind of contradicts everything I though. I assumed more frames meant smoother gameplay :S

i think smoother can refer to two factors
Min FPS and Frame Time (The variance in time to render frames i believe)

ginjaninja · 15 Feb 2015 at 11:07

~>Dg<~ said:
3.5-4gb will be fine for 99 percent for next 2 yrs.

seems reasonable..but some judge value over a longer time frame..
My 2GB 5850s. play dying light fine...FPS is not great (highest), draw distance is not great, but high enough to enjoy the game as the people on max.

If you can only enjoy a game on max settings then the 2 year assessment is worthwhile...if you are happy to turn down a setting or two....less so...

given console gpu grunt (low by 290x standards)....i suspect that the grunt in the gpu at 1080p will not be deciding factor for the longer view.say 5 years...vram will increase in importance...

For this reason the 290X 8GB might just be the steal of the century...for the 5+ year view..1080p gamer... (and possibly also for the cross fire user at higher resolutions)

RanxZy · 15 Feb 2015 at 11:18

It's true that the 8GB 290X could almost be a lost opportunity for some in terms of the great price and longevity. Sort of like the 6GB 780s that NVIDIA sold for a short period.

Legend · 15 Feb 2015 at 11:33

ginjaninja said:
For this reason the 290X 8GB might just be the steal of the century...for the 5+ year view..1080p gamer... (and possibly also for the cross fire user at higher resolutions)

I agree @1080p it gives the most longevity, but I am bemused as to why anyone would happily settle remaining at 1080p for the next 5+ years?! Heck I don't intend to stay at 1440p much more than a year! It's an unnecessary hindrance, and within 5 years 4K will be very much accessible, so anyone at 1080p will feel very much left behind... and why, just so they can justify buying 8GB GPUs today, which is currently just not necessary at that resolution? Makes no sense to me, unless you plan on moving to the Alaskan wilderness with no ability to buy new tech.

ginjaninja · 15 Feb 2015 at 11:51

Legend said:
I agree @1080p it gives the most longevity, but I am bemused as to why anyone would happily settle remaining at 1080p for the next 5+ years?

as a projector gamer...4k Projectors may not be affordable in this time frame..i think there at £8500..so maybe in 4-5 years they will be the norm/no mark up..

Gabbatek · 15 Feb 2015 at 18:46

so a new monitor would be a better upgrade. To be fair, 1080p is fine for me i sit so bloody close to the screen

Final8y · 15 Feb 2015 at 20:25

~>Dg<~ said:
tbh this is close to the truth.

why ?

games need to sell. so many on here keep falling for all the vram arguments.

if the vram is more than the masses posses then the game doesn't sell .

3.5-4gb will be fine for 99 percent for next 2 yrs.

For the masses who dont mind playing on low and medium then sure, but this is an enthusiasts forum so dont be surprised if many want to play at enthusiasts settings or add Vram hungry mods.

Watlinguk · 15 Feb 2015 at 20:38

Disco_P said:
I would estimate that most PC gamers are currently running 2GB or less cards just fine. Their games look great, run smooth and are enjoyable. To many a 3.5/4GB card is a dream

290, 290x. They're pretty much the same.

Managed to bag two x MSI 290 4g for X-fire for £300 (Second hand) so shouldn't have much troubles at 1440p I hope

Gabbatek · 17 Feb 2015 at 18:51

So what happens when single or multi gpu's reach their vram limit?

ginjaninja · 17 Feb 2015 at 20:35

Gabbatek said:
So what happens when single or multi gpu's reach their vram limit?

it is paged to system memory..but thats EVEN slower that the 0.5GB on a 970. So fps will drop off quickly..