All this talk of Vram

[ntemples1]

Having read all the various threads on Vram, I am a little bit confused with it all, Is the following summary correct?

2560 x 1600 and lower = 1.5 gb cards should be sufficient

2560 x 1600 and higher = 2 gb cards minimum really

I game at 2560 x 1600 and have 2 EVGA GTX 680's coming today, now I see the 4GB versions will be released next week not sure if I should get those instead?

This thread is nothing to do with brand by the way as I have no loyalty to either, it's purely about memory of the cards.

 

[andybird123]

it's a tough one, I would wait and see what the reviews say about, say BF3 (as it's a known VRAM hog) usage at 1600p with high AA

I game at 1080p and I see usage of 1.8GB on a 3GB card and I personally noticed texture streaming on a 1.5GB card... some people don't notice it

having said that, the 680 apparently has a main of using main ram for caching which is new and betterer than other cards

given that 580 3GB cards still seem to be selling for quite high prices, I am seriously tempted to sell it and get a 680 4GB with a view to going SLI

I personally think that 4GB will give you better "future proof-ness" given that some games are already near to using 2GB even at resolutions below 1600p

given that you are already spending so much on 680 SLI, the little bit extra for 4GB cards might not seem so bad in the long run if it makes them last longer - plus it looks like some really tasty OC models are coming out soon

 

[Darr2cool78]

think you got it about right but also its probly dependant on the actual game how much the VRAM will affect it (BF3 for example). As far as I know the VRAM in SLI/Crossfire doesn't stack so 2x 680 2gb for example will still only weild 2gb in total but maybe someone could confirm this? If you can afford 4gb versions go for it

 

[mmj_uk]

2GB will be fine for a single monitor, 3GB & 4GB cards are aimed mainly at multiple screens or those with OCD about VRAM.

1280MB cards are still yet to show any signs of being insufficent at 1920x1200 despite all of the hysteria on here.

 

[Rusty0611]

it's a tough one, I would wait and see what the reviews say about, say BF3 (as it's a known VRAM hog) usage at 1600p with high AA

I game at 1080p and I see usage of 1.8GB on a 3GB card and I personally noticed texture streaming on a 1.5GB card... some people don't notice it

having said that, the 680 apparently has a main of using main ram for caching which is new and betterer than other cards

given that 580 3GB cards still seem to be selling for quite high prices, I am seriously tempted to sell it and get a 680 4GB with a view to going SLI

I personally think that 4GB will give you better "future proof-ness" given that some games are already near to using 2GB even at resolutions below 1600p

given that you are already spending so much on 680 SLI, the little bit extra for 4GB cards might not seem so bad in the long run if it makes them last longer - plus it looks like some really tasty OC models are coming out soon

Well, I see around 1.6GB on a 2GB card in the same scenario (lower if I disable Aero when loading into BF3). The more RAM you have, the more you "use" - cache. 2GB is more than enough for single monitors.

There's all kind of reviews saying that the 680 is still performing on par with the 7970 in multi-monitor/high res set up's @ max overclock. Without an actual reading of what VRAM the game needs we're all just guessing really. But all this "I use nearly 2GB on a 3GB card" is a just a little misleading.

I do agree with your general point about getting to the point where it could become an issue and if you can afford to future-proof, why not?

 

[straxusii]

In summary no one really knows, whilst we can report amount of ram allocated by the GPU it doesnt mean having less ram than that would lead to a performance degradation.

 

[ntemples1]

OK thanks, for the info guys, so I should really be fine with 2 680's in SLI at 2560 x 1600 then, I can't really justify the extra cost for the 4gb versions so I think I'll just stick with the 2gb ones.

I guess by the time it really becomes a big issue new flagship cards will be out anyway making the point a moot one.

 

[ntemples1]

680's arriving at 13.45, right, time to drain my loop (so to speak).

 

[Gregster]

Different sizes of memory on GPU's will show different VRAM usages. I have aero turned off and it shows around 1400MB usage and as much as 1700MB in Places.

Good thread in honesty and will be good to see different cards usage.

My stats are full ultra with 4xMSAA on 1080P

 

[raralis]

There is a bit of confusion and contradiction over this matter.

I've been using 1gb graphics cards for 1600p and other than a handful of games, the majority don't require so much vram.

You get the usual suspects such as BF3, Metro, Crysis, witcher 2 and shogun 2 which once run at 1600p and higher with all details on max will require a 1.5gb gfx card.

Once you start enabling AA, you will need 2gb of vram, but at this point the gpu does not have enough grunt to run anything smoothly.

Your best choice at this stage is to use high end multi gpu setups which come with 2-3gb vram anyway.

Some people would advise to get a 4gb or 6gb vram graphics card which I think is moot as gpus will have a difficult time to output decent fps if a game requires so much vram.

Yes, extra vram might help the graphics cards last a bit longer before an upgrade but at that stage, newer and more powerful graphics cards would be available that render the entire scenario pointless.

In conclusion, I would advise to go for the best graphics cards you can afford that come with 2-3gb of vram (depending on maker preference).

If money is irrelevant, go for 4-6gb vram graphic cards.

Rara