-
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.
[Computerbase] - 3gb vs 4gb vs 6gb vs 8gb GDDR5 VRAM Frametime Testing
- Thread starter Final8y
- Start date
Mmm, 3GB really isn't enough even for 1080p now. I was using a GTX 780 until a few months ago and lots of juggling was required to keep things under that limit. Even stepping up to 4GB reduces the number of games that are a problem dramatically, although it's obviously going to be a case of the more VRAM the better going forwards.
6GB seems like enough if you're not picky about always needing max texture settings.
8GB is clearly ideal, though.
3-4GB cards - wouldn't bother at all unless you're fine turning down texture and draw distance settings or simply dont play many modern AAA games. There's still clearly a market for PC gamers like this, but obviously on an enthusiast board like this, I dont expect many people to think that's acceptable.
8GB is clearly ideal, though.
3-4GB cards - wouldn't bother at all unless you're fine turning down texture and draw distance settings or simply dont play many modern AAA games. There's still clearly a market for PC gamers like this, but obviously on an enthusiast board like this, I dont expect many people to think that's acceptable.
I'd say they're both pretty much worth avoiding for people who like to play the latest games. There are going to be more and more games like these ones going forward.
Always had the impression that it takes a special type of thick to recommend comparable 'grunt' gpu's with lesser vram over the higher equipped equivalent especially when the higher specced gpu was most of the time considerably cheaper-in regards to people asking and looking for the cheapest solution-yes you know who you are.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,220
Always had the impression that it takes a special type of thick to recommend comparable 'grunt' gpu's with lesser vram over the higher equipped equivalent especially when the higher specced gpu was most of the time considerably cheaper-in regards to people asking and looking for the cheapest solution-yes you know who you are.
+1
God I hate translated articles, so difficult to get through.
Well Fairly predictable, according to them 3Gb and even 4Gb is not enough sometimes, whereas 6 is just enough and 8 is fine.
It would be nice to see the framerates that were being reported while the issues were happening, because if it only happens when your getting low FPS then it is unplayable anyway, but if it is still at 50-60FPS+ then it is definitely an issue.
Looking at their test of the 3GB 1060 HERE and utilising the drop down menu to select the different games it does seem to be only a very few that 3 and 4GB isn't enough to get good framerates.
It does lead me to question the future proofing issue once more as these cards are just not powerful enough be useful for more than a year or two.
Well Fairly predictable, according to them 3Gb and even 4Gb is not enough sometimes, whereas 6 is just enough and 8 is fine.
It would be nice to see the framerates that were being reported while the issues were happening, because if it only happens when your getting low FPS then it is unplayable anyway, but if it is still at 50-60FPS+ then it is definitely an issue.
Looking at their test of the 3GB 1060 HERE and utilising the drop down menu to select the different games it does seem to be only a very few that 3 and 4GB isn't enough to get good framerates.
It does lead me to question the future proofing issue once more as these cards are just not powerful enough be useful for more than a year or two.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,220
A gtx780 was powerful enough to be used for more than a few years. It had 3gb Vram v a 290/x's 4gb. A lot of us here were recommending taking the higher Vram as it would last longer. We were all told the 290/x would run out of grunt before Vram. Guess what it never. The same was said about the 7970 3gb over the 680 2gb. The same thing happened. There is lower tier cards like the 660ti/760 2gb v the 7950 3gb where people were going for the 660ti/760 on members of ocuk's recommendations and they look really stupid now. If grunt is similar why not cover it off by taking the higher Vram option.
Last edited:
That's why the 3GB 1060 was a stupid decision by Nvidia and shouldn't be considered if you are looking to use your card for more than a year at 1080p high settings. If Nvidia sold a 3GB 980, people would have called that ridiculous. With DX12 making it easier for units on screen and larger maps in games, developers are only going to make games that are more VRAM demanding. HBM2 on the horizon for consumer graphics and 6/8GB VRAM being the norm for mid range this gen only puts another nail in the coffin.
I dont think DX12 has much to do with making larger maps. That's usually a memory constraint sort of thing.
In fact, we've really gotten to the point where map size is less a technical limitation and more game design decision. You can do extremely large maps nowadays, but it's very difficult to utilize that space effectively in a way that is fun for the gamer and not incredibly taxing in terms of the effort required to curate it with tailored content. That's what the limitation nowadays is.
Also, lots of AI or whatever on-screen is more of a CPU limitation than memory. And this will be limited by what is possible on consoles for many games.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
This isn't really new news, plenty of us have been saying this for some time, Going forward you want to be looking at 8 or a minimum of 6gb's to make sure you can max the visuals. People still go on about how a gpu will run out of grunt before the ram becomes an issue even though it's been clearly not the case for a couple of years now. As for the 3gb 1060 this is a card that is faster than a 970 yet it has less ram than the 970 at a time when the development trend is to use more vram than ever before, Buying it rather than adding the extra for the 6gb model makes no sense to me.
Textures are by far the biggest impact on V-Ram.
They are also the most important thing in visual quality.
Higher resolution textures = sharper more detailed world and assets, high resolution textures also = more V-Ram, textures are images used to skin everything you see.
Its also not just that those textures are becoming higher res, they are also using increasingly elaborate methods in using textures for lighting and shading effects, Bump Mapping, Hight Mapping, Dirt Maps, Decals..... so one or two texture layers on an asset suddenly becomes five.
This is what the article talks about, because consoles have a lot of memory available to them developers are filling it with with better textures to make their games look better.
They are also the most important thing in visual quality.
Higher resolution textures = sharper more detailed world and assets, high resolution textures also = more V-Ram, textures are images used to skin everything you see.
Its also not just that those textures are becoming higher res, they are also using increasingly elaborate methods in using textures for lighting and shading effects, Bump Mapping, Hight Mapping, Dirt Maps, Decals..... so one or two texture layers on an asset suddenly becomes five.
This is what the article talks about, because consoles have a lot of memory available to them developers are filling it with with better textures to make their games look better.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Pretty much this,
I was disappointed in Digital Foundry recently when they did the vid about 3gb's being fine for the 1060 and comparing the 6gb and 3gb models, There saying yeah you can see it makes no real difference while ignoring the fact that having to do tests such as the Tomb Raider one on a lower texture setting than they usually use,
WHY?
Because 3gb's wasn't enough for the bench to run cleanly, But instead of saying that all they say is "Yeah so as you can see the 3gb 1060 runs it withing a couple of frames of the full 1060 as expected due to the fewer cores"! Completely sugar coating over the point of the video.
Last edited:
So we all seem to be agreed that 3/4GB going forward just isn't enough, while 6Gb is ok for now with 8GB being plenty.
As for the power of the 480 and 1060, unlike the 780 and 290 before them, they were top of the tree when they were introduced and have stood the test of time well, but the 1060 and 480 have been introduced to us already at the midrange segment, I really don't think they will last too well in the future as they are just not powerful enough.
As for the power of the 480 and 1060, unlike the 780 and 290 before them, they were top of the tree when they were introduced and have stood the test of time well, but the 1060 and 480 have been introduced to us already at the midrange segment, I really don't think they will last too well in the future as they are just not powerful enough.
Its little to do with the power of rendering.
If a game consoles is powerful enough to run 6GB worth of textures so are the GTX 1060 and RX 480. hosting texture in V-Ram has no effect of performance, moving them in and out of there does... another reason why having more V-Ram is better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,220
You might be right but the way we are being drip fed i would not be to sure. Things have slowed down a lot which makes cards last way longer. My 290 still ran the Bf1 beta at the ultra preset @ 1200p no problem. There is still good life left in it and it's around 480 performance. I might struggle soon with 4gb Vram.
I am waiting on Vega for a full system rebuild and Freesync monitor. Hopefully by then the £ has recovered a little to make things a little better on my wallet.
Last edited: