• 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

humbug said:
3GB lol no!!!!! 720P card.
4GB with reduced textures.
6GB perfectly fine at the moment.
8GB Future proofed.

dgsz.jpg
Click to expand...

spot the unoptimized games also out of those :p

oh thats right, all of them :D

4gb at 1080 is fine.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
spot the unoptimized games also out of those :p

oh thats right, all of them :D

4gb at 1080 is fine.
Click to expand...

Unoptimized?

Unoptimized is a word banded around to describe anything that flies the face of their arguments.

Its really lame.
 
Final8y said:
Unoptimized or not thats how much Vram they need.
Click to expand...

Not really it is just how much Vram they used, not how much was actually needed, or as the article puts it.
The following table shows the requested by the games quantity memory on the Radeon RX 480 with 8,192 MB. That does not mean that the games need memory requested at any time, but is a first orientation.
Click to expand...

Don't you just love translated articles. :D
 
Right, its been said many times before, there is a level of V-Ram needed for a game but what's used is not necessarily what it needs.

Having said that the more is has the less file swapping is going on, its not loading and then clearing buffer to make space for the next lot, that has an impact on performance.

Its better if the GPU can just Cache in buffer and not need to move it again, it results in more consistent performance and smoother gameplay.
 
I remember one of the COD games showing 10GB as the VRAM being used, so from articles like this, do we assume that more than 10GB is needed? Of course not, it is what is being used but not needed. Articles like this are just flimsy and not technical in the slightest. AMDMatt stated that his 4GB cards ran just fine in Doom with a workaround to enable the nightmare textures.

My point being, whilst I personally wouldn't want a 3/4GB card, they are out there and they suit budgets, so I would assume those on a strict budget wouldn't mind turning the odd setting down to enjoy their games. There seems to be a bit of a thing here, where every game must be maxed out to be enjoyed and that really isn't the case. Some can't afford or justify spending a lot on computer parts and they can still enjoy games as much as those here. Hell, if you run AMD cards, you can't have the settings maxed out in some of the newer games, because they simply lack the grunt, so regardless of VRAM, you would need to turn down settings to get it playable anyways.
 
Keep reading about 4GB not being enough yet my Fury is fine at 1440P, it had no issues what so ever with BF1 Ultra settings. The only game I've not been able to max out textures is Doom and I cant say it bothered me at all

Seems like a lot of fuss over something that really is a none issue for most people
 
Gregster said:
I remember one of the COD games showing 10GB as the VRAM being used, so from articles like this, do we assume that more than 10GB is needed? Of course not, it is what is being used but not needed. Articles like this are just flimsy and not technical in the slightest. AMDMatt stated that his 4GB cards ran just fine in Doom with a workaround to enable the nightmare textures.

My point being, whilst I personally wouldn't want a 3/4GB card, they are out there and they suit budgets, so I would assume those on a strict budget wouldn't mind turning the odd setting down to enjoy their games. There seems to be a bit of a thing here, where every game must be maxed out to be enjoyed and that really isn't the case. Some can't afford or justify spending a lot on computer parts and they can still enjoy games as much as those here. Hell, if you run AMD cards, you can't have the settings maxed out in some of the newer games, because they simply lack the grunt, so regardless of VRAM, you would need to turn down settings to get it playable anyways.
Click to expand...

From what I have seen in most cases what is needed is about 2/3 of what is displayed as being used so if 9gb is used, about 6gb of that will be needed.

Rarely there are games that do need more than the above but they are rare.

As to 4gb HBM cards they don't use any less than GDDR5(X) cards and sometimes use even more. This happened to me where a Fury X was using more memory than a Titan X in AOTS maxed out.
 
The article showed that on the lower Vram cards frame times were worse which would effect smoothness if bad enough. The worst offender was the 3gb card and no surprise there. I have a 4gb card and i am still getting along quit nicely atm. If i was buying now i would take an 8gb card no questions asked. The same as i would take my 290 4gb over a gtx780 3gb. The same as i would have taken a 7970 3gb over a gtx680 2gb. I would also take a 980ti over a Fury X. History has shown the wise man has bought the same graphics power with more Vram and has benefited from doing so.
 
At the end of the day all these opposite points of view stand on there own merits,

Yes you can run games perfectly fine with only 4 gb's of ram and to do so only requires something like the textures to be turned down one which would make such a small difference that it would require you to stop playing and do a like for like comparison to tell who was running high and who was running very high.

It's slowly becoming more and more common for you to need more than 4gb's of ram to max a game with it's best visuals with it still remaining at playable frame rates.

It's all to do with the current trend of using high quality textures which as we've known for some time is the direction console game developers have taken to maximise how pretty there game is for as little a performance hit as possible, Modders have been doing it for years making games look better than they did originally so it was an obvious move for games developers to do it, the surprise is how long it took them but I suppose that was down to so many games being console born and it wasn't really an option for them until the new consoles released and had the ram available to do it.

When I upgrade my Fury it will have to be to something with at least 8 gb's or I won't buy it.
 
Dave2150 said:
I pity those who were too uneducated/foolish enough to buy a Fury GPU with only 4GB VRAM.
Click to expand...

Bite me :D


I find it funny to watch how certain peoples pro this and anti that posting changes based on there current purchases, There the uneducated/foolish people in need of your pity, (and those buying a card with 4gb's of HBM and expecting it to magically handle 6gb's worth of memory).

For me the last year with my Fury has been so good that it tipped the scales enough to persuade me to get off the fence and buy a freesync monitor effectively tying me to AMD for the forseeable.
 
Last edited:
If people think 4gb GDDR5 = 4gb HBM, those people are lost causes and there's no point in engaging with them. The article has all the facts you need.
 
tommybhoy said:
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.:p
Click to expand...

Didn't you choose a 3.5gb 970 over a 4gb 290? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom