Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,104
-
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
Texture quality has actually taken a huge downturn in priority for developers. Last generation, it was a pretty huge deal. Now? It's far more about lighting and shaders. They tend to play a much larger role than how sharp a texture is. Obviously they're still pushing texture resolutions(cuz they can), but the impact it's creating on the graphics is much smaller.
I still wouldn't recommend a 4GB card to anyone who cared about having nice graphics, but turning down texture settings is not quite the severe blow it used to be in most cases.
You mean like me.
For single card use at any resolution the Fury cards are fine.
You have to balance VRAM and GPU grunt so 4gb for one card is fine.
If you are into CF or SLI @2160p then you will need more VRAM, but most users are not.
I couldn't agree more, my old 780ti had 3gb ram and happily churned away at 1440p ultra settings.
Now all of a sudden 3gb is only good enough for 720p!
Didn't you choose a 3.5gb 970 over a 4gb 290?
As always having a Vram understanding that more>less doesn't make those I was specifically talking about any lesser thick than they are though does it?
It was an easy choice to make (as a gamer who just wants to game at the end of the day) between GW's shoving it's fist clean up AMD's ability and their own incompetence to get profiles out for mgpu-and that's the titles I was playing, so, better the devil you know for me.
Nv don't really make future proof gpu's, between the specs and dropping support at their choosing and knew that 3.5Gb turbo/.5Gb trotter mode would be ok(ish) until Nv decided you'd need more-leaving me with the option to bend over and pay through the nose for the 970's full fat 8Gb replacement.
Last edited:
As always having a Vram understanding that more>less doesn't make those I was specifically talking about any lesser thick than they are though does it?
It was an easy choice to make (as a gamer who just wants to game at the end of the day) between GW's shoving it's fist clean up AMD's ability and their own incompetence to get profiles out for mgpu-and that's the titles I was playing, so, better the devil you know for me.
Nv don't really make future proof gpu's, between the specs and dropping support at their choosing and knew that 3.5Gb turbo/.5Gb trotter mode would be ok(ish) until Nv decided you'd need more-leaving me with the option to bend over and pay through the nose for the 970's full fat 8Gb replacement.
You have no idea what you are talking about and try to disguise it by calling people thick! You have been caught out with these debates time and again and still you try and make out you know what is what lol. You should look closer to home if you want to see thick lmao
You have no idea what you are talking about and try to disguise it by calling people thick! You have been caught out with these debates time and again and still you try and make out you know what is what lol. You should look closer to home if you want to see thick lmao
While leaving his sentiments out of the equation he does know what he's talking about when it comes to the 970, he has had one for a year that i know of.
And so have i.
Thats not an argument, rather a point of fact
While leaving his sentiments out of the equation he does know what he's talking about when it comes to the 970, he has had one for a year that i know of.
And so have i.
Thats not an argument, rather a point of fact
Point of fact or not, there is always the option of turning down settings and the 970 isn't man enough to run some of the more modern games at 1080P with all the bells and whistles, so it kinda winds me up when people throw insults at others, when they clearly don't know what is what. I would personally have no issues running a 3/4GB card and sure I accept that settings would need to be turned down but not just because of VRAM but more so because of grunt. From the days of Skyrim Tommy has been trying to state his VRAM argument and he makes himself look silly but back then he didn't accuse people of being thick, so I was happy to let it slide but not this time.
Don't under estimate the 970.
The 970 doesn't have a problem with grunt, @ 1500/2000 its at least as fast as the 1060 6GB, in fact it scores about the same in 3DMark at that speed as the 1060 does at 2Ghz.
And so it should, the 970 has 30% more shaders, yes per clock per shader they perform pretty much identical.
The performance difference comes from the 1060 boosting out of the box to about 1850Mhz, sometimes higher, out of the box 970 only boost to about 1200Mhz.
The 1060 is simply a lot closer to its maximum performance out of the box than the 970 is.
The fact is more often than not it runs into it 0.5GB of slow buffer long before it runs out of grunt.
Last edited:
Of course the 970 has problems with grunt. Try running The Witcher 3/GTA 5/AC:Syndicate and so so many other games fully maxed out on a 970 and you will be well out of grunt.
Anyways, what would you recommend to someone who has a limited budget of say £200? Tell them there is nothing for them? Of course not, you give them options to their budget.
The 970 reviews have Witcher 3 and GTA V running at over 50 FPS on Ultra settings 1080P. <that's at stock. they overclock some 30%. unlike the 1060.
Like the 390/X the 970 and 980 should have been 8GB cards.
Thats averaging 35, at stock. overclock it and it will be averaging 45.
Perfectly fine frame rates.
The point we are making there are other games where frame rates are higher than that before it runs into V-Ram issues.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 11,431
- Location
- Crowmarsh
After installing my 1070 and running some tests running tomb raider maxed out at 1440p, I was shocked to see it was using 6.5gb of vram!
Why did Nvidia and AMD stop making double vram versions of their cards? Is it to discourage MGPU?
The 290x an the gtx680 were the last ones offered with the double vram varient wernt they? Im guessing Nvidia stopped doing it the same time they came up with the Titan and they didnt wanna give a cheaper option for those who needed lots of vram so they were stuck buying Titans. AMD i guess were limited to 4gig and couldnt offer an 8 gig option of their Fiji because of HBM.
Maybe they will both starting offering double vram options again just to close this thread
The 290x an the gtx680 were the last ones offered with the double vram varient wernt they? Im guessing Nvidia stopped doing it the same time they came up with the Titan and they didnt wanna give a cheaper option for those who needed lots of vram so they were stuck buying Titans. AMD i guess were limited to 4gig and couldnt offer an 8 gig option of their Fiji because of HBM.
Maybe they will both starting offering double vram options again just to close this thread
Why did Nvidia and AMD stop making double vram versions of their cards? Is it to discourage MGPU?
The 290x an the gtx680 were the last ones offered with the double vram varient wernt they? Im guessing Nvidia stopped doing it the same time they came up with the Titan and they didnt wanna give a cheaper option for those who needed lots of vram so they were stuck buying Titans. AMD i guess were limited to 4gig and couldnt offer an 8 gig option of their Fiji because of HBM.
Maybe they will both starting offering double vram options again just to close this thread
I think 16GB 390 would have been over the top
So what GPU do you recommend to people who have a budget of £200 or less? That is my point and one that seems to be missed. And as for frames, GTA 5 is one example (frmaes dropping under 30 there as well) and there is many others but avoid those as they don't suit your argument. I am far too tired from working all night to bother arguing over this and I will leave it for now but remember that not everyone here can afford top of the range GPUs or justify the price, so people should think before tying out stupid insults.
You're side stepping the point by making it all about GTA-V, there are a lot of other games in this world and some of them crap out on the V-Ram long before they run out of grunt.
If they are on a strict budget of £200 I would advise they save up a tenner and get an 8GB 470 or used 1060 6GB, RX 480 8GB or 390/X or 980TI if they can find one for around £200.
Last edited: