[Computerbase] - 3gb vs 4gb vs 6gb vs 8gb GDDR5 VRAM Frametime Testing

humbug · 16 Sep 2016 at 13:52

Gregster said:
Indeed for years I ran with lower priced gear and this is why I can see budget builds being just fine. I remember running a pair of 680s when I decided to treat myself and running 3 x 1080P monitors and oddly enough, I never ran out of VRAM and that is with a measly 2GB per GPU but you insisted that it was a problem and you are doing the same now but it wasn't and it isn't and sure, for those who have the money, there is 8GB options, which makes sense.

People need to consider grunt as well as VRAM and this gets missed every time. What is the point of putting 8GB on a 1050 for instance? VRAM scales with the GPU and it makes it cheaper for the buyer, ergo 1070/80 are powerful cards, so having more VRAM to have the higher textures and AA makes sense, a 1060 with 3GB might well be right at the bottom of the choices but at £185, it is a consideration and the VRAM won't be an issue, so long as the buyer understands that it is a 1080P card and not a 4K card.

I do wish people would look at the big picture before typing.

There are options for around that money with more than 3GB, or even 4GB.

Do you have a problem with us recommending those and explaining why?

If not then the last page or two in this thread has been utterly pointless.
There are alternatives, we are explaining the reasons for those alternatives, just leave it be.

bru · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:00

Well please show us some results with a 1500MHz 970 matching or beating a 2GHz 1060 in 3dmark then.
Or even any benchmarks, because in just about every benchmark I can find the 1060 is about 10-20% faster.

On a side note, if the 970 is so miraculously fast where does that leave AMD's RX480, most sites have it listed around 20% faster than a 970, but if a 970 is as fast as a 1060 then are you suggesting that a 480 would be 20% faster again.

Gregster · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:03

humbug said:
There are options for around that money with more than 3GB, or even 4GB.

Do you have a problem with us recommending those and explaining why?

If not then the last page or two in this thread has been utterly pointless.
There are alternatives, we are explaining the reasons for those alternatives, just leave it be.

I don't have a problem with you recommending at all but that doesn't make you right and that is my point. There is people in this thread telling you that their lower VRAM cards are coping just fine but you ignore those and carry on with this VRAM debacle. The last page or 2 has proven my point about VRAM and how it is enough, even at 3GB and this is what you are missing.

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/96412-evga-geforce-gtx-1060-sc-gaming-3gb/

You can see there that the 3GB is coping just fine and winning most of the games tested Vs its more expensive competitor (the 480), so you tell me why it isn't a good buy at £185?

TheRealDeal · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:05

bru said:
Well please show us some results with a 1500MHz 970 matching or beating a 2GHz 1060 in 3dmark then.
Or even any benchmarks, because in just about every benchmark I can find the 1060 is about 10-20% faster.

On a side note, if the 970 is so miraculously fast where does that leave AMD's RX480, most sites have it listed around 20% faster than a 970, but if a 970 is as fast as a 1060 then are you suggesting that a 480 would be 20% faster again.

This is what you need to match them up in Gpu score.

Score 11669, GPU 970 @1552/2030, GFX Score 13993, Physics Score 11593, Combined Score 5220, CPU 3770k @4.5, GS1981, Post No.0902 - Link Drivers 365.10

Score 9417, GPU 1060 @2050/2249, GFX Score 13985, Physics Score 5931, Combined Score 3667, CPU i3-6100 @3.7, Daaaveee, Post No.1142 - Link Drivers 368.81

That i3 may be limiting the 1060 though so not sure. That's the only 1060 on our bench thread.

humbug · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:08

bru said:
Well please show us some results with a 1500MHz 970 matching or beating a 2GHz 1060 in 3dmark then.
Or even any benchmarks, because in just about every benchmark I can find the 1060 is about 10-20% faster.

On a side note, if the 970 is so miraculously fast where does that leave AMD's RX480, most sites have it listed around 20% faster than a 970, but if a 970 is as fast as a 1060 then are you suggesting that a 480 would be 20% faster again.

Highest GTX 1060 score i could see in Kaap's Fire Strike thread.

Score 9417, GPU 1060 @2050/2249, GFX Score 13985

Thats a GPU score of 13,985 @ 2.05Ghz

My own 970 @ 1554/1950

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8573432

GPU score 13,906.

In reality the 1060 in DX11 is no faster than the 970. the 6GB 1060 BTW, the 3GB 1060 is slower.

On a side note, if the 970 is so miraculously fast where does that leave AMD's RX480, most sites have it listed around 20% faster than a 970, but if a 970 is as fast as a 1060 then are you suggesting that a 480 would be 20% faster again.

The 970 overclocks like no other card can, its a lot faster than its out of box state suggests.

The RX 480 isn't and doesn't

why do you think i'm not interested in it despite getting a little desperate to get rid of the 970 now...

tommybhoy · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:21

Ian Evey said:
I agree that Anyone buying new now should look at the amount of vram as it might be a big deal to anyone wanting as much aye candy as possible, The gpu may still run out of grunt like it always has done and if thats the case then turn some things down.

I agree, that has always been the case though if 2 competing cards are on par price/performance wise, but on release gfx cards are so different either in performance or price.

I would want 6gb at least if i were to upgrade and thats the advice i would give, none of this 3gb 1060 malarky.

Agreed.

Gregster said:
Indeed for years I ran with lower priced gear and this is why I can see budget builds being just fine. I remember running a pair of 680s when I decided to treat myself and running 3 x 1080P monitors and oddly enough, I never ran out of VRAM and that is with a measly 2GB per GPU but you insisted that it was a problem and you are doing the same now but it wasn't and it isn't

You've just told us it did yet you junked them before they were eol-you don't have the know how that it was enough-meanwhile a 7950 was eating the 670/80 series for breakfast on higher settings long long after you sold up due to what-the memory allocation/configuration?

You missed the underlying point then as now on how long they would last-in direct comparison at that time with AMD's double vram spec-which it didn't but greg said it does so

Gregster said:
People need to consider grunt as well as VRAM and this gets missed every time.

No it doesn't get missed every time.

Gregster said:
What is the point of putting 8GB on a 1050 for instance? VRAM scales with the GPU and it makes it cheaper for the buyer, ergo 1070/80 are powerful cards, so having more VRAM to have the higher textures and AA makes sense, a 1060 with 3GB might well be right at the bottom of the choices but at £185, it is a consideration and the VRAM won't be an issue, so long as the buyer understands that it is a 1080P card and not a 4K card.

But completely irrelevant to what I originally said that you disagreed with-which was like for like high/top end=more vram is better than less-79's/290/980Ti's history shows it's a benefit, end of story.

Gregster said:
I do wish people would look at the big picture before typing.

I'm passed the wishing stage as in general in the gfx sub, I tend to give an opinion in here and sometimes idiots come along thinking they are more educated on the subject when indeed they are not.

Gregster · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:34

tommybhoy said:
Agreed.

You've just told us it did yet you junked them before they were eol-you don't have the know how that it was enough-meanwhile a 7950 was eating the 670/80 series for breakfast on higher settings long long after you sold up due to what-the memory allocation/configuration?

You missed the underlying point then as now on how long they would last-in direct comparison at that time with AMD's double vram spec-which it didn't but greg said it does so

No it doesn't get missed every time.

But completely irrelevant to what I originally said that you disagreed with-which was like for like high/top end=more vram is better than less-79's/290/980Ti's history shows it's a benefit, end of story.

Lies!

I got rid of the 680s as the Titans came along and so I went with 2 of those lol. Plus the 7950 was eating my 680s at 5760x1080 because of the memory bus advantage. Nothing to do with VRAM, so get your facts right please.

I deleted your insult, as I would hate to see you get suspended over something so silly and might pay you to do the same. Why can't you just give your pov without insulting people? No need.

bru · 16 Sep 2016 at 14:59

humbug said:
Highest GTX 1060 score i could see in Kaap's Fire Strike thread.

Thats a GPU score of 13,985 @ 2.05Ghz

My own 970 @ 1554/1950

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8573432

GPU score 13,906.

In reality the 1060 in DX11 is no faster than the 970. the 6GB 1060 BTW, the 3GB 1060 is slower.

The 970 overclocks like no other card can, its a lot faster than its out of box state suggests.

The RX 480 isn't and doesn't

The i3 in daaaveee's bench is hampering the score something rotten, here is a score with a processor the same as yours (4690K)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9777181

And if you look at the scores with the 1060 pushed hard, like you have with your 970 score you posted above the 1060 is getting 15717 GPU score.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9904891

Saying the 970 is a fast as a 1060 in 3D mark is just wrong.

humbug said:
why do you think i'm not interested in it despite getting a little desperate to get rid of the 970 now...

I do feel your pain here, I was going to get a 1070 to replace my 970 but now it looks like I will be waiting till next year, to see what Volta and Vega bring to the table.

nashathedog · 16 Sep 2016 at 15:11

tommybhoy said:
^
but, it's a 70 replacement at an 80's pp-wasn't complaining as I obviously bought one-was just saying.

That was my initial complaint about it to start with too, it still stands but, when looking at it for what you get performance wise it improves how the card looks, They could have got away with giving us the 1070's performance in the 1080 card and they would have if there hadn't also been a die shrink jump in the package. So while the card loses points for the price hike it gains them for the performance increase making it only a good option when it could have been an excellent one.

tommybhoy · 16 Sep 2016 at 15:25

Gregster said:
Lies!

I got rid of the 680s as the Titans came along and so I went with 2 of those lol. Plus the 7950 was eating my 680s at 5760x1080 because of the memory bus advantage. Nothing to do with VRAM, so get your facts right please.

Lies???

Facts:

1. Did you got rid before they were eol?

Yes.

2. How long do you wait each time Nv bring out a new gen to gather your opinion on longevity?

You don't wait you always get the new gen on release.

Pretty conclusive pov when you wouldn't know how they fared over time as you never witnessed longevity.

Personally had experience to compare as I had my 7950 and a 670, it's no secret the 79 trumped the 6 series due to it's superior vram/bus combination but ottomh,Skyrim couldn't take the same mods, Wolfenstein wouldn't run at the same settings nothing to do with the superior bus...

Forgetting you stated in your original home page that they ran out of vram on FC3

before you upgraded it then?

tommybhoy · 16 Sep 2016 at 15:27

Gregster said:
I deleted your insult, as I would hate to see you get suspended over something so silly and might pay you to do the same. Why can't you just give your pov without insulting people? No need.

Again, the idiots/thick was a non personal general statement imo in what's problematic in this forum.

I never got personal so imagine both of us would likely get a suspension if I'm in the wrong calling some thick/idiots and you directly calling me thick is deemed as offensive.

tommybhoy · 16 Sep 2016 at 15:49

nashathedog said:
That was my initial complaint about it to start with too, it still stands but, when looking at it for what you get performance wise it improves how the card looks, They could have got away with giving us the 1070's performance in the 1080 card and they would have if there hadn't also been a die shrink jump in the package. So while the card loses points for the price hike it gains them for the performance increase making it only a good option when it could have been an excellent one.

Yes, Nv knows how the market works and every inch they can squeeze, they've just increased every pp, 1070 could have been a legendary gpu instead of a great one imo.

queamin · 16 Sep 2016 at 15:56

At this price point most people keep cards for years, 2,3+ years now you need to the most ram possible if you want to keep them a while, if you looking at a card in this price point ask your self how long do you want to keep it, if it is over 12 months try for a card with 6 to 8 gig.

Look how well the 390 with 8 Gig doing?.

richb83 · 16 Sep 2016 at 16:15

queamin said:
Look how well the 390 with 8 Gig doing?.

Chuffed to bits I went 390 over 970 at the beginning of the year!
1440p 27" with 390 :cool:

wedrum · 16 Sep 2016 at 16:18

so my 980ti is borderline ?

TheRealDeal · 16 Sep 2016 at 16:21

wedrum said:
so my 980ti is borderline ?

No it's fine for now. 4gb Vram is becoming borderline. Even then the majority of games are still fine at 1080p on 4gb.

wedrum · 16 Sep 2016 at 16:22

ah ok phew

humbug · 16 Sep 2016 at 18:02

bru said:
The i3 in daaaveee's bench is hampering the score something rotten, here is a score with a processor the same as yours (4690K)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9777181

And if you look at the scores with the 1060 pushed hard, like you have with your 970 score you posted above the 1060 is getting 15717 GPU score.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9904891

Saying the 970 is a fast as a 1060 in 3D mark is just wrong.

I do feel your pain here, I was going to get a 1070 to replace my 970 but now it looks like I will be waiting till next year, to see what Volta and Vega bring to the table.

Its not actually being pushed hard, that is a 27/4 clock all be it on the brink of whats doable with it 24/7.

I have a bench with it running at over 1600/2000 around here somewhere.

And to be fair... you did pick that as the fastest one you could find out of the top 10 list of 1060's

yes i see it there at #3 in the list of overall scores.

So my 970 is what, 10% or little more behind the fastest 1060 currently on 3DMark's board?

A little over the top to prove me wrong. but good play

Seanspeed · 16 Sep 2016 at 18:12

queamin said:
At this price point most people keep cards for years, 2,3+ years now you need to the most ram possible if you want to keep them a while, if you looking at a card in this price point ask your self how long do you want to keep it, if it is over 12 months try for a card with 6 to 8 gig.

Look how well the 390 with 8 Gig doing?.

People who are used to keeping their cards for three years or more are probably quite used to having to turn settings down quite a bit after some time, though.

I'd still of course recommend 6-8GB at this time, but not every PC gamer cries if they have to turn textures down to medium.

Relentless81 · 16 Sep 2016 at 18:15

Its hilarious reading how some people get so irritated over this none issue

4GB Fury, 1440P, runs like a dream with an ancient 8350