• 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

~>Dg<~ said:
new deus ex was same was mainly the drivers. so i not going to argue about buggy games causing the very issues people are using them to highlight vram issues.:D
Click to expand...

You sure Deus Ex had Vram issues as the newest Patch build 545.5 note only reports system memory?

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided – Patch v1.4 build 545.4_P6 Changelog:
Fixed a DirectX 12 crash at start-up.
Reduced DirectX 12 CPU usage for better performance.
Slightly reduced system memory usage.
Click to expand...

No mention of vram fixes in the previous 5 patches:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/337000/discussions/0/343786745996931222/

Or have they reported they are looking into vram issues?
 
Last edited:
I'm using a Fury X(4GB) at 3440 x 1440 with the latest games and can't say I've noticed any issues, I had a 980Ti before and used the same settings and can't see any difference.

I don't run the more demanding games maxed out because my frame rate would be too low, but I do use high settings (or ultra) most of the time.

I think realistically if you're willing to be abit flexible with the settings you use then you'll have no problems.

Having said that, I would still choose a higher vram model if I have the choice simply because of its resale value later down the line.
 
iB CoMpL3XiTy said:
I think realistically if you're willing to be abit flexible with the settings you use then you'll have no problems.

Having said that, I would still choose a higher vram model if I have the choice simply because of its resale value later down the line.
Click to expand...


That's all it needs so yes it is a non issue to all but the worst settings Nazi's out there, I've posted examples in the past where you're hard pressed to tell which screenshot is using the highest settings and pushing ram usage beyond 4gb's and which screenshot isn't. Tweaking the settings to lower vram usage has no impact on whether you enjoy the game or not and hardly any impact on how good it looks because it is a case of diminishing returns at the top.

So people with 4, 3 and even 2 GB cards will continue to play the same games as those with 6, 8 & 12 GB cards for the forseeable future and they won't enjoy the games any less because of it.

Going forward it makes sense to buy higher ram cards when money allows because it will allow you to use the best settings available but is it a necessity?

No.
 
There was a very interesting article a few months back, which I can't find, where someone tested a 4GB R9 290 and a 6GB R9 390, both clocked at the same speed, to see how much VRAM improved performance. He ran a wide range of tests from 1080P to 4k, measuring the performance and amount of VRAM actually used by the games.

He predicted what would happen before the tests, as he was quite a clever chap, and they proved him right. His prediction was that this range of GPUs couldn't process the data fast enough to actually use the extra 2GB of VRAM, so there wouldn't be much difference between them.

In the tests there was very little difference between 4GB and 6GB, as they both used 4GB or less at all resolutions, except for one game that used 5GB at 4k. The game using 5GB had a 2 OR 3 FPS improvement over the 4GB limited card, but this was a small improvement.

From another article, what is interesting is the effect that faster RAM has. The sneaky marketing thing AMD and NVidia seem to do is that the cards with more VRAM often have a faster speed as well. This often hides the fact that the extra performance isn't from the additional VRAM, it's from the higher speed memory! As an example, the RX 480 4GB has 7GHz VRAM, whereas the RX 480 8GB has 8GHz VRAM. As both cards aren't that different to a R9 390, the 8GB won't add much more than the 4GB; however, VRAM that is 15% faster obviously will.
 
Couldn't care less about VRAM "usage" charts and tables.

The only thing that matters to me is FPS comparisons.

The 4GB and 8GB 480 benched within a couple % of each other. Show me a game at 1080p where the 8GB 480 is significantly ahead of the 4GB model.
 
FoxEye said:
Couldn't care less about VRAM "usage" charts and tables.

The only thing that matters to me is FPS comparisons.

The 4GB and 8GB 480 benched within a couple % of each other. Show me a game at 1080p where the 8GB 480 is significantly ahead of the 4GB model.
Click to expand...

FPS comparisons on their own mean jack all - frametimes measure stuttering which is a more important metric. Its why I was glad I got a GTX960 4GB - computerbase did a similar test for both versions,and the 4GB version was noticeably smoother.

A famous example of a game which had low FPS but a smooth gameplay experience was Crysis - yet some other games with higher FPS felt less smoother to play.

But ultimately the 4GB RX480 seems a bit more closer to the 8GB one,than in the case of the GTX1060 3GB. In fact some of the the data in the article can be verified by some of the observations made by DF and Guru3D too.

The saving grace for the RX480 4GB is probably the GTX970 and GTX980 install base,but even then the 8GB card will last longer.
 
Can't say I've ever played a game which achieved 60FPS and didn't "feel" smooth. Maybe I'm just lucky :p

Either way, the 8GB 480 is/was 25% more expensive, and the difference in performance is nowhere near that amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom