• 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.

Skyrim breached 2Gb vram@1080p.

I play Skyrim with the offical High Texture pack @ 5760 x 1080, every setting on highest possible except AA which is 0 X AA. With FXAA enabled my VRAM usage is typically around 1700-1800MB, frame rate is always 60FPS and never drops.

4 X AA however and things grind to a slide show....

If you can live without AA 2GB can be enough VRAM for a great gaming experience even with high res textures at extreme resolutions.

Which EVGA 680 cards do you use? The FTW? Would you say it's worth it? :p
 
I'm not suprised that Skyrim can breach 2GB of VRAM. Max Payne 3 thrashes the 2GB mark on certain setups. I still feel it's not time to dash out and replace your 1.5GB GTX 580 though (for example), but it's an indicator that AMD are on the right path and Nvidia need to start slapping more VRAM on their cards. PCIE3 here we come :D
 
Remember when you said this

Quote:
Originally Posted by spixelspixel
Vram is not as important as a lot of people think it is.

It ain't.

If all you play is Skyrim heavily modded and you're looney or money isn't an object then sure pay the extra.

If you're getting into a scenario of paying more than the games worth in hardware just for that game (and the game is modded to the ****) then that just isn't worth it in my eyes.

As a factual statement which is what Tommy's research is then it is extremely useful to know. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm not suprised that Skyrim can breach 2GB of VRAM. Max Payne 3 thrashes the 2GB mark on certain setups. I still feel it's not time to dash out and replace your 1.5GB GTX 580 though (for example), but it's an indicator that AMD are on the right path and Nvidia need to start slapping more VRAM on their cards. PCIE3 here we come :D

Nvidia do have a 4GB variant of the 680 and 670 for guys who run multi monitor set ups. I am still not convinced that 2GB isn't enough for the current games and forth coming games. Tommybhoy proved that Skyrim can get to 2GB with 3rd party add ons but you could have every add on and tweak settings to keep it comfortably under 2GB.
 
Which EVGA 680 cards do you use? The FTW? Would you say it's worth it? :p

I have the reference cards, I prefer the external exhaust system to a custom coolers, with the high flow back plates the stock cooler is pretty good IMO. They will both OC to 1280mhz core and ~350 on the memory and stay at ~60degs C with a 60-65% custom fan profile in BF3, and more like 50 degs in Skyrim.

Are they worth it? It really depends on what res you want to run and the games you play, I think they are worth it but ideally for 3 monitors 3 x 670 4gb would be the better option.

I got into surround gaming just to have a look see because the 680 "could" do it, now I am used to it I cant go back to 1 screen, but it's stupidly expensive everytime you want an upgrade :)
 
coming on and saying "minecraft isn't VRAM limited" is hardly helpful to anything

I am posting saying that Minecraft can use all of my GTX680s 2GB of VRAM and eventually stutter/crash.

A point that backs up the opinion/fact that poor optimisation or throwing huge amounts of extra on-top of a game engine can see ridiculous amounts of VRAM usage.

I am not surprised at all that you can get 2.7GB of VRAM usage at 1920x1080 on Skyrim when you load it with addons.

I can get 2GB of VRAM usage on Minecraft with a single texture pack at 1920x1080, MINECRAFT.

I am not belittling the OPs post at all, merely providing a different viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
They do. 2 X 2 69502GB = 2GB of vram. The usage when he switched to the 3GB 7970 is caching VRAM. It is still only using 1997MB but stores VRAM.

Good info Tommy :)

Well you cant say that's its only using 1997MB when it could not use more even if it wanted to thus the stuttering.

If it was only using to keep it simple 1.75 on a 2GB card but then used 2.5 on a 3GB card then then you know for sure that's its only caching.
Not all games will hardwall the Vram at 2048 before it starts to page, some games require minimum allocation chunks.

I would guess that 2.25 is what it needed and the other 512mb is buffering.
 
Last edited:
Well you cant say that's its only using 1997MB when it could not use more even if it wanted to thus the stuttering.

If it was only using to keep it simple 1.75 on a 2GB card but then used 2.5 on a 3GB card then then you know for sure that's its only caching.
Not all games will hardwall the Vram at 2048 before it starts to page, some games require minimum allocation chunks.

I was quoting the OP who said it was using 1997MB. This wasn't my statement. My statement was "when he switched to the 3 GB 7970, the VRAM usage went from ~1997 let's say, to 2750MB. This is obvious to see that VRAM is storing data.

Maybe I missed something in your post?
 
They do. 2 X 2 69502GB = 2GB of vram. The usage when he switched to the 3GB 7970 is caching VRAM. It is still only using 1997MB but stores VRAM.

Good info Tommy :)

I was quoting the OP who said it was using 1997MB. This wasn't my statement. My statement was "when he switched to the 3 GB 7970, the VRAM usage went from ~1997 let's say, to 2750MB. This is obvious to see that VRAM is storing data.

Maybe I missed something in your post?

Well you did say that its still only using 1997MB which means the other 750MB is storage that it does not really need to run smoothly, when that cant be determined as only storage when the game was not running smoothly at 1997MB and was clearly paging.
As i said in my edit: I would guess that 2.25 is what it needed and the other 512mb is buffering.
 
Last edited:
Usual mixture of acknowledgement/disbelief, no surprise there.:cool:

2Gb is more than enough@1080p so far, as I said turn the settings down if/when needed.

I(unknowingly) took it over my gpus vram limit, in all likelihood, I shall tweak the mods to reduce the usage back under 2Gb as I'm not convinced I'm keeping the 7970.

A mixture of unoptimised/large textures is what's taking it above 2Gb, it doesn't require anywhere near that amount of vram when you install vanilla Skyrim so it's in the users hands to where the vram use totals out.

I can get 2GB of VRAM usage on my GTX680 playing Minecraft.

You should put up a thread with screens and inform others of your findings. ;)

It ain't.

If all you play is Skyrim heavily modded and you're looney or money isn't an object then sure pay the extra.

If you're getting into a scenario of paying more than the games worth in hardware just for that game (and the game is modded to the ****) then that just isn't worth it in my eyes.

As a factual statement which is what Tommy's research is then it is extremely useful to know. :)

+1

You would have to be mental if you were to chuck a perfectly good 2Gb 67/80 or 69 series CrossFire etc, away just for 1 game.

The only way whatsoever could I advise anyone looking for an upgrade to get a 4Gb 67/80@1080p over a 2Gb version, would be if you fall into the bracket of a user that only upgrades every 2-3years, even at that, you might not get your moneys worth out of the extra 2Gb.


You don't get vanilla titles that have the size of textures that's sitting in my Skyrim, period.

2Gb is more than enough@1080p so far, as I said turn the settings down if/when needed.

A mixture of unoptimised/large textures is the cause of why it's going above 2Gb, it doesn't require anywhere near that amount of vram when you install vanilla Skyrim so it's in the users hands to where the vram use totals out.

As andy pointed out:), the aim of the post was to inform that you can breach 2Gb in Skyrim, remember folks the thread is called:

Skyrim breached 2Gb vram@1080p

Not:

Chuck your 2Gb gpu in the bin because it runs out of vram@1080p
 
I am posting saying that Minecraft can use all of my GTX680s 2GB of VRAM and eventually stutter/crash.

A point that backs up the opinion/fact that poor optimisation or throwing huge amounts of extra on-top of a game engine can see ridiculous amounts of VRAM usage.

I am not surprised at all that you can get 2.7GB of VRAM usage at 1920x1080 on Skyrim when you load it with addons.

I can get 2GB of VRAM usage on Minecraft with a single texture pack at 1920x1080, MINECRAFT.

I am not belittling the OPs post at all, merely providing a different viewpoint.

I apologise, I assumed that minecraft was a rubbish online game that only actually uses 300mb of vram and that it just happens to read as 2GB like a lot of games that read high when they don't need to

there were several "so what no one needs more VRAM" posts on this thread regarding other games and not skyrim, which is all that tommy was posting in regards to, I just happened to pick on yours as I thought yours was the most derogaroty, which I now stand corrected
 
ive found a lot of skyrim texture mods for some reason have ridiculously oversized normal maps, larger than the actual texture, a 5mb texture with a 21mb double the res normal map seems to be the norm which is just crazy, a batch convert script for the *_n.dds files willto see a huge reduction in ram usage from addons with no reduction in quality
 
Ok, i guess it is worth the wait for the next gen of cards as i still cannot justify an upgrade for only one game (thats shogun 2, at 2550 its a pain not being able to jack up MSAA).
 
Skyrim genrally maxes out the 1.5GB on my 580 (especially when outside). It sometimes stutters a little.

Should I sell it and get a 6GB 7970?

Yes, sarcasm.

I had to disable Aero when I was playing it the other day. But, hey, it's my fault for modding it... :P
 
Back
Top Bottom