• 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.

VRAM - AMD/Nvidia, why does it differ?

Marine-RX179 said:
I'm not going to bother wasting time trying to find the particular review (knowing you just going brush it off as "the problem has to be caused by something else"), but I vaguely recall seeing a review...think it was on hardocp was doing a comparison on 2560 res or something, which both the GTX780 and 7970 managed playable frame rate (think the 7970 had something like a minimum frame rate of 25-29fps), while the GTX680 2GB (or what it GTX770 2GB?) was unplayable due to shutter or something with vram usage hitting max. No doubt you would insist "it could have been driver issue" or "they messed up on setting up their bench" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nice attitude there from the off. I also like the way you're assuming what I'm going to say before I've even said anything. Again, great attitude. :)

I don't just brush off people findings because they don't fit my own bias. I leave that to others here.

To me 25 FPS mins aren't playable (assuming averages around the 40 mark) but each to their own. I'm not saying there isn't a game where the trend isn't bucked but if we're talking one game out of hundreds then the advice given back then looks sound to me.

LtMatt said:
Of course he would and so would his 'gang'. Its why these debates are pointless and we're all just best off agreeing to disagree and forgetting about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

See comment regarding circle jerk :p. I dunno why you're getting all narky and personal. It was a good debate. This is a graphics card forum and we're talking graphics cards

I'm at Warrington Central. Almost at Liverpool :).
 
Last edited:
Pretty much sums it up matt/marine, there has been reviews-they get dismissed though, and I'm sure there has been 2 users running out with 2Gb playing modded Skyrim in this thread too-that's usually dismissed as well.
 
Last edited:
tommybhoy said:
Pretty much sums it up matt/marine, there has been reviews-they get dismissed though, and I'm sure there has been 2 users running out with 2Gb playing modded Skyrim too-that's usually dismissed as well.
Click to expand...

I ran out with 3GB at 1440p. It's all relative. I swear you lot just make things up about what's been said previously. It's magic. Keep going :).
 
Rusty0611 said:
Nice attitude there from the off. I also like the way you're assuming what I'm going to say before I've even said anything. Again, great attitude. :)

I don't just brush off people findings because they don't fit my own bias. I leave that to others here.

To me 25 FPS mins aren't playable (assuming averages around the 40 mark) but each to their own. I'm not saying there isn't a game where the trend isn't bucked but if we're talking one game out of hundreds then the advice given back then looks sound to me.
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with my attitude...I've seen enough of your posting pattern to know how you would response, which is why I deem it not worth my time bothering to try to locate that particular review which I recall reading.

Also your response to my post regarding the frame rate pretty much proved my point about your response pattern. For myself, I agree that I would deem a minimum of 25-29fps is too low for my preference as well, but I believe you know full well that isn't the context I'm referring to here?

25-29fps minimum is still "playable" for those that are will to endure it, but a shutterfest is "totally unplayable".
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
It's nothing to do with my attitude...I've seen enough of your posting pattern to know how you would response, which is why I deem it not worth my time bothering to try to locate that particular review which I recall reading.

Also your response to my post regarding the frame rate pretty much proved my point about your response pattern. For myself, I agree with that that I would deem a minimum of 25-29fps is too low for my preference as well, but I believe you know full well that isn't the context I'm talking about here?

25-29fps minimum is still "playable" for those that are will to endure it, but a shutterfest is "totally unplayable".
Click to expand...

It's playable in the literal sense that it works but I don't think it's a real world scenario. So to me I don't place much value in it. That's my choice. So because I think this I get a load of attitude about basically, nothing? OK. Fine. Keep on being personal about it :)

-----------

And I've arrived.

Seriously guys, this was a good debate in good spirits for the large part. Don't drag it into the gutter. It's why I've completely ignored the borderline baiting aimed at me. :)

Agree to disagree? Stop the point scoring and baiting? Move on and continue to do things which makes this forum good like the help guides? Good, good.

Enjoy your Christmas' and New Year.
 
Last edited:
Turn off page filing > open BF4 > Ultra 4X MSAA > 1440P. It should crash if you are out of VRAM with DX error.

If it doesn't. You are not running out of VRAM.

Problem solved lol. Although use no more than 6GB RAM, otherwise it'll just stack onto that. That scenario will either prove or disprove it
 
Last edited:
VRAM arguments are so futile.

Outside of fancy graphs and paper spec talk I have never encountered issues with VRAM.

1GB was fine in BF3 up to the GPU power of my card.
2GB was fine in BF3 up to the GPU power of my card.
2GB was fine in BF4 up to the GPU power of my card.
3GB is fine in BF4 up to the GPU power of my card.

Multi-GPU, 'LOL Look at my 12K res Skyrim texture pack', and 4K (At least now) are all very niche areas that do NOT warrant putting more VRAM on a card that in 99% of usage case scenarios will be a single card used alone. A single card whereby the amount of VRAM on the card is fine in Title X up to the GPU power of said card.

Why bump the price of 99% of the markets cards for VRAM they wont use nor need. You lot would be the first to complain about that.

Outside of talk and banter I have never seen someone post "Crap...need a new GPU because I'm VRAM limited". Where has a current gen card EVER been VRAM limited by a current gen title? Anyone whining they want 6GB of VRAM on a current gen card to future proof is just crazy.

Future proof, GPU? PLEASE. Mantle, G-SYNC and god knows what else is not friendly with future proofing. The tech world never orients around future proofing, not then and not now. So "I WANT MORE VRAM SO MY CARD LASTS AN EXTRA 12 MONTHS" is unlikely to happen.
 
Last edited:
Thread has turned from jovial banter and interesting comments to personal remarks and childish innuendos :(

Ease up men :)

6GB FTW!!! :p and anything else is pointless :D I am joking of course and if you are a massive fan of Skyrim, grab a GPU that has tons of vram to use plenty of mods.
 
@sin,

Not everyone uses a single gpu.

Dual or more can benefit from extra vram, plenty of 1Gb 560 Sli setups got junked in favour of higher vram gpu's where as the 2Gb 560 Sli setup ran fine in BF3 saving the user an unnecessary hit to the pocket=future proofing.

Skyrim iq is well sought after in the community, evident by the simply massive thriving modding scene where extra vram goes a long way.
 
Doesn't adding all the mods add to GPU usage? Genuine question, as I know adding GEX and REX to FSX, it hit fps a fair chunk and that is before adding map packs and terrain deatails.
 
The only time i hit the vram limit in bf3 was when using 1.2gb sli gtx 470's. With x4 msaa and ultra settings the fps tanked. Had to drop a few settings to high and use an fxaa injector. I replaced those cards with a single gtx 670 wf 2gb, (later went sli). No issues with bf3 on those cards, 1600mb ram use max on maximum settings at 1920x1200. Kept them until last week when i moved to a 780 gtx. In bf4 ran use was maxing at 1900mb on the highest settings, x4 msaa with the 670's. Yep it was close to thelimit but at my res the move to the 780 gives me a lot more headroom.
 
Last edited:
Gregster said:
Doesn't adding all the mods add to GPU usage? Genuine question, as I know adding GEX and REX to FSX, it hit fps a fair chunk and that is before adding map packs and terrain deatails.
Click to expand...

In Skyrim? Some of the graphical mods and ENB pre-sets will up GPU usage massively. Especially with the SSAA and other post processing.

I had two post processing mods conflicting at one point which was tanking my performance, and taking VRAM usage to over 4GB @ 1080P on my Titan lol.
 
Gregster said:
Doesn't adding all the mods add to GPU usage? Genuine question, as I know adding GEX and REX to FSX, it hit fps a fair chunk and that is before adding map packs and terrain deatails.
Click to expand...


I think it depends on the engine and quality of the mod, I took no real noticeable hit using icehancer on gta4, granted it wasn't fully 'pimped' but enough to make it look nearly as nice as sleeping dogs. Saying that the engine is rough at best, avg around 90fps on dual 7970's and dual 780's neither setup pushing much over 40% usage per card.
 
Gregster said:
Doesn't adding all the mods add to GPU usage? Genuine question, as I know adding GEX and REX to FSX, it hit fps a fair chunk and that is before adding map packs and terrain deatails.
Click to expand...

Vanilla Skyrim isn't demanding with high end gpu's really, there is loads left in the tank if you are using twin cards or more giving you loads of room for adding vastly improved IQ.

Going above 60fps breaks the engine(weird things start happening) as well so that's the figure to aim for.
 
Extra effects (not textures) will indeed increase GPU load. Skyrim itself isn't really demanding on grunt, just texture storage.
 
tommybhoy said:
Vanilla Skyrim isn't demanding with high end gpu's really, there is loads left in the tank if you are using twin cards or more giving you loads of room for adding vastly improved IQ.

Going above 60fps breaks the engine(weird things start happening) as well so that's the figure to aim for.
Click to expand...

Few relatively small ini tweaks will massively increase the GPU load and image quality. Actually kind of shocking with a few tweaks to shadows, water reflections and some basic mods to give it better water and vegetation, whack on ambient occlusion and some supersampling and it looks 10x better than the highest settings you can enable from the ingame settings.
 
I've always wondered how efficient modded Skyrim is being with the VRAM, it is after all running vastly outside of spec on top of an old-ass engine.
 
Sin_Chase said:
Outside of talk and banter I have never seen someone post "Crap...need a new GPU because I'm VRAM limited". Where has a current gen card EVER been VRAM limited by a current gen title? Anyone whining they want 6GB of VRAM on a current gen card to future proof is just crazy.
Click to expand...

I'm stuck running 1440p with a HD7870 @ 1200/1450.
Its as fast as a stock 7970 (non ghz)
Its horrible. Horrible, horrible, horrible.
So stuttering. Much VRAM usage.
I can't even mine Dogecoins without it crying.

I'm ordering an AIB R9 290 because I want the power and the 4GB Buffer. The consoles have a truckload of usable VRAM, and we're gonna need it too.
 
^ Precisely, I honestly don't get why or how people cannot see this. PS4 has 8GB GDDR5, most of that is going to be disposable to the GPU.

Any bells ringing yet?

We're going to need it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom