• 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 usage at higher resolutions

Guest2

Guest2

Guest2

Soldato
Joined
6 May 2009
Posts
20,358
I am deciding upon a GPU upgrade and if I should get a newer card with more VRAM (as I game at 1440p) or just go SLI.

Everyone is generally saying that I should get a newer card as it has more VRAM - 3gb / 4gb so will play much better but does anyone have any proof that more VRAM = more FPS at a higher resolution?

I found this article where a GTX 760 4GB was tested against a 2GB version

http://www.legitreviews.com/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-760-4gb-video-card-review-2gb-4gb_129062/4

We played through a couple maps on BF4 and we were able to get the memory usage up to 2997MB, so having 4GB of memory might help here and there. The bad news is that by the time you need more than 2GB of frame buffer the GPU doesn’t have the power needed to game at that resolution.
Click to expand...

I would be interested if anyone else games at 1440p / 1600p where they can show more VRAM = more FPS

Is it possible to VRAM limit a graphics card on say a 780Ti down from 3gb to 2gb? Then bench and see results
 
More VRAM doesn't equate to more FPS at higher resolutions. More VRAM is only beneficial when an application exceeds and spills into system memory. This currently is unlikely to happen with 3-4gb cards at 1440p or even 1600p in all but a very few cases and with large amounts of AA.
 
Plus:

DirectX manages video memory and it does so very well, but I wouldn't pay much attention to monitoring usage as games tend to 'cache' data till such a time it needs to be removed to make room for more. In other words if you have 4gb then it will use more than a 3gb card in one lump, but it is not an indication of how much the game is using at any one time.
 
personaly i think memory is important right now, maybe old games need a mode like GTA 4, sleeping dog HD, or skyrim HD etc, but with new consoles and next gen games resolution of textures will become higher and my guess memory usage will increase, with up coming game like, the division tom clancy, beside right now that gpu drivers works well on sli/crossfire, make it even more important to have enough memory, because if you have that you can add a 2nd hand card for extra perf, but you cant poop out extra memory even if you have enough juice to push.
man the OCuk exclusive of the sapphire 8Go :'( , too bad this card is so expensive, but 2 -3 of those makes a perfect 4k gaming setup for the next 3 years or more
 
AlamoX said:
personaly i think memory is important right now, maybe old games need a mode like GTA 4, sleeping dog HD, or skyrim HD etc, but with new consoles and next gen games resolution of textures will become higher and my guess memory usage will increase, with up coming game like, the division tom clancy, beside right now that gpu drivers works well on sli/crossfire, make it even more important to have enough memory, because if you have that you can add a 2nd hand card for extra perf, but you cant poop out extra memory even if you have enough juice to push.
Click to expand...

I think I just died of suffocation reading that!
 
Pcper had a review showing frametimes are lower(smoother) with more vram on the same gpu it was either 670 or 680 2Gb/4Gb.

2Gb/256 bit bus combination is borderline at best in some titles@1440p with high levels of AA/MSAA, Sli won't change that as it's vram/faster bus that's needed.

You don't have to run high levels of AA/MSAA though, you can turn it down and play on higher fps and vram usage isn't an issue.

There's also been a few users here stating they went 2Gb 6 series SLi to 780 and noticed smoother gameplay with high AA@1440p.
 
tommybhoy said:
There's also been a few users here stating they went 2Gb 6 series SLi to 780 and noticed smoother gameplay with high AA@1440p.
Click to expand...

I think I read a couple of those statements. Buts that all they were

I would good to see benchmark / games FPS stats. Probably the best would be something like a 670 2gb vs 670 4gb comparison (or limiting a 780 to 2gb)
 
Guest2 said:
Another indication I am taking the right decision by just getting another 670

http://forums.evga.com/tm.aspx?m=1912956
Click to expand...

Go for the second GTX 670

If you want to see any benchmarks as to what to expect let me know. I use a GTX 690 (about the same performance as GTX 670 sli) and can run some benches for you but they will be @1600p (I don't own a 1440p monitor).
 
Kaapstad said:
Go for the second GTX 670

If you want to see any benchmarks as to what to expect let me know. I use a GTX 690 (about the same performance as GTX 670 sli) and can run some benches for you but they will be @1600p (I don't own a 1440p monitor).
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

Doesnt the 690 have 4gb vram though instead of the (standard) 670 SLI having just 2gb. Sort of defeats the object - but thanks though
 
If you want to see the effects of a lack of VRAM run multiple instances of Heaven at the same time, as soon as you hit the VRAM limit and swapping of data over the PCI-E bus starts occuring the FPS will absolutely tank to slideshow proportions.

Games use VRAM similar to how Windows Vista onwards uses system memory, when Windows Vista was released people were crying about Windows filling up all of their system memory and them running out of memory. Superfetch simply pre-loaded applications into memory just in case they would used, the idea being that if the memory is there sitting empty then it's better to use it and if memory needs to be freed up it can be.

This is why it really annoys me when someone with a 3GB card says something along the lines "X game uses 2.7GB for me therefore 2GB is not enough", 1GB of that could be data/textures for different maps etc but it's better to simply leave it there than to keep reloading it between games.
 
Last edited:
At 1440/1600 it's pretty borderline if you've got two GPUs. Most games will be fine but you'll be on the edge a lot of the time. One GPU you're fine because you'll have to turn off MSAA most times to get playable FPS which will reduce the amount of VRAM you're using.

1080 2GB is OK.

For me personally, I would want 3GB if I was multi-GPU'ing at 1440/1600. I modded Skyrim a bit (not a massive amount but 40 or so mods) and used about 2.6GB at 1440. If I take off a bit for caching then you can see it would be close as to whether a 2GB card could run that. That is only relevant of course if you mod Skyrim. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom