How much vram do you actually need?

[Kuzma]

Introduction

I've seen a lot of people arguing about if you need more than 2GB of VRAM at 1080p and arguing about how much you really need. I can't do the benchmarks personally but I figured I'd leave the sources used at the end ^_^ .

 

2GB isn't enough right?

This is kinda right but wrong in the majority of cases, games don't use more than 2GB VRAM at 1440p let alone 1080p. The main exception to this rule, I'm sure you can guess what it is :P it's Crysis 3 using 2.2GB VRAM at very high settings + 8x msaa, which can be fixed by simply using 4x msaa.

 

Sources?

Each letter will have a different link:

C F H M B

 

Conclusion

As you can see from the sources above 2GB is plenty of VRAM for 1080p in the majority of cases but with the new consoles we're also going to most likely see a new tier of games with a large amount of VRAM usage; if you look at some of the games that have been showcased at E3 they seem to be using the amount of VRAM from the unified system quite nicely. A good example of this is Tom Clancy's The Division. So I think we can expect >3GB for 1440p and >2GB for 1080p but that's purely my own speculation ^_^ .

 

Update

 

Battlefield 4 has been confirmed to use 2.2-2.3GB of VRAM so think about that if you plan to play this game.

[WildTurtle]

I want all the VRAMs.

[Woodypc]

I would agree 1gb is fine for 1080p in most cases but 2gb is a bit more future proof.

[brownninja97]

Future proofing, thats the end of that

[tp95112]

Its usually because people always arhue "its going to be future proofing" and that why 2Gb is what everyone recommends and also video cards are usually 2Gb at the main stream levels cards

[AMD_Nemesis]

Well actually if you have more than recommended for the game it will use up more vram this helps with quick turns in my opinion like for instance crysis 3 if you turn quick with the recommended vram it may stutter a bit but if you have way more that wont happen hopefully I worded that right.

[Guest GRRigger]

for NOW is enough

*most* people dont replace graphic card every 3 years. and we know after 3 years, textures will get bigger. in 2010 you were golden with 1gig. now its not enough. 

thats why i recommend 7950 to 760.

[Kuzma]

for NOW is enough

*most* people dont replace graphic card every 3 years. and we know after 3 years, textures will get bigger. in 2010 you were golden with 1gig. now its not enough. 

thats why i recommend 7950 to 760.

I did say in the conclusion that we'll most likely need more than 2GB VRAM once the new console games hit ^_^ & yes I too recommend the 7950 over the 760

[NinjaStyle013]

VRAM will be directly propontial to the required screen resolution and texture size.

[Xelithium]

FXAA is the way to go honestly. Sure the textures won't look as nice but the performance hit is next to nothing and a good implementation of it has it very close to MSAA in terms of image quality. But at a lower performance cost.

 

I personally don't notice the difference unless I'm looking for it.

 

FXAA - http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM2Mjk1OTI3MGE5VjJubWU5ZTZfOF8yX2wucG5n

MSAA - http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM2Mjk1OTI3MGE5VjJubWU5ZTZfOV85X2wucG5n

 

MSAA just doesn't justify it's performance cost.

[jjtoutt]

My 2Gb cards max out at around 1.8Gb at 1080p, so i think 2Gb is becoming the new 1Gb.

[Locke290]

FXAA is the way to go honestly. Sure the textures won't look as nice but the performance hit is next to nothing and a good implementation of it has it very close to MSAA in terms of image quality. But at a lower performance cost.

 

I personally don't notice the difference unless I'm looking for it.

 

FXAA - http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM2Mjk1OTI3MGE5VjJubWU5ZTZfOF8yX2wucG5n

MSAA - http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTM2Mjk1OTI3MGE5VjJubWU5ZTZfOV85X2wucG5n

 

MSAA just doesn't justify it's performance cost.

I don't see a visual difference in FXAA vs MSAA to be honest.  I don't pick it up when on games lol.

 

Also I don't see why people think that next gen that we are all of a sudden going to need more way more VRAM.  You do understand that the 8GB for the next gen consoles are for the system and VRAM.

They are set for 1080p with weaker GPUs then most decent video cards nowadays.  I don't see the next-gen consoles using more then 2GB for VRAM, 3GB VRAM at most.  They only have 5GB overall for the game to play with.  (DDR3 for X1, GDDR5 for PS4).

 

Compare it to our mid-range GPUs right now.  I have 8GB DDR3 Ram - 1.5GB used on OS/Steam/Media Server etc. Plus my 2GB VRAM.  I technically have 8.5 GB to play with.

 

 

Just because a card has 3-4GB of VRAM doesn't mean it is fast enough to make use of it. Please don't start with console optimizations either, I see plenty of people using 8800GTs playing at higher res/settings w/ more FPS then the current consoles.

[Locke290]

My 2Gb cards max out at around 1.8Gb at 1080p, so i think 2Gb is becoming the new 1Gb.

If you have the VRAM, the game will use it.  Bet you wouldn't see a difference if you only had 1GB.

 

I played Skyrim with over 20 mods, ENB Series + Texture Packs on my old GTX 560 Ti w/ 1GB Ram that looked almost as good as those next-gen games and ran it at 30-40 FPS no issues.  It is also a VRAM heavy game w/ all the mods/texture packs.

[Kuzma]

I don't see a visual difference in FXAA vs MSAA to be honest.  I don't pick it up when on games lol.

 

Also I don't see why people think that next gen that we are all of a sudden going to need more way more VRAM.  You do understand that the 8GB for the next gen consoles are for the system and VRAM.

They are set for 1080p with weaker GPUs then most decent video cards nowadays.  I don't see the next-gen consoles using more then 2GB for VRAM, 3GB VRAM at most.  They only have 5GB overall for the game to play with.  (DDR3 for X1, GDDR5 for PS4).

 

Compare it to our mid-range GPUs right now.  I have 8GB DDR3 Ram - 1.5GB used on OS/Steam/Media Server etc. Plus my 2GB VRAM.  I technically have 8.5 GB to play with.

 

 

Just because a card has 3-4GB of VRAM doesn't mean it is fast enough to make use of it. Please don't start with console optimizations either, I see plenty of people using 8800GTs playing at higher res/settings w/ more FPS then the current consoles.

I understand perfectly well that the next gen consoles have unified memory but look at the jump in quality of games between the original xbox and the xbox 360; the jump between the ps2 and ps3. Look at how much more demanding games became, ^_^ please don't misinform.

[Locke290]

I understand perfectly well that the next gen consoles have unified memory but look at the jump in quality of games between the original xbox and the xbox 360; the jump between the ps2 and ps3. Look at how much more demanding games became, ^_^ please don't misinform.

Yes, and the 8800GT 512MB can play those games at console resolution, higher setting and better FPS.  You think that games got more demanding our system is because of all the eye candy and higher resolutions we play at compared to a console.  You do understand that current gen games, most game are actually rendered lower then 720p?

 

You'll also have diminishing returns on the performance increases.

 

When the Xbox 360 came out, Gaming PCs couldn't match its performance because of what it brought to the table at the time. They had the first unified shader architecture.  This next-gen launch, is using last year mid-range GPUs, and low powered 8-core processor.  Your not going to see the disparity that was seen before, the tables are turned already.

[Stephie_Girl]

For optimal settings, I totally would say 2GB is what you want for 1080p.  Because like, even Crysis 3 with AA turned down can totally eat up like 1.5GB of Vram.  As can a few other games I can think of.

<3

Steph

[Kuzma]

Yes, and the 8800GT 512MB can play those games at console resolution, higher setting and better FPS.  You think that games got more demanding our system is because of all the eye candy and higher resolutions we play at compared to a console.  You do understand that current gen games, most game are actually rendered lower then 720p?

 

You'll also have diminishing returns on the performance increases.

 

When the Xbox 360 came out, Gaming PCs couldn't match its performance because of what it brought to the table at the time. They had the first unified shader architecture.  This next-gen launch, is using last year mid-range GPUs, and low powered 8-core processor.  Your not going to see the disparity that was seen before, the tables are turned already.

I know most games are rendered lower then 720p and then upscaled to higher resolutions which is why things look so bad on current generation consoles at supposed "HD" resolutions.

 

All I'm saying is that because we PC gamers have to be ahead of consoles at all times; the moment consoles get relatively close we get new crazy high graphics settings that look beautiful but require such good graphics cards to play. Then after a few years those games start to be runable (not really a word but meh) and then new giants appear. A perfect example is Crysis, I can play that game 30fps on my Intel HD 3000 graphics; remember when everything was "But can it run Crysis?" that's my point.

 

This isn't a discussion anyway; this is simply public information.

[FluffyPuma]

I believe that 2GB is fine for recent games, but you can see how close they are getting to capping that out. Not for long with 2GB be enough :(

[LaoJr]

All of the VRAM for the YOLO SWAG 

 

[Locke290]

I know most games are rendered lower then 720p and then upscaled to higher resolutions which is why things look so bad on current generation consoles at supposed "HD" resolutions.

 

All I'm saying is that because we PC gamers have to be ahead of consoles at all times; the moment consoles get relatively close we get new crazy high graphics settings that look beautiful but require such good graphics cards to play. Then after a few years those games start to be runable (not really a word but meh) and then new giants appear. A perfect example is Crysis, I can play that game 30fps on my Intel HD 3000 graphics; remember when everything was "But can it run Crysis?" that's my point.

 

This isn't a discussion anyway; this is simply public information.

 

It should be public information that it doesn't matter if you only have 2GB or 6GB of VRAM, if the GPU is too slow to utilize it, it doesn't matter how much VRAM you have.

You're basically stating the obvious that in the future more VRAM will be required, but also down the road the GPUs will be more powerful and that VRAM will actually be used.

 

How much VRAM you need doesn't relate to your statement of more the better, how much VRAM you need is related to the power of the GPU.

No point in say buying a GTX 760 4GB over the 2GB version unless perhaps if you plan to SLI as it won't make a difference.

 

You're the one who told me not to misinform, but that's exactly what you're doing here.

[Henry]

Should be "how much vram do u BENEFIT from"

[Locke290]

Should be "how much vram do u BENEFIT from"

Basically this.

 

Even the Titan doesn't benefit from having 6GB of VRAM. (Example:  Dirt Showdown uses 1839mb at 3840 x 2160, and is completely unplayable.)

 

All of this crazy amounts of RAM is just marketing.  Anything over 2-3GB for a single GPU right now = wasted.  Now AND in the future.

[R4STABAN]

for NOW is enough

*most* people dont replace graphic card every 3 years. and we know after 3 years, textures will get bigger. in 2010 you were golden with 1gig. now its not enough. 

thats why i recommend 7950 to 760.

 

So in 2016 people with 7950s are going to be better off than people with 2GB 680s?

 

I think they'll both have rubbish performance, comparable to an entry-mid level card in 2016.

[Guest GRRigger]

So in 2016 people with 7950s are going to be better off than people with 2GB 680s?

 

I think they'll both have rubbish performance, comparable to an entry-mid level card in 2016.

You are right, but for people who dont switch GPU every cuple years, its better to get 1gb more vram. 7950> 680. You can have hi res textures, but as you are suggesting you would have to turn down tessellation and such.

[pas008]

I need around 3gb easily considering I use surround, have seen my usage around 3gb mark many times

 

but for 1080p 2gb should be well more then enough