Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
D2ultima

The video RAM information guide

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Other cards that have similar odd configurations:

-snip-

I'm not sure which method each card uses, but it's one of the two. Either a higher chip with disabled controllers having memory re-routed through one other controller to maintain the same memory amount, or having different density chips.

I was actually asking if you knew which one was which, since I did list a bunch of the mismatched cards already. But ok. I'll leave it as-is then, for the fermi-gen cards it isn't very important to nail every single bit of info about them.

 

Good luck with your video, though it'd be quite hard to get that done correctly.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually asking if you knew which one was which, since I did list a bunch of the mismatched cards already. But ok. I'll leave it as-is then, for the fermi-gen cards it isn't very important to nail every single bit of info about them.

 

Good luck with your video, though it'd be quite hard to get that done correctly.

 

As far as i can tell, where it's a full memory controller of the chip, (like the 192bit is full on the 550 Ti) they use different densities of chips.

Seems like cut-down chips (660Ti / 970) are ones that are re-routing.

 

The performance impact should be pretty much the same. Perhaps slightly worse on the re-routed, since the controller is having to handle extra chips, rather than just more memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
7 hours ago, Daniel04 said:

What do you think is better? : 

A GTX 750ti with 4GB vRAM, or a 950 with 2GB of vRAM???

A 750Ti has 640 cores, and a 950 has 768 cores. It's a decent bit faster for certain. While I advocate higher vRAM counts basically all the time, I don't like telling someone to get a significantly weaker card because of more vRAM. So I'd say the 950.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
10 hours ago, Daniel04 said:

What do you think is better for gaming in 1080p in high settings...? : 

A GTX 750ti with 4GB vRAM, or a 950 with 2GB of vRAM???

 

You won't be able to turn on many texture settings to high with a 2GB card. Most AAA games use 3GB+ vRAM easily now. But the 950 will run games better.

 

Which do you prefer? Ability to raise textures more? Or faster performance but lower texture-based settings? I gave the nod to the 950 already considering this. If you could save however, a R9 380 4GB would be the best choice for not much more money.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
You won't be able to turn on many texture settings to high with a 2GB card. Most AAA games use 3GB+ vRAM easily now. But the 950 will run games better.

 

Which do you prefer? Ability to raise textures more? Or faster performance but lower texture-based settings? I gave the nod to the 950 already considering this. If you could save however, a R9 380 4GB would be the best choice for not much more money.

What about r9 390 against gtx 970? 8gb vs 3.5+0.5gb? Older chip vs newer chip? It's a big dillema for me really haha mostly for 1080p gaming and 1440p in the future... Seen that OC-ed gtx gets better benchmarks than 390. And a lot of games will use it's max vRAM, what it 3.5gb. I even wont run on ultra. Just high. No need for super ultra maximum nuclear quality. So what do you suggest? Which one?


WHITE MIST

CPU: I7 6700K @ 4,7GHz 1,38V GPU: ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix @ 1568MHz RAM: G.Skill TridentZ 4x8GB 3200MHz CL16 MBO: MSI Krait gaming 3X Z170 PSU: Cooler Master VSM 750W CASE: Fractal Design Define S/window CPU COOLER: NZXT Kraken X61 STORAGE: Samsung 850 EVO 250GB & 1,5TB Seagate Barracuda

 

PcPartPicker - White Mist

Vidox Production - Official page

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
17 hours ago, BrisoX said:

What about r9 390 against gtx 970? 8gb vs 3.5+0.5gb? Older chip vs newer chip? It's a big dillema for me really haha mostly for 1080p gaming and 1440p in the future... Seen that OC-ed gtx gets better benchmarks than 390. And a lot of games will use it's max vRAM, what it 3.5gb. I even wont run on ultra. Just high. No need for super ultra maximum nuclear quality. So what do you suggest? Which one?

Considering the fact that the 970 is an extremely anti-consumer chip by design, and that nVidia still lies about its specs in marketing, and that they could "fix" the card with drivers (though this would render the card a 3.5GB card in effect) but refuse to do so, even though that'd make it a perfectly fine working card... I always tell people to never purchase a 970. Any other card, ANY ONE, but a 970. So by default, the R9 390 wins that question.

 

A 970 when overclocked some will beat a R9 390 in core strength though, because the R9 390 is already near its silicon limit. Maybe you can manage 1100MHz core out of the box. If you get some voltage control and a good cooler and you're lucky, maybe you'll get 1200MHz. But it's not going much further than that, unfortunately. At stock though, the 390 is better in general, though I'm not sure about against superclocked cards. However since I try my hardest to get people to avoid a 970 forever, I'll never recommend the 970 for any person ever.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BrisoX said:

What about r9 390 against gtx 970? 8gb vs 3.5+0.5gb? Older chip vs newer chip? It's a big dillema for me really haha mostly for 1080p gaming and 1440p in the future... Seen that OC-ed gtx gets better benchmarks than 390. And a lot of games will use it's max vRAM, what it 3.5gb. I even wont run on ultra. Just high. No need for super ultra maximum nuclear quality. So what do you suggest? Which one?

The VRAM issue is indeed present. There have been several people who have sold their cards because of it. Couple that with the fact that 970 is significantly weaker in DX12 and that games will only be more demanding to both core and VRAM as DX12 hits in force, the 390 is indeed a better buy. At 1440p, the 970 is actually significantly weaker by default as that means less CPU/driver overhead for the 390 allowing to show it's full potential. No amount of OCing can make a 970 surpass a 390 at 1440p or 4K


Archangel (Desktop) CPU: i5 4590 GPU:Asus R9 280  3GB RAM:HyperX Beast 2x4GBPSU:SeaSonic S12G 750W Mobo:GA-H97m-HD3 Case:CM Silencio 650 Storage:1 TB WD Red
Celestial (Laptop 1) CPU:i7 4720HQ GPU:GTX 860M 4GB RAM:2x4GB SK Hynix DDR3Storage: 250GB 850 EVO Model:Lenovo Y50-70
Seraph (Laptop 2) CPU:i7 6700HQ GPU:GTX 970M 3GB RAM:2x8GB DDR4Storage: 256GB Samsung 951 + 1TB Toshiba HDD Model:Asus GL502VT

Windows 10 is now MSX! - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/440190-can-we-start-calling-windows-10/page-6

Link to post
Share on other sites
The VRAM issue is indeed present. There have been several people who have sold their cards because of it. Couple that with the fact that 970 is significantly weaker in DX12 and that games will only be more demanding to both core and VRAM as DX12 hits in force, the 390 is indeed a better buy. At 1440p, the 970 is actually significantly weaker by default as that means less CPU/driver overhead for the 390 allowing to show it's full potential. No amount of OCing can make a 970 surpass a 390 at 1440p or 4K

Thank you for your information! Very good to know. Will go for 390 then for sure, and future profits ofc. Do you also recommend gigabyte g1 version amd 390 or sth else?


WHITE MIST

CPU: I7 6700K @ 4,7GHz 1,38V GPU: ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix @ 1568MHz RAM: G.Skill TridentZ 4x8GB 3200MHz CL16 MBO: MSI Krait gaming 3X Z170 PSU: Cooler Master VSM 750W CASE: Fractal Design Define S/window CPU COOLER: NZXT Kraken X61 STORAGE: Samsung 850 EVO 250GB & 1,5TB Seagate Barracuda

 

PcPartPicker - White Mist

Vidox Production - Official page

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
7 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

At 1440p that means less CPU/driver overhead for the 390 allowing to show it's full potential.

Yeah I have to correct this bit. There is no "less CPU overhead" at higher resolutions. There is *MORE* CPU usage at higher resolutions, however slight.

 

The "less" that is observed is that when you run into a GPU bottleneck before a CPU bottleneck, cards tend to give more accurate power descriptions. With strong cards at 720p and 900p and 1080p, the framerate is so high in many benchmark scenarios that CPU bottlenecks show up. So if in a benchmark at 1080p the 970 hits 200fps and the 390 hits 210fps, but at 1440p the 970 hits 150fps and the 390 hits 180fps, it's because the CPU was limiting the 390 at 1080p, and at 1440p the cards need much more power before hitting their limits. So they run into GPU bottlenecks.

 

In the 1440p scenario I described, let's say the CPU was a 4GHz 6700K. Overclocking that 6700K to 5GHz should not increase the FPS of the games by any significant margin... maybe one or two fps. But if you were to re-test with 1080p, the 970 might hit 210fps and the 390 might arrive at 250fps, or something like that, because the CPU limit switched to a GPU limit.

 

The CPU overhead doesn't go anywhere at higher resolutions. It's still generally at the FPSes that existed at lower resolutions, but at higher resolutions the GPUs are more likely to hit their limit first.

 

As for @BrisoX, you can never go wrong with Sapphire for AMD. MSI has good cards this time around too though, but since Sapphire has had the longest track record of good cards, I personally pick them. The decision between Sapphire and MSI for AMD that I gave is an opinion-driven decision by me, not a fact-based one, so feel free to choose as you see fit. Just avoid ASUS and Gigabyte for AMD.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BrisoX said:

Thank you for your information! Very good to know. Will go for 390 then for sure, and future profits ofc. Do you also recommend gigabyte g1 version amd 390 or sth else?

No. Avoid Asus and Gigabyte.

Asus have poor products pretty much across the line and awful support

Gigabyte's AMD lines are extremely bad and their support is also terrible


Archangel (Desktop) CPU: i5 4590 GPU:Asus R9 280  3GB RAM:HyperX Beast 2x4GBPSU:SeaSonic S12G 750W Mobo:GA-H97m-HD3 Case:CM Silencio 650 Storage:1 TB WD Red
Celestial (Laptop 1) CPU:i7 4720HQ GPU:GTX 860M 4GB RAM:2x4GB SK Hynix DDR3Storage: 250GB 850 EVO Model:Lenovo Y50-70
Seraph (Laptop 2) CPU:i7 6700HQ GPU:GTX 970M 3GB RAM:2x8GB DDR4Storage: 256GB Samsung 951 + 1TB Toshiba HDD Model:Asus GL502VT

Windows 10 is now MSX! - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/440190-can-we-start-calling-windows-10/page-6

Link to post
Share on other sites

@D2ultima Thanks for the correction. Will not make the same mistake again ;)


Archangel (Desktop) CPU: i5 4590 GPU:Asus R9 280  3GB RAM:HyperX Beast 2x4GBPSU:SeaSonic S12G 750W Mobo:GA-H97m-HD3 Case:CM Silencio 650 Storage:1 TB WD Red
Celestial (Laptop 1) CPU:i7 4720HQ GPU:GTX 860M 4GB RAM:2x4GB SK Hynix DDR3Storage: 250GB 850 EVO Model:Lenovo Y50-70
Seraph (Laptop 2) CPU:i7 6700HQ GPU:GTX 970M 3GB RAM:2x8GB DDR4Storage: 256GB Samsung 951 + 1TB Toshiba HDD Model:Asus GL502VT

Windows 10 is now MSX! - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/440190-can-we-start-calling-windows-10/page-6

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
Just now, don_svetlio said:

@D2ultima Thanks for the correction. Will not make the same mistake again ;)

Too many people make the mistakes. Always happy to have more people who don't =D


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D2ultima said:

Too many people make the mistakes. Always happy to have more people who don't =D

Indeed. Even more people still associate VRAM with GPU power :/


Archangel (Desktop) CPU: i5 4590 GPU:Asus R9 280  3GB RAM:HyperX Beast 2x4GBPSU:SeaSonic S12G 750W Mobo:GA-H97m-HD3 Case:CM Silencio 650 Storage:1 TB WD Red
Celestial (Laptop 1) CPU:i7 4720HQ GPU:GTX 860M 4GB RAM:2x4GB SK Hynix DDR3Storage: 250GB 850 EVO Model:Lenovo Y50-70
Seraph (Laptop 2) CPU:i7 6700HQ GPU:GTX 970M 3GB RAM:2x8GB DDR4Storage: 256GB Samsung 951 + 1TB Toshiba HDD Model:Asus GL502VT

Windows 10 is now MSX! - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/440190-can-we-start-calling-windows-10/page-6

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

Indeed. Even more people still associate VRAM with GPU power :/

Oh spaghetti sauce, don't remind me. I keep linking people the guide when they tell me I'm talking crap otherwise, but nobody ever reads it. So many obstinate people out there. I wish they'd all just stop talking to people online.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D2ultima said:

Oh spaghetti sauce, don't remind me. I keep linking people the guide when they tell me I'm talking crap otherwise, but nobody ever reads it. So many obstinate people out there. I wish they'd all just stop talking to people online.

Eh, recently it's started going in reverse. App4that was saying that a 980 TI uses more VRAM in Tomb Raider 2016 than a 390 cause it's more powerful ._.


Archangel (Desktop) CPU: i5 4590 GPU:Asus R9 280  3GB RAM:HyperX Beast 2x4GBPSU:SeaSonic S12G 750W Mobo:GA-H97m-HD3 Case:CM Silencio 650 Storage:1 TB WD Red
Celestial (Laptop 1) CPU:i7 4720HQ GPU:GTX 860M 4GB RAM:2x4GB SK Hynix DDR3Storage: 250GB 850 EVO Model:Lenovo Y50-70
Seraph (Laptop 2) CPU:i7 6700HQ GPU:GTX 970M 3GB RAM:2x8GB DDR4Storage: 256GB Samsung 951 + 1TB Toshiba HDD Model:Asus GL502VT

Windows 10 is now MSX! - http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/440190-can-we-start-calling-windows-10/page-6

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I have to correct this bit. There is no "less CPU overhead" at higher resolutions. There is *MORE* CPU usage at higher resolutions, however slight.

 

The "less" that is observed is that when you run into a GPU bottleneck before a CPU bottleneck, cards tend to give more accurate power descriptions. With strong cards at 720p and 900p and 1080p, the framerate is so high in many benchmark scenarios that CPU bottlenecks show up. So if in a benchmark at 1080p the 970 hits 200fps and the 390 hits 210fps, but at 1440p the 970 hits 150fps and the 390 hits 180fps, it's because the CPU was limiting the 390 at 1080p, and at 1440p the cards need much more power before hitting their limits. So they run into GPU bottlenecks.

 

In the 1440p scenario I described, let's say the CPU was a 4GHz 6700K. Overclocking that 6700K to 5GHz should not increase the FPS of the games by any significant margin... maybe one or two fps. But if you were to re-test with 1080p, the 970 might hit 210fps and the 390 might arrive at 250fps, or something like that, because the CPU limit switched to a GPU limit.

 

The CPU overhead doesn't go anywhere at higher resolutions. It's still generally at the FPSes that existed at lower resolutions, but at higher resolutions the GPUs are more likely to hit their limit first.

 

As for @BrisoX, you can never go wrong with Sapphire for AMD. MSI has good cards this time around too though, but since Sapphire has had the longest track record of good cards, I personally pick them. The decision between Sapphire and MSI for AMD that I gave is an opinion-driven decision by me, not a fact-based one, so feel free to choose as you see fit. Just avoid ASUS and Gigabyte for AMD.

Great to know all that stuff. Wonderful explenations. My processor is i5-6400. Ans just want to hit +60 fps at high settings so.. Not to demanding haha

@don_svetlio thank you too. Asus and gigabyte out haha think I'll go with MSI, 'cus of lightening effect that fits my case and MB :)


WHITE MIST

CPU: I7 6700K @ 4,7GHz 1,38V GPU: ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Strix @ 1568MHz RAM: G.Skill TridentZ 4x8GB 3200MHz CL16 MBO: MSI Krait gaming 3X Z170 PSU: Cooler Master VSM 750W CASE: Fractal Design Define S/window CPU COOLER: NZXT Kraken X61 STORAGE: Samsung 850 EVO 250GB & 1,5TB Seagate Barracuda

 

PcPartPicker - White Mist

Vidox Production - Official page

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
5 hours ago, othertomperson said:

I find it curious that we sticky threads with so much misinformation and rumour, and very little actual knowledge.

If you have a specific problem with a piece of information in the guide, please let me know.

 

This video does not mean much. There's no reason to force ultra settings in many games on weaker midranged cards to check vRAM. Much tech doesn't affect vRAM usage, and higher framerates is more likely to show the bottleneck of the memory. Why do I need to say... max out tessellation, motion blur, AA like SMAA 1x or T2x or FXAA, and Ambient Occlusion as well? It's best to keep framerates as high as possible and only raise the vRAM-heavy tech like shadowmap resolution and texture resolution, etc.

 

And some of the games they list like Dying Light don't have MSAA functions. Not to mention they didn't list the rest of the system. If they're going to give these kinds of tests, I'd like to be sure there's no CPU bottleneck and good RAM, where the limit should be directly on the vRAM.

 

I do state however that when cards hit their limits they compress and toss out what they don't need, and having games on SSDs with good speed/latency of RAM improves the "swap data straight out of the drive" situation.

 

I'm more than willing to correct what's wrong, however you need to provide rather detailed information if you want to make accusations. I welcome your detailed information-based accusations, however, as the more information you can bring is the better the guide gets. But if you don't have anything to bring, kindly don't make posts like this. Thanks.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, D2ultima said:

If you have a specific problem with a piece of information in the guide, please let me know.

 

This video does not mean much. There's no reason to force ultra settings in many games on weaker midranged cards to check vRAM. Much tech doesn't affect vRAM usage, and higher framerates is more likely to show the bottleneck of the memory. Why do I need to say... max out tessellation, motion blur, AA like SMAA 1x or T2x or FXAA, and Ambient Occlusion as well? It's best to keep framerates as high as possible and only raise the vRAM-heavy tech like shadowmap resolution and texture resolution, etc.

 

And some of the games they list like Dying Light don't have MSAA functions. Not to mention they didn't list the rest of the system. If they're going to give these kinds of tests, I'd like to be sure there's no CPU bottleneck and good RAM, where the limit should be directly on the vRAM.

 

I do state however that when cards hit their limits they compress and toss out what they don't need, and having games on SSDs with good speed/latency of RAM improves the "swap data straight out of the drive" situation.

 

I'm more than willing to correct what's wrong, however you need to provide rather detailed information if you want to make accusations. I welcome your detailed information-based accusations, however, as the more information you can bring is the better the guide gets. But if you don't have anything to bring, kindly don't make posts like this. Thanks.

 

That's the steps that they had to take in order to max out the vram and get any difference whatsoever. If they turned all of that stuff down they would indeed get higher framerates, however their vram usage would also decrease comfortably too, and only re-emphasise how going from 2GB to 4GB on the two low end GPUs makes no difference. Even a 6GB texture pack didn't see any decreased performance from using a 4GB version of the 290, vs the 8 gb version.

 

I agree with his point at the end that the way vram is being sold is all about numbers, it's about marketing, it's "how many cores does your CPU have" again. And it works. People still go on about the 970's "3.5GB" even though it demonstrably doesn't matter, they still go on about the 8GB 390 even though that card is never going to get any benefit from it, even in Crossfire, and noobs are still being recommended to buy 4GB 960s and 380s from people who utterly do not know what they are talking about, but have been told by companies' marketing divisions that it makes a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
3 hours ago, othertomperson said:

 

That's the steps that they had to take in order to max out the vram and get any difference whatsoever. If they turned all of that stuff down they would indeed get higher framerates, however their vram usage would also decrease comfortably too, and only re-emphasise how going from 2GB to 4GB on the two low end GPUs makes no difference. Even a 6GB texture pack didn't see any decreased performance from using a 4GB version of the 290, vs the 8 gb version.

 

I agree with his point at the end that the way vram is being sold is all about numbers, it's about marketing, it's "how many cores does your CPU have" again. And it works. People still go on about the 970's "3.5GB" even though it demonstrably doesn't matter, they still go on about the 8GB 390 even though that card is never going to get any benefit from it, even in Crossfire, and noobs are still being recommended to buy 4GB 960s and 380s from people who utterly do not know what they are talking about, but have been told by companies' marketing divisions that it makes a difference.

If you actually read my guide, you'd find out that the things I listed which I said should be disabled don't in fact affect vRAM much if at all. In order of most demanding to least demanding settings for vRAM: Texture resolution --> Shadowmap resolution --> Multisample-type AA (not necessarily MSAA; works off Texture Resolution) --> Level of Detail at distance (not necessarily "view distance") --> Render resolution (I.E. 1080p, 1440p, etc), either internal (SSAA, "resolution scale" slider) or container (DSR and other forms of downsampling) --> number of dynamic lights --> whether or not you're using NVENC to record (not sure about VCE) --> everything else negligible.

 

The problem with having such low FPS to test on is that you're not allowing the bottleneck to show up for any reason. There was one test, I think it was Rainbow Six? where the 4GB 380 blew away the 2GB 380 but the 4GB and 2GB 960 were mostly equal. That could have been due to the pitiful memory bandwidth on the 960, for example, actually causing a problem before its vRAM had a chance to limit it. The 128-bit memory bus width on the 960 is very poor for a card of its core strength, and can hinder it before vRAM amount actually becomes a factor. But again, for the results they had, I would have liked to know the rest of the system. If they had top notch RAM and ran every game off a 1TB 850 Pro for example, and the paging file for the OS was on a SSD as well, it would have alleviated the problems when hitting the limits of vRAM somewhat as well. We need all the variables, and that little video does not nearly provide enough of them, and is more of a quick & dirty test. I need more information to validate what they give, and they need to abuse vRAM while keeping FPS as high as possible, and I listed how to do so just now. Testing should be thorough with all the variables and constants public.

 

As for the point that the way vRAM is being sold is all about numbers, yes and no. Black Ops 3 for example breaks if you use "extra" textures with a 4GB vRAM card. You NEED 6GB vRAM to turn on extra textures. 2GB cards can only use medium, and can't use "high". On the flip side, GTA V is a somewhat unoptimized title if one is turning up graphics, and no 2GB card on the planet can max all its vRAM-hogging options and keep good FPS. MSAA is its own beast, but grass and shadows and "long shadows" in the advanced menu and all that are all ridiculously demanding for relatively little vRAM hit, but still necessary to max the usage for that game last I checked. Stuff like that is always confusing and leads people to believe varying things, like a 390 can't make use of its 8GB buffer. It can, and if there were a scenario properly for it, it would. I've seen someone take GTA V and run it across three 1440p screens with two R9 390Xs using near its 8GB framebuffer. That wouldn't be possible on two R9 290X cards in the same manner.

 

BUT some of the cards do have overmuch. The Titan X for example, at stock, is $350 more for 6GB extra vRAM and worse performance than a 980Ti superclocked. The fact that a custom vBIOS lets it shine is irrelevant, because that's not how it's sold, and it's a $1000+ USD card. I don't think people will realistically use over 6GB of vRAM today. I do hope you'll understand however that more vRAM is indeed better than less. The R9 290 is either 2GB, 4GB or 8GB. You can't put 6GB properly on that card because of its memory bus width. Similarly, the 980Ti and Titan X can us 3GB, 6GB or 12GB. I couldn't put 8GB there. The 970 could use 3.5GB + 0.5GB or 7GB + 1GB, and the 980 could use 4GB or 8GB. The 960 could theoretically use 8GB, but it'd probably not make sense due to its low memory bandwidth. The REAL problem is cards like the R9 Fury and Fury X which are limited to 4GB despite performing so well at higher resolutions like 4K, and being marketed as such. I understand it was a HBM1 limitation, but still.

 

Anyway, I just gave express information about all of this already. More vRAM doesn't hurt, cards can use all their vRAM in general, and cards can compress quite a bit of data depending on the setup of one's system when at a vRAM limit. It's not like one needs to sell a 3GB card to buy a 6GB version, for example. 


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned, but the text, you can't even see it in the dark theme.

sorry to bring back the dead xp

great job on the thread though @D2ultima :)

a lot of people could use this


Well, now you're reading this, I might as well inspire you with a deep quote

If you fall, I'll be there

             - Floor

so inspiring, so deep, the feels ;-;  THE FEELS ;-;

 

Newer Build which I'm gonna buy when I haz moneyz

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£0.00)
CPU Cooler: be quiet! PURE ROCK 51.7 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£25.98 @ Novatech)
Motherboard: MSI B85-G43 GAMING ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£78.10 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Kingston HyperX FURY 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (£0.00)
Memory: Kingston HyperX FURY 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (£29.76 @ Ebuyer)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£0.00)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 380 4GB Video Card  (£179.99 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Corsair 780T ATX Full Tower Case  (£149.99 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  (£70.97 @ Amazon UK)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer  (Purchased For £0.00)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 OEM (64-bit)  (£59.00 @ Amazon UK)
Wireless Network Adapter: TP-Link TL-WDN4800 802.11a/b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter  (£24.99 @ Amazon UK)
Keyboard: Corsair K95 RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard  (£184.99 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £803.77

 

somethings says '£0.00' because I already bought them

 

 
probably best remix out there

 

 

If I follow you, consider your self lucky, I rarely follow people and when I do it's either because

1) I look up to you

2)I like your picture

3) Or you have an epic ass rig (40 titan x's 9 6700k's clocked at 29GHz that is what I call a epic ass rig, but no one has that soo...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
43 minutes ago, LynxThe1st said:

I'm sorry if this has been mentioned, but the text, you can't even see it in the dark theme.

sorry to bring back the dead xp

great job on the thread though @D2ultima :)

a lot of people could use this

gah. I had most of the text set to "automatic" but it seems the forum updating broke it. Again. All of my guides were an absolute mess after the forum switched, and it seems old threads don't play well with the new forum.


Clevo P870DM3 (Eurocom) | i7-7700K | 32GB DDR4 2400MHz | GTX 1080N SLI | 850 Pro 256GB | 850 EVO 500GB M.2 | Samsung PM961 256GB NVMe | Crucial M4 512GB | Intel 8265ac | 120Hz Matte screen | 780W PSU

 

THE INFORMATION GUIDES: SLI INFORMATION || vRAM INFORMATION || MOBILE i7 CPU INFORMATION || Maybe more someday

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D2ultima said:

gah. I had most of the text set to "automatic" but it seems the forum updating broke it. Again. All of my guides were an absolute mess after the forum switched, and it seems old threads don't play well with the new forum.

rip


Well, now you're reading this, I might as well inspire you with a deep quote

If you fall, I'll be there

             - Floor

so inspiring, so deep, the feels ;-;  THE FEELS ;-;

 

Newer Build which I'm gonna buy when I haz moneyz

CPU: Intel Core i5-4440 3.1GHz Quad-Core Processor  (£0.00)
CPU Cooler: be quiet! PURE ROCK 51.7 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  (£25.98 @ Novatech)
Motherboard: MSI B85-G43 GAMING ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  (£78.10 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Kingston HyperX FURY 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (£0.00)
Memory: Kingston HyperX FURY 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory  (£29.76 @ Ebuyer)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  (£0.00)
Video Card: MSI Radeon R9 380 4GB Video Card  (£179.99 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Corsair 780T ATX Full Tower Case  (£149.99 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 550W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply  (£70.97 @ Amazon UK)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer  (Purchased For £0.00)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 OEM (64-bit)  (£59.00 @ Amazon UK)
Wireless Network Adapter: TP-Link TL-WDN4800 802.11a/b/g/n PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter  (£24.99 @ Amazon UK)
Keyboard: Corsair K95 RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard  (£184.99 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £803.77

 

somethings says '£0.00' because I already bought them

 

 
probably best remix out there

 

 

If I follow you, consider your self lucky, I rarely follow people and when I do it's either because

1) I look up to you

2)I like your picture

3) Or you have an epic ass rig (40 titan x's 9 6700k's clocked at 29GHz that is what I call a epic ass rig, but no one has that soo...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×