Is 4gb VRAM viable for 1080p gaming in 2017/18

[Iceman2002]

You can get a very good deal on Amazon for the Sapphire Fury at just $260. However will it's 4gbs of VRAM will be enough for 1080p gaming for the next 2yrs ? 

[MValuableP]

Depends on the game developers and how much newer titles will be using. It should in theory be able to run most AAA games, but future proof might be the best option.

[Morgan MLGman]

I've got this card, it's great. What you need to know is that it's HBM not GDDR5 and from my own testing there are no noticeable FPS drops or stutters up until the point when more than 6GB of VRAM is allocated.

 

Though there's an 4GB RX 480 for 139$ after Mail-in-Rebate so that's a better deal price/performance-wise as you could get two of those

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131706

[Verrierr]

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I've got this card, it's great. What you need to know is that it's HBM not GDDR5 and from my own testing there are no noticeable FPS drops or stutters up until the point when more than 6GB of VRAM is allocated.

 

Though there's an 4GB RX 480 for 139$ after Mail-in-Rebate so that's a better deal price/performance-wise as you could get two of those

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131706

So you're saying it works fine even when GPU starts using shared memory?

[Guest Kloaked]

You'll max the GPU out before VRAM becomes an issue.

[Morgan MLGman]

4 minutes ago, Thread212 said:

I dont think it will.

Especially for AAA title they have become a quite vram eater nowadays.

Even RE7 Demo eating up all 6Gb of my 1060 at ultra settings in 1080p.

But it dpends on the games.

RE7 uses something called "Shadow Cache" or something like that, it stores some data in the VRAM to make the game works faster but it's not a necessary solution. It's only one game and the setting can be turned off.

1 minute ago, Verrierr said:

So you're saying it works fine even when GPU starts using shared memory?

You need to understand that HBM is a lot faster than regular GDDR5 so even with more than 4GB used there is no noticeable performance drop, I tested that in a few games such as ROTTR, Shadow of Mordor (those VRAM demanding in general) so you'll see performance degradation around after you're past 6GB of allocated memory, and as said above, you'd sooner max out the GPU than the VRAM.

[Verrierr]

1 minute ago, Morgan MLGman said:

You need to understand that HBM is a lot faster than regular GDDR5 so even with more than 4GB used there is no noticeable performance drop, I tested that in a few games such as ROTTR, Shadow of Mordor (those VRAM demanding in general) so you'll see performance degradation around after you're past 6GB of allocated memory, and as said above, you'd sooner max out the GPU than the VRAM.

I do know that HBM is much faster but once it's capacity is exceeded the only way for GPU to keep rendering is to store some data in shared system memory. I find it hard to belive that you wouldn't get noticeable FPS drops at that point. I wonder if Linus would be willing to make a video about this?

[Iceman2002]

Quote

8 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

You need to understand that HBM is a lot faster than regular GDDR5 so even with more than 4GB used there is no noticeable performance drop, I tested that in a few games such as ROTTR, Shadow of Mordor (those VRAM demanding in general) so you'll see performance degradation around after you're past 6GB of allocated memory, and as said above, you'd sooner max out the GPU than the VRAM.

I do know that HBM is much faster but once it's capacity is exceeded the only way for GPU to keep rendering is to store some data in shared system memory. I find it hard to belive that you wouldn't get noticeable FPS drops at that point. I wonder if Linus would be willing to make a video about this?

So basically, the two $139 rx480s are better futureproofed than the fury.

[ybriK]

Yes. An example would be Black Ops 3, eating 4.5GB+ of VRAM at 1080p maxed out but our GTX 980 with its "little" 4GB of VRAM is able to compete against the R9 390X's "behemoth" 8GB VRAM.

 

 

You may ask, why is this? Well that's because Black Ops 3 uses a technique called "caching" where it stores as much data into the graphics card's VRAM whether it's currently relevant to the current event in the game or not so that the game becomes more responsive.

 

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, Verrierr said:

I do know that HBM is much faster but once it's capacity is exceeded the only way for GPU to keep rendering is to store some data in shared system memory. I find it hard to belive that you wouldn't get noticeable FPS drops at that point. I wonder if Linus would be willing to make a video about this?

Remember that the game "allocates" more VRAM that actually is used. Even if the game tells you it uses 4GB, it might just as well use 2,5GB but allocate more. That is one reason why 4GB of VRAM is still enough for a couple of years. The only game I had to drop the texture setting to get below 4GB was in ROTTR when I still had my 4GB R9 290X, but when I ran the same benchmark with the same settings on the Fury with 4GB of HBM there was no noticeable framerate drop and the game didn't stutter. This behavior stays up to a point of around 6GB of VRAM used from my own testing, then it's just like with any other GPU when it runs out of VRAM.

1 minute ago, Thread212 said:

Owh so thats why, but that is stupid solution though like whats the reasoning? other games runs fine without that.

But even though its right its still not good for future proofing though.

Arigatou sensei¬

It should theoretically speed up loading times of shadows and put less load on the GPU, so the setting gives a bit of a performance improvement if you're running a card with lots of VRAM, but the cost isn't worth the benefits on most cards as RE7 easily eats up the VRAM even on a 1060 6GB or a 980Ti if the setting is turned on. And even with Shadow Cache disabled, an R9 Fury has quite a lead over an RX 480 8GB in RE7 (with that setting enabled) just because it's a faster card

 

2 minutes ago, Iceman2002 said:

So basically, the two $139 rx480s are better futureproofed than the fury.

They're more powerful, but I wouldn't buy them tbh. Those are one of the worst RX 480's that would probably be very hot and very loud when crossfired. Also, both have 4GB of a regular GDDR5 memory so in crossfire you have enough GPU power to use 8GB.

[Iceman2002]

Quote

RX 480's that would probably be very hot and very loud when crossfired.

True I've heard that the Power Color Rx480s run hotter than average (for AiBs)

[Morgan MLGman]

3 minutes ago, Iceman2002 said:

True I've heard that the Power Color Rx480s run hotter than average (for AiBs)

It's more due to the nature of the cooler on that particular RX 480. It's just one fan...

 

And FYI @Thread212

Here are updated RE7 benchmarks with Shadow Cache disabled for GPUs that have up to 4GB of memory and the setting enabled for those with more than 4GB:

Here is what Guru3D said about it:

Quote

** Update #2: after lots of weird results with graphics card that have less then 4 GB of VRAM we found out that the problematic settings is Shadow cache. If you have an up-to 4 GB graphics card, please turn it off and you'll be playing properly. The charts are now updated to reflect that.

 

 

 

Quote

** Update #2:

After lots of weird results with graphics card that have less then 4 GB of VRAM we found out that one problematic setting is the Shadow cache. If you have an up-to 4 GB graphics card, please turn it off. However if you have a 6GB or 8GB card, leave the shadow cache activated. Especially AMD cards benefit there greatly. 

 

 

 

[Iceman2002]

Gr8 Thanks for the advice all you guys. I'm a complete noob when it comes to pc building

[Darkseth]

Dont buy a fury anymore.

4gb was not even enough 2016, why should it be enough 2017 or even 2018?

 

4gb will force you to lower your textures sometimes to even LOW (Call of Duty Infinite Warfare stutters on any 4gb Card, if you have Textures higher than Low): https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11/call-of-duty-infinite-warfare-benchmark/2/#abschnitt_probleme_bei_weniger_als_8_gb_speicher

 

if you're fine with reduced settings (and the worst: reduced Textures), get the Fury if you find a good Price.

If you want anything close to "Future Proof", take at least 6gb (gtx 1060), or 8gb (RX 480), and be happy with it.

 

Double Vram is much more important for the future, than 10% more raw fps.

Not to mention the higher Power consumption, and older Architecture.

Over the next years, the RX 480 will come closer to the Fury, even if it will be just a few % due to future optimization.

[ybriK]

47 minutes ago, Darkseth said:

Over the next years, the RX 480 will come closer to the Fury.

That's like saying AMD will beat Nvidia in the market share in a week.

[nerd866]

I'm trying to play Planet Coaster on a 1080p monitor with my 3GB 1060. Performance is great for smaller parks at max settings but it starts to struggle a bit with shadows and lighting effects in larger parks, especially at night.

 

In GPU-Z, the GPU reports all of its VRAM being used in anything larger than a small park. I don't know how much VRAM would be enough to prevent a game like Planet Coaster from bottlenecking on VRAM at 1080p but it appears to be more than 3 GB.

 

That's the only game I've found so far to hit 3 GB at 1080p but I also don't play a lot of AAA games. Planet Coaster also pushes my CPU upwards of 60% load across all cores (not a sight I see often on a 3930k, which is nice actually), which may also be a factor in performance. I'm not used to seeing such high CPU loads across all cores in games.