G-Sync and VRAM usage

[TheBaken]

A curious mind wants to know:

 

I've done some Google searching, but haven't been able to see anyone with actual numbers indicate what enabling G-Sync does to VRAM usage on their cards. My gut would say that it should be less than using V-Sync, as the graphics are output to the monitor as soon as they are drawn instead of being stored into the VRAM until the screen is able to display while doing the next calculation (please correct me if I'm wrong on how V-Sync is actually implemented), but how much volume are we talking about? Is it a percentage of the amount it took to draw the screen, a small flat amount depending on the resolution size, or something that varies from game to game depending on other texture file sizes (aka, modded Skyrim having much larger and more detailed texture files than vanilla Skyrim)? Is it even a large enough amount to make a noticeable dent in the the free VRAM a 780 ti might have available while stressing the card at 1440p, or are we only talking about a few MB whether you are running a 770 or a Titan at either 1080p or 4k?

 

I'd love to see any articles on this issue if anyone has seen anything to this effect that they could direct me to, or if they have a monitor themselves that they could run a usage test on, I'd love to see some numbers.

[AlwaysFSX]

Why would it use more ram on your gpu? It's completely separate.

[cjeffcoatjr]

G-Sync won't affect VRAM that much.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

G-Sync won't affect VRAM that much.

 

 

Why would it use more ram on your gpu? It's completely separate.

 

Any sources to back this up? Any actual reasons?

[Osmium]

Any sources to back this up? Any actual reasons?

 

Any reason to doubt it?

 

Thinking about from a logical standpoint the module is in the monitor and to my understanding it takes the signal it is receiving and alters the refresh rate based of that signal so the GPU shouldn't have to do any more work.

[Faa]

Any sources to back this up? Any actual reasons?

Because gsync reads the frame buffer (vram) only?

[Vitalius]

Any sources to back this up? Any actual reasons?

Because GSync basically just makes your monitor's refresh rate to stay at the rate at which your GPU pushes out frames.

I don't see how a monitor side technology will directly influence VRAM usage honestly.

[AlwaysFSX]

Any sources to back this up? Any actual reasons?

G-sync doesn't do anything to your gpu. Your gpu just renders frames. The G-sync module in the monitor takes those frames and varies the refresh rate based on the information of frames it receives. So why would it affect gpu performance in any way?

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

G-sync doesn't do anything to your gpu. Your gpu just renders frames. The G-sync module in the monitor takes those frames and varies the refresh rate based on the information of frames it receives. So why would it affect gpu performance in any way?

 

 

Because GSync basically just makes your monitor's refresh rate to stay at the rate at which your GPU pushes out frames.

I don't see how a monitor side technology will directly influence VRAM usage honestly.

 

 

Because gsync reads the frame buffer (vram) only?

 

 

Any reason to doubt it?

 

Thinking about from a logical standpoint the module is in the monitor and to my understanding it takes the signal it is receiving and alters the refresh rate based of that signal so the GPU shouldn't have to do any more work.

Because their posts were awful.

 

 

I wasnt saying I did not agree, but neither of them gave any actual reasons, or links to explain why it would or wouldnt. They were just bad posts in general.

[AlwaysFSX]

Because their posts were awful.

 

 

I wasnt saying I did not agree, but neither of them gave any actual reasons, or links to explain why it would or wouldnt. They were just bad posts in general.

I dunno, maybe by the fact they're separate hardware? Answers the question if you put two and two together.

[Osmium]

Because their posts were awful.

I wasnt saying I did not agree, but neither of them gave any actual reasons, or links to explain why it would or wouldnt. They were just bad posts in general.

 

Okay so now nobody is allowed to make a post unless they cite their sources? Please grow up, people are allowed to make educated guesses and if they are wrong oh well. But all evidence on the online table does not disprove their statements and it just makes sense they (nvidia) wouldn't make a custom module just to stress their GPUs more when they could use the module itself to regulate the frames.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

Okay so now nobody is allowed to make a post unless they cite their sources? Please grow up, people are allowed to make educated guesses and if they are wrong oh well. But all evidence on the online table does not disprove their statements and it just makes sense they (nvidia) wouldn't make a custom module just to stress their GPUs more when they could use the module itself to regulate the frames.

You dont see how those two first replys are pointless? You think that they really answer the question as well as they could?

 

And how did I say nobody is allowed to make posts unless they cite sources? I think it is you that needs to grow up. Your attitude is just awful.

[Faa]

You dont see how those two first replys are pointless? You think that they really answer the question as well as they could?

 

And how did I say nobody is allowed to make posts unless they cite sources? I think it is you that needs to grow up. Your attitude is just awful.

I explained why it doesn't use any vram and for some reasons its pointless. The gpu can only store data on vram not a monitor.

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

I explained why it doesn't use any vram and for some reasons its pointless. The gpu can only store data on vram not a monitor.

Yes, I meant the first two replies to this thread.

 

They could have been replaced with "yes" and they would have been just as useful.

[xAcid9]

Doesn't Gsync module have built in ram? Why would it touch the VRAM?

[Silver3lement]

Doesn't Gsync module have built in ram? Why would it touch the VRAM?

I think the OP meant more along the lines of "Will it decrease VRAM usage for x y z card" and the reasoning he thought of was same gpu output, faster release of frame from vram, less "stress" on vram for holding onto frames before it gets to monitor. Almost making a 2gb 770 handle a game the same as a theoretical "other" graphics card that has a larger bus and more vram

[Ciccioo]

using g-sync or v-sync the gpu should be doing nothing until the frame in the framebuffer has been sent to the monitor, because if it needs to draw 60 frames per second (talking about v-sync 60hz here), it won't keep drawing, it will wait for the next sixteenth

so, even if the frame is stored in the GPU, it won't affect performance since the GPU is waiting to get rid of the frame

 

let's suppose that i'm wrong, let's see how much space can a 4k image on a 10bit panel need to be stored in bitmap

3840 x 2160 = 8'294'400 pixelz to store

10 x 3 = 30 bitz per pixel (10 for each component, i don't think that there is any alpha value at this stage)

30 x 8'294'400 = 248'832'000 bits = less than 30MB of RAM

so, less than 30MB for a 4k display setup, and lass than 10MB for a 1080p screen, i'd say it won't make any difference

 

by the way yes, the framebuffer stands on the GPU, wikipedia told me that