Why isn't Vram usage tested

[Optimus Prime]

Seems pretty simple with benchmarking these days, now both measuring raw FPS and Frame time, why isn't the Vram usage ever measured?

 

Now I'm not saying that every game should be benchmarked but the games that reviewers use for bench marks which are usually recent gpu intensive games: ie Metro Last Light/Crysis 3 and even Skyrim.

 

This would yield particularly valuable information such as how much Vram is used in high res/surround gaming and therefore where the limitations are since fps tanks when you hit the vram wall.

 

Case: (made up example)

 

2GB GTX 770 gets bench marked on Metro 2033 and gets decent fps at 1080p and 1440p but is using 1.7GB of vram. This info would than tell the person reading the review that if they want to go multi-monitor or install mods they should be looking at reviews for the 3GB 780 or the 6GB Titan. 

 

Hope I made myself as clear as possible with out making a wall of text, hope for a good discussion

 

 

[Bluuz]

I would think it is because the amount of vram being used really depends on the specific scene that is being rendered. Where something like "Skyrim runs at 79 fps" would indicate that you will get an enjoyable performance, an interior room may use a few hundred MB whereas the outdoors may use 3GB or more. 

 

However, I wholeheartedly agree that vram usage is a very vital piece of information and should be included in reviews. The "assume 2GB is enough" is become less and less true by the month. I'm still shocked that the 770 is being released with only 2gb.

 

In this case, I guess the most useful piece of information for the consumer would be maximum vram usage observed. 

[Optimus Prime]

I would think it is because the amount of vram being used really depends on the specific scene that is being rendered. Where something like "Skyrim runs at 79 fps" would indicate that you will get an enjoyable performance, an interior room may use a few hundred MB whereas the outdoors may use 3GB or more. 

 

However, I wholeheartedly agree that vram usage is a very vital piece of information and should be included in reviews. The "assume 2GB is enough" is become less and less true by the month. I'm still shocked that the 770 is being released with only 2gb.

 

In this case, I guess the most useful piece of information for the consumer would be maximum vram usage observed. 

 

That's pretty much an extension of my own thought process and I'm glad I'm not alone in this

 

and I reckon your spot on about the "Most Vram used" part. makes it simple and elegant

 

and also like you touched on it helps give a definitive answer to the people who say you don't need more than 2GB or people saying you need more than 2GB

[Optimus Prime]

I take it no one is interested why Vram isn't tested?

[ltguy]

I think it would be very helpful. And i am also appalled that Nvidia released the 780 with 3gb instead of the rumored 5gb. How can you release a "new" model with less memory than is available in the Gtx 680.  You can always add another card to your system (Sli or crossfire) to gain more processing power but you'll always be stuck with however much memory your original card came with. 780's in SLI with 3gb??? Way too much horsepower will way too little frame buffer (assuming higher than 1080p)

[R4STABAN]

<p>Because most people that say you need moar vram don't know what they're talking about, the comments on the reviews would be awash with raging vram arguments that detract from the review.</p>

[ltguy]

People who think you don't need more VRAM cant ever fathom there being a tomorrow or new games that might require more memory. My 5970 trifire setup.. guess what.. 1gb wasn't enough memory. Only 3000 points shy of my Titan's score in 3dmark vantage, but no frame buffer. Useless because it doesnt have enough VRAM. But i'm sure when it was released all the skeptics were saying you don't need more VRAM.

[felixbearpig]

i dont know why , i was curious and checked the vram usage on cs:go on 1440p max and that take 1.5 GB and i was suprised because thats half the game size

[R4STABAN]

People who think you don't need more VRAM cant ever fathom there being a tomorrow or new games that might require more memory. My 5970 trifire setup.. guess what.. 1gb wasn't enough memory. Only 3000 points shy of my Titan's score in 3dmark vantage, but no frame buffer. Useless because it doesnt have enough VRAM. But i'm sure when it was released all the skeptics were saying you don't need more VRAM.

 

5970 trifire is ridiculous though. With that much gpu grunt you will obviously be able to saturate more than 1GB of vram.

 

What we have now is people saying you need 4GBs of ram for 1080p out of fear, buying 4GB 680s (for a premium) that don't have the grunt to utilise the 4GB unless you artificially load them with modded textures.

[ltguy]

5970 trifire is ridiculous though. With that much gpu grunt you will obviously be able to saturate more than 1GB of vram.

 

What we have now is people saying you need 4GBs of ram for 1080p out of fear, buying 4GB 680s (for a premium) that don't have the grunt to utilise the 4GB unless you artificially load them with modded textures.

I see what your saying and for instance that one 7970 6gb model is a huge price increase and you'd really have to need it pay that much money for it, but if you can get double memory on a $400-500 card for a measly $50 or $100 bucks.. why not. Its not like system memory where if your needs suddenly changed you can just add more.

[bennyino]

i agree, i mean it shows on afterburner for example how much vram your using, why not give us that information? i would've liked to know that when i was buying my gpu and when i'm buying a new one i will like to know how much vram i need

[bennyino]

or games should have what gta iv has, it actually shows how much memory it uses when you are configuring the video settings

[R4STABAN]

bennyino, on 02 Jun 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

i agree, i mean it shows on afterburner for example how much vram your using, why not give us that information? i would've liked to know that when i was buying my gpu and when i'm buying a new one i will like to know how much vram i need

Because (for example) If they run bf3 at 1440p on a 2gb 680 it will report under 2gb of vram used. (Obviously they won't be using loads of AA or they'd need their head checking)

But then if they run bf3 on a 3GB 7970 at 1440p (same settings) it will report more than 2GBs of vram used. Uh-oh, time to bin the 680 as it simply doesn't have enough vram?

Basically, the reported vram usage in afterburner is what is in the vram total, including cached stuff that is not needed for the game to run.

ltguy, on 02 Jun 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

I see what your saying and for instance that one 7970 6gb model is a huge price increase and you'd really have to need it pay that much money for it, but if you can get double memory on a $400-500 card for a measly $50 or $100 bucks.. why not. Its not like system memory where if your needs suddenly changed you can just add more.

In my territory we're talking adding at least 25% of the original cost on top for a 4gb 680. I'd argue it's a much more sensible option to buy a 2gb model, save the 25% and put it towards a next gen / nextnext gen upgrade.

[Nexus]

It would be interesting to have vram tested in modern games, but for every graphics review. A one of series of tests every six months or so with some new games released in that time.

We could also start a database here on the forum for vram usage. Im sure it would be helpful for a lot of users.

 

Regarding how much vram is enough:

The 780 was launched with only 3gb vram as it is not powerfull enough to utilize more on its own. Only when in sli with a second card can we get close to using this much vram. Look at crysis 3 for example, it uses about 2gb - 2.5gb vram at 1440p and the 780 get about 30fps at high settings with no AA. Basically nore vram would be pointless and just increase the cost of the card.

We most likely will see 5gb variants of the 780 but they will be more expensive.

[bennyino]

Because (for example) If they run bf3 at 1440p on a 2gb 680 it will report under 2gb of vram used. (Obviously they won't be using loads of AA or they'd need their head checking)

 

But then if they run bf3 on a 3GB 7970 at 1440p (same settings) it will report more than 2GBs of vram used. Uh-oh, time to bin the 680 as it simply doesn't have enough vram?

 

Basically, the reported vram usage in afterburner is what is in the vram total, including cached stuff that is not needed for the game to run.

im sorry but i dont think i understood what you said, do you mean that it will use more just because it has more vram? and that afterburner's reading isnt very accurate?

[R4STABAN]

im sorry but i dont think i understood what you said, do you mean that it will use more just because it has more vram? and that afterburner's reading isnt very accurate?

Afterburners reading is very accurate. I can assure you of that because I can watch it spike to the exact amount of vram I have when I have tested 2GB vram usage at 3x1080p (forcing myself to run out).

Yes, a card with more vram will have more 'stuff' shoved on it. 7970 users will report more than 2GBs of vram used in games where 680s report less than 2GBs. So for a reviewer, what conclusion do they draw from that and share with the audience? Obviously 2GB is enough in that instance, but if you were only looking at 7970 figures you would think otherwise.

[Wats]

When I play Trine 2, gpu is pegged at 100% with less than 500MB vram used.

 

Minecraft, only 80% usage but the vram is always up to at least 1800MB. I've sat there and just watched my vram usage climb up past 1950 and the game became extremely unplayable.

 

Hitman, 100% gpu usage, Vram is up there in the 1900s.

 

So I agree vram should be tested. With my own bit of testing in only a few scenarios, I already don't have enough for some games at 1080.

 

 

Should game devs stop being lazy or should we spend more monies on more vram?

 

7870 btw.

[bennyino]

Afterburners reading is very accurate. I can assure you of that because I can watch it spike to the exact amount of vram I have when I have tested 2GB vram usage at 3x1080p (forcing myself to run out).

Yes, a card with more vram will have more 'stuff' shoved on it. 7970 users will report more than 2GBs of vram used in games where 680s report less than 2GBs. So for a reviewer, what conclusion do they draw from that and share with the audience? Obviously 2GB is enough in that instance, but if you were only looking at 7970 figures you would think otherwise.

oh okay, i get it now :) isnt that what happens to system ram too?

[mvitkun]

im sorry but i dont think i understood what you said, do you mean that it will use more just because it has more vram? and that afterburner's reading isnt very accurate?

I think he means that if your card is a 2GB version and say you have crysis running at max settings,including textures,with 8x SSAA it might max out the 2GB limit,but still run relatively well.

whereas on the same settings on a 3GB GTX 780 it might take you up to 2.5GB or higher.

 

the larger the frame buffer the more textures it can (and will) store in said frame buffer.the more textures that can be stored the less often you'll have moments where the game stutters due to having to dump old textures to store new ones.

[R4STABAN]

Sort of, but what I'm saying is my old 3GB 580 reported more than 2GB of vram on bf3 @1080p, yet 2GB cards (like my 680s) never topped 1700MB.

 

So the only way to tell the vram required by the game (at xyz settings, for that specific gpu architecture) is to keep lowering the vram available until you actually saturate it and drop to sub-1fps or CTD.

 

For a reviewer that would mean re-running this kind of test for every combination of the most used settings with the most-used gpus to please everyone (if it was possible)

[bennyino]

 

I think he means that if your card is a 2GB version and say you have crysis running at max settings,including textures,with 8x SSAA it might max out the 2GB limit,but still run relatively well.

whereas on the same settings on a 3GB GTX 780 it might take you up to 2.5GB or higher.

 

the larger the frame buffer the more textures it can (and will) store in said frame buffer.the more textures that can be stored the less often you'll have moments where the game stutters due to having to dump old textures to store new ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

yeah i understood but thanks anyway :)

[mvitkun]

Sort of, but what I'm saying is my old 3GB 580 reported more than 2GB of vram on bf3 @1080p, yet 2GB cards (like my 680s) never topped 1700MB.

 

So the only way to tell the vram required by the game (at xyz settings, for that specific gpu architecture) is to keep lowering the vram available until you actually saturate it and drop to sub-1fps or CTD.

 

For a reviewer that would mean re-running this kind of test for every combination of the most used settings with the most-used gpus to please everyone (if it was possible)

I'm pretty sure that isn't an architectural change.

if you have more vram it'll just have more textures and stuff in the frame buffer until it either stores all the textures(or as many as the graphics processor can handle) or your card runs out of vram,if you have less it'll have less 

[ltguy]

2 gb can barely run all the games currently out. I prefer my cards to not be obsolete when i buy them. Watch this video, Linus shows that the GTX 680 2gb and 660ti are held back by memory amount. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gB9-eIPLzM.

Because (for example) If they run bf3 at 1440p on a 2gb 680 it will report under 2gb of vram used. (Obviously they won't be using loads of AA or they'd need their head checking)

But then if they run bf3 on a 3GB 7970 at 1440p (same settings) it will report more than 2GBs of vram used. Uh-oh, time to bin the 680 as it simply doesn't have enough vram?

Basically, the reported vram usage in afterburner is what is in the vram total, including cached stuff that is not needed for the game to run.



In my territory we're talking adding at least 25% of the original cost on top for a 4gb 680. I'd argue it's a much more sensible option to buy a 2gb model, save the 25% and put it towards a next gen / nextnext gen upgrade.

[Optimus Prime]

at lot of good points been thrown around. I'm sure though if they can figure out how to test frame latency they would be able to come up with some standardized testing method. Who knows it might show interesting info on how the graphics card utilize vram

also Frostbite 2 is a unique engine as the vram will scale with your card

[91wow]

I think it would be very helpful. And i am also appalled that Nvidia released the 780 with 3gb instead of the rumored 5gb. How can you release a "new" model with less memory than is available in the Gtx 680.  You can always add another card to your system (Sli or crossfire) to gain more processing power but you'll always be stuck with however much memory your original card came with. 780's in SLI with 3gb??? Way too much horsepower will way too little frame buffer (assuming higher than 1080p)

The 680 has 2GB of GGDR 5 Vram. HTeir is a 4GB version just as (I would think later on) a 5 or even 6GB version of the 780.