is 8gb for gpu way too much?

[emergence]

isnt 8 gb way too much for a gpu? i mean the upcoming new R9 290x and GTX 980 with 8 gb memory totally overkill? 

 

[Mush Brain]

8GB will never be used unless you are at 4K and have around 3-4 GPU's.

[Guest Philosophy]

Not for dual 4K monitors....can you imagine 2 8GB 980s and 2 4K 27 Inch IPS displays!!!

[SeriouslyMikey]

Depends on what resolution you're running at. 

[Toddwjp]

nope its there for people running games at 4k and surround 1440p,

[eelnico09]

If you have several, for a 4k display it's okay. It's a waste if you buy only 1, for anything, it's not worth it.

[Lays]

8GB will never be used unless you are at 4K and have around 3-4 GPU's.

 

 

7680x1440 barely uses 4.5gb in modern titles, 4k will not get anywhere near 8GB lol.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1415441/7680x1440-benchmarks-plus-2-3-4-way-sli-gk110-scaling

 

Another thing to note, even with 3-4 GPU's, using above 5GB will struggle to maintain 60 FPS, because there are so many details that have to be rendered by the GPU's, the GPU's just aren't fast enough yet.

 

In the link, you can see 4 titans and a 3930k @ 5ghz barely maintain 45-60 FPS once over 4gb of vram, yet for some reason people think that 8GB 980's are relevant.

[Mush Brain]

7680x1440 barely uses 4.5gb in modern titles, 4k will not get anywhere near 8GB lol.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/1415441/7680x1440-benchmarks-plus-2-3-4-way-sli-gk110-scaling

 

Another thing to note, even with 3-4 GPU's, using above 5GB will struggle to maintain 60 FPS, because there are so many details that have to be rendered by the GPU's, the GPU's just aren't fast enough yet.

 

In the link, you can see 4 titans and a 3930k @ 5ghz barely maintain 45-60 FPS once over 4gb of vram, yet for some reason people think that 8GB 980's are relevant.

I doubt we will even get to needing 8GB Vram by the end of this console gen, but then again, i can't see the future

[Mooshi]

I wouldn't personally care about 8GB+ of Vram until a single GPU can properly game at 4k. By then, tech will be baller.

[rmac52]

I wouldn't buy a 8 GB card. But I'm glad 4 GB is the minimum now instead of 2.

[Lays]

I doubt we will even get to needing 8GB Vram by the end of this console gen, but then again, i can't see the future

 

Most of the games people are claiming use absurd amounts of VRAM have VRAM cache that will soak up VRAM even if it's not needed.

 

The other day some guy told me Arma 3 uses 4gb of vram at 1080p, yet it uses ~2.6-2.7gb for me at 1440p with the same settings.

[Mush Brain]

Most of the games people are claiming use absurd amounts of VRAM have VRAM cache that will soak up VRAM even if it's not needed.

 

The other day some guy told me Arma 3 uses 4gb of vram at 1080p, yet it uses ~2.6-2.7gb for me at 1440p with the same settings.

I used to run Fermi GPU's with 1.5GB Vram, BF3 supposedly NEEDS 2-3GB Vram, yet the cards i had chewed it up even at 1440p with all details cranked well above 60FPS.

 

It does not really change much in the PC realm

[givingtnt]

Not for dual 4K monitors....can you imagine 2 8GB 980s and 2 4K 27 Inch IPS displays!!!

how about 3 in surround ! that would be the best X-plane experience ever !

[typographie]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sapphire-vapor-x-r9-290x-8gb,3977.html

 

Tom's Hardware posted a comparative review of the R9 290X 8 GB today. TL,DR: more or less what everyone is saying.

 

Bear in mind, though, that they tested some newer games with VRAM requirements far in excess of what most PC games out there will use. So the difference across a wider assortment of titles may not even be as great as they found. It depends a lot on what you'll be playing.

[carolkarine]

Everyone is shitting on 8gb, but speaking as someone with a 290x at 1440p, I do run out of vram. The thing is, you can never have too much. If the 8gb versions aren't ludicrously expensive, then of course it's a good idea.

The problem. is that people are remembering the higher-vram variants from the post where they were often ridiculously overpriced (and in Nvidia's case, had a ridiculously small bit bus and couldn't even address that much memory) and as a result they expect these cards to cost way too much.

[Tiby]

"640K should be ok for everybody" he said

[I/O]

Not for dual 4K monitors....can you imagine 2 8GB 980s and 2 4K 27 Inch IPS displays!!!

No GPUs have the performance to run games with any sort of fluidity @ 8k

[Guest Philosophy]

No GPUs have the performance to run games with any sort of fluidity @ 8k

4K gaming and an Aux monitor.I am not stupid. just me. 

[DJ_Deedahx]

8GB will never be used unless you are at 4K and have around 3-4 GPU's.

What about your CPU's PCI lanes?  :unsure:

[Aniallation]

isnt 8 gb way too much for a gpu? i mean the upcoming new R9 290x and GTX 980 with 8 gb memory totally overkill? 

Linus is using two 8GB 290X's in his most recent build, which has three ultrawide 21:9 monitors

[Aniallation]

No GPUs have the performance to run games with any sort of fluidity @ 8k

I can play NFS Underground 2 perfectly smoothly maxed out at 4K on Intel HD 4400, so I think two 980s could do it at 8K

[I/O]

I can play NFS Underground 2 perfectly smoothly maxed out at 4K on Intel HD 4400, so I think two 980s could do it at 8K

Intel HD can play games smoothly @ 4K LOL LOL LOL LOL ! What is your opinion of smooth 1fps or less ?

[Aniallation]

Intel HD can play games smoothly @ 4K LOL LOL LOL LOL ! What is your opinion of smooth 1fps or less ?

Yep, and it was at a solid 60FPS (limit of game)

 

Keep in mind this was Need For Speed Underground 2. A game from 2004.

[I/O]

Yep, and it was at a solid 60FPS (limit of game)

 

Keep in mind this was Need For Speed Underground 2. A game from 2004.

Sorry but Intel HD could not even handle YouTube @ 4K let alone any 3D game for the past 10 years.

[Aniallation]

Sorry but Intel HD could not even handle YouTube @ 4K let alone any 3D game for the past 10 years.

Who told you that IHD 4400 can't handle YouTube @ 4K....