2Gb V-ram still enough?

[Supersonic Muffin]

The age old debate - is 2Gb of Vram still enough to max out games at 1080p on a single monitor?

 

Mine is that it is still perfectly adequate - as long as the card(s) are powerful enough a 2 gig buffer should be plenty, sure more is good but the coding and optimization of drivers and games has got to the point where they can run with less than you may think with no issues, sure more will be used if avalible but a good card should be able to manage with 2 IMO

 

What is you opinion?

[AlwaysFSX]

Max, no. Run pretty well just under max, yup!

[Najuno]

The age old debate - is 2Gb of Vram still enough to max out games at 1080p on a single monitor?

 

Mine is that it is still perfectly adequate - as long as the card(s) are powerful enough a 2 gig buffer should be plenty, sure more is good but the coding and optimization of drivers and games has got to the point where they can run with less than you may think with no issues, sure more will be used if avalible but a good card should be able to manage with 2 IMO

 

What is you opinion?

It´s actually possible to exceed 2GB VRAM in 1080p in ULTRA settings. We will see much more hardware hungry games this year and to make 1080p ULTRA happen you are better off with 3GB GDDR5 at least.

[AlwaysFSX]

I agree with you here. I can max out the games I play, but I don't play any AAA games from today. I'd say if you're running 1600x900 then 2GB is more than plenty at max. do you agree?

Should be, yeah.

[Toddwjp]

1080p yes,

 

1200p maybe

 

anything higher probably not.

[Dabombinable]

I was able to play heavily modded Skyrim 1080p highest settings on my GTX 650ti 2GB while using 1.89GB of vRAM, 2GB is fine if your playing games from 2013 and previous.

[Supersonic Muffin]

I agree with you here. I can max out the games I play, but I don't play any AAA games from today. I'd say if you're running 1600x900 then 2GB is more than plenty at max. do you agree?

sure do

[Imabigmac]

1080p yes,

 

1200p maybe

 

anything higher probably not.

the difference between 1200 and 1080 isn't any thing special. 

 

 

 

OP: 

 

I don't think I would buy a 2GB card today if wanted to play ultra settings or be somewhat ready for the future. 

[Supersonic Muffin]

the difference between 1200 and 1080 isn't any thing special. 

 

 

 

OP: 

 

I don't think I would buy a 2GB card today if wanted to play ultra settings or be somewhat ready for the future. 

 

Yeah, although I have a 2gb card and for $100 ish I got another cheap - but i would say no more "new" cards should be below at least 3...

[Imabigmac]

Yeah, although I have a 2gb card and for $100 ish I got another cheap - but i would say no more "new" cards should be below at least 3...

 

That said I guess I will go against my original point to mention this, a 750 ti is really not going to need much more than 2GB. But when you consider something like a 760 or 770 yea the new standard should be 3GB IMO. 

[connorpiper]

I would say so, with only a few games that may have problems. 

[FellTheSky]

2gb only gave me problems in some games like wolfenstein and shadow of mordor. If you dont mind turn down the textures should be fine

[ErickS89]

I think no, from 2012 to mid last year it was fine at ultra 1080p but now I wouldn't say so, 4GB is plenty but if you're going 4K you might want 6 or even 8gb.

[sgloux3470]

As long as you're wary of extra high texture settings, yeah it's fine for 1080p.  

 

Most game devs target 2 gb for 1080p, before "ultra HD" texture packs and the like.  

 

Modern game engines will certainly take advantage of more, but it's rarely necessary.  

[LabRat]

lots of people have gone over this and here's the latest................

[Swndlr]

i mean im gaming fine @ 1080p high-max settings with my 770, so id say youd be good for a lil bit longer.

[-iSynthesis]

The age old debate - is 2Gb of Vram still enough to max out games at 1080p on a single monitor?

 

Mine is that it is still perfectly adequate - as long as the card(s) are powerful enough a 2 gig buffer should be plenty, sure more is good but the coding and optimization of drivers and games has got to the point where they can run with less than you may think with no issues, sure more will be used if avalible but a good card should be able to manage with 2 IMO

 

What is you opinion?

1.5gb was enough to do fc4 at high settings, if you dont play watch dogs you should defnetly still be fine, but if possible id go for higher.

[Tacitus]

It's fine yes, but games are demanding ever more VRAM.

 

If I were looking to get a new card I'd consider 3gb+ to be the lower limit. Besides, there's lots of 780s and 290s floating around for not much more than a 770 will cost.

[zappian]

1080p ulta No.

Shadow of mordor uses 1.9 GB vram at high settings and im at 1440x900 atm.

[typographie]

The age old debate - is 2Gb of Vram still enough to max out games at 1080p on a single monitor?

 

At 1080p 2 GB is still plenty for the vast, vast majority of games. There's only a handful that will eat up much more VRAM than that at 1080p, and among those fewer still are actually worth playing. In my opinion, Shadow of Mordor is pretty much it.

Edit: Whether or not games with high VRAM requirements are going to start swarming out of the woodwork is up for debate, but I think you have to consider how many PC gamers actually own cards with > 2 GB of VRAM compared to what percentage of the market developers want to target.

 

Ideally I'd want 3–4 GB going forward, though with the caveat that I wouldn't bother with high-VRAM variants of cards below the R9 280. Don't waste your money on 4 GB GTX 760's.

[Briggsy]

the answer will change over time. 2GB might be enough today, but in 6-12 months most new games, including the undies, might very well be pushing past 2GB for 1080p. 

 

best practice is to not get a graphic card for today's requirements, but instead buy one that will last for how long you plan to use the card. 

[CommandMan7]

I completely max out my 2GB on Advanced Warfare on ultra settings with all the shader preloads, and it lowers my FPS by a notable, but not terrible, amount. 3GB + is definitely what I would get for the future.

[msvelev]

I was so stocked for the gtx960 but the vram announcement ruined it for me.. I'll probably screw my budget and join the 970 masterrace

[tigerx95]

Yeah I was also really looking forward to the GTX 960, but now that most of you say that 2GB isn't too futureproof, I'm not too sure anymore...

So I'm still thinking about 280x, 285 or 280.

[david cassar]

Yeah I was also really looking forward to the GTX 960, but now that most of you say that 2GB isn't too futureproof, I'm not too sure anymore...

So I'm still thinking about 280x, 285 or 280.

285 has 2gb ram tho 8(