"games require more VRAM" narrative.

[Majestic]

So i've been seeing this around the forum quite a bit. And though I understand where it's coming from, I believe the problem is people are mixing up cause and effect.

They see games using 3 to 4GB on high-end cards and assume the game requires that much VRAM by default.

 

If you look at guru3d

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gta_v_pc_graphics_performance_review,9.html

 

You can see that in 1080p, the game already uses 2.5GB in-game monitoring, and 3.2GB measured in afterburner. So the 960 or 770 should crash and burn compared to the 280/280X right? Well no, not really.

If you look at the actual benchmarks, you see the 2GB nvidia cards perform no different towards the AMD cards eventhough the memory usage should be higher than their buffer. It just means either the game is just using the free resources available, or the nvidia API/Driver is just really efficient with memorystreaming.

 

Anyway, looking at these;

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gta_v_pc_graphics_performance_review,5.html

280 is sadly not in there, but the 680 and 280X are nearly the same. Eventhough the 680 has a really weak bandwidth and only 2GB of memorybuffer.

 

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/6034/3/gta-v-review-getest-met-23-gpus-testresultaten-full-hd-1920x1080

Here you can see the 960 and 280 go heads-up. No real significant difference either. In fact the 99P frametimes are better for the Nvidia card.

 

Even games that are AMD tuned and are supposedly wrecking 2GB cards on ultra isn't really true.

 

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/5881/11/nvidia-geforce-gtx-960-sli-review-net-zo-snel-als-een-gtx-980-benchmarksnshadow-of-mordor

 

Near perfect SLI scaling on a 960. The game just runs poorly on Nvidia cards in general but that has nothing to do with the memorybuffer or bitbus. I have to stress this though; I'm not arguing to vote for Nvidia or AMD. I just want this argument shelved until it actually influences performance significantly. Because it's a really weak argument and doesn't hold up in benchmarks at all, atleast so far i've seen.

[NeatSquidYT]

Isn't it something like where if you have more VRAM, the game gets more sloppy about its usage or smth?

[Dzzope]

Noticed the sam theme... What afterburner / PrecisionX etc reports as ram usage IS NOT really whats being used.. it's just whats allocated.. significant difference.

[Majestic]

Isn't it something like where if you have more VRAM, the game gets more sloppy about its usage or smth?

 

Well yes, they're free resources. But the 99P tests doesn't show an impact. If it used the VRAM to get a more smooth experience with less stutter, that test should show it.

Lazy is not really a good term, because why should they clean it up. It's there, doesn't hurt to use it at all.

[minibois]

Yeah, yeah, we know. Games use as much as available.. 

We understand that, but games are starting to ask for more, so to kind of be 'future proof' we recommend 3GB VRAM GPU's over 2GB GPU's.

Even if those 2 cards perform the same at the moment.

[Majestic]

We understand that, but games are starting to ask for more, so to kind of be 'future proof' we recommend 3GB VRAM GPU's over 2GB GPU's.

Even if those 2 cards perform the same at the moment.

 

Apparently they don't, because it has no actual influence at all. Games calling for 8core CPU's really only run on 4threads aswell. Using system requirements lists is not really a good indication.

[VG Docs]

It's actually pretty impressive how little VRAM it effectively uses. My game becomes unplayable LONG before it uses 1.7+GBs. I have to turn on MSAA (because I have a death wish or something) or highest shadows for the game to get nearly unplayable at all.

[rtpb5642]

I have a 6GB 780 and my VRAM goes up to 4.7GB in Titanfall and around 4GB in Crysis 3 so i think it just uses what it has available assuming u have the extra VRAM

[Majestic]

I have a 6GB 780 and my VRAM goes up to 4.7GB in Titanfall and around 4GB in Crysis 3 so i think it just uses what it has available assuming u have the extra VRAM

 

Oh, i'm not denying games can use more than 2GB. All i'm saying is that it doesn't need more than 2GB just because it can. I've yet to see a game utterly break on 2GB cards. But I guess that was your point also

[VG Docs]

Apparently they don't, because it has no actual influence at all. Games calling for 8core CPU's really only run on 4threads aswell. Using system requirements lists is not really a good indication.

To be fair, you're comparing two COMPLETELY different components. CPUs aren't really relevant in this argument. Also, notice how the recommended includes both - an AMD 8 core and an intel quad core. 

[typographie]

It just means either the game is just using the free resources available,

 

This seems to be one of the best-kept secrets regarding VRAM usage in games. Of the few games that are big VRAM users, some or many of them use whatever VRAM is available as a caching space that isn't always crucial for performance.

 

Anandtech mentioned this behavior when they discussed the limited number of situations in which the memory allocation of the GTX 970 would pose a meaningful problem:

 

One VRAM utilization strategy for games is to allocate as much VRAM as they can get their hands on and then hold onto it for internal resource caching, increased view distances, or other less immediate needs. The Frostbite engine behind the Battlefield series (and an increasing number of other EA games) is one such example, as it will opportunistically allocate additional VRAM for the purpose of increasing draw distances. For something like a game this actually makes a lot of sense at the application level—games are generally monolithic applications that are the sole program being interacted with at the time—but it makes VRAM allocation tracking all the trickier as it obfuscates what a game truly needs versus what it merely wants to hold onto for itself.

Source

 

My personal experience is that Shadow of Mordor at ultra settings, which purportedly "need" 6 GB of VRAM and will indeed take that much if present, will fill up my GTX 770's 4 GB to the brim and then go on to perform fine for the most part.

[minibois]

Apparently they don't, because it has no actual influence at all. Games calling for 8core CPU's really only run on 4threads aswell. Using system requirements lists is not really a good indication.

We were not talking about CPU's. We were talking about GPU's.

Shadow of Mordor is a decent comparison. That game asked quite a bit of VRAM as recommended and it was able to use it (at 1080p, what the recommended specs are about at the moment).

The 3GB VRAM over the 2GB is also very compelling, because of the ability to actually game on 1440p (or Crossfire/SLI to go for 1440p gaming).

GTX 960 SLI benchmarks disappoint me quite a bit, but that is mostly because the VRAM will be maxed out (on 1440p+ usually, because that is what it is most interesting for).

 

EDIT: you gotta keep in mind that I am neither a AMD or Nvidia fanboy, just simply stating what I think about this all

[Goose Legs]

Oh, i'm not denying games can use more than 2GB. All i'm saying is that it doesn't need more than 2GB just because it can. I've yet to see a game utterly break on 2GB cards. But I guess that was your point also

 

At 1080p, I pretty much agree with you. It's at higher resolutions (and when you have to drive multiple monitors) when the extra VRAM shows it's value. 

[rtpb5642]

Oh, i'm not denying games can use more than 2GB. All i'm saying is that it doesn't need more than 2GB just because it can. I've yet to see a game utterly break on 2GB cards. But I guess that was your point also

Depends on game settings, If i had a 2GB (if it existed) and 6GB 780 and i tried to play Crysis maxed out it wouldnt work out very well on the 2GB card.

Also i have 3 monitors (only game on the middle one)

[Majestic]

 

To be fair, you're comparing two COMPLETELY different components. CPUs aren't really relevant in this argument. Also, notice how the recommended includes both - an AMD 8 core and an intel quad core. 

 

Well that sort of proves the point. It's a really wonky thing to use as a parameter.

 

We were not talking about CPU's. We were talking about GPU's.

Shadow of Mordor is a decent comparison. That game asked quite a bit of VRAM as recommended and it was able to use it (at 1080p, what the recommended specs are about at the moment).

The 3GB VRAM over the 2GB is also very compelling, because of the ability to actually game on 1440p (or Crossfire/SLI to go for 1440p gaming).

GTX 960 SLI benchmarks disappoint me quite a bit, but that is mostly because the VRAM will be maxed out (on 1440p+ usually, because that is what it is most interesting for).

 

EDIT: you gotta keep in mind that I am neither a AMD or Nvidia fanboy, just simply stating what I think about this all

 

I'm not going to call anyone a fanboy, don't worry. 

 

The point I made with that statement that system requirements are not really interesting. Shadow of mordor on 960 SLI just proves the 960 isn't limited by memory at all, nor the 128bit bus. It has near-perfect scaling at ultra settings. Had it been limited by anything other than the GPU, it would've seen significant diminishing returns on SLI. 

 

Gaming at 1440p on both the 960 and 280 is a moot point. Because they are not designed for that.

 

 

At 1080p, I pretty much agree with you. It's at higher resolutions (and when you have to drive multiple monitors) when the extra VRAM shows it's value. 

 

Well at higher resolutions a 280 and 960 would crap out anyway. GPU is too slow.

 

Depends on game settings, If i had a 2GB (if it existed) and 6GB 780 and i tried to play Crysis maxed out it wouldnt work out very well on the 2GB card.

Also i have 3 monitors (only game on the middle one)

 

 

Which card is that? Could've just been too slow from the get-go.

[Theo]

My 680 2gb at 1080p and specially at 1440p can run GTA v just fine on max settings, but i get noticeable texture pop in and other things like that, that would not happen if i had more Vram. 

Just cause the game runs with less vram when in reality it could be using a lot more, does not mean it runs really well ( even if FPS is strong )

[WereCat]

I still think that I should be allowed to set anything I want in the option menu and not being restricted to VRAM number. Just let the indicator there to see how much I need vs how much I have but LET ME decide if I want to use settings that require more VRAM than I have!

 

Also I am kinda surprised.. in this graph the GTX 680 was better than GTX 770 (same cards but 770 has higher clocked memory).

 

I see that 2GB is becoming the ... "It is OK but you should go for more" thing.

[Majestic]

 

My 680 2gb at 1080p and specially at 1440p can run GTA v just fine on max settings, but i get noticeable texture pop in and other things like that, that would not happen if i had more Vram. 

 

How do you know this?

 

I still think that I should be allowed to set anything I want in the option menu and not being restricted to VRAM number. Just let the indicator there to see how much I need vs how much I have but LET ME decide if I want to use settings that require more VRAM than I have!

 

Where are you limited from choosing an option, and had you been able to.. would the framerate have been good enough?

 

I see that 2GB is becoming the ... "It is OK but you should go for more" thing.

 

Well that's the thing isn't it. It's a bit of a narrative, hence the title.

[Misanthrope]

You bring very interesting points. Here's my unprofessional and highly uneducated guess:

 

-Cards have memory and bandwidth available

 

-Some games might use larger textures requiring more ram

 

-The larger textures are not only larger in size affecting vram speed and capacity, but also the overall GPU compute power required to calculate and use them in game

 

-By the time a game reaches over 2gb on anything but the strongest cards, the compute power is actually a much bigger bottleneck so to speak, so much so that it really doesn't matters all that much.

[VG Docs]

Of the few games that are big VRAM users, some or many of them use whatever VRAM is available as a caching space that isn't always crucial for performance.

My experience is that this is true for the most part. There are some games that simply don't do well because of VRAM usage (Shadow of Mordor, CoD Advanced Warfare), but even my 2GB video card handles most games without choking. It may not get the best performance, but even now it's rare when I come across a game that actually does both - maxes out my VRAM and chokes because of it.

Well that sort of proves the point. It's a really wonky thing to use as a parameter.

Not really, like I said - different subject matters at that point. Oh well, doesn't really matter. 

 

i get noticeable texture pop in and other things like that, that would not happen if i had more Vram. 

I think pop ins occur frequently no matter what rig you're on. 

 

I still think that I should be allowed to set anything I want in the option menu and not being restricted to VRAM number. Just let the indicator there to see how much I need vs how much I have but LET ME decide if I want to use settings that require more VRAM than I have!

You can. It's called "Ignore Suggested Limits". Turn that on and you can tweak to your hearts content. 

[WereCat]

 

 

Where are you limited from choosing an option, and had you been able to.. would the framerate have been good enough?

 

You are limited when you want to have settings that exceed your actual VRAM the game wont allow you to save/use those settings.

If the framerate would be good enough? Yea? .. I think so... I am using 2045 out of 2047MB (That is what game is telling me) and I have over 70-80 FPS and I rarely drop bellow 60.. and I am willing to go as low as 40 but I cant turn MSAA on because of this so I would never know how much performance it would actualy take.

 

EDIT: @Trogdor8freebird thanks... Im going to try it.

[Majestic]

You are limited when you want to have settings that exceed your actual VRAM the game wont allow you to save/use those settings.

If the framerate would be good enough? Yea? .. I think so... I am using 2045 out of 2047MB (That is what game is telling me) and I have over 70-80 FPS and I rarely drop bellow 60.. and I am willing to go as low as 40 but I cant turn MSAA on because of this so I would never know how much performance it would actualy take.

 

Someone suggested you can disable the suggestions, alternatively just force them through your graphics card panel.

[Theo]

 

 

 

How do you know this?

 

 

 

I think pop ins occur frequently no matter what rig you're on. 

 

You can. It's called "Ignore Suggested Limits". Turn that on and you can tweak to your hearts content. 

If im in a car in first person view, the dash and stuff switch texture res from super low to very high. This is not the usual texture pop in and i know this cause my brother with his 4GB card doesnt have this problem

[Majestic]

If im in a car in first person view, the dash and stuff switch texture res from super low to very high. This is not the usual texture pop in and i know this cause my brother with his 4GB card doesnt have this problem

 

I find this a little anecdotal, and I believe texture pop-in happens in GTA V anyway. I know TB complained about it on his 980 SLI system. The fact it's worse on your system could be due to various other reasons.

[Theo]

I find this a little anecdotal, and I believe texture pop-in happens in GTA V anyway. I know TB complained about it on his 980 SLI system. The fact it's worse on your system could be due to various other reasons.

Yeah i dont think so. I dont understand why some people try to defend 2gb 1080p so much. 

If a game uses more than 2GB then obviously limiting how much it can use will affect how the game look. 2GB isnt the magic number for 1080p anymore. Slowly its becoming the minimum