Hey, 1080p users. How much VRAM do you use?

[xAcid9]

GTA:V = 3.3-3.6 GB

Shadow Of Mordor = 3.5-4 GB

AC:U = 3.4-3.7 GB

[TheKDub]

Does it ever reach 4GB?

 

Edit: I kinda meant 3.5GB. lol

 

I've only hit like 2.5GB on skyrim maxed out with over 100 mods (most are graphical too, including ENB)

[Random32]

I have 3 1080p monitors, and a GTX 970, I mostly play PlanetSide 2 and Planetary Annihilation, it is never a bottleneck

 

2GB is fine, but go for 3 or 4 for future proofing, the R9 280x is a good deal

Throwing around the term bottleneck around a bit

[Agent181]

Maxed out my 3gb with modded skyrim

[FLUFFYJELLO]

GTX 980

Witcher 3 with everything maxed I reach about 1.6GB vram usage.

Warframe everything maxed + PhysX arounf 1.7GB

Tera everything maxed + max draw distance + max player count 2.1GB

 

^3 most demanding games I have, generally "3.5" or 4GB is enough.

[vSyNd1c4t3]

Can you link something that actually displays the settings they're running? Could very well be 4xMSAA or something.

 

Easy

 

1. GTA V did ok, but had to have 0xMsaa to stay above 60

 

2. Witcher 3 struggling to hit 40fps

 

3. Assassin's Creed Unity doesn't touch 60fps

 

4. Multiple games comparing the 960 2gb vs 4gb... 4gb pretty much made no FPS difference in most games, and didn't average over 60fps in most of them as well.

[kipper]

1GB.

[Sintezza]

I disagree. As you will be dropping below 60fps with the 960 even with the 4gb.

 

Proof.

 

 

More proof.

 

 

 

lol yeah Elrick´s video´s are cool,

just look how the 280X kicks the living shit out of that 960 lol.

Oh by the way, it also runes way cooler on idle, and just 1C higher on full load. .

 

Anyway i use 2GB of Vram, cause thats all my GPU has to give.

[Majestic]

lol yeah Elrick´s video´s are cool,

just look how the 280X kicks the living shit out of that 960 lol.

Oh by the way, it also runes way cooler on idle, and just 1C higher on full load.

 

It's the only test i've seen the gap that big. I don't buy it...

[Majestic]

Easy

 

1. GTA V did ok, but had to have 0xMsaa to stay above 60

 

2. Witcher 3 struggling to hit 40fps

 

3. Assassin's Creed Unity doesn't touch 60fps

 

4. Multiple games comparing the 960 2gb vs 4gb... 4gb pretty much made no FPS difference in most games, and didn't average over 60fps in most of them as well.

 

Wither 3 ultra (hairworks off) requires a TitanX to run >60fps all the time. Are you saying you need a Titan X for 1080p? No, it's just one game you need it for. Same goes for GTA 5. It's a 960, that means a midrange card. Expecting all eye-candy for that pricetag is stupid to begin with.

[Sintezza]

It's the only test i've seen the gap that big. I don't buy it...

 

4GB of vram isnt going to make much sense, if the GPU it self isnt powerfull to fully utilize it.

It will only help with some filters, but thats it.

It doesnt improve frame rates massively.

[Majestic]

4GB of vram isnt going to make much sense, if the GPU it self isnt powerfull to fully utilize it.

It will only help with some filters, but thats it.

It doesnt improve frame rates massively.

 

I know, I already mentioned the 4GB card doesn't make any sense. I'm also saying that games using >2GB don't really need >2GB per se. Most reviewers test the 4GB version, see the game running >2GB and conclude "you need >2GB for this game". Without putting in the 2GB card and look whether it makes any difference and the game isn't just using what it has.

[Sintezza]

I know, I already mentioned the 4GB card doesn't make any sense. I'm also saying that games using >2GB don't really need >2GB per se. Most reviewers test the 4GB version, see the game running >2GB and conclude "you need >2GB for this game". Without putting in the 2GB card and look whether it makes any difference and the game isn't just using what it has.

 

well it has everything to do with memory management in general.

On 1080p you can basicly run most games on a 2Gb or 3GB vram card without much issues, if you turn down or disable filters and AA.

 

Of course there are a few exceptions, if you play games like skyrim with tons of texture mods.

But still you can play vanilla skyrim totaly fine on a 2GB card.

[Aphala]

1080p users don't reach over 3.5gb on average, but heavy mods or high res texutre packs CAN make it get up there.

 

Skip to 3:25

 

Did you just pull a GTX 3.5 joke? lol

[vSyNd1c4t3]

Wither 3 ultra (hairworks off) requires a TitanX to run >60fps all the time. Are you saying you need a Titan X for 1080p? No, it's just one game you need it for. Same goes for GTA 5. It's a 960, that means a midrange card. Expecting all eye-candy for that pricetag is stupid to begin with.

 

I made my point, and proved it several times.

[vSyNd1c4t3]

Did you just pull a GTX 3.5 joke? lol

 

Did I?

 

I am not sure.

[Aphala]

Did I?

 

I am not sure.

Iv'e got my eye on you....

[Majestic]

I made my point, and proved it several times.

 

So? That doesn't make it inherently the truth or beyond debate. Listing Witcher 3 as sole evidence a 960 is incabaple for 1080p is oversimplifying...to say the least.

99% of the games will run fine, witcher 3 it struggles. But so do high-end cards (even Titan X's). So i don't think that game is a particularly good game to base your conclusions on. The exception of the rule...

[othertomperson]

So? That doesn't make it inherently the truth or beyond debate. Listing Witcher 3 as sole evidence a 960 is incabaple for 1080p is oversimplifying...to say the least.

99% of the games will run fine, witcher 3 it struggles. But so do high-end cards (even Titan X's). So i don't think that game is a particularly good game to base your conclusions on. The exception of the rule...

 

I agree with everything you've said so far. Rewind back to 2010 and try to max out Crysis on a GTX 480. That was the most powerful card at the time and Crysis was already an old game and it couldn't do it. By the logic thrown around in this thread there was no GPU powerful enough to play anything full stop. You can prove anything with extreme outliers, that's why they're outliers.

[kipper]

I agree with everything you've said so far. Rewind back to 2010 and try to max out Crysis on a GTX 480. That was the most powerful card at the time and Crysis was already an old game and it couldn't do it. By the logic thrown around in this thread there was no GPU powerful enough to play anything full stop. You can prove anything with extreme outliers, that's why they're outliers.

 

 

Kden...

[othertomperson]

 

 

Kden...

 

Did you bother to watch the fps monitor? On the beach it's hovering around 50 fps, and as soon as you go into the wooded area FPS plummets to 40 fps... kind of proving my point.

[kipper]

Did you bother to watch the fps monitor? On the beach it's hovering around 50 fps, and as soon as you go into the wooded area FPS plummets to 40 fps... kind of proving my point.

It's maxed with 4xMSAA..... hardly a bad showing for something you said that could not max Crysis in 2010? LOL

[Guest Generallee]

Does it ever reach 4GB?

 

Edit: I kinda meant 3.5GB. lol

 

2.85GB

 

GTA 5 Very High-Ultra at 1920x1200

[othertomperson]

It's maxed with 4xMSAA..... hardly a bad showing for something you said that could not max Crysis in 2010? LOL

 

So you're moving the goalposts when its your own GPU, but these same metrics being applied to a 960 make it a waste of money. Ok then. I don't think it's possible to miss the point more than you have, so congratulations on that.

[kipper]

So you're moving the goalposts when its your own GPU, but these same metrics being applied to a 960 make it a waste of money. Ok then. I don't think it's possible to miss the point more than you have, so congratulations on that.

Eh? i'm not here talking about any GPU at all, i just shut your claim down about a 480 not being able to max Crysis is all.

 

Maxing a game does not require constant 60FPS to me unless it is competitive multiplayer.

 

It does not drop lower than 39FPS.