VRAM?

[MajorGoob]

My apologies if I have asked this or something similar before, but how much VRAM will be viable for the next few years? Because I am swinging between the 1060, 4 and 8g 470, and the 4 and 8g 480. I have no idea what to do. I am not too keen on spending almost 300 dollars on a card, but don't want to be stuck in a few years when I upgrade my CPU to Zen or whatever team red has by then. I know the 470 is just the 480 with a block of GPU disabled and a lower memory bus, but how much of a difference is there really? I HATE LOW BUDGET NOW. IT USED TO BE SIMPLE AND NOW ALL THE THINGS ARE CHEAP AND THERE IS SO MUCH COMPETITION. Please help.... Tusen Takk.

 

 

[Jay917536]

4GB is fine for now and the future if you plan on only running 1 monitor. if you need more than 1 monitor than 8gb is useful. the 1060 is nice for what it is. Not to much but a bit higher to futerproof it a bit and a great performer.

[theanimun]

Depends on what you do, personally just about everything I do is covered under the 2gbs of VRAM I have on my card

[MajorGoob]

Just now, Jay917536 said:

4GB is fine for now and the future if you plan on only running 1 monitor. if you need more than 1 monitor than 8gb is useful.

I cant think of a reason I would want more than one monitor. I would prefer one large monitor over a few small ones.

[Jay917536]

Then I recommend the RX480 4GB and the Nvidia 1060 3GB. Both $200 so its your choice. Nvidia or AMD. Both are similar in performance. Nvidia better at opengl. Amd better at Vulcan. All in all about the same with nvidia a bit better overall.

[MajorGoob]

1 minute ago, theanimun said:

Depends on what you do, personally just about everything I do is covered under the 2gbs of VRAM I have on my card

Gaming. Space Engineers, Rainbow Six Siege. Starwars Battlefront. Probably BF1. I have most of these games and cant really play any of them thanks to an ancient gt610.

[Ostwind]

2GB is fine for the moment at 1080p and should be for a while longer, 3-4GB will have you set for a good amount of time at 1080p because its just a matter of lowering texture settings and things like AA if you start getting close(though hitting your VRAM limit doesn't always result in disaster). The same could be said for 3-4GB at 1440p because like before you can just drop texture settings but you run a higher risk of running into VRAM issues the more resolution you have. You would be set for some time regardless of whether you bought the 470/480 or either of the 1060's.

[dfhsrtjytdjkfgdh]

2 minutes ago, MajorGoob said:

I cant think of a reason I would want more than one monitor. I would prefer one large monitor over a few small ones.

Space Engineers is a more CPU intensive game (well at least that's what I've seen when I play it)

[zMeul]

do not get the 3GB GTX1060 variant

[MajorGoob]

Just now, SamFire5 said:

Space Engineers is a more CPU intensive game (well at least that's what I've seen when I play it)

Yeah. But its still going to benefit from more than20 CUDA cores and 1 gig of ram like I currently have.

[MajorGoob]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

do not get the 3GB GTX1060 variant

Wasnt planning on it.

 

[Jay917536]

Why is that? What is wrong with it? I'm interested now.

[theanimun]

I can see 4GB holding you over for the next 2-3 years max, while 8GB could hold you over for the next 6-10 years

I use the EVGA 2GB GeForce GT 620, and have some GPU intensive games that I play semi regularly

[dfhsrtjytdjkfgdh]

Just now, MajorGoob said:

Yeah. But its still going to benefit from more than20 CUDA cores and 1 gig of ram like I currently have.

Well when I had my GTX 960 with 2GB VRAM it ran those games very will at 1080p

[MajorGoob]

2 minutes ago, Ostwind said:

2GB is fine for the moment at 1080p and should be for a while longer, 3-4GB will have you set for a good amount of time at 1080p because its just a matter of lowering texture settings and things like AA if you start getting close(though hitting your VRAM limit doesn't always result in disaster). The same could be said for 3-4GB at 1440p because like before you can just drop texture settings but you run a higher risk of running into VRAM issues the more resolution you have. You would be set for some time regardless of whether you bought the 470/480 or either of the 1060's.

My main problem is AA and textures. I can deal with lower textures, but AA and Shadows are essential to me. FPS comes first of course, but textures are at the bottom of the list. I cant see subtle differences in color so most of them are kinda weird. People see things I cant and such.

[ARikozuM]

12 minutes ago, MajorGoob said:

My apologies if I have asked this or something similar before, but how much VRAM will be viable for the next few years? Because I am swinging between the 1060, 4 and 8g 470, and the 4 and 8g 480. I have no idea what to do. I am not too keen on spending almost 300 dollars on a card, but don't want to be stuck in a few years when I upgrade my CPU to Zen or whatever team red has by then. I know the 470 is just the 480 with a block of GPU disabled and a lower memory bus, but how much of a difference is there really? I HATE LOW BUDGET NOW. IT USED TO BE SIMPLE AND NOW ALL THE THINGS ARE CHEAP AND THERE IS SO MUCH COMPETITION. Please help.... Tusen Takk.

 

 

Just played Black Ops III on triple 1080@60 with a 4790K and an EVGA 1080 FTW. VRAM usage was 3.9GB at max.

 

If you want value I'd go with the 1060 6GB or the RX 480 8GB. Both cards do very well at 1080@60 and can probably do 1440@60 if you're willing to lower settings.

[MajorGoob]

2 minutes ago, Jay917536 said:

Why is that? What is wrong with it? I'm interested now.

Just a weird amount of Vram I suppose. I am fairly sure its the same card as the 6 gig too. Just with 3 gigs disabled. Which honestly makes no sense. It costs them the same to make. Why not just set the price for the 6 gig lower?

[Ostwind]

2 minutes ago, MajorGoob said:

My main problem is AA and textures. I can deal with lower textures, but AA and Shadows are essential to me. FPS comes first of course, but textures are at the bottom of the list. I cant see subtle differences in color so most of them are kinda weird. People see things I cant and such.

it will end up depending on the game, besides there are always other areas where you could sacrifice something to get perf elsewhere. Shadows are mainly a CPU thing.

[MajorGoob]

Just now, Ostwind said:

it will end up depending on the game, besides there are always other areas where you could sacrifice something to get perf elsewhere. Shadows are mainly a CPU thing.

I have an 8300. 8 cores. ( I KNOW. ITS NOT ACTUALLY 8 CORES. BLAH BLAH BLAH. IT WAS 100 BUCKS. CALM DOWN.) People complain that I made that choice all the time.

 

[Ostwind]

1 minute ago, MajorGoob said:

I have an 8300. 8 cores. ( I KNOW. ITS NOT ACTUALLY 8 CORES. BLAH BLAH BLAH. IT WAS 100 BUCKS. CALM DOWN.) People complain that I made that choice all the time.

 

well then you know exactly what there is to say here, like i said shadows are mainly a CPU bound thing so dealing with issues when it comes to shadows is easy. Lower shadow settings or overclock if your perf suffers with them cranked.

[MajorGoob]

Just now, Ostwind said:

well then you know exactly what there is to say here, like i said shadows are mainly a CPU bound thing so dealing with issues when it comes to shadows is easy. Lower shadow settings or overclock if your perf suffers with them cranked.

Shadows dont really affect me noticabebly now that I think about it. I have to have them turned off in space engineers though because their lighting system is weird. It is super intensive on my GPU. At 720p, I go from like 10 FPS to 40 just by turning off smooth lighting and cranking down any lighting related things to minimum.

[Ostwind]

2 minutes ago, MajorGoob said:

Shadows dont really affect me noticabebly now that I think about it. I have to have them turned off in space engineers though because their lighting system is weird. It is super intensive on my GPU. At 720p, I go from like 10 FPS to 40 just by turning off smooth lighting and cranking down any lighting related things to minimum.

well thats just bad optimization, either way you would be fine for awhile with either 1060 or the 470/480 at 1080p.

[MajorGoob]

Just now, Ostwind said:

well thats just bad optimization, either way you would be fine for awhile with either 1060 or the 470/480 at 1080p.

So Sapphire 8 gig 470 wouldnt be bad value? Because I dont care about the 1 teraflop drop really. I dont think that would make much of a difference IMO. (Cant think of that without thinking of Linus saying that in his "Ohmygoshimoutofbreathandneedtofinishthissentencesothatwedonthavetodoanothertake" voice.) Ive just heard people say that its a horrible value and to just spend the extra 50 on a 480 8g. But a 50 dollar cut from the price means a HDD. Which I desperately need. 120 gig ssd isnt gonna cut it for new games.

[Ostwind]

1 minute ago, MajorGoob said:

So Sapphire 8 gig 470 wouldnt be bad value? Because I dont care about the 1 teraflop drop really. I dont think that would make much of a difference IMO. (Cant think of that without thinking of Linus saying that in his "Ohmygoshimoutofbreathandneedtofinishthissentencesothatwedonthavetodoanothertake" voice.) Ive just heard people say that its a horrible value and to just spend the extra 50 on a 480 8g. But a 50 dollar cut from the price means a HDD. Which I desperately need. 120 gig ssd isnt gonna cut it for new games.

PCPP is showing that the cheapest 8GB 470 is 238.99 with the cheapest 480 8GB that doesn't have the reference cooler is 269. There's not a lot of performance difference between the 470 and the 480 so you could save a bit and get the 8GB 470 but you'll only be saving about $30. I think the performance difference is like 10% but dont quote me on that

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, Ostwind said:

PCPP is showing that the cheapest 8GB 470 is 238.99 with the cheapest 480 8GB that doesn't have the reference cooler is 269. There's not a lot of performance difference between the 470 and the 480 so you could save a bit and get the 8GB 470 but you'll only be saving about $30. I think the performance difference is like 10% but dont quote me on that

There is quite a bit of difference between them. Go with either the 470 4GB or the 480 8GB. I wouldn't go with the 470 8GB since the 480 can perform much better for a marginal cost.