1080p - the VRAM problem

[zMeul]

source: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/grafikkarten-speicher-vram-test/

 

this is not the 1st time I discuss about this and sure it won't be the last

 

about 3 weeks ago, Digital Foundry made a analysis of surrounding GTX1060 the 3GB variant and 1080p gaming - the specific case was Rise of the Tomb Raider

what they found is that even at 1080p, 3GB of VRAM can be insufficient given the right (wrong) circumstances, more here:

today, ComputerBase.de took the matter a bit further and made a FCAT frametime analysis of couple of games at 1080p

hardware used: GTX1060 6GB and 3GB models, RX480 8GB and 4GB models and in one case RX470 8Gb and 4GB models

the games tested:

• CoD: Black Ops III - high and extra quality settings
• DeusEx Mankind Divided - high, very high and ultra settings
• Mirror's Edge Catalyst - ultra and hyper settings
• Rise of the Tomb Raider - high and very high settings

let's dive in! 1st up CoD BO3:

at high setting, between RX480 models (4 and 8 GB) there isn't much of a difference; when switching to GTX1060, there is some notable frametime bumps here and there, nothing spectacular

Spoiler

however, when we jump to extra quality settings things get interesting:

Spoiler

both GTX1060 3GB model and RX480 4GB model see significant increase in frametimes across the run

 

2nd contender, Mirror's Edge

at ultra settings, RX480 4GB model seems unaffected, while GTX1060 3GB model goes off the rails:

Spoiler

switching to hyper settings, RX480 behavior remains unhinged; GTX1060 3GB variant goes mental with frametimes hitting almost 100ms:

Spoiler

 

3rd up, RotTR

right off the bat, at high settings GTX1060 3GB model is out of it's element:

Spoiler

switching to very high settings, it's clear that the 4GB RX480 can't handle it very well; 6GB looks to be the minimum for this quality setting:

Spoiler

 

last one, DeusEX - for this one, ComputerBase.de "ditched" the RX480 cards (had to be returned back to Sapphire) and replaced them with RX470 variants

at high settings, 3GB GTX1060 cracks, the 4GB RX470 has some itches here and there but nothing spectacular:

Spoiler

at very high settings the trend continues, this time the 4GB RX470 get noticeably affected by the lack of VRAM:

Spoiler

and lastly, ultra settings ... the 6GB GTX1060 looks like it's choking:

Spoiler

 

 

the conclusion: in these times, it looks like even at 1080p games demand more and more VRAM - gone are the days where 2 GB were enough, we see even 6GB equipped video cards hitting the ceiling

 

ComputerBase.de's conclusion: VRAM 6GB should it be in the mid range; don't cheap out when buying graphics card, avoid 2GB models at all costs

Quote

VRAM 6GB should it be in the middle class

 

Conclusion: From the middle class 3D accelerator should have at least 6,144 MB of memory already. And Deus Ex: Mankind Divided shows that can be sized rather too short, only the Radeon RX 480 comes with 8 GB without penalty thereof. However, the discussion about whether this is justified is not included in this report.

Even with cheaper graphics cards should not be saved on the memory. Models with 2,048 MB, as they, for example, of the new Radeon RX 460 are should absolutely avoided and instead the double memory to buy. 

 

[raphidy]

1080p is so peasant rez. Been playing on 1440p since 2012.

[Nena Trinity]

 

[System Error Message]

Its because more and more is being rendered now. Last time games kept levels small and focused to reduce RAM and VRAM usage. Games also had less detail. More details means more memory. Imagine if every texture in the map is taken using a DSLR and takes a few MB each. Reusing each texture does require more buffers but not much more ram but for a whole game level that translates to GBs for all the graphics. objects further back may also be rendered at full quality but at least now you can walk right up to a wall or object and read all those small words and fine details and print with the object seeing clear rather than blurry like it doesnt have enough pixels.

[Dackzy]

waow this is late, in end of June I did a status update showing that you can max 4gb of vram out at 1080p. Everyone called me crazy, but who is laughing now.

[The Benjamins]

FYI 470 is a 4GB only card Officially, but because its based on the 480 it can be made as a 8GB model. 

[DarkBlade2117]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

FYI 470 is a 4GB only card Officially, but because its based on the 480 it can be made as a 8GB model. 

Did AMD not launch a 8GB model or am I blind

[Dackzy]

@zMeul This is not news, this is only news for people who are living under a rock or don't want to see reality.

[DarkBlade2117]

2 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

@zMeul This is not news, this is only news for people who are living under a rock or don't want to see reality.

You not remember the post maybe a month or so ago about the 3GB 1060 where zMuel was getting pushed into a corner over whether or not 3GB is enough?

[The Benjamins]

6 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Did AMD not launch a 8GB model or am I blind

470 is a NON ref only but it is basically a 480 so AIB can easily make a 8GB model if they chose to but it is not a official thing. I own a 470 4GB that is 480 ref design and it works with the 480 EK block that I got.

 

its like the 290X 8GB its a unofficial version.

[Misanthrope]

16 minutes ago, zMeul said:

source: https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/grafikkarten-speicher-vram-test/

 

this is not the 1st time I discuss about this and sure it won't be the last

Of course is not. Also does slightly lowering the setting still solves this non-issue? Of course it does.

 

Meanwhile I've found some footage of you:

 

Spoiler

 

[Dackzy]

2 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

You not remember the post maybe a month or so ago about the 3GB 1060 where zMuel was getting pushed into a corner over whether or not 3GB is enough?

sure, but I did a status update 3 months ago about 1080p being able to max out a 4gb card and after that I have been in threads showing it and I have been called crazy, but I don't care what they think, because those people live in 2012, not 2016.

[Coaxialgamer]

Wow .

 

And here i was expecting my 4gb 290x CF setup would last a long time ...

[meenmeen1103]

Don't see the reasoning behind the negativity in this thread. I see a well explained point with tests and data to support that point, and members that have been very active in the same forum acting like they don't also agree with said point, or too blinded to the helpfulness of the post by the 'I did it first' rationale. C'mon guys...

[Dackzy]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Of course is not. Also does slightly lowering the setting still solves this non-issue? Of course it does.

 

Meanwhile I've found some footage of you:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

do you want a card that is limited by vram? Because I don't.

[Nineshadow]

The 1GB on my GTX 560 was still enough to play Witcher 3 and many other games that came out recently (not sure about dx12 titles, never tried those out).

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Dackzy said:

do you want a card that is limited by vram?

Depends on how much money it saves me.

 

On the 480? No thanks.

 

On the 470 and the 1060? Legitimate savings to be had for 1 or 2 settings so slightly worst most gamers wouldn't even notice if not pointed out.

[zMeul]

16 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

more like three months ago...

how about a year ago?

 

[Sauron]

Using the vram is not necessarily a sign of it being a bottleneck. Efficiently programmed games will use spare vram for caching to reduce loading times. I think 4gb are probably still just fine except in fringe scenarios.

[SkilledRebuilds]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Using the vram is not necessarily a sign of it being a bottleneck. Efficiently programmed games will use spare vram for caching to reduce loading times. I think 4gb are probably still just fine except in fringe scenarios.

Blops3 is a prime example.

I'm ALWAYS at maximum Vram capacity using even medium settings, but I use High obviously with a GTX970, (game actively caches MUCH data), and my pagefile gains 10GB of data when the game is running.

Smooth as silk though.. does not induce issue.

[samcool55]

This is why i got an rx 480 4GB as soon as i could so i had one with 8GB shipped.

 

And that's why i overpaid a few weeks later for rx 480 8GB models for other systems

 

Futureproofing ftw!

 

I stick with the idea that mostly nvidia sell cards with little amount of VRAM as part of planned obsolescence.

But that's just my opinion on it

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Using the vram is not necessarily a sign of it being a bottleneck. Efficiently programmed games will use spare vram for caching to reduce loading times. I think 4gb are probably still just fine except in fringe scenarios.

caching isn't there to reduce load time, to the contrary it increases them

caching is used to prevent texture pop-in as you progress trough the level as new textures must be loaded from the disk drive

 

when developers want fast loading, they use texture streaming - this also uses less VRAM as textures are swapped in and out as necessary 

effect? doesn't look pretty and texture pop-in are quite common

mostly used in open world games

[Sauron]

10 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

Blops3 is a prime example.

I'm ALWAYS at maximum Vram capacity using even medium settings, but I use High obviously with a GTX970, (game actively caches MUCH data), and my pagefile gains 10GB of data when the game is running.

Smooth as silk though.. does not induce issue.

blops 3 is a bad port...

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Sauron said:

blops 3 is a bad port...

To be fair to the opposite side of the argument I support (Let it not be said I am unfair) expecting bad ports sadly, should be a given. In fact it should be the rule and not the exception given how common crap ports and poor versions are.

 

So in a perfect world we shouldn't select cards based on programers being lazy and incompetent.In reality however, yeah it's a given most gamers will inevitably run into a bad PC port, probably more than once per year even.

[Prysin]

36 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

Did AMD not launch a 8GB model or am I blind

yes, they launched both a 4GB and 8GB model. Officially.