3gb vram enough for ultra gaming at 1680*1050 res.?

[born-gamer]

planning to buy 1060 mini 3gb version, single fan. will single fan be more loud or card would overheat?

[manikyath]

well, you shouldnt be buying a GTX1060 3GB either way

[born-gamer]

why?

explain a little.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, born-gamer said:

why?

explain a little.

If you want to run your games at the max settings plus ultra textures and extra graphics, 3GB won't be enough for even 1680x1050

 

But I predict it will still be enough for high.

[born-gamer]

should i go for rx 470? then.

[Shubham Yadav]

3 minutes ago, manikyath said:

well, you shouldnt be buying a GTX1060 3GB either way

It practically destroys the RX 470(unless you get the zotac 1060 mini)

 

Although you should really buy at least a 6GB card now.

[manikyath]

4 minutes ago, born-gamer said:

why?

explain a little.

honestly, even just for moral reasons of nvidia daring to call it a 1060. it is *NOT* a 1060.

[Jack Dvorak]

get the 6gb card its only around 40 bucks more

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, born-gamer said:

should i go for rx 470? then.

Save up $40 more and get a full 1060 that'll serve you well for longer

[born-gamer]

its a good suggestion..at my stated res. would 6gb matter compared to 4gb? what are the drawbacks of zotac mini gtx 1060?

[born-gamer]

i know my processor is old..4th gen i3 4130 at 3.4 ghz. which card would suit me?...i have no current plans to upgrade cpu at this time...may b later.

 

[manikyath]

5 minutes ago, Shubham Yadav said:

It practically destroys the RX 470(unless you get the zotac 1060 mini)

 

Although you should really buy at least a 6GB card now.

for me it's mostly about moral reasons, but there's an insight a lot of people in this thread are missing out on:

vram is more important than you think.

 

gpu core usage scales pretty much linearly with resolution: more pixels to drive means more pixels to math (with some exceptions)

vram usage... is aside from a few exceptions pretty much unaffected by resolution. the actual framebuffer is actually mere megabytes no matter the res, but other things like textures and models take up MUCH more of that vram, and they dont change with resolution.

 

and since OP is running on a *for 2016* pretty small resolution, the gpu core usage for him will actually be a decent bit lower than a lot of benchmarks done today since OP's display resolution is only 85% of a 1080p display.

 

and going towards the future, i'd say in this case that extra gig of vram may end up more important than the faster core, on top of that, OP is specificly looking for a small card, so depending on how horrible the available cards are, results could sway hugely both ways.

[born-gamer]

i want to pair one of these cards with i3 4130 at 3.4ghz (no plan to upgrade processor soon)..and want to play games at ultra or very high..i am also a fan of MSAA enabled..i know there may be bottlenecking but not much to hinder 60fps gameplay (60 fps for me is a bliss, more than that is cherry on the cake for me..and below than that is frustrating)..its a big question and answers are req:

 

1. rx 470 4gb

2. gtx 1060 mini 3gb

3. rx 480 4gb

4. old r9 390 8gb

 

or i should not upgrade the gpu.

 

[Nena Trinity]

For you the 6GB version is perfect but if not then the RX 470/480 4GB, then again you may get away with it at that resolution but I personally would go for 4GB over 3GB...

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, manikyath said:

for me it's mostly about moral reasons, but there's an insight a lot of people in this thread are missing out on:

vram is more important than you think.

 

gpu core usage scales pretty much linearly with resolution: more pixels to drive means more pixels to math (with some exceptions)

vram usage... is aside from a few exceptions pretty much unaffected by resolution. the actual framebuffer is actually mere megabytes no matter the res, but other things like textures and models take up MUCH more of that vram, and they dont change with resolution.

 

and since OP is running on a *for 2016* pretty small resolution, the gpu core usage for him will actually be a decent bit lower than a lot of benchmarks done today since OP's display resolution is only 85% of a 1080p display.

 

and going towards the future, i'd say in this case that extra gig of vram may end up more important than the faster core, on top of that, OP is specificly looking for a small card, so depending on how horrible the available cards are, results could sway hugely both ways.

Actually resolution is a huge factor in consuming VRAM because of one thing: render targets. Most game engines use deferred lighting because it only scales with light usage, not geometry and lighting. I don't know how many render targets there are for a typical game, but for Killzone on the PS4, render targets took up 800MB out of the 3072MB the GPU had and it ran at 1080p. Lighting calculations are also done FP32 per channel, meaning every pixel is at least 12 bytes, as opposed to 4 bytes used in the RGBA model. But you're right, the framebuffer itself is peanuts in comparison to everything else.

 

There's also the question of using the highest quality textures for a screen resolution that is more than likely lower than what the artist designed the textures around for. If you're going to apply a 512x512 texture to a rock face that takes up a screen space significantly less than that in either direction, then you're using up more space for detail you won't be seeing.

[Shubham Yadav]

6 hours ago, manikyath said:

gpu core usage scales pretty much linearly with resolution: more pixels to drive means more pixels to math (with some exceptions)

vram usage... is aside from a few exceptions pretty much unaffected by resolution. the actual framebuffer is actually mere megabytes no matter the res, but other things like textures and models take up MUCH more of that vram, and they dont change with resolution.

Do you have a link to back up that claim? I thought textures and models scale up to higher resolution using mipmaps.

[Shubham Yadav]

6 hours ago, born-gamer said:

i want to pair one of these cards with i3 4130 at 3.4ghz (no plan to upgrade processor soon)..and want to play games at ultra or very high..i am also a fan of MSAA enabled..i know there may be bottlenecking but not much to hinder 60fps gameplay (60 fps for me is a bliss, more than that is cherry on the cake for me..and below than that is frustrating)..its a big question and answers are req:

 

1. rx 470 4gb

2. gtx 1060 mini 3gb

3. rx 480 4gb

4. old r9 390 8gb

 

or i should not upgrade the gpu.

 

Among these, the best option is the R9 390 mostly for the VRAM. But I would personally spend the extra money and get the 1060 6GB or a 480 8GB at least. Remember to get a decent card from Asus strix, MSI gaming X, Gigabyte g1 gaming(for 1060), Sapphire nitro+(for 480), or EVGA SC(for 1060).

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, Shubham Yadav said:

Do you have a link to back up that claim? I thought textures and models scale up to higher resolution using mipmaps.

it's mostly from messing around myself.