Do you ever wish Graphic cards came with even more RAM?

[Lord Nicoll]

Just now, Damascus said:

,lol  hope you don't try soldering the RAM, stacked hbm2 on the core would get so effed up

yeah, at that point you'd need to remove the conformal coating and then with butt quenched remove the old ones and add new ones, and if you have that kind of equipment you wouldn't be fucking around with consumer GPUs  

[Lord Nicoll]

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Ya dip.  Its 27% of 8gb.

ah, I thought that didn't add up, he wrote it in a very confusing manner, 27% of that is 3034MB, way more than the 2048 it reported, so yeah that's inaccurate, however one might be reporting actual use and other might be reporting reserved.

[Mr Ben]

On 5/29/2017 at 8:04 AM, pipnina said:

I thought 8GB on my 1070 was overkill

I thought the 8GB 480 I just got was going to be overkill, but I wanted it to be at least slightly usable for the next several years.  Turns out it's a good thing I didn't go 4GB cause I fired up Shadow of Mordor and I've seen upwards of 7.1 VRAM used at 60 fps at all max settings.  I'm sure it would still look fine at lower texture resolutions, but dammit I want to run everything on ultra if I can!

[Droidbot]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

This is why I always ALWAYS tell people to jump for the higher GB version of a card of it exists. This is because even if that VRAM isn't used today, it will be used later on. Also just look at the resale value of the GTX 770 2GB vs 4GB on ebay. The 4GB version didn't cost much more in 2013 but has significantly higher resale value today.

because Kepler doesn't have good memory compression and chokes on that 2GB framebuffer

 

signed, 2GB 770 owner

[Droidbot]

2 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

You just reinforced my point.

that card is now up on a shelf

 

dead

 

rip my nibba 770

[Droidbot]

5 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

bake it in an oven. itll probably work for another month then die again

don't have an oven to sacrifice for that purpose, next weekend or something I'll volunteer at local charity shop and put out an oven in the back room with like $10 pricetag 

 

there was like 10 last time I was there, might as well bake little 770

 

I think one of the memory chips died or something as there was lots of graphical corruption

[Zodiark1593]

What I'm finding interesting is that newer games of late tend to be a lot more balanced as far as system load goes. Not long ago, so long as your gpu was competent, you could borderline get away with a potato. Nowadays, you can't really cut corners on anything anymore when building a pc for gaming. Some games even suffer when thrown on a HDD instead of a SSD. 

 

Of course, this extends to even the details of the video card you're purchasing. 

[Zodiark1593]

56 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

This is why I always ALWAYS tell people to jump for the higher GB version of a card of it exists. This is because even if that VRAM isn't used today, it will be used later on. Also just look at the resale value of the GTX 770 2GB vs 4GB on ebay. The 4GB version didn't cost much more in 2013 but has significantly higher resale value today.

There was a $60 between the 2 GB and 4 GB version of the GTX 960 when I bought mine. I don't think extra 2 GB was worth the 1/3 price increase (though the gap to the 970 was still quite large too). 

[2FA]

One thing to note about VRAM, just because you have 8-9GB allocated by a game doesn't mean that all of it is filled with data. Allocating more than you actually use makes it so that you don't have to worry about calling for more allocation while drawing a scene. (I can't seem to find the source on this but I remember reading something by a dev mentioning this)

 

Some games like to store lots of data preemptively which ends up with high allocation while others use it a bit more in real time. Dishonored 2 could be an example of high preemptive allocation while Witcher 3 is an example of real time allocation. Both are amazing graphically but have a large difference in the amount of VRAM being allocated.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, CUDA_Cores said:

At that point I would've bought a GTX 970. Although I probably would've have really bought an R9 380.

Needed CUDA, and the 2 GB 960 went for $165 when I bought it nearly two years ago. The 970 was quite a lot more, nearly double. 

[Lord Nicoll]

2 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

One thing to note about VRAM, just because you have 8-9GB allocated by a game doesn't mean that all of it is filled with data. Allocating more than you actually use makes it so that you don't have to worry about calling for more allocation while drawing a scene. (I can't seem to find the source on this but I remember reading something by a dev mentioning this)

 

Some games like to store lots of data preemptively which ends up with high allocation while others use it a bit more in real time. Dishonored 2 could be an example of high preemptive allocation while Witcher 3 is an example of real time allocation. Both are amazing graphically but have a large difference in the amount of VRAM being allocated.

I have heard of this, but it's always better to have spare RAM, as it won't make your games run worse, whereas lack of VRAM does very very nasty things to FPS, I prefer games that store as much as it might needs, real time is nice and all, but at high refresh rate (I mean the just rolling out 240hz ones) ~might~ see an issue from it. 

[LordLeewee]

8gb is enough now, dont think ive ever seen my 1080 use more than 6 and a half gb, and thats gaming at 4k. in a few years it might not be but in a few years new cards will have more. thats unfortunately what happens when you stick with older hardware for whatever reason