Is VRAM too costly

[Dhruv Ghayal]

I am asking this because most of the budget gpus having 2gb vram like gtx 960, gtx 1050, Rx460 etc. I know that I cant run games on ultra or very high preset with this gpu but if a gtx 1050 type gpu comes with 4gb vram then atleast I can put the textures on high instead of low which still gives me better experience. If a game setting are adjusted to low or medium with high textures game still looks good for less powerful hardware. I am raising this point because textures are vram hungery rather than processer so the performance impact is very low if vram is sufficient.

 

By giving low vram with average gpus companies are infact limiting the user experience or making fun of poor gamers

[Tsuki]

9 minutes ago, Dhruv Ghayal said:

By giving low vram with average gpus companies are infact limiting the user experience or making fun of poor gamers

can i have whatever you're smoking?

lower end cards have less vram because they are lower end cards.

 

if you're buying a budget gpu, odds are, you're not also buying a 4k monitor.

2GB of vram on a $150 gpu is completely reasonable. its for medium-high settings at 1080p. its a budget card for a budget gaming experience.

[vanished]

VRAM is rather cheap really, the reason they don't put tons on all cards are a) the more budget-oriented aren't powerful enough to be able to run things that need that much, and b) they want the card to become unusable in a few years so you buy a new one

 

Paradoxically, you will often find extremely low-end GPUs (GT 710, etc.) with (relatively speaking) high amounts of VRAM.  I suspect this is because anyone buying those doesn't know what they're doing and can probably be fooled into thinking that VRAM is the only number that matters, and so a 2 GB 710 is as good as a 2 GB 750 Ti

[Evolution90]

Depends on the implementation and what Vram it is, HBM2 is not cheap.

[Damascus]

A 960m with 4GB will never use the full amount, at most you'll hit 2-3gb as the chip hits the wall way earlier.

[sazrocks]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Paradoxically, you will often find extremely low-end GPUs (GT 710, etc.) with (relatively speaking) high amounts of VRAM.  I suspect this is because anyone buying those doesn't know what they're doing and can probably be fooled into thinking that VRAM is the only number that matters, and so a 2 GB 710 is as good as a 2 GB 750 Ti

I think the use is that businesses will use those cards for large numbers of spreadsheet monitors that just suck up vram, but don't really require much actual GPU horsepower.

[Amaranth]

34 minutes ago, Damascus said:

A 960m with 4GB will never use the full amount, at most you'll hit 2-3gb as the chip hits the wall way earlier.

Unless you're going to play a title that does need the extra vRAM:

 

That 2 GB video memory is not really sufficient anymore is apparent when you want to play Shadow of Mordor, Assassin's Creed Unity or Watch Dogs, for example. Those titles run slightly better on the Kepler GTX 860M (4 GB video memory). Wolfenstein: The New Order requires at least 3 GB VRAM for the highest settings.

 

Source.

 

Now it's up to you if the extra performance is worth the premium for the extra 2Gb of vRAM but there is a difference between the performance of 2Gb and 4Gb cards with some titles.

 

Another links that shows there is a difference on the Desktop versions of the card as well: 960 2Gb vs 960 4Gb