Which engine? BF4 doesn't get to 2GB @ 1080p no matter what you do to the settings. You get close @ 2560x only on Ultra with MSAA, but that is unnecessary.
At 1200p I'm at 2800mb on my gtx 780 in bf4..... You guys seeing around 1900- 2000mb are actually maxed out already and vram starved. A small amount is reserved and you can never get to 2048 used. FYI.
OP, you said you're not willing to upgrade your system for three years. You should get a 3GB-4GB card in my opinion. A 770/280X GPU may bottleneck you in the future, even with the extra vram. But for the small-ish price difference, I'd go big now so you know it won't be an issue later.
I bought my Radeon 7970 at launch a couple years ago. Most money I've ever spent on a video card. But two years later it still burns through 19x12 resolution and I can probably get another couple years out of this card if I want. I'm happy AMD went with 3GB of vram instead of 1.5GB.
This guy gets it.
Yet when you hit the vram wall, your cards will be too slow to play the games without dropping settings anyway.
Again we go back to the 770 debate. Can a 770 utilize 2GB? Yes. Can it fully utilize 4GB, high doubtful. Can it utilize more than 2GB, yes, so why not get the 4GB to have the overhead.
OP, maybe some benches using a 5870 1GB vs. 5870 2GB, a 6950 1GB vs. 6950 2GB, a GeForce 580 1.5GB vs. a 580 3GB, etc. might give you a glimpse of what to expect. It would be an interesting article to read, some of these cards of yesteryear that were available with different amounts of vram running today's games at 1080P. I'd like to see how the cards age, if the vram proves to be mostly a waste of money or if there are some real benefits.
I bet even with the (by today's standards) weak GPU's the extra vram will allow for higher settings and/or smoother game play in some games. But that is just my gut feeling, I don't have benches to back that up, but I'd like to see some if they exist.
Because for that money you can get a more powerful GPU that will last longer. It's like buying a large exhaust for a 1.3 diesel car. It ain't gonna make it last any longer or go any better, so why spend the money on the exhaust and not on a better engine?!
And now that I really think about it, it's kind of a really good metaphor. VRAM is basically the exhaust of the GPU. If it gets too full, the GPU won't be doing its job as effectively because it's waiting for the VRAM to shift around. Much like the relationship between the engine and the exhaust.
AFAIK, of course.
OP, maybe some benches using a 5870 1GB vs. 5870 2GB, a 6950 1GB vs. 6950 2GB, a GeForce 580 1.5GB vs. a 580 2GB, etc. might give you a glimpse of what to expect. It would be an interesting article to read, some of these cards of yesteryear that were available with different amounts of vram running today's games at 1080P. I'd like to see how the cards age, if the vram proves to be mostly a waste of money or if there are some real benefits.
I bet even with the (by today's standards) weak GPU's the extra vram will allow for higher settings and/or smoother game play in some games. But that is just my gut feeling, I don't have benches to back that up, but I'd like to see some if they exist.
I bought my Radeon 7970 at launch a couple years ago. Most money I've ever spent on a video card. But two years later it still burns through 19x12 resolution and I can probably get another couple years out of this card if I want. I'm happy AMD went with 3GB of vram instead of 1.5GB.
I keep seeing this argument but people seem to think adding a second GPU is not an option to push through the performance barrier.
1080p is not going to need more than 2GB for a while. In a year or two, or even less, when newer games do cause a single 770 2GB to hit the performance wall, adding another will not help in any way shape or fashion if the VRAM limit is also a problem.
GTX570 at 1.280 GB in SLI could conceivably be ~15% slower than a GTX780. Yet I have seen a people complaining that they get serious hitching and pauses due to VRAM limit in more modern games.
So while a single card with more VRAM may hit the performance wall before the VRAM wall, adding another is a very viable option. If you limit your future options by getting a 2GB card you make that option almost pointless.
And
The original poster states he isn't buying another GPU for 3 years. So with that I'm assuming (even if the rest of the hardware supports it) he won't be buying another to SLI for 3 years. In 3 years, I can't really see SLI 770 as an option, or at least a wise choice. You will have much much better single GPU solutions and this would defeat the purpose of SLI'ing such old architecture.
My GTX 670 is going to be 3 years old in March. I'm not replacing it yet.
Nope, the GTX 680 will be 2 years in march and the 670 came a little after.
just sayingList the # of games that require more than 2GB of VRAM @ 10080p.
just saying
ac4bf runs per msi-ab 2.2 @1440
do you get kick backs from nv?A. That's an AMD card..........do AMD cards and Nvidia cards use the same amount of VRAM on all games, and use it with equal efficiency?
B. Does that include caching?
C. Using one 780 Ti at 1080p with all settings and AA maxed in BF4 I never get NEAR 2gb of Vram........
Again 2gb of memory on a GTX 770 is more than enough for all games now and in the near future.
By the time more Vram becomes needed that GPU core will have already been the bottleneck for overall performance.
If people are going to post up shots of Vram usage, then make sure its from a GTX 770 and make sure it does not include caching.
Furthermore if someone is going to show that the GTX 770 2gb card is running into a performance wall due to the memory, then it needs to be compared directly to a GTX 770 with 4gb of ram(with same clock settings etc) for the comparison to be relevant.
Guy, loads of VRAM isn't future proof: a good powerful chip is future proof. In three years time, when there are many games that use more than 2GB of VRAM, their engines will require so much of the GPU that you'll need to tune the games down anyway, and the first thing you'll do is AA (VRAM usage), textures (VRAM usage) and shaders probably.
In other words, if you're buying a VGA with loads of VRAM now, in hopes that you won't reach the VRAM barrier with new games in 3 years time, get ready to NOT reach the VRAM barrier because of your 3 year old GPU holding you back...
Yes but thats when u buy a 2nd one and go SLI. In 3 years time a used 770 will be $200. Much cheaper upgrade for double the fps.
Loving my GTX 670 SLI, but regret only going 2gb vram. Skyrim with mods (one of my favorite games), chokes on 2gb @ 1440p. Any other game that doesnt require 2gb+ my gtx sli 670 burns through it like butter (including bf4 @ ultra but no AA, again AA uses Vram.)
Uhhh No, and no and no. Sounds good on paper though doesn't it?