[Eurogamer] The state of 2GB VRAM GPUs

[Mondozei]

Okay, small confession, so the actual article is about a (much-delayed) 380X review. But that isn't why it's interesting!

The interesting part is the comparison between the 960 2GB version and the 4 GB version. Remember, the 960 is a 1080p entry-level GPU. Yet look at their 1440p table in their review!

Yes, 2 GB is a dead end alley going forward, but if you bought a 960 at launch, you're still mostly good with today's AAA games, even at high resolutions(which tests VRAM more stringently as we all know).

Either this shows that VRAM requirements as of today is overrated or NV's memory compression is amazing, or both.

 

[tviceman]

I wonder how much of an effect die sizes has on margins with these smaller(ish) die sizes. GM206 is ~225mm2 while Tonga is ~360mm2. Nvidia is getting more than 1.5x dies per wafer with GM206 vs. Tonga. The 960 is selling for about the same price as the 380, while the 380x is generally around $220, about $40 more. If Nvidia doesn't soon come out with a further cut-down GM204 aka GTX 960 TI, especially with GTX 970 prices back up to the $290+ mark, hopefully it means Pascal is coming sooner (April-May) than later (August-November). I'm not upgrading this round, but I want to see new GPUs and the ensuing crying that'll take place between the fanboys.

EDIT: I thought that Nvidia's and AMD's memory compression tech was in relation more to bandwidth saved than storage space on VRAM. Am I wrong?

 

[ShintaiDK]

The compression works on both bandwidth and storage.

 

[Mercennarius]

I regularly see 3-4+GB of VRAM used in many newer games.

 

[amenx]

Not sure why many people dont differentiate between vram usage (incl caching) vs actual vram need.. where if its not met, performance suffers. GPUs with a lot of vram may tend to use (cache) more of it in a game vs GPUs with less vram. Similar to windows ram management in some cases (Vista ?), the more you have the more it will use, whether it needs it or not. At least windows reports it more intelligently: total ram > cached > available> free... where the 'available' includes the cached.

 

[Piroko]

EDIT: I thought that Nvidia's and AMD's memory compression tech was in relation more to bandwidth saved than storage space on VRAM. Am I wrong?

Anandtech wrote a bit on that:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8526/nvidia-geforce-gtx-980-review/3
It doesn't clearly state that the compression reduces the storage space needed, but it's heavily implied (32 Byte of region data in 16 Byte of compressed data).

As for the 2GB Vram, that's one of the metrics that only time can tell. It certainly doesn't help on desktop GPUs though, where you can ignore any power limits if you wish to.

 

[Kenmitch]

Not sure what to think? Maybe I can't read a chart or reading comprehension is impaired by all the pro NVidia propaganda!

Wow!...Pony up for the xtra 2GB's of memory and as a reward you get lower fps in just about all the titles tested....Both cards will clock about the same so just ignore the overclocked 4GB versions results.

 

[Leyawiin]

I regularly see 3-4+GB of VRAM used in many newer games.

Even Fallout 4 is regularly hitting 2.8 GB @ 1920x1200 on Ultra for me.

 

[AtenRa]

Either this shows that VRAM requirements as of today is overrated or NV's memory compression is amazing, or both.

Or,

GTX960 performance is not enough to saturate the 4GB buffer.

 

[Magic Carpet]

No GTA V / Dying Light in the charts.

GTX960 performance is not enough to saturate the 4GB buffer.

 

[AtenRa]

No GTA V / Dying Light in the charts.

Well, that is the only game that 4GB had a significant performance advantage. All the rest show no performance gains.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Well, that is the only game that 4GB had a significant performance advantage. All the rest show no performance gains.

Because there is no need for more at the settings they used.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Well, that is the only game that 4GB had a significant performance advantage. All the rest show no performance gains.

Doesn't mean, there are no other games that can benefit from extra vram:

What's funny, is that at least in these two games, Nvidia 2GB cards suffer more performance degradation from lack of vram than its AMD 2GB counterpart. I suppose, that 380 is just a faster card and its performance gimped more in vram hungry situations.

 

[Leyawiin]

What's funny, is that at least in these two games, Nvidia 2GB cards suffer more performance degradation from lack of vram than its AMD 2GB counterpart.

Although frame times are generally worse comparing the AMD 2GB to 4GB than NV 2GB to 4GB.

 

[SPBHM]

Although frame times are generally worse comparing the AMD 2GB to 4GB than NV 2GB to 4GB.

yes this is what this test indicated
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-12/...80-frametimes-assassins-creed-unity-1920-1080

the 960 2GB suffers a lot less with frame time problems than the 380 2GB
maybe it's the superior compression?

 

[RussianSensation]

Yes, 2 GB is a dead end alley going forward, but if you bought a 960 at launch, you're still mostly good with today's AAA games, even at high resolutions(which tests VRAM more stringently as we all know).

Either this shows that VRAM requirements as of today is overrated or NV's memory compression is amazing, or both.

Nope. It just highlights how crippled 960 is that it cannot even benefit from extra VRAM while the competition can. And no, it absolutely isn't "good with today's AAA games". It's the worst card in the $150-220 pricing segment among R9 380/280X/380X. At least 950 2GB gets a semi-pass since it can often be found for $120. 960 = marketing turd that succeeded to attract sheep.

I'll break it down into parts.

#1. It's already been proven here and here that only looking at FPS without considering minimums/1%/frame-times doesn't show stuttering on 2GB 380/960 cards.

#2. At 1440p, 960 2-4GB get completely destroyed by a 380X. Therefore, the entire VRAM discussion is largely irrelevant when the 960 cards are so grossly overpriced.

#3. One review can never capture all the games where you simply cannot turn on the highest IQ with 2GB of VRAM or performance falls through the roof on a 2GB card. Prudent gamers who have followed this forum and other reputable sites like Computerbase/GameGPU would have already known plenty of games where 2GB cards fall apart like a deck of cards. Furthermore, it's just a matter of time before more and more games will be using > 2GB of VRAM. Last time I checked, budget gamers aren't like those who buy flagship cards every 15 months. Budget gamers tend to keep their GPUs for 2-4 years.

Broken console ports with steep VRAM requirements will cripple 2GB cards.

Future games will also cripple 2GB cards. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN.

"The GeForce GTX 960 was also 16% faster when fitted with 4GBs of GDDR5 memory with an average of 59fps."

It is true that 960 cannot benefit much from 4GB of VRAM in some games where 380 benefits -- but that's not necessarily anything positive when the cards that competes in the same price range DOES benefit and smashes the 960 4GB.

Turning up the heat, 960 cannot handle it.

The conclusion is actually much, much simpler for a tech savvy/informed objective gamer -- don't worry about 2GB vs. 4GB on a card like the 960 --> simply skip this card entirely because it's worse than 3 primary competitors: 380, 280X and 380X.

-------------

 

[RussianSensation]

-----------------

The real discussion shouldn't even be whether 4GB benefits the 960 but why in the world is anyone still buying the 960 turd at similar prices to 380, 280X, 380X.

960's problem isn't just VRAM but the fact that the cards gets absolutely owned by a $170 R9 380 4GB and owned even harder by a $185 R9 280X.

It gets even worse for 960 4GB cards because the nearly 30% faster R9 380X is $200 US.

Please, stop defending 2GB cards. There are plenty of benchmarks with frame time measurements and FPS, which show that 3-4GB absolutely does benefit cards in the $150-200 price range. Luckily in the U.S., informed consumers do not need to fall for the 2GB vs. 4GB 960 trap since there are 3 superior gaming cards from the competitor.

 

[happy medium]

Please, stop defending 2GB cards

I suggest you write the professional reviewer.

 

[Magic Carpet]

The real discussion shouldn't even be whether 4GB benefits the 960 but why in the world is anyone still buying the 960 turd at similar prices to 380, 280X, 380X.

Features, brand recognition and maybe lack of funds to afford a faster Nvidia card, I'd say.

There must be something magical about this card as it's selling quite well (Steam s-shot below). The understated performance must be a cool feature, though. You know, the way it's really meant to be played. A much older, GCN 1.0 based 270X equaling the newer mid-range Maxwell v2. Heh.

I think some of these benchmarks are a touch off myself. I have a Radeon R9 270(admittedly with a factory overclock but nonetheless less powerful than all of the cards being tested), and at very high settings on Shadow of Mordor at 1080p I only ever drop below 50fps when there's a very large explosion or massive amounts of enemies on-screen(I.e. the entire population of a stronghold). Am I truly to believe that my R9 270 is outperforming a GTX 960, in a game optimized for NVIDIA hardware no less? Now on the AMD optimized side, I can run Star Wars: Battlefront at Ultra settings at 1080p and maintain a consistent 60fps. Once again, am I truly to believe that my R9 270 is outperforming its newer and better brethren?
I think this article needs to be re-done with actual gameplay instead of benchmarks likely run with in-game tools(almost always designed to strain your system beyond normal gameplay conditions) or external tools(usually just plain inaccurate). Source

 

[IEC]

I suggest you write the professional reviewer

Peddlers of sponsored content in North America at least. They definitely don't want to piss off any sponsors and lose review samples...

But appeal to authority aside, it's pretty obvious that 2GB VRAM video card from ANY manufacturer is already borderline obsolete, and buying one now makes absolutely no sense for any gamer looking to play newer and upcoming titles.

 

[Jovec]

This is like arguing which $60-80 budget CPU is better. There are times when a GPU like the 960 will benefit noticeably from 4GB VRAM, but there many, many instances where a 960 user would benefit from more GPU power.

A 2GB 960 would be a large upgrade for the vast majority of game players. If the 4GB model is within the budget then may as well get that (assuming the next GPU tier is too pricey), but sometimes this 2GB vs 4GB VRAM argument is presented like it's the difference between an IGP and a 980ti.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well said Jovec. I am gaming on a 1gb HD7770. A 2gb 960 would be a great upgrade for me. But looking at those graphs, I see some games where 4gb vs 2 is an improvement, but some games are pretty much the same. And I dont see any games where IMO the game would go from playable to unplayable going to 2gb from 4gb. I agree 4gb will overall be a better experience, but I dont get all the hysteria about somebody using or buying a 2gb card.

 

[Silverforce11]

Well if the price difference for a 2GB or 4GB version is like $10-$20, for a ~$200 part, really no brainer to chip in a bit extra to go the extra mile. That 4GB version might still be able to pull of Ultra Textures 2 years later, while the 2GB is long relegated to High or Medium.

 

[AtenRa]

Because there is no need for more at the settings they used.

If they would OC both GTX960 2GB and 4GB cards we would see bigger performance differences in more games.
At default clocks the GTX960 doesnt have the performance power to fully utilize the extra 4GB of ram.
If you increase the performance of the 2GB card it will start to starve for more ram and the performance differences will be higher in more games vs the 4GB card.

 

[Vesku]

I suggest you write the professional reviewer.

Imo, many review sites kind of stuck themselves with the role of defending the 960 2GB because their review conclusions were some variation of "For the price it's not as fast as we'd like and it would be nice if it launched with 4GB as default at said MSRP but BUY IT ANYWAY *GOLD* *RECOMMEND*". Especially funny since those same sites were generally, and imo rightfully, skeptical of 285/380 2GB in terms of RAM capacity.

It would be nice if they included percentile frametime graphs but watching the video both 380 and 960 2GB has their limited RAM not matching with their GPU grunt in some newer titles, and it will only get worse as time goes on.