[Eurogamer] The state of 2GB VRAM GPUs

[Innokentij]

I am running a small form factor Gigabyte GTX960 in a mini-ITX case!

Fine write them this mail then omg nvidia ur gpu boost v2 is so good, even in my mini itx case i get crazy clocks over the guranted min boost clocks cause ur gpu tech is so cool (pun intended), can i have babies with u?! :wub:

 

[chummy]

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.

I made some tests because i want to understand better about that texture/vram usage.

Ubisoft games works a bit different from GTA 5 in Vram management. I used custom low settings with the High texture quality(which require 2gb Vram in both games) to test in r9 390 and GTX560 1gb.

When i enter Watch dogs gameplay it already store all data in Vram which be used the rest of run. It start using 2.5gb Vram and keep this amount of usage all over time i played.
I played the game with gtx560 1gb at same settings and the game runs fine without major stuttering.

So in GTA 5 things goes a bit different, when enter the gameplay it loaded only 1.7gb in Vram, then while i keep moving it load data, Vram memory keep increasing till hit a wall around 3,5gb and stuck at this size and start removing and storing new data.
I played with my GTX560 1gb at same settings in GTA 5 without major stuttering.

The way Watch dogs store data on Vram is same in others Ubisoft titles Far cry 4 and AC: Unity.

Running far cry 4 map for around 30 minutes it loaded only 4gb of data from drive. It used ~3.1gb Vram and 1.3gb system RAM.

On the other hand GTA5 after 30 minute running around map loaded 17gb from drive. Average use was 3.4gb Vram and 3.5gb from system RAM.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I made some tests because i want to understand better about that texture/vram usage.

Ubisoft games works a bit different from GTA 5 in Vram management. I used custom low settings with the High texture quality(which require 2gb Vram in both games) to test in r9 390 and GTX560 1gb.

When i enter Watch dogs gameplay it already store all data in Vram which be used the rest of run. It start using 2.5gb Vram and keep this amount of usage all over time i played.
I played the game with gtx560 1gb at same settings and the game runs fine without major stuttering.

So in GTA 5 things goes a bit different, when enter the gameplay it loaded only 1.7gb in Vram, then while i keep moving it load data, Vram memory keep increasing till hit a wall around 3,5gb and stuck at this size and start removing and storing new data.
I played with my GTX560 1gb at same settings in GTA 5 without major stuttering.

The way Watch dogs store data on Vram is same in others Ubisoft titles Far cry 4 and AC: Unity.

Running far cry 4 map for around 30 minutes it loaded only 4gb of data from drive. It used ~3.1gb Vram and 1.3gb system RAM.

On the other hand GTA5 after 30 minute running around map loaded 17gb from drive. Average use was 3.4gb Vram and 3.5gb from system RAM.

What resolution are you playing at?

That is interesting you kept hitting a 3.5GB VRAM wall in GTA 5. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers have worked around the 3.5GB GTX 970 "feature" by just capping all VRAM use ingame at 3.5GB. It is the most popular card in steam now, representing 5% of total steam gamers.

 

[chummy]

What resolution are you playing at?

That is interesting you kept hitting a 3.5GB VRAM wall in GTA 5. I wouldn't be surprised if some developers have worked around the 3.5GB GTX 970 "feature" by just capping all VRAM use ingame at 3.5GB. It is the most popular card in steam now, representing 5% of total steam gamers.

Bad word choosen from me, its more like some range it stick around after some time. I play 1080p, if i increase some settings like extended distance from 0 to 50%(this setting increase input lag a lot so i dont like, dont even increase much the draw distance) then it can up a bit to like 3,8gb sometimes.

But even playing at lowest quality in every settings, game will cache 3~3,2gb at Vram and use same amount of system RAM.

 

[tweakboy]

Where is the 980 Ti ? gl

 

[Magic Carpet]

Or,

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

Another game showing the GTX 960 4GB version slaughtering its 2GB brethren. Pretty significant. Even used, 960 2GB is a tough sell today. 950 2GB pretty much replaced it in the HTPC market, imo (my current favorite one). Good business for Nvidia, I guess

Source.

 

[RussianSensation]

Another game showing the GTX 960 4GB version slaughtering its 2GB brethren. Pretty significant. Even used, 960 2GB is a tough sell today.

Hindsight 20-20 for some people who got duped into marketing and bought a 960 despite some of us warning them for 12+ months NOT to make this mistake. Even the day 960 2GB came out, I already called it gimped and overpriced seeing past all the marketing -- just like when I could I steered people clear of the 285 2GB towards 280/280X/290. In the latest Hitman, 2GB cards are forced into Low resolution textures, 3GB cards into Medium, while resolutions above 1080P are locked out for GPUs with less than 4GB of VRAM.

http://imgur.com/a/QZr7h

With this generation, we should see 6-8GB mid-range cards, with 4GB becoming the bare minimum. Despite all the evidence out there, people still defend $180+ 2GB GPUs. I suppose people don't want to admit they threw $200 US into the toilet or that for $50 more, there was a card vastly superior and it sold at that price for months. Don't take my word for it, even TPU called it like it is in 2015.

August 2015

"NVIDIA simply cannot get the pricing of its sub-$300 lineup right and continues to offer nothing compelling until the $310 GeForce GTX 970. The company may yet make a ton of money with their mid-range line-up, but that's only because of its better sales-force. The Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo from PowerColor is a gem.

At just $249, the Radeon R9 290 TurboDuo offers current-gen tech. Our tests show that the R9 290 is a whopping 52 percent faster than the $50 cheaper GeForce GTX 960 at 1920 x 1080 pixels, our target resolution. It also offers 4 GB of video memory. PowerColor added a factory overclock on top of that. If this doesn't highlight NVIDIA's terrible pricing for the GTX 960, nothing will."
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/DIY_Shopping_Lists/USD_800_Build_Guide/3.html

Yet, 960 is one of the most popular cards this generation. Just goes to show what the general knowledge of the average PC gamer is/their penny pinching ways of buying a $30-40 PSU ends up hurting them more down the line forcing a quicker upgrade or reduced IQ/FPS. Soon, they'll be lining up to drop yet another $200+ just to keep up when back then they needed to spend just $50-75 to not have to worry for 2-3 years. :sneaky:

 

[Jacky60]

I wish we had more data at 4K, that's where we'll find limitations.

 

[Face2Face]

Yet, 960 is one of the most popular cards this generation. Just goes to show what the general knowledge of the average PC gamer is/their penny pinching ways of buying a $30-40 PSU ends up hurting them more down the line forcing a quicker upgrade or reduced IQ/FPS. Soon, they'll be lining up to drop yet another $200+ just to keep up when back then they needed to spend just $50-75 to not have to worry for 2-3 years. :sneaky:

To be fair, the top three PC games played on steam are hardly demanding. Didn't NVIDIA do a fair amount of 960 marketing to the players of these games below?

1. Dota 2
2. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
3. Team Fortress 2

http://steamcharts.com/

I'm not defending the 960, i'm just stating there are a lot of PC gamers that only play MOBA's and CS:GO.

 

[Erenhardt]

To be fair, the top three PC games played on steam are hardly demanding. Didn't NVIDIA do a fair amount of 960 marketing to the players of these games below?

1. Dota 2
2. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
3. Team Fortress 2

http://steamcharts.com/

I'm not defending the 960, i'm just stating there are a lot of PC gamers that only play MOBA's and CS:GO.

Fair enough. Those games were also targeted with AMDs marketing for their APUs? Results seem to not be anywhere near the same.

 

[happy medium]

Well I got a good deal on my Gigabyte G1 gaming gtx960 4gb @ 170$ shipped. It has been running all my games @ 1080p @ high settings fine. I will sell it for 100$ and soon and pick up a 90 watt, super quiet next gen card that will be much faster and have all the new modern specs.I'll pay 70$ for almost a year of good 1080p gaming. I think it was the perfect stop gap card. No way I would have paid the 229$ for my card when it first came out. I purchased my card when prices were low (October?), now they are high again.

at 170$ , I wonder where my card would be on this updated list.
WOw look at the gtx950!? This is from the latest review on Techpowerup.

 

[Headfoot]

2gb has been a bad call since the 680. Notice how few 680 SLI rigs you see around compared to people who were able to hold onto 7970 CF rigs. I remember thinking how weak only getting 512mb more from the 580 to 680 was, not to mention that the top end 580s had 3GB...

 

[happy medium]

2gb has been a bad call since the 680. Notice how few 680 SLI rigs you see around compared to people who were able to hold onto 7970 CF rigs. I remember thinking how weak only getting 512mb more from the 580 to 680 was, not to mention that the top end 580s had 3GB...

I thought the top end 680's had 4gb?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130794

670's had 4gb also.
http://hardocp.com/article/2013/01/08/asus_geforce_gtx_670_directcu_ii_4gb_gpu_review#.Vv7CbY-cEcQ

770's 4gb
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121837

Mabe know one thought in 3 or 4 years a handful of games would need to turn down a setting or 2 @ 1080p?

I have the 4gb card for resale value, for the uniformed. I doubt my card could handle settings that would use even 3gb if I needed 60fps +..

 

[Face2Face]

Fair enough. Those games were also targeted with AMDs marketing for their APUs? Results seem to not be anywhere near the same.

I agree, AMD's APUs would be great for these types of games as well. The sad truth is that NVIDIA's marketing is much better than AMD's.

I mean just look at this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmK3a5ahNm0

Looks convincing ... April 1st?

 

[VirtualLarry]

I agree, AMD's APUs would be great for these types of games as well. The sad truth is that NVIDIA's marketing is much better than AMD's.

I mean just look at this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmK3a5ahNm0

Looks convincing ... April 1st?

Uhh, 980mg of caffeine? Sounds... like a heat attack in a can. Literally.

(Mt. Dew Kickstart has 92mg in one can.)

 

[Zodiark1593]

Another game showing the GTX 960 4GB version slaughtering its 2GB brethren. Pretty significant. Even used, 960 2GB is a tough sell today. 950 2GB pretty much replaced it in the HTPC market, imo (my current favorite one). Good business for Nvidia, I guess

Source.

Well damn, this particular games shows the 960 (4 GB) in a pretty good light even compared to the AMD competition. I'm somewhat surprised. Usually the 380X edges it out at 1920 x 1080.

When I got my own card, there was a pretty steep price gap ($40-$45) between the 2 GB and the 4 GB models that I couldn't really justify. Kind of sucks that I needed CUDA as well otherwise AMD would have been in the running, but meh.

 

[mohit9206]

Well I got a good deal on my Gigabyte G1 gaming gtx960 4gb @ 170$ shipped. It has been running all my games @ 1080p @ high settings fine. I will sell it for 100$ and soon and pick up a 90 watt, super quiet next gen card that will be much faster and have all the new modern specs.I'll pay 70$ for almost a year of good 1080p gaming. I think it was the perfect stop gap card. No way I would have paid the 229$ for my card when it first came out. I purchased my card when prices were low (October?), now they are high again.

at 170$ , I wonder where my card would be on this updated list.
WOw look at the gtx950!? This is from the latest review on Techpowerup.

Gtx 950 is a damn good value for money despite what a lot of people say. Same price as R7 370 2gb in my country and thoroughly whoops its butt. R9 380 is a good $100 more expensive than a 950 so 950 remains the best undisputed champion for $200 despite its low 2gb vram.
American prices are always better than most other countries. Add $20 more over 750ti and you get 950.Add $20 more and you get 960 2gb/380 2gb.Add $20 more and you get 960 4gb/ 380 4gb.Add $20 more and you get 290 4gb.How damn lucky.
Here its add $50 more for each step up.

 

[Face2Face]

Uhh, 980mg of caffeine? Sounds... like a heat attack in a can. Literally.

(Mt. Dew Kickstart has 92mg in one can.)

April fools joke. 980mg = GTX 980

 

[frozentundra123456]

I agree, AMD's APUs would be great for these types of games as well. The sad truth is that NVIDIA's marketing is much better than AMD's.

I mean just look at this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmK3a5ahNm0

Looks convincing ... April 1st?

Or users just want the ability to play other games as well at decent settings. With the current bandwidth limited state of APUs, a much better gaming experience can be had for a very small additional cost with a discrete card.

 

[Erenhardt]

Or users just want the ability to play other games as well at decent settings. With the current bandwidth limited state of APUs, a much better gaming experience can be had for a very small additional cost with a discrete card.

But then 960 become moot, since you can get a MUCH faster R9 290 for not much more. Actually, you can get 290 and repay it with mining crypto in 2 months time.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I thought the top end 680's had 4gb

The 680 was designed for 2GB, of course we had versions of double that ram, but they weren't widespread and ran a bit slower. Still the 680 has had a good life, considering its release date. The 960 2GB, as you can see, hasn't aged that well (vRAM limited pretty much on launch). MOBA games or not, for the money, it should have been a faster card, imo. But it has sold well. Anyway, my next card is likely going to be AMD Polaris*. I want 8GB of vRAM, reasonably priced but at a lower TDP (The reason I haven't bought 390 8GB yet = too hot) Don't care about day 1 performance anymore.

EDIT: * My 3 year old GTX 670 2GB began to malfunction the other week (black screen upon installation of drivers), still a bit upset. 2 "dead" Nvidia cards in the last 5 years. I think, I have had enough. My backup, scorching hot (~90C) running AMD 4850 512MB single-slot still works fine after 6 or 7 years now.