Is 3GB enough for 1080p?

[Red Hawk]

4 GB is nice to have, but even 2 GB is fine if you are willing to lower settings a notch.

Ultra textures? Even 4 GB may run out of room. Medium or high? You're fine.

It really depends on how much you want to pay, how long you plan to keep the card, and how much it annoys you to dial down grass-blade shadows from sharp to soft. In my opinion, of course.

I can distinctly say you're not fine with high setting textures with just 2 GB, going by testing Gears of War 4 on a Radeon 270X.

 

[Rayniac]

I can distinctly say you're not fine with high setting textures with just 2 GB, going by testing Gears of War 4 on a Radeon 270X.

It could be that Gears of War 4 is an exception. Maybe it's not optimized well? Wait, Nevermind. It is actually more the norm than an exception these days

But what about compression? I read that Nvidia (and AMD as well?) use memory compression in their video cards. According to what I read Nvidia's compressions made more efficient use of the memory with tighter compression so that 3GB of nvidia memory is actually roughly equivalent to AMD's 4. After all the driver updates on both sides I don't know how it is now though.

 

[gregoryvg]

If you want to step up to a 1060 6GB, best deal is this one for $202 or less with store pickup...

https://www.walmart.com/ip/EVGA-GeF...Inches-Graphics-Card-06G-P4-6161-KR/117040471

But you'll be fine with 3GB if you turn down some settings...

Thanks for the link, I ended up ordering that - felt like it was too good to pass up.

 

[Bouowmx]

GPU "memory compression" is to reduce bandwidth consumption when reading/writing data, not the actual size of the data as it resides in place.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/8

 

[Rayniac]

GPU "memory compression" is to reduce bandwidth consumption when reading/writing data, not the actual size of the data as it resides in place.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/8

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[Guru]

4GB is the MINIMUM you want these days, optimally you want 6gb or 8gb of course, preferably 8GB, but the 1060 6GB is fine as well.

Right now I would also recommend the RX 580 8GB over any GTX 1060 6GB. The only reason to go for a 1060 6GB over the 580 is if you only have 6pin power connector on your PSU.

 

[crisium]

The 3GB 1060 feels just like back when i bought my Nvidia GTX 460 768MB card. At the time myself and others said i wouldn't need more than that. Well, it turns out i should have spent the little extra money and got the 1GB version as i started to become Vram limited in games at the time. Spend the extra for a 6GB or just get a RX470/570 like the others here are recommending!

A very good point. As a ~GTX 460 2GB equivalent (mobile chip) I learned to love that I could never run out of VRAM before processing power (used it until mid 2015).

For longevity, I think it's a red flag when a new gen GPU has less memory than older and slower cards + every comparable contemporary card. It just introduces a coin flip of having to lower settings when you otherwise wouldn't, and as time goes on the coin flip is replaced with loaded dice against you.

 

[Smoblikat]

Thinking about getting a GeForce GTX 1060 3gb to pair up with my aging i5 2500k but wondering which one to get. My monitor is 1080p 60hz. I will not be upgrading the monitor until after my next build. So would the 3 GB version of the GTX 1060 be good enough to push 1080p for the next couple years (until like early /mid 2019)?

Here is the one I am looking at (only $159 after MIR):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KUCL25Y/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

I was in the same boat as you, 1080P @ 60hz. The only time where 3gb VRAM was an issue was in Ark, even GTA V and Fo4 ran fine on my 7970 (well, mostly fine, it wasnt due to lack of VRAM...) now that I have a 290X with 4gb VRAM, im able to actually play Ark, and I can finally walk around boston in FO4 without dropping half my framerate. But again, ive tested this and monitores VRAM usage specifically, and I was never botlenecked with just 3gb, even on an older 7970. I dont know how a 290X compares to a 1060, but you might look into picking one of those up instead if its cheaper, im able to max out every single game I play at 1080P now, and its a much smoother experience in games where my old 7970 was borderline.

 

[crisium]

The GTX 1060 Core 1152 3GB and the Radeon 290X 4GB have comparable performance. But the 290X is a tough sell with its power efficiency and feature set in 2017.

7970 is a good deal slower than the 1060 Core 1152, so 3GB being enough for that card is hard to project. The only other 3GB card that compares is the GTX 780 Ti.

RX 480/580 4GB seems to be the best alternative to the 1060 Core 1152 3GB. The RX 470/570 4GB tend to lag a bit in the benchmarks, even if the extra VRAM is a plus.

470 vs 1060 3GB is a scenario where one card might have better visuals from higher texture settings, but the other card simply performs faster. Silly that you have to make a compromise here.

 

[zinfamous]

My current GPU, released in 2013, has 3GB of VRAM.

Don't be that guy that buys 2013 hardware on a new 2017/2016 card!

 

[Hans Gruber]

I think 3GB is enough for 1080p gaming today. With that said I think if you are buying a new graphics card anything under 4GB would be only for inexpensive budget build cards. Personally I think 6GB or 8GB is what you would want for a new graphics card going forward. For me personally my next graphics card will be of the 8GB variant.

 

[Guru]

Mass Effect Andromeda absolutely uses 4-4.8GB of vram max settings on 1080p, Dishonored 2 uses 4-6GB of vram, Ghost Recon Wildlands can use up to 5.5GB on max settings at 1080p, Deux Ex uses up to 8GB of vram, so even 6GB is not enough, so we are seeing pretty much every single new game use at least 4GB at 1080p and max settings.

So if you have only 3GB its safe to say that you are going to see some level of performance decrease, whether that's only going to be 2-3fps or whether its going to be 10fps no one can know, it will also depend on the game and area in the game.

But I feel like you want to be safe and get a GPU with at least 4GB of vram.

 

[Madpacket]

3GB is enough given the fillrate capabilities of the cut down 1060 but more RAM is better. You'll probably have to play with a few sliders in the graphics options menu but should still be able to have a decent 1080P gaming experience on "high" settings with most modern games. One caveat, please keep in mind If you're the type of person who resells a card after a year or two, the 3GB will likely be harder to unload than the 6GB model. Might be worth spending the extra money up front just for resale purposes.

 

[frozentundra123456]

4GB is the MINIMUM you want these days, optimally you want 6gb or 8gb of course, preferably 8GB, but the 1060 6GB is fine as well.

Right now I would also recommend the RX 580 8GB over any GTX 1060 6GB. The only reason to go for a 1060 6GB over the 580 is if you only have 6pin power connector on your PSU.

Actually, at the same price I would buy the 6gb 1060 over the 480/580 simply because it *is* more efficient, while it offers equal or slightly better performance. The 480 is usually cheaper though. The 470 actually seems to me to be best value, since it often goes on sale at very good prices.

 

[Guru]

Actually, at the same price I would buy the 6gb 1060 over the 480/580 simply because it *is* more efficient, while it offers equal or slightly better performance. The 480 is usually cheaper though. The 470 actually seems to me to be best value, since it often goes on sale at very good prices.

Its more power efficient, but it doesn't offer better performance. According to computerbase and pcgameshardware, the RX 580 8GB does have 1-2% lead over the 1060 6GB, where before the 1060 6GB had a slight 2-3% lead over the RX 480 8GB.

At this point I would almost always recommend the RX 580 over the 1060, since the 400/500 series are better in DX12 and Vulkan!

 

[Madpacket]

Its more power efficient, but it doesn't offer better performance. According to computerbase and pcgameshardware, the RX 580 8GB does have 1-2% lead over the 1060 6GB, where before the 1060 6GB had a slight 2-3% lead over the RX 480 8GB.

At this point I would almost always recommend the RX 580 over the 1060, since the 400/500 series are better in DX12 and Vulkan!

And Freesync...

 

[2is]

Most games at 1080p will be perfectly happy with 3GB. Most, but not all.

 

[mohit9206]

Most games at 1080p will be perfectly happy with 3GB as long as you are ok with Medium/high settings.

 

[2is]

Please don't misquote me. Most games will be just fine maxed out with 3gb. That may not always be the case but it is the case today.

 

[sm625]

Back when the 1060 3GB launched I highly recommended it vs the power hungry competition. And the market turned out to agree with me, given the 1060_3GB's robust sales. It is still the better choice today, but not by as much. By next year you will probably want more. But at this point I believe it is still better to simply tweak your settings so you dont need as much VRAM rather than deal with that extra 50-80 watts the competition's higher memory capacity card forces you to endure.

 

[Headfoot]

Forget the 3gb card. It's peanuts to go to a 470 4GB. If you've got the budget you could go to 1060 6gb. It's better to not buy at all and wait until you can afford something with a decent amount of VRAM than to buy premature and get the 3GB. Just save a little more. We're not talking a lot of money difference here.

The dead horse of "More Watts" is a weak smokescreen for naked brand favoritism. Ignore it.

 

[Guru]

The only reason why wattage would ever be important is if your PSU only has a certain pci-e connector like 6pin, rather than 8pin or 6+2pin. Otherwise I agree that its just a non factor used for blind brand favoritism by loyalists.

The RX 470/570 4GB is a lot better value than the 1060 3GB, which memory has already been limiting it for a year, let alone this current year. When the 1060 3GB launched it was just 5% slower than the RX 480 8GB in older titles, meaning 2-3 years old titles who were part of the benches, but now its like 15-20% slower in new games. Considering its only got about 7% less shaders than the 6GB version, that means that 10-13% is due to the limited 3GB memory!

 

[DaveSimmons]

I disagree with both of you.

It's fine to ignore climate change and that pollution from power generation reduces lifespans, piling up the bodies of puppies and kittens and beloved grandmas

Power efficiency still means less heat is generated by the GPU, reducing the cooling needs of the PC, reducing the power use and noise generated by the cooling system. I value a quiet PC.

 

[kawi6rr]

More power doesn't mean more noise it means more power/heat but not more noise. And the power saving in monetary terms is so minimal that by the time my less efficient less cheaper card costs me the difference in buying a more efficient expensive card I'll have already purchased a new card.

 

[Crono]

I know gaming makes up most of the video card market, but plenty of us use them for applications like mining, where power draw does matter. More vRAM helps there, too, for future proofing against increasingly large DAG file.