What Is The Minimum Amount of Memory a GPU Should Have?

[SammySu1234]

I didn't even see that the OP said it was for gaming....

GPU (non-gaming) - 512MB is plenty
GPU (light gaming/<1080P) - 1-1.5GB
GPU (mainstream/1080P) - 2GB
GPU (enthusiast/1440P+) - 3GB+

This ^

 

[MongGrel]

Depends on what you're running on res.

Last one I bought was a 3 GB, but I'm just running a 29" inch 2560X1080P extended to a 47" 1920 X 1080P.

I would not buy a gaming card with only 2gb of vram anymore. That's asking for trouble.

3GB should be bare minimum for GPUs in the $300 price range. A great value play that delivers both the performance and sufficient VRAM right now is an aftermarket R9 280 card, such as MSI Gaming.

Yeah, I do not upgrade often, but snagged a ASUS R9 280X TOP before last Thanksgiving for around $320, if your at least half serious I'd think something along those lines might be mainstream these days.

 

[MongGrel]

Is an open box one there at the moment for cheap just to throw it out there.

My current rig is still using a X5650 with an Asus open box MOBO P6T7 from probably 6 years back OC'd to 4.3 Ghz.

I hope the Xeons start dropping again in price, haven't looked in a bit.

Something to think about at least.

ASUS R9280X-DC2T-3GD5 Radeon R9 280X 3GB 384-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...803R-_-Product

It's not a TOP, but still...

*edit" actually, after looking again it is a TOP.

Long card BTW, but almost half off, at least from it's top price in the mining craze.

 

[MTDEW]

IMO at that price and being "open box", you may as well go to ebay and buy an R9 290 Tri-x since they are going for around $275 right now.

 

[Attic]

IMO at that price and being "open box", you may as well go to ebay and buy an R9 290 Tri-x since they are going for around $275 right now.

That is a crazy good deal for that card.

 

[toughtrasher]

My minimum is 4 GB. Anything less just feels inferior and I feel lacking inside.

 

[guskline]

IMO at that price and being "open box", you may as well go to ebay and buy an R9 290 Tri-x since they are going for around $275 right now.

I got one. S/H moved it to @$290 BUT this card was MINT. I'm using it in my FX 8350 rig and VERY HAPPY.

 

[Attic]

nm

 

[Attic]

4gb on top end card for <$300 is nice.

 

[MongGrel]

IMO at that price and being "open box", you may as well go to ebay and buy an R9 290 Tri-x since they are going for around $275 right now.

Yeah it is unless been Crypto Mined into the ground for ages I guess.

Would be a good price.

 

[MTDEW]

Yeah it is unless been Crypto Mined into the ground for ages I guess.

Would be a good price.

The cheaper ones probably are retired miners, but to me its still a better deal then taking a chance on a last gen "open box" as mentioned above for around $270.00.
Anyway, it looks like sellers think the 290 Tri-x cards have been selling too low and most are starting the bids at $300 now for a 290 tri-x which IMO is still a good deal.
And the reference 290's are running around $250 - $260 or so, still a better deal than a 280x "open box" at around $270.

Anyway, the point is, it's a great time to get a good deal on a 4gb r9 290 if you don't mind "used" and are careful who you buy from.

Not that a 280x is a bad card....I still have my two Sapphire 7950's in x-fire in my backup rig and they play pretty much anything maxed out....besides Watch Dogs...which isn't saying much since Watch dogs Seems pretty UN-optimized....but a good deal on a 280x card would be around $150.00 - $160.00 IMO....AND DEFINITELY not $260.00+ for an "open box".

Hence my earlier "Smart Alic" post about just wanting a card with 8gb of v-ram so I can use my GPU as a "console emulator" for lazy ports like Watch Dogs...that way there are no more excuses why us pc gamers keep getting console ports that run like crap on high end GPU's!
I'm tired of us pc gamers getting poor console ports.

I mean, look at Watch Dogs which is a Nvidia Gameworks title.
Yet the gtx 680 and GTX 670 are still blazing fast GPU's to the average consumer, but now all of a sudden Nvidia is using the "next gen" excuse to force those users to upgrade their perfectly good GPU's, because now all of a sudden they don't have enough V-ram..... just saying a game is "next gen" is no excuse!
That would be fine if the visuals matched the V-ram requirements, but in Watch Dogs, they obviously don't.
It's BS IMO, and happens year after year to PC gamers and needs to stop!

 

[Fastx]

Powercolor PCS+290 $299.00 in stock (OB) as of this post now.

 

[MTDEW]

Powercolor PCS+290 $299.00 in stock (OB) as of this post now.

That's an AWESOME deal for new, the Powercolor cards have excellent cooling!
Nice find. :thumbsup:
You should post that in Hot Deals!

edit: My bad, I missed the "open box"...but still a great deal. :thumbsup:

 

[futurefields]

That depends on what resolution you play at. Most of us here would say its not wise to buy a 2GB card anymore with certain games like watchdogs and Wolfenstein New Order already needing 3GB @ 1080p resolution and the strong possibility of continued high VRAM requirements with games that are made for the next gen consoles and their 8 GB (5-ish usable for GPU) that are coming this fall.

The 4GB 770 is available, but for the price you are better off getting a 3GB 280/x or even r9 290.

actually it's more like 5-ish usable for games, 2-3gb going to the OS. Probably 2-3gb of VRAM being used. the consoles dont even have enough horsepower to push a game that would use a 5gb framebuffer, which is getting into 4k territory.

 

[MTDEW]

actually it's more like 5-ish usable for games, 2-3gb going to the OS. Probably 2-3gb of VRAM being used. the consoles dont even have enough horsepower to push a game that would use a 5gb framebuffer, which is getting into 4k territory.

And I still want a GPU with 8gb of V-ram so devs have absolutely NO EXCUSE why their crappy console port runs like crap on my $500.00+ GPU(s).

 

[CakeMonster]

I'm wondering about the actual available amount of graphics memory in consoles.

If we assume that 5Gb is available outside of OS/capturing/services etc which is often repeated - is that 5Gb truly available for graphics the way it is on a discrete graphics card? Doesn't other game data that would be in regular RAM on a PC have to go in that 5Gb? So that actual comparable graphics memory is even lower? Can anyone enlighten me on this?

 

[MTDEW]

I'm wondering about the actual available amount of graphics memory in consoles.

If we assume that 5Gb is available outside of OS/capturing/services etc which is often repeated - is that 5Gb truly available for graphics the way it is on a discrete graphics card? Doesn't other game data that would be in regular RAM on a PC have to go in that 5Gb? So that actual comparable graphics memory is even lower? Can anyone enlighten me on this?

You'll get the usual excuse that a console doesn't have to run the overhead of an OS, and thats why pc ports need more horsepower to run at the same 1080p rez as a console with no real "tangible" ram figures to back anything up.

That's why I keep being a "Smart Alic" and saying "fine, then just give me 8gb of V-ram so my GPU alone is more powerful than your entire console!".

So we can then say..."Now, tell me why your console port to pc runs like crap even at the same 1080p resolution as the console version, when my GPU alone is more powerful and cost more than your entire console!"

Seriously, put the Nvidia vs AMD crap aside and take a look at how us PC gamers are being totally screwed for the $$$ we spend on PC gaming hardware just to play bad console ports at lower performance than the console version when we have way better hardware!
It's BS!....We're being played for fools!....And it needs to stop!

 

[kasakka]

With PC games, it seems the current trend is to add the Ultra option that disables all texture compression etc. What you get is big increases in memory use with barely perceivable differences in image quality. Same thing if you are a big fan of antialiasing.

Me, I'm fine with FXAA or SMAA etc and I've been playing most games just fine at 2560x1440 with a 2 GB card at almost the highest details. It remains to be seen if next year things will be different when PS4/Xbox One ports start coming out.

 

[MTDEW]

We're seeing the start of the same trend as "last gen".

As the years go by, games will become more and more optimized and run better and better on consoles using the same hardware.

While at the same time, those same games will miraculously get less and less optimized for the pc and require constant hardware upgrades to keep up.

And at the end of these consoles lifespans, if you add up what you spent on pc hardware upgrades to keep up with the same games and still don't feel like you're getting the short end of the stick...then you're exactly what PC gaming needs to keep profits high.

It made sense before to keep upgrading pc hardware ,when PC versions were developed 1st and took full advantage of the latest PC hardware, then the console versions were scaled down to match their hardware.

But now that the games are developed and optimized for the consoles 1st and are just straight ported to the pc and if it runs like crap on more powerful hardware.... "oh well, just upgrade your pc again and again and keep throwing more money at it and maybe it will play better".
Nothing on pc is fully optimized anymore to take full advantage of the hardware you currently own yet you're told to keep upgrading due to lack of pc optimizations.
This no longer makes sense.

Ok, Im done ranting and got it off my chest.
I'll stay out of VC&G for awhile now.

 

[dr150]

Powercolor PCS+290 $299.00 in stock (OB) as of this post now.

Is a new MSI Radeon 290x 4GB Overclocked for ~$370 (no taxes) a good price? (combo of cc reward card, rebates)....


I'm trying to find some reliable bang for buck "enthusiast" card that'll carry me for 3-5 years.

The last time I bought a video card was in 2007/8.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Even with 8 GB a piece, I don't see either console's graphics benefiting from that much as much as it will help reduce load times, background tasks, smooth runtime and user friendliness. Despite having 16x times the main RAM as the previous generation (512 MB), I'd say they are barely 8x as powerful graphically (not taking into account things like tessellation, new hardware features, etc). Also, if developers DO take advantage of the GPGPU features of both systems (especially the PS4's) it will further negate any memory advantage from a graphics standpoint. That's why I think 4 GB is right to shoot for if you want something to last the entire generation at 1080p, since effectively both consoles lose 1.5-2 GB of RAM just to background and OS tasks. Anyone wanting to ensure good 1440p+ performance or even 4k should look at 8 GB.

 

[Fastx]

Is a new MSI Radeon 290x 4GB Overclocked for ~$370 (no taxes) a good price? (combo of cc reward card, rebates)....


I'm trying to find some reliable bang for buck "enthusiast" card that'll carry me for 3-5 years.

The last time I bought a video card was in 2007/8.

I would definitely would wait for the new cards at this point from Nvidia and AMD to come later this year if you can before spending $370.00 on the MSI 290 imo and esp since your talking about keeping your next card at the min 3 years. Also if you plan on over clocking 1100 or higher I would go with a different card/cooler like the Tri X 290 or PCS+ 290 listed above if you have the room in your case vs. the MSI 290. If you don't plan on over clocking or just a small over clock (1100 or under) then the MSI cooler should be fine imo, but I would definitely wait for the new cards first if possible. The price on that MSI isn't bad but if you check Newegg daily you might catch it at a lower price at times on sale.

 

[PliotronX]

With PC games, it seems the current trend is to add the Ultra option that disables all texture compression etc. What you get is big increases in memory use with barely perceivable differences in image quality. Same thing if you are a big fan of antialiasing.

Me, I'm fine with FXAA or SMAA etc and I've been playing most games just fine at 2560x1440 with a 2 GB card at almost the highest details. It remains to be seen if next year things will be different when PS4/Xbox One ports start coming out.

Thats pretty cheesy, disabling texture compression. Shoot I remember when all texture compression did was improve quality (UT99 w/S3TC and texture pack). Weve come full circle to extract more money out of unwitting gamers.

 

[Attic]

We're seeing the start of the same trend as "last gen".

As the years go by, games will become more and more optimized and run better and better on consoles using the same hardware.

While at the same time, those same games will miraculously get less and less optimized for the pc and require constant hardware upgrades to keep up.

And at the end of these consoles lifespans, if you add up what you spent on pc hardware upgrades to keep up with the same games and still don't feel like you're getting the short end of the stick...then you're exactly what PC gaming needs to keep profits high.

It made sense before to keep upgrading pc hardware ,when PC versions were developed 1st and took full advantage of the latest PC hardware, then the console versions were scaled down to match their hardware.

But now that the games are developed and optimized for the consoles 1st and are just straight ported to the pc and if it runs like crap on more powerful hardware.... "oh well, just upgrade your pc again and again and keep throwing more money at it and maybe it will play better".
Nothing on pc is fully optimized anymore to take full advantage of the hardware you currently own yet you're told to keep upgrading due to lack of pc optimizations.
This no longer makes sense.

Ok, Im done ranting and got it off my chest.
I'll stay out of VC&G for awhile now.

I love a good rant. Don't be gone for long

Though, crysis 3 at max details with AA starting at SMAA 2x I think would like to get in the ring with you.

Something like Crysis 3, or to a lesser extent but still Amazing Metro LL, still says that PC is king and that it will slam dunk your brain through a hoop of graphics gooey bliss. It does demand the power to run, but it (IMO) is a fair trade off for going ballistic on PC hardware.

Now if we are talking Watchdogs or crap like that then I'm in full support of console garbage rants that are PO'd at a console first mentality that's dragging down what a PC can and should achieve.




For PC going forward (and in spots today), 2gb won't be enough, not because of consolitis, but because there is a Crysis next out there and you might want to go dual GPU or you might just want to see how the highest textures look at *gulp,.. yes 1080P.