Why more Vram is always better

[Face2Face]

Watch Dogs and GTA 5 are unplayable with 2GB cards (at least NV ones), but playable with those same cards when not vram constrained.

What are the settings?

ah...just turn down the settings to Med/High and you'll be fine. Unplayable at max settings, sure... regardless of VRAM, would you expect entry/mid level cards to max out WD and GTA 5 @ 1080p?

 

[Silverforce11]

What are the settings?

ah...just turn down the settings to Med/High and you'll be fine. Unplayable at max settings, sure... regardless of VRAM, would you expect entry/mid level cards to max out WD and GTA 5 @ 1080p?

My OC 7950 (~7970Ghz+) was capable of max WD @ 1080p. SMAA though, no MSAA.

Very playable, the texture quality was nice. My 670 at the time, struggled and that's running worse textures because the option is locked, only for GPUs with 3GB+!

It's not that intensive a game when MSAA is not used.

http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page3.html

GTA V is a different story though.

 

[Face2Face]

My OC 7950 (~7970Ghz+) was capable of max WD @ 1080p. SMAA though, no MSAA.

Very playable, the texture quality was nice. My 670 at the time, struggled and that's running worse textures because the option is locked, only for GPUs with 3GB+!

It's not that intensive a game when MSAA is not used.

http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page3.html

GTA V is a different story though.

Good to know. Gotta love that good ole' 7950. It sounds like your GTX
670 would still have run the same regardless of 4GB of VRAM, You would just have the option to run Ultra textures.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Today anyways,a 320 and 512mb 8800gt/gts may be some of the worst cards that really had less vram then performance if you account for the games today.You could play some games like World of Tanks that can run fine on a 9800gt but can push easily pass 512mb.

The 2gb cards and having ran a 7850/660/670 and a 770,they always ran out of steam before vram.I think the case would be even worst now considering i have made the move to 1440p.

In my library,GTA V just gets by with 2gb and reasonably smooth settings with the 660 and 2gb,while BF4 has to be ran on medium settings to even stick to the 40-75fps range.

 

[Madpacket]

There are a few corner cases (which have already been pointed out) where 2GB cards have enough fillrate could use extra VRAM (Geforce 670, 680, 960, AMD 285/380 etc.) but for the most part 2GB is still plenty enough.

Yes even in 2016.

I do agree if the price range is within $20.00 it makes sense to grab the card with more VRAM especially if you play those titles subject to VRAM constraints or really love texture mods but the vast majority of PC games don't suffer from a lack of VRAM.

Another thing to keep in mind is HBM. Look at what AMD has done with the Fury X and its measly 4GB of HBM memory. [H] (recently a shill site for Gameworks titles) showed how AMD has fine tuned HBM for situations that demand much more than 4GB. The Fury X handles these games without penalty where even the 980 Ti starts running into limits with its 6GB of GDDR5. Now many of these tests were useless where the games wouldn't be playable anyway but it was mostly proving a point about the lack of VRAM [not] being an issue.

So HBM allows for smart caching of game assets and reduces the need for MOAR GiB'S!

This is important as many new cards coming out in the next 8-16 months will be outfitted with HBM so I suspect the quasi-need for large amounts of VRAM will be further reduced.

Edit:

DX12 also reduces VRAM requirements.

"
- When developers find themselves with not enough video memory, DirectX 12 allows them to create overflow heaps in system memory, moving resources out of video memory at their own discretion.
-Using aliased memory on DirectX 12 allows to save GPU memory even further.
-Tiled resources can now be used on 3D assets, and grant “extreme” performance and memory saving benefits.
"

Source: http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/03...-nvidia-and-amd-cards-lots-of-details-shared/

 

[ShintaiDK]

What you can do with HBM you can do with GDDR5, there isn't any magic. Just 2 engineers sitting and doing memory optimization per game for Fiji.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/7

Which is why for Fiji, AMD tells us they have dedicated two engineers to the task of VRAM optimizations. To be clear here, there’s little AMD can to do reduce VRAM consumption, but what they can do is better manage what resources are placed in VRAM and what resources are paged out to system RAM. Even this optimization can’t completely resolve the 4GB issue, but it can help up to a point. So long as game isn’t actively trying to use all 4GB of resources at once, then intelligent paging can help ensure that only the resources that are actively in use reside in VRAM and therefore are immediately available to the GPU when requested.

 

[Madpacket]

What you can do with HBM you can do with GDDR5, there isn't any magic. Just 2 engineers sitting and doing memory optimization per game for Fiji.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9390/the-amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-review/7

Since AMD cited Fiji which uses HBM we don't know if a couple engineers can do the same with GDDR5. We haven't seen this with GDDR5 so I'm not assuming it will work.

 

[Rvenger]

Just 2 engineers sitting and doing memory optimization per game for Fiji.

You can leave this comment out. I am tired of seeing you post it on every VRAM discussion. This is trolling and and purposely baiting the AMD graphics card owners which will only lead to another argument started by you. You got the point across 5 months ago, plus every Fiji topic, now let it rest.

-Rvenger

 

[SlowSpyder]

More vram isn't always better, if your GPU isn't really powerful enough to take advantage of it beyond a certain amount. But having more is never worse, whereas less can be worse.

Also, a lot of people look at vram the wrong way, in my opinion. Sure my R9 390 probably isn't strong enough to really use 8GB of vram in any game that would require it. But it might be strong enough to benefit from having 4+GB of data in vram. As an example a game may want and need 4.7GB (hypothetical number). A 3GB, 3.5GB, 4GB, etc. card will choke, a card with more vram will not (assuming it has enough GPU grunt).

 

[ShintaiDK]

You can leave this comment out. I am tired of seeing you post it on every VRAM discussion. This is trolling and and purposely baiting the AMD graphics card owners which will only lead to another argument started by you. You got the point across 5 months ago, plus every Fiji topic, now let it rest.

-Rvenger

If you can stop people posting nonsense about how HBM works it wouldn't be needed. Misinformation is not adding anything to a technical discussion.

Another thing to keep in mind is HBM. Look at what AMD has done with the Fury X and its measly 4GB of HBM memory. [H] (recently a shill site for Gameworks titles) showed how AMD has fine tuned HBM for situations that demand much more than 4GB. The Fury X handles these games without penalty where even the 980 Ti starts running into limits with its 6GB of GDDR5. Now many of these tests were useless where the games wouldn't be playable anyway but it was mostly proving a point about the lack of VRAM [not] being an issue.

So HBM allows for smart caching of game assets and reduces the need for MOAR GiB'S!

This is important as many new cards coming out in the next 8-16 months will be outfitted with HBM so I suspect the quasi-need for large amounts of VRAM will be further reduced.

So what should the reply to this be if you cant tell the truth? I would like your advice on this reply if the note about the 2 engineers cant be used. Specially since its from AMD themselves to Anandtech. Should the reply just be a "Wrong" without any explanation? Or how would you like to see it worded?

 

[frozentundra123456]

More vram isn't always better, if your GPU isn't really powerful enough to take advantage of it beyond a certain amount. But having more is never worse, whereas less can be worse.

Also, a lot of people look at vram the wrong way, in my opinion. Sure my R9 390 probably isn't strong enough to really use 8GB of vram in any game that would require it. But it might be strong enough to benefit from having 4+GB of data in vram. As an example a game may want and need 4.7GB (hypothetical number). A 3GB, 3.5GB, 4GB, etc. card will choke, a card with more vram will not (assuming it has enough GPU grunt).

Well, as another poster said, more is not free. It clearly depends on how much extra vram costs. Pretty much everything we buy is a compromise. At some point, it is better to move up to a more powerful card than to spend extra for vram that cant be utilized effectively by the card. Personally, I would have no problem with a 2gb GTX 960. At least from the charts shown in this thread, the difference with 4gb is quite small, and sometimes the games were unplayable or would be very poor experiences, irregardless of the amount of vram. I mean the title of this thread is like saying a lexus is better than a camry. Of course it is better, but is it worth it and can the buyer afford it??

 

[RussianSensation]

I don't understand how after this exact same topic was already covered to death, with countless proof already available that 2GB isn't sufficient for modern games, this thread still has posters denying the truth. Frames per second alone isn't always an accurate reflection of the stuttering which can be experienced due to lack of VRAM. This information, easily captured with frame times, has already reflected that 2GB is often insufficient in some modern titles. Furthermore, there are plenty of games where 2GB card owners simply cannot select the highest resolution textures in the first place. In such cases, such as Hitman or Wolfenstein NWO or Watch Dogs or Shadow of Mordor, cards with 3-4GB of VRAM will be able to run the game at higher IQ settings with minimal impact on FPS/frame times.

Fortunately, for informed gamers and those who can do extra research, there are plenty of options available in the used market (7970/7970Ghz/R9 280X/R9 290), while cards like R9 380 4GB and R9 380X cover the lower end new market segments to the point where the 2GB vs. 4GB shouldn't be a big issue in the first place. This is because 950 is very underpowered (practically obsolete), while 960 2GB continues to be overpriced, while the price premium from 380 2GB to 4GB is marginal.

As far as the purchasing decision goes, it's fairly easy to eliminate 2GB cards, especially from NV, simply because they offer mediocre price/performance in the first place -- regardless of 2GB vs. 4GB VRAM capacity.

During this inflection point with the transition from 28nm -> 14nm/16nm, if anyone has to make a purchase now, it's probably best to go into the used market anyway. It's fairly easy to find used after-market 290/290X 4GB cards for $180-225. Even if Polaris brings that level of performance to $199 in the next 2-4 months, the major benefits will be DP1.3, HDR monitor support, improved UVD 4K engine acceleration and HDMI 2.0. However, it's highly unlikely that we will get any new card priced at $199-229 that will be 20-30% faster than an after-market 290X. At this time if I had to buy a new card now in the $120-225 market segments, I wouldn't buy anything with 2GB of VRAM as I predict the next generation will have 4GB as low-end/low-end mid-range, 6/8GB as mid-range/upper-mid-range and 16GB/32GB as high-end/ultra high-end. Certainly, VRAM requirements will only continue to increase towards the 3-5GB level as we enter the 2nd half of PS4/XB1 generation and developers completely max out the current gen consoles.


===

TL; DR: The 2GB vs. 3/4GB shouldn't even matter anymore since if buying now, the best value is hands down in the used GPU market. Alternatively, if one wants a new card, best to wait another 2-3 months because 950/960/380/380X are outdated/underpowered/overpriced tech. For people who bought 950/960/380/285 2GB cards, they out to be worried more about choosing the wrong card in the first place when after-market 280X/290/290X were on fire sale for 6+ months. Those 2GB users will be forced to drop yet another $200+ just to match a January 2015 $250 after-market 290. Even 960 SLI can barely match a reference 290 so there isn't even a good SLI option to extend the viability of the gaming rig. his is why objective reviewers/gamers tried to steer gamers away from overpriced low-end cards like 950/960/380 as early as January 2015 knowing that they will become obsolete both on the raw GPU and VRAM sides - a death sentence basically.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well, as another poster said, more is not free. It clearly depends on how much extra vram costs. Pretty much everything we buy is a compromise. At some point, it is better to move up to a more powerful card than to spend extra for vram that cant be utilized effectively by the card. Personally, I would have no problem with a 2gb GTX 960. At least from the charts shown in this thread, the difference with 4gb is quite small, and sometimes the games were unplayable or would be very poor experiences, irregardless of the amount of vram. I mean the title of this thread is like saying a lexus is better than a camry. Of course it is better, but is it worth it and can the buyer afford it??

Sure, I wasn't talking about cost, just absolute performance. There is no performance benefit to less vram. There can be a performance benefit to more ram, but it isn't automatic or across the board for all games. Whether the cost for the additional vram is worth it, or someone can live with a reduced setting or two is up to the person evaluating / buying the card.


*edit - Nice to see you posting again RS, I was wondering where you went..!

 

[Madpacket]

If you can stop people posting nonsense about how HBM works it wouldn't be needed. Misinformation is not adding anything to a technical discussion.



So what should the reply to this be if you cant tell the truth? I would like your advice on this reply if the note about the 2 engineers cant be used. Specially since its from AMD themselves to Anandtech. Should the reply just be a "Wrong" without any explanation? Or how would you like to see it worded?

The onus is on you to prove a false statement. You haven't done that from the article cited. Nowhere in the Anadtech article you linked to does it state this would also work with other memory types. That's not to say these optimizations are specific to only HBM but so far that's all we've seen. Even if your statement were true what we do know is HBM != GDDR5 so the optimizations necessary for the Fury X may not directly benefit GDDR5 users. Also the [H] testing also proved these "2" engineers are doing their job pretty well ensuring 4GiB is enough for the Fury X for sloppy console ports that "require" more than 4GiB.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The onus is on you to prove a false statement. You haven't done that from the article cited. Nowhere in the Anadtech article you linked to does it state this would also work with other memory types. That's not to say these optimizations are specific to only HBM but so far that's all we've seen. Even if your statement were true what we do know is HBM != GDDR5 so the optimizations necessary for the Fury X may not directly benefit GDDR5 users. Also the [H] testing also proved these "2" engineers are doing their pretty well ensuring 4GiB is enough for the Fury X for sloppy console ports that "require" more than 4GiB.

Prove your statement then. Document it. Else its considered false.

 

[Denithor]

Yep, RS commentary is always a good read!

 

[Madpacket]

Prove your statement then. Document it. Else its considered false.

I have nothing to prove. I simply stated an observation.

The onus is on you since you replied to me stating memory management is nothing special and it could work with GDDR5.

So no, you prove your statement then. Document it. Else it's considered false.

See how this works?

 

[Madpacket]

I don't understand how after this exact same topic was already covered to death, with countless proof already available that 2GB isn't sufficient for modern games, this thread still has posters denying the truth. Frames per second alone isn't always an accurate reflection of the stuttering which can be experienced due to lack of VRAM. This information, easily captured with frame times, has already reflected that 2GB is often insufficient in some modern titles. Furthermore, there are plenty of games where 2GB card owners simply cannot select the highest resolution textures in the first place. In such cases, such as Hitman or Wolfenstein NWO or Watch Dogs or Shadow of Mordor, cards with 3-4GB of VRAM will be able to run the game at higher IQ settings with minimal impact on FPS/frame times.

Fortunately, for informed gamers and those who can do extra research, there are plenty of options available in the used market (7970/7970Ghz/R9 280X/R9 290), while cards like R9 380 4GB and R9 380X cover the lower end new market segments to the point where the 2GB vs. 4GB shouldn't be a big issue in the first place. This is because 950 is very underpowered (practically obsolete), while 960 2GB continues to be overpriced, while the price premium from 380 2GB to 4GB is marginal.

As far as the purchasing decision goes, it's fairly easy to eliminate 2GB cards, especially from NV, simply because they offer mediocre price/performance in the first place -- regardless of 2GB vs. 4GB VRAM capacity.

During this inflection point with the transition from 28nm -> 14nm/16nm, if anyone has to make a purchase now, it's probably best to go into the used market anyway. It's fairly easy to find used after-market 290/290X 4GB cards for $180-225. Even if Polaris brings that level of performance to $199 in the next 2-4 months, the major benefits will be DP1.3, HDR monitor support, improved UVD 4K engine acceleration and HDMI 2.0. However, it's highly unlikely that we will get any new card priced at $199-229 that will be 20-30% faster than an after-market 290X. At this time if I had to buy a new card now in the $120-225 market segments, I wouldn't buy anything with 2GB of VRAM as I predict the next generation will have 4GB as low-end/low-end mid-range, 6/8GB as mid-range/upper-mid-range and 16GB/32GB as high-end/ultra high-end. Certainly, VRAM requirements will only continue to increase towards the 3-5GB level as we enter the 2nd half of PS4/XB1 generation and developers completely max out the current gen consoles.


===

TL; DR: The 2GB vs. 3/4GB shouldn't even matter anymore since if buying now, the best value is hands down in the used GPU market. Alternatively, if one wants a new card, best to wait another 2-3 months because 950/960/380/380X are outdated/underpowered/overpriced tech. For people who bought 950/960/380/285 2GB cards, they out to be worried more about choosing the wrong card in the first place when after-market 280X/290/290X were on fire sale for 6+ months. Those 2GB users will be forced to drop yet another $200+ just to match a January 2015 $250 after-market 290. Even 960 SLI can barely match a reference 290 so there isn't even a good SLI option to extend the viability of the gaming rig. his is why objective reviewers/gamers tried to steer gamers away from overpriced low-end cards like 950/960/380 as early as January 2015 knowing that they will become obsolete both on the raw GPU and VRAM sides - a death sentence basically.

RS with all due respect the cost difference between 2 and 4GiB cards is normally more than $20.00 outside of the US. Sometimes the cost differences are $50 or more so it's not always a clear cut decision. I agree it's a terrible time to be buying a new card and with the advent of Ethereum mining the used card market has dried up for the cards you speak of.

If you can show me where to buy used 290's - 290X's for ~$200 I'm in for at least 4 more

 

[UaVaj]

I don't understand how after this exact same topic was already covered to death, with countless proof already available that 2GB isn't sufficient for modern games, this thread still has posters denying the truth. Frames per second alone isn't always an accurate reflection of the stuttering which can be experienced due to lack of VRAM. This information, easily captured with frame times, has already reflected that 2GB is often insufficient in some modern titles. Furthermore, there are plenty of games where 2GB card owners simply cannot select the highest resolution textures in the first place. In such cases, such as Hitman or Wolfenstein NWO or Watch Dogs or Shadow of Mordor, cards with 3-4GB of VRAM will be able to run the game at higher IQ settings with minimal impact on FPS/frame times.

my setup isn't exactly vanilla. 290x x4 with 1080p x3. based on your nonsense. I must be stuttering due to lack of vram.

yet a single 960 demands 4gb.



some of you obviously love benching way way way more than actual gaming.

 

[topmounter]

Pick a side. Buy the best card you can afford. Keep moving.

 

[SlowSpyder]

my setup isn't exactly vanilla. 290x x4 with 1080p x3. based on your nonsense. I must be stuttering due to lack of vram.

yet a single 960 demands 4gb.



some of you obviously love benching way way way more than actual gaming.

I don't think anyone has called out 4GB as being inadequate just yet. It's day may be coming, but I think 4GB is on the right side of the line right now. I don't think RS said otherwise..?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

4GB being fine a triple 1080p or 4K doesn't necessarily imply 2GB is fine at 1080p (which sometimes it is); Vram rarely scales linearly with resolution.

Personally, I wouldn't want 4GB or 2GB at 4K or 1080p respectively, not if I'm expecting longevity. 6GB and 3GB are the sweet spot for those resolutions right now, in my opinion.

 

[RussianSensation]

*edit - Nice to see you posting again RS, I was wondering where you went..!

Thanks! I have just been very busy. Will try to post more around June/July.

Yep, RS commentary is always a good read!

Thank you. I need to work on being more concise/succinct to get the point across.

RS with all due respect the cost difference between 2 and 4GiB cards is normally more than $20.00 outside of the US.

The interesting part is certain posters on this very forum were denying any benefits to having > 2GB of VRAM since January 2015 (despite bashing 285's 2GB on this account) and yet when presented with evidence of many modern games showing benefits from 3-4GB, yet here we are finding the same individuals ignore hard data. Pricing is another matter of course as it differs among countries/regions. Having said that, for at least 10 months or so, R9 280 3GB and R9 280X 3GB were highly competitive against 950/960 2GB cards but were largely ignored. Admitting publicly that recommending 2GB cards was poor advice and that 970's 3.5GB was also an inevitable liability against 4-8GB 290/290X/390 cards seems hard for some people in this thread.

Sometimes the cost differences are $50 or more so it's not always a clear cut decision.

PowerColor PCS+ Radeon R9 380 2GB ~ $240 CAD
vs.
PowerColor PCS+ Radeon R9 380 4GB ~ $270 CAD

OR

XFX Radeon R9 380 R9-380P-2255 2GB ~ $250 CAD

XFX Radeon R9 380 R9-380P-4255 4GB ~ $266 CAD

At current Newegg Canada prices, 2GB cards make no sense. This was my point earlier.

If you can show me where to buy used 290's - 290X's for ~$200 US I'm in for at least 4 more

Sure. I'll send you a PM shortly. BTW, since this is a US-based forum, I referenced $180-220 USD for after-market 290 cards which is still a great value given where R9 380/960/380X sit new.

my setup isn't exactly vanilla. 290x x4 with 1080p x3. based on your nonsense. I must be stuttering due to lack of vram.

yet a single 960 demands 4gb.

1. I never said that a 960/380 demand 4GB. It would have been sufficient with 3-3.5GB but such configuration isn't available for such products.

2. I never made any mention whatsoever about CF setups being limited by 4GB of VRAM or a single GPU of 290/390 level being limited by 4GB at 1080p or even 1440p. Not sure where you got that from my post. In fact, I just recommended a fellow forum member to consider saving his money and go with a 4GB version of the 290/290X over a new 390 8GB. I do think that for next generation we will see 6-8GB occupy the $300-450 price levels but I also expect GP104 to beat R9 290X CF.

I also got burned hard by 8800GTS 320MB. As such, I am hesitant to save 5-10% of a card's value if there is a similar performing SKU with double the VRAM.

 

[UaVaj]

thanks for confirming you do indeed love benching more than gaming.

 

[Spanners]

my setup isn't exactly vanilla. 290x x4 with 1080p x3. based on your nonsense. I must be stuttering due to lack of vram.

yet a single 960 demands 4gb.



some of you obviously love benching way way way more than actual gaming.

thanks for confirming you do indeed love benching more than gaming.

Weird that nothing in the quoted "nonsense" mentions anything that would be relevant to your setup so I'm not sure how "based on" that you deduced anything about your setups stuttering or otherwise? You're the one inferring something about multiple cards from statements about single cards not him.

Is the supposed love of benching supposed to be an insult? I'd have no problem saying I'm more interested in GPU technology and benchmarks than I am in gaming, each to their own of course. Seems a sad attempt to score points to me.