Why more Vram is always better

[UaVaj]

if nonsense benching is your cup of tea. more power to you.

please stop spreading that
nonsense benching (jacking up vram yielding piss poor fps)
toward
actual gaming practice (adjusting game setting for enjoyable and playable fps).



as for relevant to my setup. perhaps you should go and read that link. and then the link inside that link.
here is a hint.
give the amount of shader 290x x4 offers and given 3k resolution. at a practical and enjoyable fps. how much vram is commited?

 

[poofyhairguy]

actual gaming practice (adjusting game setting for enjoyable and playable fps).

Well you can always adjust the settings. With that mentality why ever buy a 980 ti if a 750 ti can play everything on low? The point is to make good decisions and get the most for your money.

Today 2GB might cut it at 1080p, but we are just barely entering the era of games built for the Xbone and PS4. Those consoles have a lot of possible VRAM so ports might expect it, especially in a Directx12 mode that in some cases is a memory hog. In PC gaming in 2016 you aren't battling the technology PC only games have like say Crysis in 2007, you are trying to compensate for crappy and direct console ports that suck up VRAM and compute. 3GB seems safe at 1080p, but for a lot of cards the option is 2GB or 4GB. You have to chose.

When you buy a card you aren't just buying what it can do that day unless you only play old games or a specific game. You are buying it for what it's going to do, you are making a prediction. Saying "if I am wrong I can just turn down settings" doesn't absolve you from making a prediction, it just means if you are wrong you have a built in excuse.

Getting the most power for your money (ie the best prediction) is all that matters in this "game" unless you are a serial GPU flipper.

 

[Spanners]

if nonsense benching is your cup of tea. more power to you.

please stop spreading that
nonsense benching (jacking up vram yielding piss poor fps)
toward
actual gaming practice (adjusting game setting for enjoyable and playable fps).



as for relevant to my setup. perhaps you should go and read that link. and then the link inside that link.
here is a hint.
give the amount of shader 290x x4 offers and given 3k resolution. at a practical and enjoyable fps. how much vram is commited?

I already understood the limitations of benchmarks and interpreted them with that it mind, nothing revelatory there. I'm not spreading anything.

I have read article linked inside the OP it's all about a single mid-range card the 960. Also the entire thread has no mention of multiple cards until you bring up your quadfire setup again.

 

[UaVaj]

nvm. cnfs.

 

[Spanners]

nvm. cnfs.

Care to enlighten me on that? Google comes up with Canadian Network of Federalism Studies and Cyclic News File System, can't imagine you mean either of those?

 

[SlowSpyder]

if nonsense benching is your cup of tea. more power to you.

please stop spreading that
nonsense benching (jacking up vram yielding piss poor fps)
toward
actual gaming practice (adjusting game setting for enjoyable and playable fps).



as for relevant to my setup. perhaps you should go and read that link. and then the link inside that link.
here is a hint.
give the amount of shader 290x x4 offers and given 3k resolution. at a practical and enjoyable fps. how much vram is commited?

Because he is saying 2GB isn't good enough for 1x1080P, that doesn't mean 4GB isn't good enough for 3x1080P. Say a game requires a video card with at least 2GB of vram because no matter what at it's most base settings it needs to have say 1.3GB of data in vram. Settings and resolution only add to that number. You can see how 2GB of vram can become a limit even at lower resolution, but 4GB may have enough space up to much higher resolutions. I don't know why you are being so defensive, no one is saying 4GB isn't good enough for today. But I'd be very hesitant to get a 2GB card today with the expectations that I'll be able to max out settings.

 

[xorbe]

The benches on the first page, once again ULTRA settings on entry 2gb cards ... nobody does that in the real world. Having said that, I always try to snag the extra vram models.

 

[tential]

The benches on the first page, once again ULTRA settings on entry 2gb cards ... nobody does that in the real world. Having said that, I always try to snag the extra vram models.

This even my friends with gtx 970a game on high a lot lol

 

[Face2Face]

The benches on the first page, once again ULTRA settings on entry 2gb cards ... nobody does that in the real world. Having said that, I always try to snag the extra vram models.

Exactly.

If someone was out shopping for a mid range video card I would definitely push them towards A 4GB variant for not much more.

We also have to keep in mind there are plenty of people that are currently running 2GB video cards that are not looking to purchase a new card at this time. For those people, you'll have to dial down the texture settings a bit, and probably due to the performance of your card, you'll need to dial the overall settings down to med/high depending on the game. Not every PC gamer plays games on Ultra settings with 8XAA, nor do they need to.

For example, I have a Alienware Alpha that has a 860m with 2GB of VRAM, and it does fine @ 1080p med/high settings on most games.

I even took a pretty VRAM heavy game (Shadow of Mordor) Played it at medium settings w/High textures (recommends 3GB or greater). While the VRAM usage was maxed, I didn't experience any stutter, freezing, pauses, etc... In fact, the reason I'm not getting more FPS, is because the GPU isn't powerful enough, as shown by my OC results, not because I'm VRAM limited.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQOKhKGZnvc

I'm not saying 2GB of VRAM is optimal, and yes, there will be a point in time where they won't be usable; however, I do think 2GB video cards are still viable today, just not at ultra settings in AAA games.

 

[Dribble]

I think most of the time cards cards are released with an appropriate amount of vram for their performance (fury is a special case due to hbm problems). Mid life cards often get a double vram upgrade because it's pretty cheap and sells more cards but this mostly makes very little difference as reviews have shown. When the card is set to best playable fps (i.e. not ultra @ 10fps) the card with double the vram doesn't end up with different settings.

The one exception I would say is for SLi/Xfire, in which case you now have double everything else so getting the version with double the vram is a no brainer.

 

[thesmokingman]

The benches on the first page, once again ULTRA settings on entry 2gb cards ... nobody does that in the real world. Having said that, I always try to snag the extra vram models.

I think its on ultra to prove the point that you cannot just throw it on ultra with 2gb. It's ironic and like duh, but yea no one using 2gb would run ultra. But is that because they don't want to or because they can't? I don't know and I don't think it matters or mattered enough to make a thread lol. Regardless it's kind of silly all around because why wouldn't we all go for the card with more vram given all else being equal? I think that's a fundamental all can agree on.

 

[Madpacket]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madpacket
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.

Hmm. I stand corrected. The R9 380's have really closed the gap in price. Geforce 960's still appear to be closer to $40-50.00 for the added VRAM though.

http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Produc...7860&cm_re=Geforce_960-_-14-127-860-_-Product