Why more Vram is always better

[mohit9206]

I've always noted on forums when people ask whether they should get 2gb or 4gb version or 3gb or 6gb version of a particular card,forum members always say get the lower vram version as "the gpu isn't powerful enough to use the extra vram anyway' or "the gpu will run out of horsepower before it can even utilize the extra vram"or "you don't need the extra vram at your resolution anyway".
They make this statement without considering factors like:
1.Maybe the card cannot utilize the extra vram today but surely in a year or two,more demanding games will utilize the extra vram available.
2. Saying the card isn't powerful enough to utilize extra vram even though they have no evidence to back up the fact because obviously no one can see the future.
3. Models with extra vram will also fetch a higher resale value so there is no loss getting the higher vram model even if it costs an extra $50 or so.

I've read people on every forum suggesting 2gb 680/670/770 over 4gb, 3gb 780 over 6gb,2gb 960 over 4gb,etc without considering all these factors.
I have also seen many people regret the fact that they bought the lower vram card because forum members suggested them to do so and now they can't play on very high/ultra because they're running out of vram and i feel bad for those poor folks who bought the 2gb model based on forum members suggestions and now they have no option but to get a new card or play on lower settings.
This post only applies to mid range and higher end cards and obviously not on cards like Gt730 4gb ddr3 and other such low end cards.

 

[lehtv]

I share your reasoning for why higher VRAM is worth it, but I can't say I've seen anyone recommend 2GB VRAM over 4GB in a long, long time. I feel like your post is a blast from the past when we didn't have the VRAM-gobbling games we have now. It might be we don't browse the same forums, though.

 

[mohit9206]

I share your reasoning for why higher VRAM is worth it, but I can't say I've seen anyone recommend 2GB VRAM over 4GB in a long, long time. I feel like your post is a blast from the past when we didn't have the VRAM-gobbling games we have now. It might be we don't browse the same forums, though.

Well there are many examples from this forum as well.For example this one.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2322849
Everyone here recommending 2gb over 4gb.Quoting directly from the thread.
"The 770 will be overwhelmed by the time it maxes out its 2GB in most situations"
Where's the proof?
"If you're using a single screen resolution, especially 1080p, 4GB is not beneficial.".
"No, you don't need 4GB for 1080p, 2GB is fine".
Ok maybe in 2013 but what about 2015? People who buy $400 cards will definitely want to keep it for 2-3 years atleast.
"I'd feel better with 4gb's because 2gb is not high end today and what does that mean 2 years out?"
This guys gets it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

More memory only makes sense if you can utilize it performance wise.

The only real VRAM needs that isn't tied to performance comes from DX12. But that's due to developers having to do the memory management with mixed results. One DX12 game already showed 10.7GB usage due to this.

I have a GTX980 in 1 box, GTX680 in another. There is still no time where the GTX680 is VRAM limited in terms of playable settings for its performance.

 

[Vortex6700]

More memory only makes sense if you can utilize it performance wise.

The only real VRAM needs that isn't tied to performance comes from DX12. But that's due to developers having to do the memory management with mixed results. One DX12 game already showed 10.7GB usage due to this.

I have a GTX980 in 1 box, GTX680 in another. There is still no time where the GTX680 is VRAM limited in terms of playable settings for its performance.

Do you have Arma 3 on the 680 box? If so, could you set it to 6k/6k ultra @ >=1080 and tell us your vram usage?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I dont have Arma 3 no. I do have Total War series and the like. 12800 units isn't an issue. Remember settings needs to be where the card wouldn't lack performance, just VRAM.

 

[mohit9206]

More memory only makes sense if you can utilize it performance wise.

The only real VRAM needs that isn't tied to performance comes from DX12. But that's due to developers having to do the memory management with mixed results. One DX12 game already showed 10.7GB usage due to this.

I have a GTX980 in 1 box, GTX680 in another. There is still no time where the GTX680 is VRAM limited in terms of playable settings for its performance.

So you're saying that a GTX680 would not benefit from an extra 2gb vram even if playing a very demanding game from last year at max settings?
What about a Gtx960? These graphs show performance improvement in R9380 and Gtx960 even at 1080p.

 

[Vortex6700]

I dont have Arma 3 no. I do have Total War series and the like. 12800 units isn't an issue. Remember settings needs to be where the card wouldn't lack performance, just VRAM.

Fair enough. I think the 680 would have enough grunt to handle those settings processor wise. The 7970 does, but runs out of vram (pegged at max).

 

[PrincessFrosty]

More vRAM only provides benefit if you have the assets to actually put into RAM or function that can use it, such as Anti-aliasing at higher resolutions. The problem is processing that data in real time is done by the GPU and there's no point in say having the extra memory to allow for AA at 4k instead of just 1080p if the GPU can only run AA at 4k at 10fps.

Different games have different requirements and you can normally find a few games which have abnormally high vRAM requirements, but they tend to be outliers and so when people talk about unnecessary amount of vRAM it tends to be based on some approximate average.

Resale value of the card with more memory is only good if they're in high demand, and usually they aren't for all the reasons above. The money that is spent on the extra memory would be better spent on a slightly faster GPU and that's how most people shop unless they have unusual requirements.

 

[ShintaiDK]

So you're saying that a GTX680 would not benefit from an extra 2gb vram even if playing a very demanding game from last year at max settings?
What about a Gtx960? These graphs show performance improvement in R9380 and Gtx960 even at 1080p.

If you wish to play at or close to unplayable settings.

When its playable, there is little difference between the 960 and 380 2 and 4GB versions.

 

[96Firebird]

So you're saying that a GTX680 would not benefit from an extra 2gb vram even if playing a very demanding game from last year at max settings?
What about a Gtx960? These graphs show performance improvement in R9380 and Gtx960 even at 1080p.

Did you read TechSpot's conclusion in the article that you linked the graphs from?

 

[Silverforce11]

Well there are many examples from this forum as well.For example this one.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2322849
Everyone here recommending 2gb over 4gb.Quoting directly from the thread.
"The 770 will be overwhelmed by the time it maxes out its 2GB in most situations"
Where's the proof?
"If you're using a single screen resolution, especially 1080p, 4GB is not beneficial.".
"No, you don't need 4GB for 1080p, 2GB is fine".
Ok maybe in 2013 but what about 2015? People who buy $400 cards will definitely want to keep it for 2-3 years atleast.
"I'd feel better with 4gb's because 2gb is not high end today and what does that mean 2 years out?"
This guys gets it.

That was in 2013, when the crowd still had no idea and thought 2GB was enough for 1080p and would be that way for years.

Some of us way back before then, we had the foresight to see that next-gen console is coming with 8GB, with ~6GB usable, and they share the resource pool unlike PC. So vram usage would skyrocket as soon as next-gen games arrive. We saw this with some titles in 2014, many titles in 2015 and it's pretty much the norm these days.

Example, a 7970Ghz is still a very strong performer today in modern games at 1080p. Ofc due to GCN maturation, but also that 3GB vram is very handy. Likewise for Hawaii vs GK110 780/780Ti/Titan, 4GB vs 3GB makes it capable at 1440p gaming, as folks who had non-reference 290/X is rocking 390/X caliber performance ever since late 2013.

If you ask me about now moving forward. I will say 4GB is going to be enough for gaming at 1080/1440p for the next 2-3 years. The reason is again pretty simple, games are already matured for this console generation and they are developed for PS4/Xbone, with again, ~6GB total usable memory pool. We are not going to see cross-platform games suddenly leap forward with a big increase in visual fidelity. Not until the next console gen, PS5 etc.

It's not even about unplayable settings, like cranking MSAA to the max. It's simply the ability to run higher quality textures, 4K textures for example. GPUs without vram don't get this option despite having the grunt to do it. Classic example, I owned a 7950 and gtx670 at the same time a few years back. Watch Dogs, on my OC 7950 I could max texture, the game looked massively better, other settings were high and performance was very good. My gtx670 had no ability to handle the ultra textures. These GPUs are of similar performance class, or even the gtx670 was one-step higher, as the 7950 was pitted against the gtx660ti!

For a more recent example, Rise of the Tomb Raider, my R290X can run Very High settings, including V. High textures. Zero stutter. But lots of 970 owners raged on the Steam forum that they have to go down to High textures else they get constant stutter (particularly worse on some levels). 3.5GB syndrome struck, at 1080p. A 780Ti has no chance. Even on the official geforce performance guide, NV recommends V. High only for GPUs with >4GB vram.

The moral of the story is that texture quality tend to have a very small performance hit, as long as there's enough vram. It's also the single most important setting for maximizing image quality. So yes, more vram is generally better, but one also needs to understand some context. For someone now, would I recommend a cheaper R290X 4GB vs a 8GB 390X for 1080/1440p gaming, definitely the cheaper R290X given the few years usability left at this performance class.

 

[digitaldurandal]

What about a Gtx960? These graphs show performance improvement in R9380 and Gtx960 even at 1080p.

You have illustrated a point which you are contending against, which is these cards when at a point of needing more VRAM, are unplayable at the settings either way.

From the very article you use at techspot

"So in the end, not much has changed from previous years. Akin to the megapixel and megahertz race in cameras and processors, the amount of memory used on graphics cards that are not fast enough to utilize it is simply used as a marketing gimmick. On the bright side, it's not a significant amount of money."

 

[videogames101]

OP you've missed the boat here. I mean your argument is like saying:

"Don't get a GTX 970, get a GTX 980 instead becase it's faster!!! Why would anyone recommend at 970?"

Obviously faster cards are better, and obviously more VRAM is better. Would anyone argue otherwise? But it's always balanced with cost. So I have no idea what you're actually trying to say. Either the budget allows for the extra VRAM or it doesn't.

 

[DaveSimmons]

OP you've missed the boat here. I mean your argument is like saying:

"Don't get a GTX 970, get a GTX 980 instead becase it's faster!!! Why would anyone recommend at 970?"

Obviously faster cards are better, and obviously more VRAM is better. Would anyone argue otherwise? But it's always balanced with cost. So I have no idea what you're actually trying to say. Either the budget allows for the extra VRAM or it doesn't.

Exactly.

Adding an extra 12 GB VRAM on to a GTX 960 for "future-proofiness" is stupidity.

Sure, you could load an extra 20 Ultra-Texture Mods on to Skyrim to run at 4 K resolution, but you'd be running at 1 fps.

Unless your budget is for a quad-SLI GTX 980 ti setup, you have already decided that cost is an issue. That extra VRAM costs money that might be better spent on some other part of your budget-constrained system.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

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

 

[Silverforce11]

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

Dang, what is going on there?

AMD's dynamic memory system in action?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Eh, it could just be a mistake. Earlier reviews don't show that effect and they didn't note any settings changes. 770/960 haven't been tested since the 380X review.

 

[tweakboy]

You get high definition graphics....

 

[Silverforce11]

Eh, it could just be a mistake. Earlier reviews don't show that effect and they didn't note any settings changes. 770/960 haven't been tested since the 380X review.

I know in WD, it used to be if you had 2GB GPUs you could not enable max textures, the requirement is for 3GB+, maybe its changed in a later patch.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Given the inconsistent stutters present when textures swamp the VRAM, it would seem latency to main memory is hurting much more than bandwidth.

 

[tweakboy]

For high res textures...

 

[frozentundra123456]

So you're saying that a GTX680 would not benefit from an extra 2gb vram even if playing a very demanding game from last year at max settings?
What about a Gtx960? These graphs show performance improvement in R9380 and Gtx960 even at 1080p.

Actually those games show pretty much the opposite. AC and GTA 5 are basically unplayable with either 2 or 4 gb, while in the other games the difference is 10% or less. With that level of card, I dont see a compelling case for 4gb.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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

There is no direct comparison between 2 and 4 gb cards in those graphs.

 

[UaVaj]

if you want to buy more vram. go ahead. no body is stopping you.
however stop spilling bs here that more vram is needed.



#3. the only thing more vram is good for is for more sales. people eat that up like candy.

#2. running 290x x4 with 1080p x3 with 4gb vram and have yet to bust it. so go figure.

#1. a 960 with 12gb vram sound like a great collector's card. do note that cached texture is clearly not the same as commited texture.



as for those pretty charts. who actually game with 30fps dips. get a reality check please.