2560x1440@120hz need more then 3gb VRAM?

[Shou Miko]

I am wondering of my resolution of 2560x1440pixel at 120hz would benefit from more vram then the 3gb my MSI N780 TF 3GD5/OC Gaming card has.

i am mostly playing Aion but i also do single player of new games. the last game i completed was Sniper Elite 3, and i tried out Watch Dogs a game i have been really existed about but controls of vehicles are fucked so lost interest pretty fast.

i am waiting for Project C.A.R.S., GTAV and more to get released and i am thinking about trying out Theif too.

there is always comming more games i wanna try so i just wondering if 3gb really is enough.

 

[Toothless]

It's more than enough. Enjoy the game play.

 

[alwayssts]

It's more than enough. Enjoy the game play.

I would hardly say 'more than enough' if you want a balance, especially wrt to games like Watch Dogs which are programmed for the huge shared memory pool in the newer consoles. With Ubisoft's track record of not optimizing for the pc worth a damn in full force (look also at Assassin's Creed, for instance) there's a good chance that more ram will become even more useful as we completely shift to the current console generation and until gpus reach parity (or slightly higher). That phenomenon is fringe now, sure, but a very realistic situation that could become more prevalent. This is why we will see similarish to slightly faster products with 8GB both in the upcoming gen and when we get to smaller geometry chips. I highly doubt we see 3GB advertised for (realistically) anything above 1080p...similar to the place Tahiti has found itself. Tahiti is a (now) arguably a 1080p performance chip with excess/'enough' buffer, the same way GK110 is a 1440p chip with generally too small buffer.

Overall, generally, I think there is an ever-growing thin line between yes and no...but if we're talking performance of >60fps/1440p, I would argue it isn't. While I would argue the old base was somewhere around 1.280-1.5GB for a card that could often render 1080p/60 (which would make 3GB a good target for 1440p), that has floated more-so closer and often even over 2GB at highest settings on average as cards with less than 2GB (or odd size buses/buffers) have largely disappeared, and optimizations are catered towards 2GB at 1080p.

This question could also be posed as 'is 6GB enough for 4k?'. Similarly, I would argue no, it isn't, and all (known) future high-end chips agree with that thinking. I would argue 2/4/8 is very much a worthwhile investment in regards to 1080p/1440p/4k. The fact we're in a weird phase where GK110 products have a choice between 3 and 6GB does very much suck. One is arguably not enough going forward, the other is overkill. C'est la vie. Sometimes new products do market/performance corrections beyond simply adding more units or fine-tuning core/mem clocks and voltages per tdp/chip size/transistor count, and as such one of them in the new gen will be buses/buffers adjusted per performance tier.

That all said...don't let having 'the perfect card' stress you out. You'll be able to play games fine...just something to consider if you want the 'best' experience going forward (ie next time you find yourself turning settings down past your personal threshold to get the smoothness you require).

 

[Shou Miko]

alwayssts did u missed out that most designers/developers of Watch Dogs was using was it GTX 670 cards making the game?

 

[Jack1n]

The games textures are the same size whether you want to run the game at 60 or 120hz,so yes it will be enough for most games.

 

[64K]

It's enough VRAM for now. Two years from now who knows. The thing with Watch Dogs is that you're not allowed to choose max settings unless you have more than 2 GB VRAM even at 1080p unless something has changed. I know that's not an issue for you right now but probably by the time you need a new card a 4 GB card would be a good choice. For now what you have is fine.