How much memory for a graphics card is needed?

[rhapdog]

I'm not a big gamer. I haven't played a game that required more than 256MB video RAM until I upgraded my system last year and got an AMD A10-6800K. I have no dedicated graphics card, but am looking to purchase one very soon.

The only game I'm playing that will require a dedicated graphics card at this time is Tomb Raider 2013, but I may end up picking up other titles once I have a graphics card that will allow me to play them without it being painful for me watching the screen crawl.

I'm looking to pick up the R9 270X. I have found a 2GB version and a 4GB version that I like. The 4GB cost about $40US more. I currently am running only one monitor @ 1680x1050 resolution. I plan to pick up a 2nd monitor mid-year, a 24" at 1920x1080, and then I plan to have a dual monitor setup. No, they won't be the same resolution, but I would love to be able to play in a 3600x900 window. I prefer my games windowed, so I can pause the game and get to other programs, which I frequently have to do.

Running a game at that resolution, exactly how much video memory will I need? I've heard some people say on other forums that I'd never need more than 1GB, but I maxed out Tomb Raider on Ultra (yes, about 4fps), while watching the graphic memory consumption, and it hit 1850MB @ 1680x1050. This tells me I need minimum of 2GB, but will I need more if using a second monitor?

Are future games, which I may begin to play, going to be needing more than 2GB? Or will I not need to worry about running future games at those settings with the 270X anyway? Is 4GB overkill for the 270X and its capabilities?

Experience with this and examples would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance.

 

[the54thvoid]

I just played battlefield 4. Here is the memory I used at 2560x1440p.

In red box it was 2.483Gb of memory. You can gauge your pixels on my pixel count to get an idea of requirement.

My res = 2560x1440 = 3686400.
1920x1080 = 2073600
which makes my monitor 77% more pixels. I'd suggest 2 GB at your scaling would be fine but for TR 2013, I'd recommend a R9 280 (they have 3Gb memory anyway).

 

[rhapdog]

The problem with the R9 280 is that it is cost prohibitive right now. R9 270X is all I can afford on a sub $250 budget. The jump from R9 270X to R9 280 right now for me is from $189 to $399, which are the best deals I've found on each. $229 for the 4GB R270X. For the performance gain, the $/performance ratio just doesn't justify it for me when I have to put food on the table for children. There are a couple of cheaper cards out there for both, but not cheaper by much, and I've eliminated those from my prospects for various reasons while doing research on the cards.

My pixel count will be 3600x900, though, not 1920x1080. That's 3,240,000 compared to your 3,686,400, and I may go to a maximum of 3600x1050, which would be 3,780,000.

With that in mind, and from the info you gave (which was very helpful), I think I may go with the 4GB card after all, as long as no emergency expenses arise before I am able to make the purchase. (I have kids, you never know.)

 

[MxPhenom 216]

The problem with the R9 280 is that it is cost prohibitive right now. R9 270X is all I can afford on a sub $250 budget. The jump from R9 270X to R9 280 right now for me is from $189 to $399, which are the best deals I've found on each. $229 for the 4GB R270X. For the performance gain, the $/performance ratio just doesn't justify it for me when I have to put food on the table for children. There are a couple of cheaper cards out there for both, but not cheaper by much, and I've eliminated those from my prospects for various reasons while doing research on the cards.

My pixel count will be 3600x900, though, not 1920x1080. That's 3,240,000 compared to your 3,686,400, and I may go to a maximum of 3600x1050, which would be 3,780,000.

With that in mind, and from the info you gave (which was very helpful), I think I may go with the 4GB card after all, as long as no emergency expenses arise before I am able to make the purchase. (I have kids, you never know.)

The 4GB version of the 270x or whatever card you get would not be worth it. Your GPU will run out of actual GPU performance before it needs more memory. You are better off just saving the cash and getting the 2GB version.

Having a 2nd monitor won't effect memory usage that much, unless you plan to use them both for gaming, which would be crap, since you would have a bezel right down the middle, sort of why people do 3 monitors if they want to do gaming with more than one monitor.

 

[kamransaeed15]

the more resolution you play on more mem is required upto 1080 p 2 gb is enough and above this 3gb and so on
go for 2 gb 270x i own it and its handling all games at 60 fps on ultra settings

 

[rhapdog]

MxPhenom 216 and
[URL='http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/members/kamransaeed15.145902/']kamransaeed15, thanks.[/URL]I appreciate the honesty on that. Good to know that 2GB will do it for this level of card. Also good to know about the bezel. I honestly didn't think about that.

I do plan on getting a second card once I get a 3rd monitor, so if I crossfire them, I should be able to get an adequate gaming experience for someone who isn't a hardcore gamer. Probably be a full year from now before I get to that, though. For now, I'll look into the 2GB version.

 

[Mussels]

without using HD mods, the most i've seen in a game is 1.8GB

with skyrim and HD mods, i've seen about 2.6GB with max settings and 8xAA at 1080p


turning down AA and texture size will both drop ram usage a large amount.

 

[radrok]

For 1080p nothing more than 2GB is required, in fact many gamers with 690GTX have no issues running any kind of title.

Anything above 1080p requires no more than 3GB, for now.

Skyrim is a beast on its own, I have posted some screenshots with over 5GB of memory used...

 

[Dice]

I know this is an old thread but i still feel like this is a relevant question, so what do people think now? I think 3gb SHOULD be enough but after reading reports of games such as SOM not being properly optimised for PC is it still the case? I am considering upgrading my 680 power edition (lightning bios) as i am returning to the uk and want to watercool again. there are some good deals on the 780 gti or should i go for a 970? i am worried about coil whine as i am ocd about noise.

I game at 1080 and cant see myself going to 4k any time soon but i would like to be able to play at max settings if i am buying a new card, is the extra 1gb worth being a consideration?

 

[the54thvoid]

I know this is an old thread but i still feel like this is a relevant question, so what do people think now? I think 3gb SHOULD be enough but after reading reports of games such as SOM not being properly optimised for PC is it still the case? I am considering upgrading my 680 power edition (lightning bios) as i am returning to the uk and want to watercool again. there are some good deals on the 780 gti or should i go for a 970? i am worried about coil whine as i am ocd about noise.

I game at 1080 and cant see myself going to 4k any time soon but i would like to be able to play at max settings if i am buying a new card, is the extra 1gb worth being a consideration?

If you're coming back to the UK OcUK have developed a 'no coil whine' guarantee card. It's a custom GTX 970 on a 980 PCB. The chokes are solid core and also glued to the PCB.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-205-OK&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1010

£320 is steep for a 970 but it's a limited production run so has higher costs.

Also, 2GB is very limiting these days. I'm retracting previous arguments and suggesting 4GB is sensible, even at 1080p.

 

[RCoon]

After doing reviews for a few months, only 2 games have utilised more than 2GB VRAM, one of which has recently been released (Starpoint Gemini II) using approx 2.2GB VRAM, the other being Shadow of Mordor, completely eating up my entire 4GB VRAM with high res textures. All of which was on 1440p
As for everything else, 2GB is an average amount for 1080p, I believe for most newer games 3GB will be healthy amount, but for my res 4GB is a requirement for longevity.

 

[BiggieShady]

There is a difference between how much VRAM game needs to run fine, or how much VRAM game will allocate when it's available ... from this year on games are made with 4 GB VRAM target for maximum texture detail - which means it will not swap RAM-VRAM at all if 4 GB are available. 2 GB cards often can run ultra textures with occasional swapping.
The real question is when will 2 GB card users be forced to reduce texture detail to be able to run games at all ... I expect next year I'll be on medium textures so definitely go for the 4 GB card

 

[XSI]

turning down AA and texture size will both drop ram usage a large amount.

100% on point

I personally tried many times to see difference between various AA modes but looks like I can't see too much or any difference.
Because of older card (8800gt cough 512 MB) played many games with AA off. So it can be really easy solution for those with lower VRAM if you can tolerate lower or no AA.

edit: and it's nice games are starting to use what it can, like more cores/threads, all VRAM, more RAM, multi gpu for best experience. But NEED to use and CAN use are totally different things .

 

[Dice]

thanks for your answers, i had indeed been looking at the overclocers card. big premium over the standard cards though!
I know its slightly older but overclockers also have http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-238-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1752
available at nearly £50 cheaper, would this be a similar performer i have no bias between NV or AMD but i would like to be able to push the card. my last wc gpu was a 5870 and i was really able to ramp up the clocks on that one!

also i read that removing the stock cooler dosnt void the warranty on msi cards and the period is 3 yrs vs 2 on the OCUK card.

 

[qubit]

I was playing CoD: Ghosts at 1080p with details maxed on my 780 Ti 3GB and GPU-Z running. The memory consumption on that peaked surprisingly near to 3GB in that game, so yeah, get a 3- or 4GB card if you can. Generally you'll still be ok with 2GB, but it's better to have the headroom. Broadly, the faster the GPU, the more RAM you should have.

 

[RCoon]

thanks for your answers, i had indeed been looking at the overclocers card. big premium over the standard cards though!
I know its slightly older but overclockers also have http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-238-MS&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=1752
available at nearly £50 cheaper, would this be a similar performer i have no bias between NV or AMD but i would like to be able to push the card. my last wc gpu was a 5870 and i was really able to ramp up the clocks on that one!

also i read that removing the stock cooler dosnt void the warranty on msi cards and the period is 3 yrs vs 2 on the OCUK card.

For £275 I'd rather buy the MSI GTX 970 Gaming from Ebuyer. My 970 boosts to 1500mhz by itself. Scan also have great deals.
I don't mean to cause offense, but OCUK are scumbags, and I'll never order anything from them. Plus Ebuyer does free delivery.

£320 is steep for a 970 but it's a limited production run so has higher costs.

It might have higher production costs, but we all know what OCUK's profit margin is like. They're always behind competitors when it comes to price matching.

 

[Dice]

I thought OCUK had upped their game since caseking took over? Plus they do have a 14 day no questions asked return policy, I got this 680 as an exchange for a 7970 ROG card that had a noisy fan. i have no shop loyalty either though. I have had scan refuse a return on some Vengeance ram that burnt out a dimm socket on my mobo and had to fight to return a Crucial 64GB Real SSD C300 to ebuyer as it had the constant freezing bug, i got the drive for Christmas but it had been more than whatever the refund period was at the time spent sat under the tree. so i think etailers are all much the same unfortunatly

I'd get the 970 gaming in a heartbeat if i was confident on no coil whine.