who needs a 3 gb ram gpu lol

[Vlada011]

But over 90% of people still play at 1080p. 3GB is fine for most.

Yes, how to play with single graphic card and x4AA, only on 1920x1080.
Than enough is 3GB. We are not in possession of some graphic with GPU power as 3x Titan Black and 3GB Video Memory and than to discuss is it enough or not.
If someone want he can buy GTX780 6GB, but I know what will happen first.
Fps will drop under 45-50fps before he cross 3GB Video Memory Limit because no enough GPU power. Sitution with GTX780Ti is far better but still not to choose 2560x1440 resolution as settings for every game on single card. Not because memory, because fps drop on 30-40fps, need multi GPU configuration.

 

[Mussels]

But over 90% of people still play at 1080p. 3GB is fine for most.

as i said above, i can reach 3GB at 1080p.

3GB seems to be 'good' for 1080p, but unless you're willing to play without AA, people will need 4GB+ VRAM for next gen gaming.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

as i said above, i can reach 3GB at 1080p.

3GB seems to be 'good' for 1080p, but unless you're willing to play without AA, people will need 4GB+ VRAM for next gen gaming.

Yes, but to say that is to imply one can afford a GPU capable of going that high on AA, and there we get back to the over 90% comment.

I can play most games with AA on my mere 7970. It's more a matter of how high AA. I run Watch Dogs at 4x SMAA, no VSync, High Textures, and everything else max at 1080p, and my 3GB VRAM handles it fine.

It's more of a prepare for the future thing when it comes to 4GB VRAM at 1080p. I'm leaning toward Nvidia for my next GPU, and hoping they offer 4GB VRAM on the high end Maxwells, but in the back of my mind I'm thinking they'll charge WAY too much for it if they do.

 

[The Von Matrices]

The problem is, you don't know how it is using it though. There's a difference between 3 GB of active data, and 1.5 GB of active data plus 1.5GB of stale textures.

Or think of it like this, you put 32GB in your PC, and Windows/Linux will use it all. But you can open Task Manager/top and say, oh but 30GB is cached data. You have no way to do that with your GPU vram.

I agree 100%. There's no good correlation between the amount of VRAM actually needed and information these utilities tell you.

Good example: Crysis 3 on my system "needs" 7752MB VRAM at high settings yet still runs great at 50-60FPS. Note that my GPUs only have a 3072MB of VRAM available; in other words 4680MB of that memory used is system memory, yet the game's performance doesn't suffer.

 

[Mussels]

I agree 100%. There's no good correlation between the amount of VRAM actually needed and information these utilities tell you.

Good example: Crysis 3 on my system "needs" 7752MB VRAM at high settings yet still runs great at 50-60FPS. Note that my GPUs only have a 3GB pool of memory; in other words 4680MB of that is system memory, yet the game's performance doesn't suffer.

i thought that was because afterburner just glitched/misreported (they read it from directX, which 'adds' them together) and showed double/triple what was available depending on the amount of cards used?

So in your case you've got 3x3072MB, so divide 7752 by 3 that comes out to 2,584 of 3072MB used. (the software reading it is seeing that 2,584MB duplicated three times and counting it together. god knows why)

 

[The Von Matrices]

i thought that was because afterburner just glitched/misreported (they read it from directX, which 'adds' them together) and showed double/triple what was available depending on the amount of cards used?

So in your case you've got 3x3072MB, so divide 7752 by 3 that comes out to 2,584 of 3072MB used. (the software reading it is seeing that 2,584MB duplicated three times and counting it together. god knows why)

The same result happens in GPU-Z, but if it's a DirectX issue then I wouldn't expect W1zzard or the creator of Afterburner to be able to do anything about it.

 

[Mussels]

The same result happens in GPU-Z, but if it's a DirectX issue then I wouldn't expect W1zzard or the creator of Afterburner to be able to do anything about it.

yep so you just gotta do the math when you see the reported numbers to get any sense out of it.

3GB really does seem to be where its at for 1080p gaming with any AA at all these days - and its a minimum if you want to go higher res.

 

[Jeffredo]

I have a GTX 770 4GB and play Skyrim with the stock HD textures @1920x1200 on Ultra (of course). It never goes about 2GB of VRAM. Well, maybe a few hundred Mhz more once in a while, but that's about it. Nothing of consequence.

 

[Keullo-e]

My old GTX470 had almost always the memory usage in about 1.2GB of its 1.25GB, and I got only 1920x1080 display.

Haven't even tried nothing else than Diablo III RoS on this HD2900GT (and it's somehow playable), probably getting an used HD7950 or a new R9 280 (doesn't matter, basicly same card with different name) so then any game should run smoothly, as they did already with HD5870 CF, the only drawback was their 1GB VRAM.

 

[newconroer]

But over 90% of people still play at 1080p. 3GB is fine for most.

I believe that number is too high for this decade and era. 1600p is not a stretch, either in practice or cost.

What's really absurd is buying dual and triple card setups of high end GPUs to use with 1080p, because you can keep using your television instead of buying a proper monitor. In fact I bet if people stopped purchasing gimmicky products - such as motherboards with so much extra plastic on them, you could rebuild an '88 Camaro - and all other manner of fluffy components, you could probably save enough to get a 1600p monitor or run a triple 24" setup.

Either way, the 4k TV market is going to help games development evolve on a large scale by bringing it straight into people's living rooms and thus we can move past this long overdue speedbump that is 1080p

 

[de.das.dude]

I believe that number is too high for this decade and era. 1600p is not a stretch, either in practice or cost.

What's really absurd is buying dual and triple card setups of high end GPUs to use with 1080p, because you can keep using your television instead of buying a proper monitor. In fact I bet if people stopped purchasing gimmicky products - such as motherboards with so much extra plastic on them, you could rebuild an '88 Camaro - and all other manner of fluffy components, you could probably save enough to get a 1600p monitor or run a triple 24" setup.

Either way, the 4k TV market is going to help games development evolve on a large scale by bringing it straight into people's living rooms and thus we can move past this long overdue speedbump that is 1080p

tvs and screens arent what is restricting >1080p gaming. its the God forsaken consoles.

 

[Durvelle27]

Clocked 3.5-4GB usage in Watch Dogs on my 290X @1080P on Max settings

 

[Pehla]

i managed 2.8GB in skyrim.


there was some city well known (all made of rocks, tall, water everywhere) that was well known for stutter issues... upgraded to the 7970, had afterburner running... yeah. figured out why it stuttered i guess.


It comes down to something simple: when you run out of Vram, theres no easy way to tell - things get automatically unloaded from VRAM so you may say "oh look, only 920MB used - i've got plenty of room" - but then you're getting micro stutter as it loads and unloads textures all the time.

I know i had it, suffered from it, and 'sidegraded' from 5870 crossfire to a single 7970 that reviews said was a waste of money and wham, suddenly all those issues gone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did anyone say 7970 was waste of money??i think that card is still on good value!!
to OP as many of you say,biger resolution need more ram..,first if you have 1080p monitor,i think 2 gb vram is more then fine for lots of games!! not to meniton hd 7900 series with 3gb,but if you play at 1440p and above ofcourse mor ram is needed!!

 

[Mussels]

I have a GTX 770 4GB and play Skyrim with the stock HD textures @1920x1200 on Ultra (of course). It never goes about 2GB of VRAM. Well, maybe a few hundred Mhz more once in a while, but that's about it. Nothing of consequence.

i also never went over 950MB on my 1GB 5870 crossfire setup.

Same settings with the 7970 broke 1.4GB. Again - the game will drop textures out to keep what it can, which causes stutter/micro stutter as it reloads them later. This adaptive tech is why so many people think its 'fine' with smaller amounts. Sure its a great tech as it lets everyone enjoy the game - but just because you slid everything to ultra doesnt mean your ultra is the same as mine.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When did anyone say 7970 was waste of money??i think that card is still on good value!!
to OP as many of you say,biger resolution need more ram..,first if you have 1080p monitor,i think 2 gb vram is more then fine for lots of games!! not to meniton hd 7900 series with 3gb,but if you play at 1440p and above ofcourse mor ram is needed!!

its an awesome card. i'm just pitching in my own experiences, having a 1GB, 2GB and 3GB card in the house helps.

 

[Keullo-e]

Just ordered an Asus R9 280 TOP DC2, I guess that the 3GB is more than enough for 1920x1080

 

[newconroer]

tvs and screens arent what is restricting >1080p gaming. its the God forsaken consoles.

Restricting is probably an aggressive word in this case. It's true that they've been playing catch-up, though current generation consoles are native 1080p correct? Where will they go from here if there's no higher resolution to jump to?
1600p(or 1440p) could be a natural step, since games have all ready been developed for that, but eventually they need to expand some where.

Between new generation consoles and ULTRA HD monitors, I'd like to say 4K gaming is the normal by 2020. What makes me snicker is the idea that all the 1080p users (PC or console) will skip right over 1600p, never knowing what it was all about!

 

[Jeffredo]

Just ordered an Asus R9 280 TOP DC2, I guess that the 3GB is more than enough for 1920x1080

Good choice!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I believe that number is too high for this decade and era. 1600p is not a stretch, either in practice or cost.

What's really absurd is buying dual and triple card setups of high end GPUs to use with 1080p, because you can keep using your television instead of buying a proper monitor. In fact I bet if people stopped purchasing gimmicky products - such as motherboards with so much extra plastic on them, you could rebuild an '88 Camaro - and all other manner of fluffy components, you could probably save enough to get a 1600p monitor or run a triple 24" setup.

Either way, the 4k TV market is going to help games development evolve on a large scale by bringing it straight into people's living rooms and thus we can move past this long overdue speedbump that is 1080p

All I got out of that is your implying res is what's holding people back, as if all they need do is buy an affordable high res display and it's all good. Well no, there's more to it than that. It takes more GPU power to run such displays, especially 4k.

I also wouldn't trust an ultra affordable 4k or even 1600p display, most aren't worth having.

I also don't see anyone here but you talking triple GPU setups for mere 1080p. So if you're going to complain about "fluffy components", start talking in more realistic terms, because you're the one sounding fluffy at this point.

 

[newconroer]

All I got out of that is your implying res is what's holding people back, as if all they need do is buy an affordable high res display and it's all good. Well no, there's more to it than that. It takes more GPU power to run such displays, especially 4k.

I also wouldn't trust an ultra affordable 4k or even 1600p display, most aren't worth having.

I also don't see anyone here but you talking triple GPU setups for mere 1080p. So if you're going to complain about "fluffy components", start talking in more realistic terms, because you're the one sounding fluffy at this point.

This is unfortunately a good example of the poor attitude that surrounds 1600p and is mostly due to ignorance.
You're not helping any one by perpetuating this stigma or phobia. Maybe you can't afford it, maybe you don't understand it, just else.

More and more we're seeing homes where the big screen TV (in multiple rooms), is acting as the display panel for all devices including computers. Why buy a monitor when you all ready own a 1080p television? Particularly, this seems logical to console users whom know they won't get more than 1080p. And there-in lies the root of the problem.

 

[Mussels]

I have a GTX 770 4GB and play Skyrim with the stock HD textures @1920x1200 on Ultra (of course). It never goes about 2GB of VRAM. Well, maybe a few hundred Mhz more once in a while, but that's about it. Nothing of consequence.

go find the city markarth and test it there. its the big one in the cliffs.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

This is unfortunately a good example of the poor attitude that surrounds 1600p and is mostly due to ignorance.
You're not helping any one by perpetuating this stigma or phobia. Maybe you can't afford it, maybe you don't understand it, just else.

More and more we're seeing homes where the big screen TV (in multiple rooms), is acting as the display panel for all devices including computers. Why buy a monitor when you all ready own a 1080p television? Particularly, this seems logical to console users whom know they won't get more than 1080p. And there-in lies the root of the problem.

Poor attitude my arse. The fact is, like I said, it takes more than just buying the display to run those high resolutions. IT TAKES GRAPHICS POWER!!!

There's no phobia about it. I know perfectly well how much power it takes just to run some of today's games at max settings even at 1080p, let alone at 1600p or esp 4k.

You like to generalize us like we're poor and/or ignorant, but you're the one talking like you have no clue what it takes to drive high res setups.

This is the kind of elitist smack talk that has some forums very low on activity anymore with a handful of regulars acting smug, like XtremeSytems and Wide Screen Gaming Forum.

Your own setup shown in your spec chart is exemplary of what I'm talking about. A Crossfire config with over $700 worth of GPU power, not to mention running multi GPU involves hit and miss results.

Do it your way fine, but we're not idiotic for doing it ours, just practical, vs obsessed.

 

[Shambles1980]

current gen consoles aren't native 1080p Maybe you can get them to true 1080i but 1080p is just upscale'd I think the xbox one is more like 720p native and ps4 is closer to 960p but neither of them are true 1080p.
i suppose with a whole shed load of optimization and 3-4 more years maybe the ps4 will have some true 1080p games but probably wont. its also kind of a futile effort any way. they may as well go 1080i as its 2 sets of 30hz and easier to do than 1080p at true 60hz none of the consoles play games at 60hz any way. so 1080i at 30hz is probably what you would be aiming for on current gen consoles if your a game dev. screen flicker and slower frame rates are just something some people accept as a trade off for having a console versus a gaming rig.
Its annoying that some people think that they are capable of more than they are, it causes a lot of misconceptions. and people on the internet saying stupid things like
"the ps4 can do 4k but sony dont want people utilizing it yet"
^ yes some one really thinks thats true.

 

[Durvelle27]

current gen consoles aren't native 1080p Maybe you can get them to true 1080i but 1080p is just upscale'd I think the xbox one is more like 720p native and ps4 is closer to 960p but neither of them are true 1080p.
i suppose with a whole shed load of optimization and 3-4 more years maybe the ps4 will have some true 1080p games but probably wont. its also kind of a futile effort any way. they may as well go 1080i as its 2 sets of 30hz and easier to do than 1080p at true 60hz none of the consoles play games at 60hz any way. so 1080i at 30hz is probably what you would be aiming for on current gen consoles if your a game dev. screen flicker and slower frame rates are just something some people accept as a trade off for having a console versus a gaming rig.
Its annoying that some people think that they are capable of more than they are, it causes a lot of misconceptions. and people on the internet saying stupid things like
"the ps4 can do 4k but sony dont want people utilizing it yet"
^ yes some one really thinks thats true.

You must don't do much research bud. Most of the available games on the PS4 are native 1080P

 

[TheHunter]

WatchDogs is a really bad example, it can almost max out 6gb vram (gefroce Titan) and still stutter like no tomorrow. Its game engine flaw with memory handling and it uses 2x mipmaps that fill extra vram space for no reason.

I have a few games that maxout my vram @ 1080p 3gb but that doesnt mean its not enough. >> Texture streaming.


For example "next-gen" U4E is designed at ~ 2gb vram, if it uses more its because it stores extra textures in advance and not because it needs to, its the same by other engines.
Its all down to how efficient it is., if it jitters/stutter then it swaps too much or too little.
There is a certain threshold for each setting for sure, but that doesn't mean A value is now not enough, because B value can use up to this amount.


This is from U3E and it explains really well why it can use more if it wants, anyone remember Bioshock Infinite and its weird vram usage? But then all started to panic 2gb is not enough etc..

Specific textures or meshes can be streamed in ahead of time by forcing them into memory in the game code, by calling one of the PrestreamTextures() functions. For a specified time, all their mip-levels will be loaded even if nothing is using those textures yet. Once they start to get used, they can go back to be handled by the streaming system in the normal way again.

http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/TextureStreaming.html#Pre-streaming Textures

 

[newconroer]

Poor attitude my arse.

When you start out negative, I'd say that's poor.

The fact is, like I said, it takes more than just buying the display to run those high resolutions. IT TAKES GRAPHICS POWER!!!

People DO own multi-GPU configurations and are running 1080p. Some of these cards will be effective in 1600p and thus all that is left IS the monitor.
Additionally some single cards CAN and do manage 1600p-obviously application dependent.

This is the kind of elitist smack talk that has some forums very low on activity anymore with a handful of regulars acting smug, like XtremeSytems and Wide Screen Gaming Forum.

This thread presented me the opportunity to point out my considerations on 1600p and 4k displays - I didn't force the issue.
If you can't debate maturely on the subject or speak to the concept of 4k and how it will affect the PC and home entertainment market simultaneously, then I understand.