Cheapest / Weakest 3GB or 4GB card for HQ Skyrim mods?

The BBC American · May 18, 2014

Apologies for the length of this. Before all the details, my basic question is this: Given a strong enough rig that can run it, what's the *cheapest* (i.e. weakest) card that can fully use its 3GB to 4GB of VRAM in the context of the most taxing Skyrim mods at a minimum of 1080p on a single monitor?

I've seen lots of talk that some cards can't even use the VRAM they ship with. I don't really understand that, but I don't want to waste money on VRAM I can't access, of course.

Basically, I'm trying to replace my 8800 GTS 512MB (G92) card as cheaply as possible, in one purchase, but still get the room I need for Skyrim mods. I know a decent 2GB card would be a big step up, but from what I've read, the heavy visual mods will quickly get me to the ~3.1GB limit that mods currently run into.

I know the 8800 I have benches better than, say, the GT 640 (spec, the middle one in that table). But I'm wondering if the weaker performance of the 640 is still "enough" while still allowing me to take advantage of the 3GB (albeit DDR3) version in the context of Skyrim mods?

So what would be my minimum need for adequately carrying 3GB or 4GB of VRAM for making lots of visual Skyrim mods work as intended?

For starters, can I get away with DDR3 instead of DDR5? I know 5 is roughly twice as "fast" as 3, but I don't know if that's a must-have for this situation.

Also, from what I've read, the game prefers NVIDIA cards. Maybe someone can explain, as briefly as possible, what that advantage entails. I see NVIDIA's site says Skyrim supports SLI and 3D Vision, but no mention of performance stuff like PhysX, etc.

spat55 · May 18, 2014

At 1080p a 2GB card would be good enough, make sure the memory is GDDR5. To max out Skyrim @1080p with mods a GTX 760 or R9 280 would be enough, the R9 280 would come with 3GB of VRAM standard to so you wouldn't have to pay extra for that either.

4745454b · May 18, 2014

I've seen lots of talk that some cards can't even use the VRAM they ship with. I don't really understand that, but I don't want to waste money on VRAM I can't access, of course.

Lets start with this. Lets "pick on" the GT610. I have no idea if there is a 4GB model but seeing as we are pretending lets throw that in as well. The 610 is a very weak card. It isn't meant to be used for gaming. GPU memory is used for a lot of different things. A very little bit is used for actually displaying the picture. I saw the math on it once, I think its like 35MBs for a 1080 screen. As you pointed out game details/mods are also loaded into memory. The example I use with people is AA. AA is handled by the GPU. If you decide to use 8xAA to make the game look really smooth, you'll need a lot of RAM so the card can do this. But the problem is the GPU has to be STRONG enough to handle that. The GT610 isn't. In this case the 4GBs of RAM won't really get used because the GPU isn't strong enough to do the tasks that need that much ram.

I think you are going to have a similar situation with the GT640. If there is some 3 or 4GB GT640 I don't see it being strong enough to handle using it all. I'm not familiar enough with Skyrim to suggest a card, other then I usually tell people to get at least the 7850 (or something similar.) if you want a good gaming experience.

can I get away with DDR3 instead of DDR5? I know 5 is roughly twice as "fast" as 3, but I don't know if that's a must-have for this situation.

Generally GDDR5 is faster. But it's not a given. The memory type is only one part of the equation that gives you memory bandwidth. The other parts are clock speed and bit width. The more memory bandwidth your card has, the faster it can move those mods in and out of its RAM.

The BBC American · May 18, 2014

Spat55, I believe the 2GB answer for most games and even for vanilla Skyrim. I have no doubt 2GB is plenty for that. But from what I've read, I'm not convinced it's true for heavily modded Skyrim. 3GB seems to be necessary for taxing visual mods, and 4GB seems like it covers the absolute maximum you could hope for from it at this point with the limit in place.

But you suggest the R9 280, so that seems like a legitimate candidate for my scenario, if you think there isn't a cheaper alternative that would be "good enough".

4745454b -- Thanks for a more informed opinion specifically on the GT 640. (Still curious as to why cards ship with more VRAM than they can use.) It does have a 3GB DDR3 version available for under $100, so I kinda had my fingers crossed for that one.

I notice the two suggestions so far have been AMD cards, which I understand. They are often the stronger choice in a given price range, and in my scenario of "cheapest" they could well have the edge. I'm hoping someone can shed a little light on the supposed NVIDIA advantage for the game.

Thanks so far, guys.

The BBC American · May 18, 2014

4745454b :

This is actually getting closer to what I was hoping for. I know the basic functions of the different parameters and how they affect performance. So I was wondering if there was a minimum size/strength for each of the most important components that would tell you if the card is strong enough to "carry" the volume of VRAM it has.

Is there a threshold size for each of those things -- clock speed, memory bandwidth, interface width, etc. -- that would tell you how much VRAM it can really use? Ideally, I'd like a formula or standard I can use to assess any card I see, rather than trying to ask about individual specific cards.

Edited to fix quote.

The BBC American · May 19, 2014

I'veI think you are going to have a similar situation with the GT640.

Anyone know if this GTX 650 has enough oomph to carry the 4GB? Is there any level below spat55's recommendation of the GTX 760 or R9 280 that would be "enough"?

I know were getting into a CPU bottleneck with my current system (hover over my avatar), but I'm more concerned about just laying the foundation here with the minimum card that can carry 4 or 3 GB of VRAM in the right system.

Suztera · May 19, 2014

No, don't judge the performance of a graphic card by vram alone. A 650 will never use 4GB vram.
If you want ultra settings, 270X < 760 < 280 <770 = 280X < 290 = 780 < 290X <780Ti....
As others recommend, for a heavily modded skyrim, it will depend on the cpu as well but a R9 280 or any higher cards

The BBC American · May 19, 2014

No, don't judge the performance of a graphic card by vram alone.

Yep. That was the point of my post. I know vram is pretty much subservient to other parts of the card, so I've been trying to find an entry level version of a 3GB or 4GB card.

A 650 will never use 4GB vram.

That answers my last entry. Thanks.

If you want ultra settings, 270X < 760 < 280 <770 = 280X < 290 = 780 < 290X <780Ti....
As others recommend, for a heavily modded skyrim, it will depend on the cpu as well but a R9 280 or any higher cards

So, it does sound like the 280 or (according to spat55) the 760 is the absolute lowest I could go and hope to get a card that can run at least 3GB of VRAM, I was hoping the 270X would make the cut, but it sounds like it won't for this specific need.

Thanks for your input, Suztera.

UPDATE:

And FWIW to anyone, Tom's Hierarchy chart puts the HD 7950 at an equivalent level to the 280, so presumably that would also qualify. You can probably only find them used now, but from the prices I've seen, that would generally make it the cheapest entry point for this scenario.

I was hoping someone could offer a formula for determining a card's usable vram capacity -- i.e. if clock speed is X, interface size needs to by Y, etc. (And incidentally maybe have an explanation for why manufacturers put in more vram than a card can use on certain products.)

Certainly open to any cheaper alternatives if someone has better insight on the tech side or the marketplace side.

Ylurien · May 19, 2014

I have just about every texture mod in existence installed for Skyrim, and my game looks fantastic. I haven't done any serious benchmarking, but I don't think I ever drop much below 50 fps (and have it capped at 58 fps through Nvidia Inspector to eliminate input lag). My VRAM usage is regularly around 3.5 GB.

What do I use? A Gigabyte GTX 670 4GB, which is what I highly recommend for you. Anything less and you probably won't be able to maintain 60 FPS unless you overclock.

The BBC American · May 19, 2014

Ylurien :

Thanks for the recommendation, Ylurien. I'm definitely not concerned about benchmarks as long as the real-world result is as smooth as you're talking about for a heavily modded Skyrim.

The dialogue here has mostly been drifting down to the 3GB cards because I thought the 3.1 GB limit was fairly common, so 3GB felt like a safe, sweet-spot choice for value. Was there a fix for the 3.1 GB bugged limit or is that limit just unpredictable?

I was going to settle for the HD 7950 at 3GB, but if mods can get well over 3GB I probably need to reassess my "entry level" need for adequate headroom.

Ylurien · May 19, 2014

The BBC American :

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that the 3.1 GB limit referred to system RAM and not VRAM. You can definitely go over 3 GB VRAM if you install enough high-res textures and play at 1440p (as I do).

In any event, you'll probably want to get something with more than 3 GB for longevity purposes. Games are probably going to start using more VRAM as Xbone and PS4 ports (most PC games nowadays) are likely to up the ante for PC hardware. I would consider right now to be a significant turning point for PC hardware. In two years, I'd be surprised if most AAA games didn't outright require (at a minimum) 3 GB of VRAM.

17seconds · May 19, 2014

Definitely stick with Nvidia for Skyrim. It will perform better and only Nvidia cards allow you to enable Ambient Occlusion in Skyrim, making the graphics quality significantly better.

The BBC American · May 20, 2014

Definitely some sensible extra points. Ylurien and 17seconds. I would really like to be ready for Witcher 3, just for a start, and that might push 6GB cards, assuming it'll have mods like its predecessors.

But it is tough to pass on the 7950's going for less than a 750 Ti on eBay and the 7970's for under $200. I suppose I should just put them out of my mind, though. :-\

17seconds · May 20, 2014

The BBC American :

The Witcher 3 is another Nvidia game featuring full GPU-accelerated PhysX, and probably a host of other Nvidia exclusive graphics options (TXAA).
http://physxinfo.com/news/11558/the-witcher-3-will-support-gpu-physx-now-officially/

4745454b · May 20, 2014

curious as to why cards ship with more VRAM than they can use.

Back when cards had 1 or 2MBs of memory, usually it was whichever card had more memory was the faster one. Now that cards have 1, 2 or more GBs of memory, this isn't the case. The GPU matters more now. The problem is most people still think more equals faster so companies keep putting more RAM on the card hoping people buy one just because it has 4GBs instead of 2GB so it must be better.

Is there a threshold size for each of those things -- clock speed, memory bandwidth, interface width, etc. -- that would tell you how much VRAM it can really use? Ideally, I'd like a formula or standard I can use to assess any card I see, rather than trying to ask about individual specific cards.

There isn't really. All that matters is that together they form the memory bandwidth and generally more is better. 240Gbps isn't that much faster then 200Gbps, but if you are comparing 240Gbps to 65Gbps then you know one card isn't going to perform as well.

A 650 will never use 4GB vram.

I really wish this saying would die. It's not like X weak card with 4GBs of RAM will only be able to address 2GBs of it. Leaving 2GBs just sitting around unused. The problem with weak cards and large memory amounts isn't an addressing problem, but a frame problem. As I'm sure I said above, when you try to use a weak card in a situation where it would need that much memory, it won't be able to provide playable frame rates. So a GT640 or GTX650 might give you 30FPS in skyrim with default settings, but if you load a bunch of textures into it, and crank the AA to a point where you'd need 4GBs, it will only be able to give you 12FPS. You've gone from barely playable to completely unplayable, but the card IS using the 4GBs it has. You just want to turn the settings down to a point where your frames go back up.

The GTX760 is pretty equal overall to the 7950/280. What about a 4GB 760? That should do you. As mentioned a 4GB 670 is another fine choice.

The BBC American · May 21, 2014

Thanks, 474. That doesn't give me the cut-and-dried answer I was hoping for (probably naively), but it clears up some things, including that common myth that "X card won't ever use X amount of VRAM". That has been one of my biggest points of confusion on this.

In the defense of people who put it so simplistically, it sounds like it is effectively equivalent to that claim, even if it does confuse reality a bit. If a card is only going to give you 12 fps, for example after it passes 2GB, then it seems kind of pointless. I suppose there might be applications outside of gaming where the extra VRAM is useful in such a card, but especially in the scenario I'm looking at it's a wash.

Add to the confusion that, yes, most games don't need more than 2GB, which most reviews understandably reinforce, but this scenario is obviously the rare case where one could use almost as much VRAM the consumer market can give right now.

The original point of my question was less about a specific card, and more about finding an entry-level price, as well as to possibly get a feel for how strong the other components have to be to use the VRAM this setting needs -- namely, at least 30 fps (or maybe 25 is even a playable starting point) in 1080p on an ambitious mod load in Skyrim.

It's easy to pinpoint the VRAM requirement, but a lot more difficult to get feedback on where the clock speed, interface size, and all the rest of it need to be to push all that VRAM to that fps count.

That would make the discontinued 7950 or any of those top 7900 series cards the bargain entries, but one would go without the NVIDIA features. So, it looks like, for a new card, you have to drop at least $250, and probably closer to $280 or $300 for a proper card that "makes the cut" to keep you fairly safe when piling on the mods.

I was hoping to find something comfortably under $200 with at least 3GB (like the used 7950s/7970s), but it looks like I may have to wait quite a bit for newer cards to drive those kinds of cards (and spec. from NVIDIA) into that price range.

4745454b · May 21, 2014

One word of warning on a really cheap 7950. These cards were used for crypto mining. If you see a $100 7950, I wouldn't touch it. Most good used 7950s I've seen are around $200. With the 7970s around $250. If you buy for a lot less, expect to get a card that has seen HEAVY use. It might not have much left in it.

If you are looking for really cheap what about the 3GB 660s? Or perhaps an older 4GB 580 or 680? I haven't seen a lot of them on the used forums so not sure what they might run on the low end. A cheap 650TI boost would serve most well, but I don't think there are any/many large ram cards of those running around. If you are set on getting a card 3GB+, it's going to cost. I'm a bit worried about your lower end C2D CPU, but I think you said you were upgrading that as well so understand whatever you get now will work a lot better once you upgrade that CPU.

The BBC American · May 23, 2014

4745454b :

God, you've been looking over my shoulder, 474. I've been researching the 660 line and have a couple 660 Ti 3GB cards in my eBay watch list. That or the regular 660 can be gotten near (enough) the $150-ish mark, I think, if I'm patient. I've been having a tough time sorting out if 3GB is too much for that card by itself (i.e. non-SLI), so I'm a little encouraged to see you recommend it. I hadn't considered the 580 or 680, so thanks for those suggestions. I'll look into them. 4GB would definitely be preferable for this application, but as you say, it's going to cost, so I may chicken out and settle for a 3GB card.

I've pretty much settled the fact that I'm going with NVIDIA instead of AMD, so I won't need to worry about those related issues brought up, but I'm glad you mentioned it.

And I hear ya on the bottleneck issue with my current rig, but I can put up with that until I can build a decent one. I'm also half considering trying the Xeon "mod" at some point and chucking in an X5450, as a cheap interim step, but that might be a little too ambitious as this is my only functional rig.

I guess I've let this thread marinate long enough and should probably pick a best answer. Thanks again for all the input.

P.S. Unless I'm just not finding the 4GB version, it looks like the 580 never carries more than 3GB.

gakerty · May 23, 2014

Just to add an observation-- I have 2 EVGA 4 gig 760s in SLI running heavily modded Skyrim at 1440P. Also using Realvision ENB at max settings. My VRAM regularly pushes 3.5-4 gigs mostly because I've perhaps overdone the 4K textures, but it looks fantastic. My FPS are decent, but not great. Outdoors with heavy foliage (using Skyrim Flora Overhaul...etc) I'm looking at 35-50 FPS. Indoors approach 60. As soon as I switch off ENB, my FPS soars way past 60, and I need Vsync to avoid tearing on my 60hz monitor. I just can't go back to non ENB, it's just looks too good. Using just 1 760 at 1440P I get in the mid 20s for FPS at the same settings/mods. Pretty crappy.

When I was running heavily modded Skyrim at 1080P, my VRAM usage still was around 3 gigs or more. In fact I upgraded from a 2 gig card cause of the stuttering. Long story short I'd go for a 4 gig card if you can.

The BBC American · May 23, 2014

gakerty :

Thanks, gakerty. I'm really hoping I can find an insane deal on a 760 (or 670). I might be able to talk myself into that purchase in the $200-$220 range, but I know that's an awfully ambitious target for that card.

I'm a little disheartened that you need SLI to get the kind of performance you described, but that's just the way it goes, I guess. Part of my rationalization process is telling myself I can settle for 25-ish frames a second, if I really had to, but I might be fooling myself.

The BBC American · May 23, 2014

After lots of good info from all you guys, it looks like my initial low-end target of 3GB just isn't going to cut it for the original intent. It might be enough for the needs of other Skyrim mod-using hopefuls, and maybe the information you guys have provided can help each person decide that for themselves.

But for the experience I'd like, it looks like nothing less than 4GB will do, so the cut line looks to be the 760 (shown on NVIDIA's site as slightly lower performing than the 670). I know AMD fans will insist competing cheaper Radeon cards are just fine, and for some users they may be right, but all the info I've seen makes me feel more comfortable going with NVIDIA.

I may still "settle" for a 3GB card (or even a 2GB, since I don't know when I'll be able to build for the stronger cards), but at least I can make an informed decision about what I'm getting and can expect from the choices.

Cheapest / Weakest 3GB or 4GB card for HQ Skyrim mods?

Reputable

Distinguished

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Polypheme

Reputable

Distinguished

Reputable

Distinguished

Champion

Reputable

Champion

Titan

Reputable

Titan

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Reputable

Share this page