Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Was planning on doing GTX 980 SLI but 4GB Too Low?

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • SLI
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 1, 2014 9:55:51 PM

Hey folks, so I was all set for GTX 980 SLI in mid October and by then hopefully Gigabyte G1 windforce non reference will be available. I currently only have a 1080p display screen but I will be getting a WQHD display within 2-3 months, have no plans to jump onto 4k bandwagon in the nearest visible future so far.

So lets face it, spending $1200 USD equivalent on those 2 graphics cards means I want to play games at their absolute maximum quality, If I have to turn down one setting to maintain playable frames then what's the point? So I just got Shadow of Mordor on steam and was amazed to see that It needs 6GB of VRAM to run Ultra textures. I got thinking, if a game releasing today requires 6GB of VRAM and my 980 SLI's can't max them out even at 1080p then what's the future of these cards when 6gb becomes standard?

Now I know 8GB cards will be released in sometime around November but I am also against waiting game, what if I wait for 8gb and then there's Ti just around the corner to wait for and then possibly AMD new cards and so on.

So here I am asking, is it wise to get 4gb cards or its totally pointless? Is 6gb going to be standard or is it just 1 game?

More about : planning gtx 980 sli 4gb low

Best solution

October 1, 2014 10:38:59 PM

Honestly, I feel it is just this one game. Never have I heard a game to take up more than 4 GB of GDDR5, even with a 4K resolution. At a high game resolution, SoM will take up 3 GB of VRAM at 1440p. If you download the Ultra HD Texture pack, it will use up 5 GB. But that's just it, it's meant for Ultra HD; 4K. If you look at the comparison between Ultra and High, it's really not that big of a deal. Just max out the Ambient Occlusion, and it should look just as gorgeous.
Share
October 1, 2014 10:42:16 PM

Now that I think about it, it could also be a ploy to scare gamers away from the PC version or torrenting it, and make them get the console version instead. Who knows?
m
0
l
Related resources
October 2, 2014 1:20:09 AM

First time I'm hearing someone scaring away potential customers instead of attracting them.
What you say is right: who knows? Maybe it is.
m
0
l
October 2, 2014 1:26:46 AM

They didn't exactly scare away gamers, but Watch Dogs nerfed the graphics on PC so as to make the console versions more comparable. Ubisoft was most likely pressured by Sony/Microsoft. With some 3rd party programming, you can reenable the hidden graphical pack.
m
0
l
October 2, 2014 1:31:26 AM

So have they?
m
0
l
October 2, 2014 1:34:58 AM

There is alot of benchmarks on youtube and other site with people running the game maxed out with 2 and 4 gb cards without any problems and with the HD pack installed. I really don't see why the devs felt the need to set the requirements so high when it can do with much less. I can only assume there must be some kind of misunderstanding because I haven't seen VRAM usage for this game nearing anything close to 5 gb.
m
1
l
October 2, 2014 1:57:15 AM

There will always be add on packs that can use very large textures for games, I wouldnt worry about it. Just look at Skyrim, you can go really nuts and use mods that will use tons of vram also. Just set the settings appropriately to your system.
m
1
l
October 2, 2014 4:56:44 AM

Ok so I will just order gigabyte gtx 980 when they are available. Well there is always the option of selling on ebay and grab something new but would seem pointless doing it within 2-3 months of gpu purchase but hey who knows what's around the corner right? xD
m
0
l
!