still think 2gb graphics cards are enough?
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
-
Memory
-
RAM
- Video
-
Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 5:26:22 AM
I debated with some on here before if graphics cards with 2gb of video ram was enough..Considering the new consoles have a lot more unified video ram. Well the 2nd case of what I was concerned about has shown its head. The new game Shadow of Mordor requires a bit of video ram to max it out on graphics. 2gb video cards are stuck at medium texture settings while the new console versions have textures comparable to the pc high setting. You cant smoothly play at high on PC with a 2gb video card. I haven't played it myself but this is what I'm reading on the net in various places. whats your thoughts?
More about : 2gb graphics cards
-
Reply to chris AMD
YAYNEWCARD
October 2, 2014 5:31:52 AM
2GB is enough at 1080p. Anything higher and you start needing more...
This has not changed yet, and I am sure no one on here has argued that ABOVE 1080p requires only 2GB, which is obviously wrong.
Note : I have not tried Shadow of Morder yet, but I have ONLY seen benches for ABOVE 1080p resolutions.
This has not changed yet, and I am sure no one on here has argued that ABOVE 1080p requires only 2GB, which is obviously wrong.
Note : I have not tried Shadow of Morder yet, but I have ONLY seen benches for ABOVE 1080p resolutions.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
Related resources
- I think the original Hercules graphics card is still the b.. - Forum
- Adding Graphics Card - PSU Still Enough? - Forum
- i had a 2gb ram card in my pc and i inserted one more ram card of 2gb but still my pc shows 2(1.93)gb instead of 4 gb ram. - Forum
- i5-4690k OC w/ EVGA GeForce GTX 770 2GB Superclocked ACX Video Card sli. is 750w PSU enough? - Forum
- Does anybody think that Waterblocks will come standard with Graphic Cards - Forum
2GB is just enough in my opinion. It will slow down games with high end textures at 1080p or above. Although I am impressed with how 2GB still performs, I can't recommend it going into the future. As for SoM, as far as I have heard, you will need 6GB of vram for ultra textures (probably just a rumor).
-
Reply to maestro0428
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 5:42:11 AM
14291767,0,554342 said:
2GB is enough at 1080p. Anything higher and you start needing more...This has not changed yet, and I am sure no one on here has argued that ABOVE 1080p requires only 2GB, which is obviously wrong.
Note : I have not tried Shadow of Morder yet, but I have ONLY seen benches for ABOVE 1080p resolutions.[/quotemsgTw
Two paragraphs taken from the article I was reading.
One thing we should point out is that it is perfectly possible to run higher-quality artwork on lower-capacity graphics cards. However, you quickly fall foul of the split-memory architecture of the PC. On Xbox One and PS4, the available memory is unified in one address space, meaning instant access to everything. On PC, memory is typically split between system DDR3, and the graphics card's onboard GDDR5. Running high or ultra graphics on a 2GB card sees artwork swapping between the two memory pools, creating stutter. Shadow of Mordor has an optional 30fps cap incorporated into its options, though - with a 2GB GTX 760, we could run the game at ultra settings with high quality textures and frame-rate was pretty much locked at the target 30fps with only very minor stutter. In short, there's a way forward for those using 2GB cards, but it does involve locking frame-rate at the console standard - and the ultra textures didn't play nicely with the card, even at 30fps.
Indeed, it's actually the compromises made to accommodate 2GB graphics cards that are more concerning. The game still looks good, but in certain areas, console is a cut above - unless you kick in the frame-rate limiter. We saw a similar story with Titanfall: Respawn's debut required a 3GB graphics card to match the texture quality found in the Xbox One version of the game. That being the case, the recent discounts found on the 3GB Radeon R9 280 start to look compelling, especially as its replacement, the R9 285, only has 2GB of RAM in its standard configuration.
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 5:48:30 AM
Novuake said:
chris AMDWhat resolution are they referring to?
Do they have tangible benchmarks?
Its easy to talk about this stuff, but without it being tangible, how do we know?
Here is the article.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-e...
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 5:56:15 AM
Novuake said:
chris AMDWhat resolution are they referring to?
Do they have tangible benchmarks?
Its easy to talk about this stuff, but without it being tangible, how do we know?
the ultra texture pack takes up 5.4-5.6gb of video ram at 1080 and above. high setting takes up 2.8-3gb at 1080p and above. medium uses 1.8gb of video ram at 1080p. I may be able to play smoothly on high with my screens low res of 768p
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
First off, just because a game buffers X amount of RAM, does not mean it NEEDS to do it to run optimally.
They do mention the 30FPS cap, which is interesting, but without data to prove it or even a comprehensive benchmark, I am very scepticle about their matter of fact way of stating things
There is no mention of the ACTUAL performance hit number that occurs when you can not buffer 2GB plus.
So for now, I say, well interesting for sure, but it still does not change my opinion until i see a comprehensive benchmark from a trusted source, or try it for myself, which will probably be this weekend.
They do mention the 30FPS cap, which is interesting, but without data to prove it or even a comprehensive benchmark, I am very scepticle about their matter of fact way of stating things
There is no mention of the ACTUAL performance hit number that occurs when you can not buffer 2GB plus.
So for now, I say, well interesting for sure, but it still does not change my opinion until i see a comprehensive benchmark from a trusted source, or try it for myself, which will probably be this weekend.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
Novuake said:
2GB is enough at 1080p. Anything higher and you start needing more...This has not changed yet, and I am sure no one on here has argued that ABOVE 1080p requires only 2GB, which is obviously wrong.
Note : I have not tried Shadow of Morder yet, but I have ONLY seen benches for ABOVE 1080p resolutions.
I am sure we have had this fair share of argument already. Even with Shadow of Morder my response to that user after he 'supposedly' won and were all wrong shut him down pretty quickly from the evidence indicating otherwise.
I can already see that this thread is going to go argumentative and two-sided.
-
Reply to unknownofprob
m
0
l
nick779
October 2, 2014 6:09:31 AM
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 6:12:30 AM
Novuake said:
First off, just because a game buffers X amount of RAM, does not mean it NEEDS to do it to run optimally.They do mention the 30FPS cap, which is interesting, but without data to prove it or even a comprehensive benchmark, I am very scepticle about their matter of fact way of stating things
There is no mention of the ACTUAL performance hit number that occurs when you can not buffer 2GB plus.
So for now, I say, well interesting for sure, but it still does not change my opinion until i see a comprehensive benchmark from a trusted source, or try it for myself, which will probably be this weekend.
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
unknownofprob said:
Novuake said:
2GB is enough at 1080p. Anything higher and you start needing more...This has not changed yet, and I am sure no one on here has argued that ABOVE 1080p requires only 2GB, which is obviously wrong.
Note : I have not tried Shadow of Morder yet, but I have ONLY seen benches for ABOVE 1080p resolutions.
I am sure we have had this fair share of argument already. Even with Shadow of Morder my response to that user after he 'supposedly' won and were all wrong shut him down pretty quickly from the evidence indicating otherwise.
Meh, I try not to argue, debate sure.
But yeah we have discussed this at length. Until I see a significant hit in performance as a result of less VRAM (as in NO other variable), my opinion stays the same, and no amount of "but look it buffered 5GB of my VRAM" will convince me it NEEDS it.
Not to mention just because ONE game uses more, does not mean it could become the norm.
Hell I remember that for MONTHS after release, one of the GTA titles used like 9GB of RAM due to a memory leak, which was later fixed, this was before DDR3, so yeah, its always POSSIBLE.
One game is an outlier and can not be used to abse an opinion on unless its the ONLY game you play.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 6:16:04 AM
chris AMD said:
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
Would you mind posting your results?
WOuld still be interesting. I will do the same once I have given the game a good few hours.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
chris AMD said:
nick779 said:
Sigh another VRAM thread....I was just curious if there is really anything to this from people who know more than me. After reading the article I was again a little concerned about my 2gb card
Why the heck would you worry? Dropping you settings a little is really not that bad, its going to happen at some point.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 6:20:31 AM
Novuake said:
unknownofprob said:
Novuake said:
2GB is enough at 1080p. Anything higher and you start needing more...This has not changed yet, and I am sure no one on here has argued that ABOVE 1080p requires only 2GB, which is obviously wrong.
Note : I have not tried Shadow of Morder yet, but I have ONLY seen benches for ABOVE 1080p resolutions.
I am sure we have had this fair share of argument already. Even with Shadow of Morder my response to that user after he 'supposedly' won and were all wrong shut him down pretty quickly from the evidence indicating otherwise.
Meh, I try not to argue, debate sure.
But yeah we have discussed this at length. Until I see a significant hit in performance as a result of less VRAM (as in NO other variable), my opinion stays the same, and not amount of "but look it buffered 5GB of my VRAM" will convince me it NEEDS it.
Not to mention just because ONE game uses more, does not mean it could become the norm.
Hell I remember that for MONTHS after release, one of the GTA titles used like 9GB of RAM due to a memory leak, which was later fixed, this was before DDR3, so yeah, its always POSSIBLE.
One game is an outlier and can not be used to abse an opinion on unless its the ONLY game you play.
you might be right and really, I hope so. I don't want to buy another card for a little while. The article did make me wonder though, is this the beginning of games needing more vram? will more and more games need 3-4gb?
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 6:22:54 AM
Novuake said:
chris AMD said:
nick779 said:
Sigh another VRAM thread....I was just curious if there is really anything to this from people who know more than me. After reading the article I was again a little concerned about my 2gb card
Why the heck would you worry? Dropping you settings a little is really not that bad, its going to happen at some point.
because i wanted to play it at as close to max as possible at my resolution. I think that will be very possible now though. when i get a 1080p screen later i might move up to a faster card with more vram
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
chris AMD said:
you might be right and really, I hope so. I don't want to buy another card for a little while. The article did make me wonder though, is this the beginning of games needing more vram? will more and more games need 3-4gb?
Until further notice, my answer is a resounding no.
But to be honest I do not know that for fact. How could anyone?
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 6:24:10 AM
Novuake said:
chris AMD said:
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
Would you mind posting your results?
WOuld still be interesting. I will do the same once I have given the game a good few hours.
sure, I don't mind. They also mentioned titanfall in the article and its 3gb vram requirement for max texture. I can play that at max texture setting ok at my resolution. slight stutter compared to lower setting but very playable.
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
Mahisse said:
There are tons of benchmarks already on youtube with 770 gtx and above for SoM. Go take a look there. You won't be needing a 6 gb ram to max it all out, even with the HD pack.But i do disagree that 2 gb will be enough for high-end gaming a year down the road.
Youtube is the worst source on the planet.
MOST of those are useless and some downright lie.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 2, 2014 10:16:42 AM
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
-
Reply to 17seconds
m
0
l
Novuake said:
Mahisse said:
There are tons of benchmarks already on youtube with 770 gtx and above for SoM. Go take a look there. You won't be needing a 6 gb ram to max it all out, even with the HD pack.But i do disagree that 2 gb will be enough for high-end gaming a year down the road.
Youtube is the worst source on the planet.
MOST of those are useless and some downright lie.
I'm talking about the in-game benchmark where people show what video adapter they have in the graphics settings. I know youtube can be full of liers and what not but I do believe I can tell the difference between them.
-
Reply to Mahisse
m
0
l
17seconds said:
I used to think that 2GB was enough until I played BioShock Infinite at 1080p. Although no one ever mentioned this game as a high VRAM user, I was regularly using about 2.5 GB on my GTX 780Ti. I don't have any other current games that cross the 2GB barrier, but this one was a surprise.Again, using vs needing.
Did it buffer just because its designed to do it, or does it need it to run optimally?
As far as I know there is no performance hit under 2GB of RAM for Bioshock Infinite.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
Novuake said:
17seconds said:
I used to think that 2GB was enough until I played BioShock Infinite at 1080p. Although no one ever mentioned this game as a high VRAM user, I was regularly using about 2.5 GB on my GTX 780Ti. I don't have any other current games that cross the 2GB barrier, but this one was a surprise.Again, using vs needing.
Did it buffer just because its designed to do it, or does it need it to run optimally?
As far as I know there is no performance hit under 2GB of RAM for Bioshock Infinite.
I'm sure you're right. Since it's a fairly high performing game I did push up the AA levels pretty high, so that may be a contributor as well. I do remember one of the BF3 developers talking about how it streams textures and so will load up whatever is memory available.
Forgot to mention that COD: Ghosts eats up the VRAM on my system too.
-
Reply to 17seconds
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 3, 2014 2:12:12 PM
Novuake said:
chris AMD said:
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
Would you mind posting your results?
WOuld still be interesting. I will do the same once I have given the game a good few hours.
using the built in benchmark test in shadow of mordor these are the results I got for medium and high texture settings.
Medium texture setting, 1344X756 resolution.
Average fps - 60.38
Maximum fps - 102.98
minimum fps - 38.12
High texture setting, 1344x756 resolution.
Average fps - 59.63
Maximum fps - 98.10
Minimum fps - 35.16
Think motion blur was turned off for this run compared to on with medium run.
Playing on high texture with motion blur off , ambient occlusion on medium, everything else on high and recording fps with fraps..It ran at 60fps going down to 40ish fps. Sometimes dipping down to 30-35fps. When this happens there is stutter and slowdown.
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
gridironcj
October 3, 2014 2:25:15 PM
I wouldn't recommend 2GB of VRAM, unless you're satisfied with lower quality settings, lower resolution, etc. Shadow of Mordor is the first of many games that will require a lot of VRAM. This is why Nvidia is releasing 8GB versions of the GTX 970 and 980. Is the large VRAM recommendation justified by what you actually see in the game? I don't think so. While Shadow of Mordor looks good, it's nothing ground-breaking in the visual department. Games like Metro LL still look better and use significantly-less VRAM.
-
Reply to gridironcj
m
0
l
chris AMD said:
Novuake said:
chris AMD said:
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
Would you mind posting your results?
WOuld still be interesting. I will do the same once I have given the game a good few hours.
using the built in benchmark test in shadow of mordor these are the results I got for medium and high texture settings.
Medium texture setting, 1344X756 resolution.
Average fps - 60.38
Maximum fps - 102.98
minimum fps - 38.12
High texture setting, 1344x756 resolution.
Average fps - 59.63
Maximum fps - 98.10
Minimum fps - 35.16
Think motion blur was turned off for this run compared to on with medium run.
Playing on high texture with motion blur off , ambient occlusion on medium, everything else on high and recording fps with fraps..It ran at 60fps going down to 40ish fps. Sometimes dipping down to 30-35fps. When this happens there is stutter and slowdown.
Seems like you're missing one little detail, like the VRAM usage?
-
Reply to 17seconds
m
0
l
I hope Evil Within and Shadow of Mordor aren't a sign of things to come. I bet the people who didn't spend more for the gtx 770 4gb version feel bad now, I know I would. I thought my 3gb vram would be a little futureproof in my 7950, but it appears it just matches the console version. I'd hold off on upgrading to a gpu until it has 6gb vram or if indeed they're making 8gb versions.
Funny how the specs for games are increasing alot, but don't look better than older games like Crysis 3 or hell even Crysis 2 looks respectable. I've seen Skyrim with mods look WAY better than newer stuff and use way less vram, same with the Metro games. I really think the consoles having 8gb vram have made the PC ports lazy and unoptimized. It shouldn't take THAT much vram to play stuff on ultra on 1080p. Cards like the gtx 670 have the grunt but not enough vram as most were limited to 2gb.
I'm personally holding off until a good gpu in the 300 dollar range comes with 6-8gb vram....that's how much my 7950 cost at the end of 2012, I thought it would of lasted ALOT longer playing stuff on ultra, and thought it would soundly beat even the new consoles. I noticed Mordor has an i5/AMD x4 965 requirement....how are all the people who were foaming at the mouth over their new Pentium cpu faring in that game?lol.
Funny how the specs for games are increasing alot, but don't look better than older games like Crysis 3 or hell even Crysis 2 looks respectable. I've seen Skyrim with mods look WAY better than newer stuff and use way less vram, same with the Metro games. I really think the consoles having 8gb vram have made the PC ports lazy and unoptimized. It shouldn't take THAT much vram to play stuff on ultra on 1080p. Cards like the gtx 670 have the grunt but not enough vram as most were limited to 2gb.
I'm personally holding off until a good gpu in the 300 dollar range comes with 6-8gb vram....that's how much my 7950 cost at the end of 2012, I thought it would of lasted ALOT longer playing stuff on ultra, and thought it would soundly beat even the new consoles. I noticed Mordor has an i5/AMD x4 965 requirement....how are all the people who were foaming at the mouth over their new Pentium cpu faring in that game?lol.
-
Reply to WhiteSnake91
m
0
l
WhiteSnake91 said:
I hope Evil Within and Shadow of Mordor aren't a sign of things to come. I bet the people who didn't spend more for the gtx 770 4gb version feel bad now, I know I would. I thought my 3gb vram would be a little futureproof in my 7950, but it appears it just matches the console version. I'd hold off on upgrading to a gpu until it has 6gb vram or if indeed they're making 8gb versions.Funny how the specs for games are increasing alot, but don't look better than older games like Crysis 3 or hell even Crysis 2 looks respectable. I've seen Skyrim with mods look WAY better than newer stuff and use way less vram, same with the Metro games. I really think the consoles having 8gb vram have made the PC ports lazy and unoptimized. It shouldn't take THAT much vram to play stuff on ultra on 1080p. Cards like the gtx 670 have the grunt but not enough vram as most were limited to 2gb.
I'm personally holding off until a good gpu in the 300 dollar range comes with 6-8gb vram....that's how much my 7950 cost at the end of 2012, I thought it would of lasted ALOT longer playing stuff on ultra, and thought it would soundly beat even the new consoles. I noticed Mordor has an i5/AMD x4 965 requirement....how are all the people who were foaming at the mouth over their new Pentium cpu faring in that game?lol.
Have you been reading anything that has been said in this thread previously? LOL
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2322318/shadow-m...
For those that are interested. Someone ran some benches with 3GB R9 280x. Which is't quite what I was looking for.
Seems lowest FPS is a bit ridiculous, pretty sure there is SOME kind of coding issue that will get patched.
For those that are interested. Someone ran some benches with 3GB R9 280x. Which is't quite what I was looking for.
Seems lowest FPS is a bit ridiculous, pretty sure there is SOME kind of coding issue that will get patched.
-
Reply to Novuake
m
0
l
chris AMD
October 5, 2014 6:54:45 AM
17seconds said:
chris AMD said:
Novuake said:
chris AMD said:
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
Would you mind posting your results?
WOuld still be interesting. I will do the same once I have given the game a good few hours.
using the built in benchmark test in shadow of mordor these are the results I got for medium and high texture settings.
Medium texture setting, 1344X756 resolution.
Average fps - 60.38
Maximum fps - 102.98
minimum fps - 38.12
High texture setting, 1344x756 resolution.
Average fps - 59.63
Maximum fps - 98.10
Minimum fps - 35.16
Think motion blur was turned off for this run compared to on with medium run.
Playing on high texture with motion blur off , ambient occlusion on medium, everything else on high and recording fps with fraps..It ran at 60fps going down to 40ish fps. Sometimes dipping down to 30-35fps. When this happens there is stutter and slowdown.
Seems like you're missing one little detail, like the VRAM usage?
highest recorded vram usage at my resolution was 1.9gb
-
Reply to chris AMD
m
0
l
Lascar
October 7, 2014 4:21:51 AM
chris AMD said:
17seconds said:
chris AMD said:
Novuake said:
chris AMD said:
I plan to give it a go myself. haven't got the game yet though. I have a 2gb r9 270x, I'll see how she does with this title on high. though I will only be at 768p resolution.
Would you mind posting your results?
WOuld still be interesting. I will do the same once I have given the game a good few hours.
using the built in benchmark test in shadow of mordor these are the results I got for medium and high texture settings.
Medium texture setting, 1344X756 resolution.
Average fps - 60.38
Maximum fps - 102.98
minimum fps - 38.12
High texture setting, 1344x756 resolution.
Average fps - 59.63
Maximum fps - 98.10
Minimum fps - 35.16
Think motion blur was turned off for this run compared to on with medium run.
Playing on high texture with motion blur off , ambient occlusion on medium, everything else on high and recording fps with fraps..It ran at 60fps going down to 40ish fps. Sometimes dipping down to 30-35fps. When this happens there is stutter and slowdown.
Seems like you're missing one little detail, like the VRAM usage?
highest recorded vram usage at my resolution was 1.9gb
Last game i played that actually really needed 2gb vram to run on max settings was crysis 3. but since then the games are being developped to be maxxed out at a min of 3gb VRAM. Still at 1080p 2gb is enough to run any game, maybe some intense settings will have to be toned down.
Also most new cards will probably come armed with a min of 3gb vram to compensate for game advances and also higher resolution gaming due to increased popularity of 4k gaming and mainstream 1440p, since 1080p is no longer the interest of enthusiasts.
What i can say is to get a 3gb card to prepare for the new games, but do remember that if your card is not fit to handle the game and optimized for the settings you want to use, no matter what amount of vram it has you will still see fps decline and stuttering in packed areas.
-
Reply to Lascar
m
0
l
Related resources
- Solved1gb vs 2gb graphics cards Forum
- SolvedHD 7850 2GB still a good gaming card? Forum
- SolvedVideo card: 4GB vRAM for developing game on Unreal 4 or is 2GB enough? Forum
- SolvedGigabyte 970A-D3SP will support this graphics card SAPPHIRE DUAL-X R9 270X 2GB GDDR5 OC WITH BOOST???? Forum
- SolvedThermaltake Smart 650W Power Supply - is it able to run two Gainward GeForce GTX760 Phantom 2GB graphics cards? Forum
- SolvedWhich one of these graphic cards is worth to buy 1. Geforce gt 2GB gddr5 2. Radeon HD 6770 3. Radeon r7 250 2GB gddr5? Forum
- SolvedI think my graphics cards are overheating (something seems to be). Forum
- SolvedAsus AMD/ATI R7 260X Direct CUII 2GB DDR5 vs Sapphire AMD/ATI Radeon R7 265 DUAL-X 2GB Graphics Card Forum
- SolvedGraphics card problems... I think Forum
- SolvedThink my graphics card is water damaged Forum
- SolvedIs my video card still good enough Forum
- my android phone wont read my 8GB SD card and it is still formatted to my old SD card with only 2GB what can i do to make it r Forum
- SolvedNeed a new graphics card I think Forum
- Solvedcan I use a EVGA GTX 750ti FTW w/ ACX Cooler 2gb 128bit graphics card in my Foxconn H55MXV LE motherboard? Forum
- Solvednew cpu and crossfire graphics cards for high settings on modern games, will they be enough? Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!