How much VRAM do various games use in Ultra?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
King Mustard

King Mustard

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2010
212
2
18,695
Since the performance of the GTX 970 has been shown to plummet when you use between 3.5 and 4 GB of its VRAM, I want to make sure I wouldn't hit this amount in my games before I choose to purchase the card.

How much VRAM do various games use in Ultra at 1920x1080?

I'm thinking games like Battlefield 4, Grand Theft Auto IV, Far Cry 4 etc.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

Shankovich

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2010
336
0
18,810
I would not buy the card because of future titles to come. At the moment, there really isn't a performance hit at 1080P, it's a fantastic card. But, what about 1 or 2 years down the road? Maybe not. That 512mb that can't be used is going to hurt it (remember, it's either the 3.5 gig pool or the 512mb pool). I'm afraid of games like Battlefront 3 or whatever (late 2015, into 2016) games that will use much higher quality texture files and hence AA methods will need more memory to work out. Remember that most games will be made for console first unfortunately, and they have a lot of RAM to work with.

Here's my suggestion: Save up some more and get the 980. Get a R9 290 (or X), or wait for the AMD R300 series. The GTX 970 is going to come back to hurt you in the future for sure.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
S

Shankovich

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2010
336
0
18,810
Also, the R9 290X is around the same price, and the third party vendors have fixed the heat issue. Just make sure your PSU can take the card and you'll be good to go. I'm using the FirePro W9100, the professional flashed R9 290X, it's a great card :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


Short answer is I still recommend the GTX970 (specifically the EVGA SC ACX 2.0 1.17GHz model for about $335 USD).

Long answer:
The issue with the "slow" memory is confusing a lot of people. First of all performance doesn't "plummet" as suggested. Unfortunately it's quite confusing and we don't have all the information. Here's what I can tell you:

1) Only affects more than 3.5GB usage by the game on the video card itself (not memory buffered to system memory)

2) AVERAGE performance drop is closer to 3% (versus what it would be if full speed access to that slower memory)

3) STUTTER is the only real issue and how many games affected is uncertain. NVidia is currently testing games that use a lot of memory while running FRAME TIME analysis to ascertain stutter and in which scenarios that exist. They will then attempt a workaround (in the worst case they'd artificially prevent access to the slow memory for specific games... we'll see).

*The main problem understanding this issue is that it's quite technical. Games have "pools" of memory (texture data etc) and should be able to prioritize access, thus theoretically MOVING game data in slow memory to fast memory. How games do this and whether Windows is involved at all during gameplay is confusing.

We do know Windows can automatically MOVE non-game data from video to system memory to free up space. What's unclear currently is HOW NVidia would provide a simple fix (if possible) that detects when any stutter is likely to occur and provide the proper workaround (VRAM limit or moving data from slow to fast portion..).

SUMMARY:
Long story short I wouldn't worry too much about this issue. The worst-case is really that you'd only have access to 3.5GB of VRAM for the few games that currently need it or future games.

I wouldn't expect a quick reply since NVidia has already responded and will need time to provide a comprehensive analysis of the situation. I'm not too concerned myself but will be monitoring the situation. In the mean time my 2GB GTX680 is still awesome.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
King Mustard

King Mustard

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2010
212
2
18,695

I'm sure many games can already utilise 4 GB VRAM if you use ultra textures. If not, within a year, many more will.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPlCIUh_Tp0&hd=1

*I'm more concerned now than I was. If correct then it appears there's no solution to the stutter issues causes by jumping above 3.5GB usage.

(To be clear, non-game data is still present so for example you might have 3.6GB of VRAM used but the game is using no more than 3.2GB all within the fast 3.5GB memory... that doesn't change the fact that it appears if actual GAME DATA jumps over 3.5GB the data in the slow memory will be accessed slower which could easily cause stutter depending on what the data is.)

Thus, I can't in good conscience recommend the GTX970 anymore unless some new information is released such as a way to cap to 3.5GB to avoid the issue. Since NVidia has apparently stated they aren't working on a driver fix I'm not sure where that leaves things...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
King Mustard

King Mustard

Distinguished
Mar 17, 2010
212
2
18,695

Here's a screenshot from that video for people to view:

2lmo09k.png


Seems like games are already using over 3.5 GB VRAM at 1440p, even at 1080p.

I think I will get a card with 4 GB full-speed VRAM :/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74MYv8ldXc&hd=1

*Skip to the 14 minute mark.

According to the guys at PCPER, the performance drop should be minimal since the data access is averaged in. They say it should NOT cause any observable stutter but that more testing is needed.

They also say they've tried to find scenarios where it makes much difference and failed. Seriously, if you only have 90 seconds then watch that last bit.

*I read the article linked below the above video before but after reading it again I'm not too concerned with recommending the GTX970 now. I've toggled back and forth mainly due to the fact that the issue is confusing and there seems to be some confusion on the topic.

I still have yet to find documented evidence that there is noticeable game stutter caused specifically by the slow memory.

So I'll keep looking but for now I've exhausted reputable sites (until more data comes) so at this point I'm considering it now a MINOR ISSUE.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160


The new generation consoles use a x86 architecture which will make them more backwards compatible with PCs. The consoles right now are actually overglorified and underpowered, slightly different PCs. Games should be more optimised for PCs and especially for multicore/thread/AMD this generation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015
4GB needed?

Back to the original topic I say it's not a big deal. We're always going to see scenarios where games use a lot of video memory but developers can't afford to pump out games that only a MINORITY of people can play properly.

Game engines are starting to get more intelligent so not suddenly stutter if they run out of memory or even allow certain settings if you don't have enough.

Let's not forget you can, and should learn how to tweak game settings for the optimal experience. I'm still rocking my GTX680 2GB card and frankly not in much of a rush to upgrade.

So sorry about my long posts but for the record as I'm logging out I:
a) think 3.5GB or 4GB is sufficient at the performance level of a GTX970 for a great experience, and

b) still recommend the GTX970 based on the PCPER video and article which is really a MUST-READ to have an informed opinion
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
P

PlaceboEffect

Reputable
May 6, 2015
1
0
4,510


my opinion is, 4GB's isn't truly enough now. 6GB's is what we need now. just look at GTA 5. you use all 4GB's in that game with the the settings on ultra. they need to cut the price of the GTX 970 and 980 and bring out 6GB cards for around the same price as the 980. maybe £50 or $50 more for a 6GB. I seen the Titan X on ebay or somewhere for $1000. I payed £300 for the Strix GTX 970. for £200 more I could have bought that TitanX for £500 and for that price it would have been worth every penny. I don't think it's worth the full price of £1000. you only get 30fps with 4K on it. you shouldn't have to buy 2 cards for that price just so you can handle 4K gaming
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nextg_Rival

Nextg_Rival

Honorable
Jan 16, 2015
779
0
11,160


DirectX 12 is coming this July I think and it will make SLI/CrossFire VRAM combine. It will fix that issue and then a 980 SLI, even a 970 SLI will beat the Titan X.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


Splitting the screen between GPU's can be done but the developer has to implement that feature. How quickly this is adopted will mainly depend on how hard it is to implement.

Also, there are plenty of games tested that ran at 4K and didn't need more than 4GB total so this varies a lot.

Finally, playing at 4K rarely makes sense. You get roughly 55% the frame rate compared to 2560x1440 but the quality difference in many cases isn't even noticeable to the naked eye. Thus you can spend $600 for another GTX980 and get a slightly lower frame rate than a single card at 1440p (as well as any potential stutter issues caused by multi-GPU).

Anyway, I think expecting a minimum of 6GB at this time for a reasonable price is a bit silly. You're in a very niche market so you pay a premium. Like most things, the market dictates the cost of things so expecting NVidia's card retailers to take a LOSS just because you want to pay less is not how things work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
U6b36ef

U6b36ef

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2010
588
1
19,015
It's a tricky question to answer I think. I can think of arguments for sticking with the 970, and using Crysis 3 as an example will explain.

In one sense it depends how much the last 0.5GB affects gaming. I think about it from the point of view that using a 2GB card was only marginally slower than a 4GB in many games even like Crysis 3. (Well that's what I read anyway.) This meant the PC having to utilise system RAM, which I am sure is slower than the last 0.5GB RAM on a 970.

Secondly Crysis 3 only used maximum of 3GB RAM on my 970 system, with settings all on full. The issue is that the 970 was only just capable of running Crysis 3 on max. It did slow down to 25fps in places. There-in lies the argument. Using Crysis 3 as a template we can compare how much other RAM games might use. Also with this example we can say the 970 is only capable of maxing a game that uses 3GB. If the game is any more demanding you will have to turn down settings, thus reducing vRAM demand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


Yep.
Though I can say I'm much more concerned about STUTTER on the GTX970 in the near-future with more games using over 3.5GB of video memory. It's definitely shown to stutter in some scenarios.

It's a topic so poorly understood with many so called "experts" testing a few games and concluding it's no problem. Some even said "look it's using 3.7GB" and there's no stutter however that's still not proof that games won't stutter as it depends how often they access data that's actually in the slow memory.

I have been also recommending the Asus R9-290X 4GB to some people as well for those with slightly lower budgets (especially if it made the difference in getting a better CPU).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
U6b36ef

U6b36ef

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2010
588
1
19,015
Apparently Shadow of Mordor sits on 3.5GB usage, or it stops accessing at that point. I wish they had released is as a 3.5GB card, as I would still have happily bought that.

They are claiming there was a communication error between teams, and they didn't know about it. I think they did know and that is why the 970 was originally dubbed the bargain of the century. I guess they sold it cheap so when we found out we would think, 'oh well we got it cheap'.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


I'm almost completely certain there was a communication error. NVidia knows that very few people actually care about the specs proportionate to those who actually buy the cards. They do know that publishing misleading information can be very bad PR so it makes little sense to mislead on the raw specs (I'm talking ROP count etc not the slow memory).

The price would have nothing to do with this. For one thing, don't forget NVidia just sells the GPU's and that it's the card companies that set the prices. NVidia only SUGGESTS pricing which can be ignored.

I'm still baffled at how the engineers didn't anticipate any STUTTERING issues by crippling the performance of part of the memory. Theoretically the slow memory can be used for data that's not being currently accessed but they should have a better understanding of how games work in the REAL WORLD (plus DDR3/DDR4 system memory is where currently unused texture data should sit... we don't want fast video memory, slow video memory and slower still system memory... ooh, this reminds of the eSRAM situation in the XBOX ONE and we know how much a pain that was (slightly different setup but similar problem with it THEORETICALLY being a non-issue but a hassle in reality to program for).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
U6b36ef

U6b36ef

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2010
588
1
19,015
@ photonboy

Are you completely forgetting that Nvidia manufacture their own cards? They set the price themselves obviously. Everyone else has to compete.

Yes I have read about this miscommunication. Yet I know if I was working in the department that sent the message I would make sure it was received. I don't care how bad feelings were.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
photonboy

photonboy

Titan
Jun 20, 2006
21,567
13
85,015


DX12 won't help unless both the game and Windows are communicating properly that there's slow memory that should not be used by the game for actively processed tasks.

You may be referring to shared tiles which can better stream from system to video memory, however we don't know how many games will support this in the near future nor is it going to affect the GTX970's slow memory issue; you'd still get texture data in the System Memory streaming into the 4GB (including slow memory) of the 970.

It's simply not common to have fast and slow Video memory on the same video card so it's unlikely this situation will be easily resolved unless NVidia provides a way to simply disable it upon request by the user or the game itself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
U6b36ef

U6b36ef

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2010
588
1
19,015
I am actually concerned with something else and that's why I found this thread. My 970 is stuttering in some games when it's not using the slow 0.5GB. The frame rate is high but the performance is bad. I must be the unluckiest 970 owner ever.

I don't have a game that uses up to 3.5GB. Not all games are affected. E.g. Crysis 3 is fine; Skyrim is not, and neither is Mertro: Last Light.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sz0ty0l4

sz0ty0l4

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2015
1,072
0
19,660
modern games vram requirement based on resolution( 2014-2015) is something like this:

1080p:
up to 4gb

1440p:
up to 6gb

4k:
up to 8gb

- using x8 MSAA will greatly increase the vram usage. you can even fill the 12gb vram on the titan-x.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom