is 2gb vram enough for 1080p?

Jan 10, 2015
649
0
4,990
hello guys i heard a lot of people say that gtx 960 doesnt have enough vram is that a really big problem i want only to play games at 1080p with stable fps i dont want 4k resolutions nor i want super texture mods! is it enough for that kind of usage or should i get 60 more euros to buy r9 280x?
 

Dunlop0078

Titan
Ambassador
This very much depends on the games you play and the settings you want to play at in those games. For example in gta 5 i can play on high textures but im am using every bit of my 2gb of VRAM, i cannot however play with very high textures that uses 2.5gb at least and my card wouldn't run it at a very high frame rate anyways. In bf4 i can play on ultra but i have to turn off MSAA to keep it under 2gb of VRAM. For most games out right now 2gb is plenty at 1080p however that may not be true in a year or 2.
 
May 21, 2014
487
0
4,860


yeah man,I love that new game "bio-shock infinity"

but anyway at 1080p a 2gb 960 is fine for those games. and you maybe able to pull off high settings with 2xmsaa
 
May 21, 2014
487
0
4,860
lol, you really are underestimating your card.
the 960 even the 2gb version will "run" games for the next 5 years, sure in 5 years you may be running at 720p and low settings, but in 2 years you will still run at a mix of high and med in most games.... excluding any crysis games XD
 

zarugal

Reputable
Jun 30, 2014
576
1
5,160
As 1440p and 4K gaming slowly gains more and more popularity, texture resolutions are going to get more detailed and require more memory. At the moment, 2GB will do you just fine for about 85% of all games at max settings with the top 15% demanding more - there's evidence of games like Shadow of Mordor requiring over 3.5GB of VRAM at points on max settings.

However the key thing in what I have written is 'max settings'. A 2GB card will last you a good while at 1080p, but you may find that as newer titles come out you will need to turn down the really memory intensive settings such as textures and AA.

If I were to be honest, I don't think I'd advise anyone to buy a card that had less than 3GB of VRAM now - especially when you look at just how many cards have 3GB or more. But if budget doesn't allow for a higher card than a 2GB card will do you fine for most titles that are already out, and up to a point in the future.
 
Jan 10, 2015
649
0
4,990
look the other choice is r9 280 non X which i dislike because amd has some @@@ drivers and also due to the reason of temperature power consumption and also r9 280 is a bit worse than gtx 960 but i dont know what to do what do you advice?
 

zarugal

Reputable
Jun 30, 2014
576
1
5,160
In your original question you make it look like a choice between the GTX 960 or the R9 280X. Of those two the R9 280X is the clear choice. A quick Google search of 'GTX 960 vs R9 280X' will give you plenty of results with many forums recommending the 280X.

As it is, Nvidia own the top bracket for GPUs (Titan X, 980TI, 980, 970), but if you aren't going for one of those cards then the price/performance ratio of AMD's cards is what really shines.

My honest advice on this topic: wait a week or two to find out what AMD's latest line of cards bring. Their new 300 series could wipe the floor with Nvidia. And even if they don't, their 200 series cards will come tumbling in price anyway and you'll find yourself a nice deal. If you rush into buying a GTX 960 on the Nvidia hype right now you might as well just tear up half the money you're spending.

EDIT: Here's the pricing of the new 300 series: http://wccftech.com/amd-radeon-300-series-pricing-confirmed-aggressive/