3GB VRAM vs 4GB VRAM

JakePC12 · Jul 9, 2016

So I was looking at the GTX 1060 but I was about to get it when it was 3GB vram and im not buying the 6gb vram just because it costs $400 here and the 3gb one costs $300 ($100 difference) But I hear that 3GB VRAM isn't good so I was wondering if I should get the RX 480 since its 4gb but its equal to a 970 and the 1060 is equal to a 980. TL;DR Sacrifice 1GB VRAM for huge increased performance or get the RX 480 4GB?

geofelt · Jul 9, 2016

VRAM has become a marketing issue.
My understanding is that vram is more of a performance issue than a functional issue.
A game needs to have most of the data in vram that it uses most of the time.
Somewhat like real ram.
If a game needs something not in vram, it needs to get it across the pcie boundary
hopefully from real ram and hopefully not from a hard drive.
It is not informative to know to what level the available vram is filled.
Possibly much of what is there is not needed.
What is not known is the rate of vram exchange.
Vram is managed by the Graphics card driver, and by the game. There may be differences in effectiveness between amd and nvidia cards.
And differences between games.
Here is an older performance test comparing 2gb with 4gb vram.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
Spoiler... not a significant difference.
A more current set of tests shows the same results:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/page5.html

And... no game maker wants to limit their market by
requiring huge amounts of vram. The vram you see will be appropriate to the particular card.

I think you would be pleased with GTX1060 and 3gb vram as the lowest cost option.

thor220 · Jul 9, 2016

JakePC12 :

The GTX 1060 hasn't been benchmarked yet but it will most certainly not be a huge performance increase from a RX 480. Just like last gen GTX 960, the memory bandwidth of the 1060 is limited as is the memory. It will be a good 1080p card but the RX 480 will beat it in 1440p and DX 12. That 1 GB of extra memory plus the higher memory bandwidth of the RX 480 will give it a boost in most games, especially as both cards get older.

thor220 · Jul 9, 2016

geofelt :

VRAM has become a marketing issue.
My understanding is that vram is more of a performance issue than a functional issue.
A game needs to have most of the data in vram that it uses most of the time.
Somewhat like real ram.
If a game needs something not in vram, it needs to get it across the pcie boundary
hopefully from real ram and hopefully not from a hard drive.
It is not informative to know to what level the available vram is filled.
Possibly much of what is there is not needed.
What is not known is the rate of vram exchange.
Vram is managed by the Graphics card driver, and by the game. There may be differences in effectiveness between amd and nvidia cards.
And differences between games.
Here is an older performance test comparing 2gb with 4gb vram.
http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
Spoiler... not a significant difference.
A more current set of tests shows the same results:
http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/page5.html

And... no game maker wants to limit their market by
requiring huge amounts of vram. The vram you see will be appropriate to the particular card.

I think you would be pleased with GTX1060 and 3gb vram as the lowest cost option.

Most games optimize for 4 GB of RAM. Go look at any benchmark and look at VRAM usage, unless you want to stick to medium settings you are looking at 4 GB for high and 6 GB for ultra.

JakePC12 · Jul 9, 2016

They optimize for 4GB vram for max settings not 6gb. Anyways thanks for the help!

TJ Hooker · Jul 9, 2016

thor220 :

Like geofelt mentioned, looking at VRAM use in something like Afterburner isn't really all that useful. As you can see from the benchmarks he posted, even going from 2 to 4 GB of VRAM makes little difference, although it will vary by game and resolution.

nitrium · Jul 9, 2016

I have an R9 390 and usually run GPU-Z while gaming on a 1920x1200 monitor. On many current AAA titles I have seen VRAM usage occasionally exceed 4GB on max settings. 4GB is almost certainly enough for 99% of current games, but imo games will head toward 6GB (largely due to the shared VRAM on current gen consoles which allow up to ~7GB assuming the overhead of game/OS can be 1GB), especially if you game at resolutions higher than 1080p.

thor220 · Jul 9, 2016

JakePC12 :

No, they optimize for 6 GB. The new mirror's edge game uses 6 GB on ultra and so does the much older shadows of mordor.

thor220 · Jul 9, 2016

TJ Hooker :

Benchmarks doesn't tell you that you are memory restricted on your video card. It will manifest in the form of stuttering or juddering, something the average or max framerate benchmarks won't capture.

Even so, the benchmarks he did link to did show additional FPS for higher VRAM on newer games. Considering that article is a few months old, we have seen every new AAA title benefit from 4 GB.

I really don't get how an 8 GB vs 4 GB article was the optimal choice here.

oldmidget · Jul 9, 2016

my 2c on the vram issue.

my friend has a 290x and i have 2 hd7950s.

4gb vs 3gb. we have noticed that on games that use less then 3gb vram i will get higher FPS then him.

once we were playing other games im noticing my vram more and more on the verge of not being enough. getting the 3gb card at the time was very much worth it. around 7900 series release you were looking at 1-3 gb and i feel like going with a card with 3 was what has allowed me to max most games these days at 1080p.

always go for the higher amount of vram, unless you have the cash to get a new GPU every 1-2 years. but if you plan on not upgrading for more then 5 years, id def go the 8gb rx480 route. then once its not enough(wont be the vram holding it back id think) you can still crossfire and not be bottlenecked by vram.

TJ Hooker · Jul 9, 2016

thor220 :

TJ Hooker :

Benchmarks doesn't tell you that you are memory restricted on your video card. It will manifest in the form of stuttering or juddering, something the average or max framerate benchmarks won't capture.

Even so, the benchmarks he did link to did show additional FPS for higher VRAM on newer games. Considering that article is a few months old, we have seen every new AAA title benefit from 4 GB.

I really don't get how an 8 GB vs 4 GB article was the optimal choice here.

Stuttering and judder aren't captured in averages, but they are captured in minimum/1% framerates, which are provided in the 2nd link. And the difference between 2 vs 4 GB is negligible in the majority of games, especially at 1080p.

thor220 · Jul 9, 2016

TJ Hooker :

Minimum FPS doesn't not tell you if the game is stuttering or not and while 1% may show you a portion of it, it is mostly aimed at multi-card setups. An FPS over time chart would be far far better.

2 vs 4 GB is negligible? Everyone else must be wrong then

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-960-g1-gaming-4gb-review,13.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-2684508/gtx-960-2gb-4gb.html

Both of these are around a year old and the spikes on 2 GB of RAM are obvious. Modern games need more than 2 GB to have a good experience.

burgessanthony · Jul 9, 2016

At 2560x1080 I see3.5-4gb on most games. BO3 loads up the whole 8gb. 4gb sweet spot for mainstream, 6gb for high end I'd say. 2gb nowhere near ok anymore

TJ Hooker · Jul 10, 2016

thor220 :

I said that the performance difference between 2 and 4 GB was negligible in the majority of games at 1080p. And sure enough, in that link you posted, 2 of the 3 games where they compared 2 vs 4 GB frametimes showed no benefit for more VRAM on a GTX 960. And that was at 1440p. The 2nd link is just a bunch of people advising against getting a 4 GB 960, not sure what point you're trying to make with it.

oldmidget · Jul 10, 2016

TJ Hooker :

thor220 :

I said that the performance difference between 2 and 4 GB was negligible in the majority of games at 1080p. And sure enough, in that link you posted, 2 of the 3 games where they compared 2 vs 4 GB frametimes showed no benefit for more VRAM on a GTX 960. And that was at 1440p. The 2nd link is just a bunch of people advising against getting a 4 GB 960, not sure what point you're trying to make with it.

just curious, what was your last 2gb card and when did you upgrade?

TJ Hooker · Jul 10, 2016

I don't think I've ever had a 2 GB card. Had a laptop during university that had 3 GB of VRAM, and then I built my current PC which has 4. Why do you ask?

Also, I should clarify that I'm not advocating getting a 2 GB card or anything. The points I'm trying to make are: the issue of VRAM is often exaggerated, and that looking at VRAM use in afterburner is not a great way to determine how much VRAM is really needed.

burgessanthony · Jul 10, 2016

^ agree, plus cards like the 390/480 aren't reall powerful enough to cope with the pure pixel output of resolutions needing +4gb.

BUT 4gb is a must if buying a mainstream card now. Games do recommend 3-4gb and that'll only go up.

thor220 · Jul 10, 2016

TJ Hooker :

My point was never about FPS. Look at those graphs on the links I provided, do you not see the massive spikes the 2 GB video card is getting in FPS while the 4 GB card is much more stable. How many times do I have to state that it was always about the smoothness of gameplay when it comes to VRAM. You seem to be adamant that good FPS = good gameplay.

burgessanthony · Jul 10, 2016

Isn't it a moot point seeing as any mainstream and higher card now has 4gb minimum?

thor220 · Jul 10, 2016

burgessanthony :

Except for the 1060, which was what the OP was talking about. It should have 4 GB of VRAM but it doesn't. Nvidia's new memory compression may help a bit but I don't see how they can release a new card that's expected to last maybe a year before it's forced to medium settings.

TJ Hooker · Jul 10, 2016

thor220 :

Yes, I saw the spikes in framerates in that link. You're right, for that game (Thief) having only 2 GB is clearly detrimental. Now look at the other 2 games they looked at in that Guru3D article: Alien Isolation and Shadows of Morder. There aren't any massive spikes for the 2 GB card. In other words, for 2 of the 3 games they looked at, having more than 2 GB of VRAM on a 960 provided no advantage.

My point wasn't about (average) fps either. In fact, not once did I mention it in the post you're replying to. Don't put words in my mouth.

thor220 · Jul 10, 2016

TJ Hooker :

Now you are just arguing semantics

Your words

"I said that the performance difference between 2 and 4 GB was negligible in the majority of games at 1080p"

and the links you provided as reference used FPS as a measure of performance. If you weren't referring to FPS then why would you constantly link to articles that use FPS as proof? No, now you are just backtracking and being one heck of a jerk about it.

Yeah, shadow of mordor don't spike to the crazy highs that thief does but that doesn't mean there isn't spikes. There is an obvious difference between the 2 GB and 4 GB cards, that is a fact. Also take into consideration this was only 3 games and that article is over a year old. You are telling me 2 GB isn't going to run modern games like crap? 4 GB is absolutely going to give you a much better experience.

burgessanthony · Jul 11, 2016

I don't get why nvidia make the best gpus then under-ram them. Had it with the 970 and now and the 1060. Granted AMD go the other way....but still!

thor220 · Jul 12, 2016

burgessanthony :

There's a couple of reasons they do this. One, RAM issues don't show up in many benchmarks. 99% of benchmarkers will use avg FPS. Well your computer can be stuttering between 30 fps and 90 fps crazily and still look good in a benchmark with a 60 fps average. Two, having just the right amount of RAM to run games out right now is a good way to sell next gen cards. If you start to see the stuttering indicative of not enough RAM a year after the card releases, most people will think about upgrading again rather than getting mad at Nvidia for not releasing a card that is designed to last.

Nvidia doesn't cheap out on the RAM on all their cards. Their top top end, that you pay an arm and a leg for, are usually pretty good on ram. Of course, this doesn't mean much if Nvidia is going to have it's GameWorks program cripple last gen performance anyways. Top-Tier cards are $700 and with Nvidia you can expect that you have only till the next series of cards come out (approx every year). After that point you should expect little to no support and generally decreasing performance. I pull up the example of the 780 Ti again. Over $700 card that couldn't run GameWorks features smoothly, something Maxwell did just fine.

renz496 · Jul 13, 2016

JakePC12 :

if you're getting 1060 just get the 6GB version. heard that the 3GB is not really 1060. but more like 1050 because the rumor point that it will have a bit less shaders (or CUDA cores as nvidia called). but the price seems significantly cheaper than 1060 6GB as well (rumor was talking about $150 price tag).

3GB VRAM vs 4GB VRAM

Reputable

Titan

Splendid

Splendid

Reputable

Titan

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Honorable

Titan

Splendid

Dignified

Titan

Honorable

Titan

Dignified

Splendid

Dignified

Splendid

Titan

Splendid

Dignified

Splendid

Champion

Share this page