Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How long will it be before 2GB isn't enough for max settings on 1080p?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 17, 2012 10:58:57 PM

How many years do you think it will be before 2GB of VRAM just won't be enough for 1080p gaming on max settings?

I'm having a hard time picking between:

Tri-Fire 7970 GHz 3GB
Tri-SLI GTX 680 4GB
Quad-SLI GTX 670 4GB

They all price around the same added up.
November 17, 2012 11:06:40 PM

probably in the near future. I have a 2GB card and when i play Crysis 2 at 1080p with DX11 and hi-res textures enabled my VRAM hits 1600mb, so its getting close.

Any of those cards are good for 1080p for now.
November 17, 2012 11:10:17 PM

Less than 1% of programs will be able to fully use that. I suggest getting a single GTX 690 or Radeon 7990 if you need that much horsepower. Even a single GTX 680 would do you well for 2-3 years. It's a huge waste of money.
Related resources
November 17, 2012 11:19:58 PM

montosaurous said:
Less than 1% of programs will be able to fully use that. I suggest getting a single GTX 690 or Radeon 7990 if you need that much horsepower. Even a single GTX 680 would do you well for 2-3 years. It's a huge waste of money.


I can't find the 7990 anywhere. I really, really want it though. That'd be my first choice in a heartbeat.
a c 107 U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 11:24:55 PM

7990's are hard to come by since only 2 brand exist as its not an officially supported product, the Powercolor 7990(2 models, normal and devil 13) and the unreleased HIS 7990 which I dont think has hit the market yet.


the market has very limited quantities of them and more or less sell out in short moments.
November 17, 2012 11:26:07 PM

dudewitbow said:
7990's are hard to come by since only 2 brand exist as its not an officially supported product, the Powercolor 7990(2 models, normal and devil 13) and the unreleased HIS 7990 which I dont think has hit the market yet.


the market has very limited quantities of them and more or less sell out in short moments.



Is there any estimate? I won't be able to build this computer until at least a month from now anyways.
a c 107 U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 11:28:10 PM

the most you can do(at least in the U.S) if you wanted 7990's is to go to the newegg powercolor 7990 page and set up a product restocking notification. as for the HIS card, I wouldn't know. I would personally Crossfire/Sli in my opinion. but some people prefer to only have a single card or so.
November 17, 2012 11:41:59 PM

dudewitbow said:
the most you can do(at least in the U.S) if you wanted 7990's is to go to the newegg powercolor 7990 page and set up a product restocking notification. as for the HIS card, I wouldn't know. I would personally Crossfire/Sli in my opinion. but some people prefer to only have a single card or so.


I want to crossfire the 7990. but if you were to spend ~$1800 on video cards, what would you choose?
a c 107 U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 11:46:48 PM

I really couldn't imagine myself spending that much on gpus alone, but If i had, how i would have approached it is:

7970 crossfire if you are either a:
Bencher
Water cooling system set up as you can make use of the unlocked voltage control

670/680 sli if:
utilize a bunch of the nvidia technologies(physx, cuda, 3d, avsync)

the sole advantage i would give to 690s/7990s would be that it leaves more room for air to circulate, and the fact that owning them is slightly unique, as a very small minority even owns them.
November 17, 2012 11:47:52 PM

dudewitbow said:
I really couldn't imagine myself spending that much on gpus alone, but If i had, how i would have approached it is:

7970 crossfire if you are either a:
Bencher
Water cooling system set up as you can make use of the unlocked voltage control

670/680 sli if:
utilize a bunch of the nvidia technologies(physx, cuda, 3d, avsync)

the sole advantage i would give to 690s/7990s would be that it leaves more room for air to circulate, and the fact that owning them is slightly unique, as a very small minority even owns them.



What setup for $1800 would give the absolute most fps? I know it's pointlessly overkill but still.
a c 107 U Graphics card
November 17, 2012 11:51:44 PM

I would think quad 7970's(non ghz) but i haven't really seen any quad sli vs quad crossfire charts recently so i cant say i'm the most confident with that answer.
November 17, 2012 11:55:51 PM

dudewitbow said:
I would think quad 7970's(non ghz) but i haven't really seen any quad sli vs quad crossfire charts recently so i cant say i'm the most confident with that answer.


I heard QuadFire and Quad-SLI setups sometimes decrease performance rather than increase. I also heard they cause a lot of problems but nobody really specified what.
a c 107 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 12:00:34 AM

because games have to be specifically coded to utilize crossfire and sli. some games reject the setup and gain negative scaling(Arma 2 is a prime example). that situation isnt really the hardwares fault, but rather the software, and since crossfire/sli is a minority in the gpu world, its priority isn't the highest.
November 18, 2012 12:03:04 AM

What is your overall budget? These parts would only last you a few years you know. It's best to upgrade the GPU every 2-3 years and CPU every 3-4 years. (Assuming you bought good products)
November 18, 2012 1:36:25 AM

Using 3 monitor setup bf3 is now using 1.9 vram, so I say in the near future.
a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 1:50:09 AM

Ha, i already hit 2000mb on BF3 at 1080p. It was a armored kill map.
November 18, 2012 2:16:34 AM

2846070,16,1473870 said:
just as Theresa explained I am stunned that you able to make $4266 in 4 weeks on the computer. have you read this site
Spam reported
November 18, 2012 2:23:06 AM

If you want my advice, get a single GTX 690 and i7 3930k if you have that much money. Anything else would take an extremely high end CPU to not recieve bottleneck. If you're looking to future proof, invest in your Optical, Storage, case and PSU. Everything else is outdated in 2 years. Unless you absolutely need all of that GPU power, getting it is useless.
a c 141 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 3:09:29 AM

for 1080p 2GB will last for quite sometime. want to reduce VRAM usage? just disable MSAA and use FXAA instead :D . using mod is another story though. honestly i was hoping games to use those excessive VRAM on gpu from the get go even before the mod or extreme level of AA being use. we at the point where hardware capabilities are far ahead from what softwares need. it is much better if high setting in every games only possible with high end cards, mid range cards (like 7800 series and 660 series) only capable of medium setting at best. then we starts hearing about poor coding, poor optimization bla bla bla....

:pt1cable: 

Remur said:
I heard QuadFire and Quad-SLI setups sometimes decrease performance rather than increase. I also heard they cause a lot of problems but nobody really specified what.


to make it really work in games are one of the main challenger but that decrease performance could be from CPU cannot keep up with gpu. an i7 920 at 3.6Ghz will not be able to keep up with 3 GTX580 :) 
a c 91 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 3:15:32 AM

I wouldn't go too crazy. true, in the future that extra vram will probably be needed. But in reality, by then, the card will probably be too slow to keep up with what's being thrown at it. And for sure, the way the hottest, newest games seem to break barriers the architecture of the card won't keep up either.

( Crysis 6- Skyrim Ultimate w/super texture- DX13, etc. )
a c 141 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 3:16:26 AM

^ +1
a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 3:22:02 AM

since you mentioned that the card will be too slow to utiliize the vram i wanna know which cards can and cannot utilize more than 1 gb of vram at 1080p ?
7750 cannot for sure. how about 7770 and 7850 ? is it sensible for someone to go for 2 gb variant of 7770 ? or is 1gb of 7850 all it can handle ?
a c 141 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 3:33:36 AM

in case of 7770 the gpu core will out of grunt before it can fully utilize 2GB of VRAM. and he does not said about VRAM being slow to be utilized. just imagine this: right now you got 680 with 4GB of VRAM. in the future when 4GB is the norm for games to use most likely GTX680 are outdated in terms of performance. it has the required VRAM but the core itself was to slow to keep up the game graphical demand
a b U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 4:14:16 AM

why do people buy 4 gb 680's then ?
a c 107 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 4:22:12 AM

mohit9206 said:
why do people buy 4 gb 680's then ?



the only reason to run more than 2 gb vram gaming wise is either extreme modding, or multiple screens.
a c 143 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 4:35:29 AM

Remur said:
How many years do you think it will be before 2GB of VRAM just won't be enough for 1080p gaming on max settings?

I'm having a hard time picking between:

Tri-Fire 7970 GHz 3GB
Tri-SLI GTX 680 4GB
Quad-SLI GTX 670 4GB

They all price around the same added up.

The 3rd or 4th card in SLI/CF doesn't add much value, some people go for such setups because they need those extra 10 FPS in their Eyefinity setups in specific games such as Metro 2033.

So imagine yourself spending extra $1000 on GPUs in order to get a 15% performance increase.
a c 143 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 4:43:37 AM

dudewitbow said:
the only reason to run more than 2 gb vram gaming wise is either extreme modding, or multiple screens.

Neither this.
Quote:
The 4GB -- Realistically there was not one game that we tested that could benefit from the two extra GB's of graphics memory. Even at 2560x1600 (which is a massive 4 Mpixels resolution) there was just no measurable difference.

Now the setup could benefit from triple monitor setups at 5760x1080 (which is a 6 Mpixels resolution), but even there I doubt if 4 GB is really something you'd need to spend money on
.

The most taxing technique used ever that eats up VRAM is AA, there's no problem running the most modern games @ 2560x with a medium range card such as HD 7770, but the real problem is enabling more than 2X MSAA on such a higher resolution since tons of large high quality textures and packs need to be stored and loaded. So the question always remains of what settings will you be using.
November 18, 2012 4:47:07 AM

Yeah every two years a product for half the price will beat that one. Just something to think about...
November 18, 2012 5:10:44 AM

For today's gaming 2gb is enough.While BF3 was using 1.5-1.6gb from my 660 ti,in crysis 3 it was 1.3GB.Metro 2033 and Witcher 2 pulls about 1GB maximum.Again I did go past 1900mb running new dawn.However the results of a gtx 680 or 670 might vary.
a c 216 U Graphics card
November 18, 2012 5:28:59 AM

Also keep in mind, that when a game is using 1600mb of vram, that doesn't mean that if you only had 1500mb of vram, you'd have a slow down. Sometimes a game's memory management can adjust itself when less ram is available.
November 18, 2012 2:35:39 PM

If it needs more memory, doesn't it just go to the RAM?
November 18, 2012 4:27:02 PM

^then it turns to the additional system memory allocated for the video adapter but this results to a loss of bandwidth.Generally upto 512mb of excess memory doesn't affect much.But relying too much on this hampers performance.
!