Do I need a 4Gbs graphics card?

[DiamondsareMine]

I was planning to buy a MSI N770 2gb tf graphics card for my gaming pc but then I heard that some games take up more than 2gb and the memory limits what a video card is capable of doing at times. I am trying to run games like Watch dogs and BB4. Would a 4gb one be a better choice for me? Thanks.

 

[Brandon LS]

What monitor are you running on? If its 1080p monitor then you will without a doubt be fine but once you go to higher resolutions some games require more memory.

 

[Place_Matz]

4 GB of memory on a graphics card is definitely enough. My friend has a GTX 760 2 GB and he plays Battlefield 4 fine on 1080p and watch dogs a little choppy on 1080p. If you must, go 3 GB of memory if they have it. In my opinion 4 GB of memory is overkill and not worth the money.

 

[DiamondsareMine]

So should I get a graphics card with 3 GB of memory? Can someone help me find a good n770 graphics card with 3GBof memory?

 

[Place_Matz]

So should I get a graphics card with 3 GB of memory? Can someone help me find a good n770 graphics card with 3GBof memory?

I have no idea how much you are willing to spend on your new card, but I found two good cards. These are good cards, no matter what company you buy them from (EVGA, Asus, XFX, etc.)

Geforce GTX 780 3 GB (Ti or not)
Radeon R9 280X 3 GB

 

[hunter315]

2GB of VRAM is generally sufficient for 1080P, only skyrim with a bunch of mods will need more than that. The 4GB versions are meant for people who want SLI or CF since it only behaves as though it has as much memory as the smallest card, but for a single card setup you simply don't have the power to run a high enough resolution with AA to need more than about 2GB of memory.

The statement about BF4 being fine and watch dogs being choppy is poorly researched, Watch Dogs is significantly CPU limited, it doesn't require a GPU with a lot of VRAM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833-8.html

 

[DiamondsareMine]

2GB of VRAM is generally sufficient for 1080P, only skyrim with a bunch of mods will need more than that. The 4GB versions are meant for people who want SLI or CF since it only behaves as though it has as much memory as the smallest card, but for a single card setup you simply don't have the power to run a high enough resolution with AA to need more than about 2GB of memory.

The statement about BF4 being fine and watch dogs being choppy is poorly researched, Watch Dogs is significantly CPU limited, it doesn't require a GPU with a lot of VRAM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833-8.html

Thank you, this was a good answer that helped me with my question.

 

[Place_Matz]

2GB of VRAM is generally sufficient for 1080P, only skyrim with a bunch of mods will need more than that. The 4GB versions are meant for people who want SLI or CF since it only behaves as though it has as much memory as the smallest card, but for a single card setup you simply don't have the power to run a high enough resolution with AA to need more than about 2GB of memory.

The statement about BF4 being fine and watch dogs being choppy is poorly researched, Watch Dogs is significantly CPU limited, it doesn't require a GPU with a lot of VRAM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833-8.html

2GB of VRAM is generally sufficient for 1080P, only skyrim with a bunch of mods will need more than that. The 4GB versions are meant for people who want SLI or CF since it only behaves as though it has as much memory as the smallest card, but for a single card setup you simply don't have the power to run a high enough resolution with AA to need more than about 2GB of memory.

The statement about BF4 being fine and watch dogs being choppy is poorly researched, Watch Dogs is significantly CPU limited, it doesn't require a GPU with a lot of VRAM
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833-8.html

Thank you, this was a good answer that helped me with my question.

No, it was not. Having 3 GBs of memory would help run games better if you were using 2 monitors or not. And no, my statement was not poorly researched. It is actual data collected by myself. My friend has a rig with a GTX 760 2 GB and he had Battlefield 4 which ran on 40-60 FPS on ultra. He also owns Watch Dogs, and I watched him get in a car and drive around on ultra. He was going less than 30. So before you go around trying to call them out if you think they are wrong, do a little research yourself.

 

[hunter315]

A single data point is meaningless, if you didn't tweak GPU and CPU settings up and down to determine what was actually your limiting factor your single data point is as meaningful as a man who makes a youtube video saying he gets 100 MPG in an F-150.

Benchmarks exist to get objective data on what is the limiting factor, since we don't know what settings you are running at and haven't done proper testing to reduce the variables and determine true root cause we have no context around your results and they are therefore meaningless.

 

[Place_Matz]

A single data point is meaningless, if you didn't tweak GPU and CPU settings up and down to determine what was actually your limiting factor your single data point is as meaningful as a man who makes a youtube video saying he gets 100 MPG in an F-150.

Benchmarks exist to get objective data on what is the limiting factor, since we don't know what settings you are running at and haven't done proper testing to reduce the variables and determine true root cause we have no context around your results and they are therefore meaningless.

Look, all I am saying is having a video card with 3 GB of memory is more cost efficient than having one with 4 GB. The guy who created the thread said he was only using 1 monitor at 1080p, and if you want to have a good video card that will last you a while but not cost more than $500, I would say just go with the 3 GB ones, like the Geforce GTX 780 (normal or Ti) or the Radeon R9 280X.