Reply to this thread
Solved Forum question
Started by Ahsankhaan | | 45 answers
Hey guys which one should i go with , They both have exact same price thanks . Quick reply pls ..
Ahsankhaan
September 30, 2014 12:02:15 PM
nick779 said:
You may need 6gb of vram in 3 years if the current trend continues, but the architecture will be old and the GPUs underpowered to even attempt highest settings on games of that generation. Its like saying a 480 and a 580 are still relevant today. Yeah, theyre pretty capable cards, but they struggle at highest settings.If you are going to respond, please read the post first.
VincentP said:
If this trend continues you would need 6 GB of VRAM in three years from now for the highest settings. This seems pretty reasonable to me.It would be fair to say that in three years time these cards won't be fast enough to run the highest settings anyway, but the trend also suggests the VRAM requirements for the highest settings will reach 4 GB by the end of next year (3 years from the release of Far Cry 3). This to me makes 4 GB of VRAM a minimum for these high end cards, and Nvidia seems to have picked the same number.
VincentP I am quite impressed with the argument you have presented, though if i were to rebut what you have said I would only be repeating myself, which is not want I want to do. Your argument is solid, and I would also consider mine to be but we cannot both either go one sided because both of our sides have flaws. The information the we both need we both don't have, and that is hardcore proof that these cards actually outperform in these modern day games. I would like to go further, but without this information it would simply be pointless as there hasn't been such a review to date that I have personally seen which can support my side of the argument. If you wish to argue this topic further, feel free to do so in PM, though I am keen to see what the difference is myself when a review comes out in the near future.
All the best, Unknownofprob.
All the best, Unknownofprob.
nick779
September 30, 2014 5:38:55 AM
VincentP said:
unknownofprob said:
Only reasoning people have come to understand that Vram is more beneficial is by user reports, along with all the game recommendations that people believe the "GTX 660 3GB, 7870 3GB and GTX 760 4GB" are actually needed.These are your examples, not mine. I am no way using this to support my argument. Users will make many unfounded claims, and you will see plenty of this on these forums.
unknownofprob said:
Without a doubt later on (not in the next 2 years) these 4GB cards will come in handy, especially when 4k gaming becomes mainstream, but as for now goes, there isn't much logical and documented fact to do so. By the time you mention supposedly comes when these card will shine, they will already be outdated, and not sufficient enough but that isn't due to it's Vram amount. I am writing purely of 1920 x 1080 resolution.
My personal experience is that with HD texture mods and anti-aliasing enabled, Skyrim will exceed the 2 GB of VRAM on my card and suffer severe frame rate drops entering areas where new textures must be loaded. I can see the peak in VRAM corresponding to the drop and reducing the size of textures or anti-aliasing resolves the issue. In this resolved state I can see VRAM usage approaching but not reaching the 2 GB ceiling.
I base the Watch Dogs figure on a guide published by Nvidia for suggested game settings on their own cards:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/watch-dogs-grap...
Based on these I state that 3 GB of VRAM is required today to run the highest available settings at 1920 x 1080 resolution in some games.
unknownofprob said:
With your lovely examples of what you listed about the economy, you missed one crucial thing and that is this -The near future isn't expected to have double the capacity in a matter of 2 years, but a faster increase then normal over a longer period of time (and that time is 2 years).
These examples show planning for the useful life of the product or infrastructure. The time scales and rate of increase vary of course.
The high end cards being released 8 years ago had 768 MB of VRAM, so a required amount of 512 MB doesn't seem unreasonable.
Lets say that the 2 GB requirement for highest settings was reached two years ago with the release of Far Cry 3.
That is a multiple of x4 in 6 years, which means doubling every three years.
If this trend continues you would need 6 GB of VRAM in three years from now for the highest settings. This seems pretty reasonable to me.
It would be fair to say that in three years time these cards won't be fast enough to run the highest settings anyway, but the trend also suggests the VRAM requirements for the highest settings will reach 4 GB by the end of next year (3 years from the release of Far Cry 3). This to me makes 4 GB of VRAM a minimum for these high end cards, and Nvidia seems to have picked the same number.
I'm glad to have a discussion with you about this. There are a lot of ill-informed statements on the forums and if you can bring reasoning to some of those threads it may help someone. I'll be even happier if I convince you that buying a card with 3 GB of VRAM today and expecting it to run the highest game settings for the next two years is unlikely because this could save someone else disappointment.
You may need 6gb of vram in 3 years if the current trend continues, but the architecture will be old and the GPUs underpowered to even attempt highest settings on games of that generation. Its like saying a 480 and a 580 are still relevant today. Yeah, theyre pretty capable cards, but they struggle at highest settings.
unknownofprob said:
Only reasoning people have come to understand that Vram is more beneficial is by user reports, along with all the game recommendations that people believe the "GTX 660 3GB, 7870 3GB and GTX 760 4GB" are actually needed.These are your examples, not mine. I am no way using this to support my argument. Users will make many unfounded claims, and you will see plenty of this on these forums.
unknownofprob said:
Without a doubt later on (not in the next 2 years) these 4GB cards will come in handy, especially when 4k gaming becomes mainstream, but as for now goes, there isn't much logical and documented fact to do so. By the time you mention supposedly comes when these card will shine, they will already be outdated, and not sufficient enough but that isn't due to it's Vram amount. I am writing purely of 1920 x 1080 resolution.
My personal experience is that with HD texture mods and anti-aliasing enabled, Skyrim will exceed the 2 GB of VRAM on my card and suffer severe frame rate drops entering areas where new textures must be loaded. I can see the peak in VRAM corresponding to the drop and reducing the size of textures or anti-aliasing resolves the issue. In this resolved state I can see VRAM usage approaching but not reaching the 2 GB ceiling.
I base the Watch Dogs figure on a guide published by Nvidia for suggested game settings on their own cards:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/watch-dogs-grap...
Based on these I state that 3 GB of VRAM is required today to run the highest available settings at 1920 x 1080 resolution in some games.
unknownofprob said:
With your lovely examples of what you listed about the economy, you missed one crucial thing and that is this -The near future isn't expected to have double the capacity in a matter of 2 years, but a faster increase then normal over a longer period of time (and that time is 2 years).
These examples show planning for the useful life of the product or infrastructure. The time scales and rate of increase vary of course.
The high end cards being released 8 years ago had 768 MB of VRAM, so a required amount of 512 MB doesn't seem unreasonable.
Lets say that the 2 GB requirement for highest settings was reached two years ago with the release of Far Cry 3.
That is a multiple of x4 in 6 years, which means doubling every three years.
If this trend continues you would need 6 GB of VRAM in three years from now for the highest settings. This seems pretty reasonable to me.
It would be fair to say that in three years time these cards won't be fast enough to run the highest settings anyway, but the trend also suggests the VRAM requirements for the highest settings will reach 4 GB by the end of next year (3 years from the release of Far Cry 3). This to me makes 4 GB of VRAM a minimum for these high end cards, and Nvidia seems to have picked the same number.
I'm glad to have a discussion with you about this. There are a lot of ill-informed statements on the forums and if you can bring reasoning to some of those threads it may help someone. I'll be even happier if I convince you that buying a card with 3 GB of VRAM today and expecting it to run the highest game settings for the next two years is unlikely because this could save someone else disappointment.
Before the lifetime of the lifetime occurs, it will be severely outdated. It has taken 8 years for vram 512MB of memory usage to just under 2GB (1.8GB it was). Users are now expected Vram usage to double in just a matter of 2 years?
Only reasoning people have come to understand that Vram is more beneficial is by user reports, along with all the game recommendations that people believe the "GTX 660 3GB, 7870 3GB and GTX 760 4GB" are actually needed.
Without a doubt later on (not in the next 2 years) these 4GB cards will come in handy, especially when 4k gaming becomes mainstream, but as for now goes, there isn't much logical and documented fact to do so. By the time you mention supposedly comes when these card will shine, they will already be outdated, and not sufficient enough but that isn't due to it's Vram amount.
With your lovely examples of what you listed about the economy, you missed one crucial thing and that is this -
The near future isn't expected to have double the capacity in a matter of 2 years, but a faster increase then normal over a longer period of time (and that time is 2 years).
Only reasoning people have come to understand that Vram is more beneficial is by user reports, along with all the game recommendations that people believe the "GTX 660 3GB, 7870 3GB and GTX 760 4GB" are actually needed.
Without a doubt later on (not in the next 2 years) these 4GB cards will come in handy, especially when 4k gaming becomes mainstream, but as for now goes, there isn't much logical and documented fact to do so. By the time you mention supposedly comes when these card will shine, they will already be outdated, and not sufficient enough but that isn't due to it's Vram amount.
With your lovely examples of what you listed about the economy, you missed one crucial thing and that is this -
The near future isn't expected to have double the capacity in a matter of 2 years, but a faster increase then normal over a longer period of time (and that time is 2 years).
unknownofprob said:
"personally", "There is no benefit that I am aware". Lets just leave it at that then.This is really the crux of your issue. You are focussed on what is required today and not attempting to account for what you will need in the lifetime of a product.
We don't build a power station, a school, an airport, a bridge or a road based on what we need today. We build it based on what we expect will be required before it is due to be upgraded or replaced. Naturally you can't have definitive numbers for any of this, but you can make an educated guess.
When you write "without hardcore proof that it is even necessary as of yet", you illustrate the problem. It is not required yet, but it is reasonable to expect that it will be useful in the time you expect to keep the card.
Ahsankhaan
September 30, 2014 1:59:28 AM
Let me re-phrase then. With no inside knowledge of what is currently under development I am as confident as I could be that VRAM requirements will increase in the next two years and I wouldn't personally today buy a card with less than 4GB of VRAM with an expectation that it will support the highest texture settings for games released in the next two years.
I'm not supporting the argument of whatever article you are referring to that claims their current game is benefiting from having 4GB of VRAM. I haven't read it and I don't care. There is no benefit that I am aware of in having more than 3 GB in any currently available game at 1920x1080 resolution.
I'm not supporting the argument of whatever article you are referring to that claims their current game is benefiting from having 4GB of VRAM. I haven't read it and I don't care. There is no benefit that I am aware of in having more than 3 GB in any currently available game at 1920x1080 resolution.
See all answers