• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Easy "New card" question. I hope.

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
R9 290 has 4GB of vram...

GtaV can use a bunch of ram at 1080p. At the settings we run the game (see gpu reviews), it says about 2.5GB. If everything is maxed, it can be over 4GB iirc...

As far as that passage, it manages the memory, but gets its queues from the game. Again, how would a driver know unless the game makes calls to it? If the game had nothing to do with it, wouldn't all games based off the same engine have a memory over allocation problem?? (They dont). It's a team effort there. ;)
 
I'm going with 4 GB of vram as the absolute minimum. I still don't see any reason to buy a card with 2 GB. The 4 GB 960s are still under $200 , and can be had for less than a lot of 2 GB cards. Considering the pricing , I don't know why the 2 GB cards even exist.
 
I'm going with 4 GB of vram as the absolute minimum. I still don't see any reason to buy a card with 2 GB. The 4 GB 960s are still under $200 , and can be had for less than a lot of 2 GB cards. Considering the pricing , I don't know why the 2 GB cards even exist.
Incase people don't want to play the new games or play at the highest settings to save a little money. I have not seen anyone complain that has a new 2GB card has anyone seen a complaint so I can see?

R9 290 has 4GB of vram...

GtaV can use a bunch of ram at 1080p. At the settings we run the game (see gpu reviews), it says about 2.5GB. If everything is maxed, it can be over 4GB iirc...

As far as that passage, it manages the memory, but gets its queues from the game. Again, how would a driver know unless the game makes calls to it? If the game had nothing to do with it, wouldn't all games based off the same engine have a memory over allocation problem?? (They dont). It's a team effort there. ;)

In the passage he said there is trouble with overcommitment and memory fragmentation, in Directx 12 game developers will have to handle vram.

You are just speculating that the game makes calls to the drivers for v ram. Do you have link where game and drivers work together for Vram?
 
Last edited:
I am speculating the application feeds the driver and API. THe driver controls it as your passage says "DirectX 11 memory management was typically a driver problem, and the drivers usually got it right – though as Baker noted in our conversation, even now they do sometimes fail when dealing with issues such as memory fragmentation. ". So its clear that the driver has something to do with it. Where does it get the memory from? The application (is what I am speculating).

FOund this though:
Among the features tied to WDDM 2.0 are DX12’s explicit memory management and dynamic resource indexing, both of which wouldn’t have been nearly as performant under WDDM 1.3. WDDM 2.0 is also responsible for some of the baser CPU efficiency optimizations in DX12, such as changes to how memory residency is handled and how DX12 applications can more explicitly control residence.

The overhauling of WDDM for 2.0 means that graphics drivers are impacted as well as the OS, and like Microsoft, NVIDIA and AMD have been preparing for WDDM 2.0 with updated graphics drivers. These drivers are still a work in progress, and as a result not all hardware support is enabled and not all bugs have been worked out.

People have complained about hitching here before and in some cases, it was because a lack of vRAM.
 
Last edited:
Haha, this thread cracks me up.

A year or so ago "2gb was overkill" :p


I dont see whats changed though, getting the best card for the budget is ALWAYS the solution. Everyone wants a 980 ti, but obviously not everyone has one. At best right now, the only real arguments are the r9 380 vs gtx 960 and r9 390 vs gtx 970. The rest have their place *shrug*
 
Haha, this thread cracks me up.

A year or so ago "2gb was overkill" :p
I want to live in your bubble where time travels so fast...first you thought the 770 has been out for 4+ years, now a mere year ago 2GB was overkill?!

Here is a thread for you to look at: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/718118-How-much-GDDR-do-I-need-to-run-my-game

Over 3 years ago the 2GB debate was raging on here. A year ago I wouldn't recommend a 2GB card for 1080p (unless their budget would not allow it), no way. Maybe others have, but those in the know, no. :)
 
Last edited:
a lot of the games can do well with a GTX 960 2GB 1080p Maxum settings like GTA V her is a video.

 
Last edited:
Regurgitating the same video really isn't helping your cause. :)

I tried GTAV on max settings on a GTX 960 when I reviewed it. It hitched like you wouldn't believe. It was short on horsepower and WAY short on VRAM. Now, when I was a little bit over (our settings use ~2.5GB) I found there to be an occasional hitch in the game. I am guessing that is the vram paging out as with 4GB+ cards, I didn't have that issue.

EDIT: He isn't using "maximum" settings anyway... I see MSAA is off for one thing... Vram use is only 2.4GB.. Crank it up and that skyrockets. ;)

Also, check out the video after that one where he tests the 4GB.
 
Last edited:
I'm going with 4 GB of vram as the absolute minimum. I still don't see any reason to buy a card with 2 GB. The 4 GB 960s are still under $200 , and can be had for less than a lot of 2 GB cards. Considering the pricing , I don't know why the 2 GB cards even exist.

I don't know if I would buy a 4 GiB card at this point. I've seen Dying Light nearly use up nearly all the VRAM on my 3 GiB GTX 780 -- and I do experience noticeable hitching in Dying Light. I know I'd like to see greater draw distances and higher quality textures in Fallout 4 so I'd aim for > 4 GiB. As others have noted here GTA V can already use more than 4 GiB of VRAM.

I know Nvidia's DSR increases VRAM requirements as well, but have no idea by how much.
 
4gb at 1080 is fine imo. There may be a few titles out there that will break it, but otherwise, it's fine for anow overwhelming majority.
 
Regurgitating the same video really isn't helping your cause. :)

I tried GTAV on max settings on a GTX 960 when I reviewed it. It hitched like you wouldn't believe. It was short on horsepower and WAY short on VRAM. Now, when I was a little bit over (our settings use ~2.5GB) I found there to be an occasional hitch in the game. I am guessing that is the vram paging out as with 4GB+ cards, I didn't have that issue.

EDIT: He isn't using "maximum" settings anyway... I see MSAA is off for one thing... Vram use is only 2.4GB.. Crank it up and that skyrockets. ;)

Also, check out the video after that one where he tests the 4GB.

I don't know if I would buy a 4 GiB card at this point. I've seen Dying Light nearly use up nearly all the VRAM on my 3 GiB GTX 780 -- and I do experience noticeable hitching in Dying Light. I know I'd like to see greater draw distances and higher quality textures in Fallout 4 so I'd aim for > 4 GiB. As others have noted here GTA V can already use more than 4 GiB of VRAM.

I know Nvidia's DSR increases VRAM requirements as well, but have no idea by how much.

Must be something wrong with both your setups because I have two videos where a GTX 960 2GB plays fine with GTA V, Dying Light

EarthDog you know perfectly well you can not run those games on AA Maximum do to the lack of power and vram they can just barley make 60 FPS that is why they are 2GB Nividia knows what there doing, you said the reviews for GTA V are 2.5 that is 500MB more than that video ran just fine.

Dying Light video
 
Last edited:
Lol, nothing wrong with my setups wingy...even at our tested settings there was an occasional hitch on screen. This hitch was due to vram swapping with system ram.

I'm not going to sit here and go I circles with you.

The end game is 2gb is not enough for many games at 1080p. In some titles your gaming experience with suffer due to eclipsing the amount that of vram on the card. This suffering will be more in some, less in others.

Cheers. :)
 
Good link. We can see at 1080p there are multiple games that breach 2GB with AA (who isn't using AA at 1080? Looks terrible without it). A title or so sniffs/breaks 3GB even. Sure turn down settings, but, if I wanted to have no AA and console like graphics, I would have bought a on sole in the first place. ;)
 
I want to live in your bubble where time travels so fast...first you thought the 770 has been out for 4+ years, now a mere year ago 2GB was overkill?!

Here is a thread for you to look at: http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/718118-How-much-GDDR-do-I-need-to-run-my-game

Over 3 years ago the 2GB debate was raging on here. A year ago I wouldn't recommend a 2GB card for 1080p (unless their budget would not allow it), no way. Maybe others have, but those in the know, no. :)

Time flies when you're having fun. Haha, I don't really keep a time table, I just recall seeing a thread about vram not too horribly long ago, where 2gb was "all you will need".
 
Id consider it the minimum today for 1080p gaming. But in some titles it can be a detriment to your gaming experience.
 
Back