FEATURED How much GDDR do I need to run my game?

[EarthDog]

Not sure if that is a vram issue or driver thing. Of course, some FPS drops come naturally with enabling AA. Being a beta game, I wouldn't worry about it much until it actually releases. With the 780 stock (reference clocks, note), all Ultra settings (1440p or course) I was around low 50's to 70's throughout. When I had vsync enabled, it held pretty well at 60 FPS with occasional drops in heavy fire fights.

 

[Proxish]

Oh, I wasn't complaining, I was quite happy with 50-70fps and the AA off, you can't really tell at 1440p anyway, or at least, I can't see a visual increase worth the 10-20fps drop.

 

[rescuetoaster]

Oh, that's something to mention, I tried running Battlefield 4 back in beta maxed out and was getting 40-70fps. With no AA, I was gettting 60-80fps steady.

Just a heads up, I'm fairly certain DICE said that the ultra settings don't do anything at the moment. It was the same story with the BF3 beta.
If I were you, I'd sell your 690 and get a 290x.

 

[magellan]

Does anyone here think that the new consoles coming out will push up the VRAM requirements for games? I believe the Xbone has 2 GiB of dedicated VRAM. I wonder if the PS3 can configure how much of its 8GiB of GDDR5 is dedicated to VRAM on the fly.

 

[funsoul]

Memory requirements are going up regardless of the consoles.

As developers make use of newer (or even current) features and hardware, games will continue to get more demanding. In addition to game improvements, I also base this opinion on; availability of cheaper higher res monitors (more ppl with higher rez and/or multi-monitor configs), users increasingly demanding for visuals, availability of 4k texture packs and other mods, and, (pending introduction of) consumer-level 4k hardware. I expect 3 or 4GB+ will be the 'norm' by late next year. Imho, of course

 

[Badbonji]

Is it just me or do the average values in the first graph look a little high compared to the raw data, or have you included other results not shown? I calculated the average to be around 1400 for 1920x1080 and around 2300-2400 for the 5760x1080 resolutions from your graphs.

EDIT: I see you have the raw data values too showing the lower values than the one in your graph

 

[funsoul]

Is it just me or do the average values in the first graph look a little high compared to the raw data, or have you included other results not shown? I calculated the average to be around 1400 for 1920x1080 and around 2300-2400 for the 5760x1080 resolutions from your graphs.

EDIT: I see you have the raw data values too showing the lower values than the one in your graph

Wow! Thanks Badbonji!

Will try to update the thread and correct the chart(s) this weekend.

 

[magellan]

There are already games that use 2.7 GiB at 1920 x 1080. I've personally seen one level in Crysis 2 that used more than 2 GiB at 1600 x 1200 (at least according to GPUz). I'm inclined to think buying a video card w/3GiB of VRAM isn't a good idea.

I just checked the level in Crysis 2 that takes more than 2GiB of VRAM, it was Out of the Ashes. According
to GPUz it peaked at a usage of 2.1 GiB, and that's at my low resolution of 1600x1200.

 

[funsoul]

There are already games that use 2.7 GiB at 1920 x 1080. I've personally seen one level in Crysis 2 that used more than 2 GiB at 1600 x 1200 (at least according to GPUz). I'm inclined to think buying a video card w/3GiB of VRAM isn't a good idea.

Yeah...I'm still recommending 3GB for 1080p, 3/4 for 1440p and 4+ for anything larger.

 

[GatorChamp]

I have not read every post on here so I'm not sure if you mentioned this, but are you still trying to add to the list? I also think it might be a good idea to add in 1440 as the Korean screen have become popular. I was playing Tomb Raider last night and maxed out at 1440 it was eating up almost 2.6gb of vrm. I'd be happy to provide some info at the 1440p rez. I think this chart is some of the most helpful information I have ever read. People are often REALLY REALLY uninformed about the amount of memory need. People are always talking about future proofing their systems (if one can do such a thing) and I think this would help.

 

[Silver_Pharaoh]

I can't even run any of these resolutions!

Monitor supports 1280X1024 max.

 

[funsoul]

I can't even run any of these resolutions!

Monitor supports 1280X1024 max.

Upside to that is you can get a great card for under $50

 

[Firas]

U left out fsx :-C

 

[funsoul]

Whenever I get the time to do some more game testing, will add this one (there's a free trial version).

 

[Firas]

Whenever I get the time to do some more game testing, will add this one (there's a free trial version).

i can help
pm me if u like

 

[magellan]

Playing Call of Duty Ghosts GPUz indicated a usage of 1972 MiB (dedicated) and 375 MiB (dynamic). This on my 2 GiB 6970. I'm assuming dynamic memory is system memory.

If I had a 3 GiB video card would GPUz have indicated all used memory being allocated from the dedicated (VRAM) pool?

 

[funsoul]

hi magellan!

Yeah...most games seem to use what's available based on total. Since you've already banged up at 1972MB it's pretty safe to say that the game would use significantly more if it was available.

 

[GTXJackBauer]

Awesome thread! Sub'd!

Yeah...I'm still recommending 3GB for 1080p, 3/4 for 1440p and 4+ for anything larger.

I don't know why but I get confused when it comes to the newer higher resolutions. I don't know how to explain my confusion (nothing new there) but how would a display setting of 5760x1080p differ from say the 1440p and higher single displays? Would the single 1440p use more Vram than the 1080p in surround? I would assume a 1440p or higher in surround will demand more than its lesser, obviously.

I am looking at the speculated GTX 790 10GB @ 5760x1080 purposes and to be able to have a good 3+ years without running into Vram issues. (Hoping) I know its 5GB as the other half is mirrored.

I'd wait for Maxwell but looking at the time table of the previous lines and since the Ti just came out, I could see the high end of Maxwell not coming out till a year around this time if not longer. And rumors have it that it won't be on the 20nm. Maybe another 680 to 780/780Ti style of plans? I would hate to be part of all that again. Hense why I am aiming for the rumored 790 and ending it there finally. Than focus on my main components. I know I will be bottlenecking for sometime.

 

[funsoul]

Hi GTXJackBauer!

1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels (1080p)
2560x1440= 3,692,160 pixels
4096x2160= 8,847,360 pixels (4K)
5760x1080= 6,220,800 pixels
7680x1440= 11,059,200 pixels
12,228x2160= 26,542,080 pixels

Resolution and vram are definitely positively correlated but I'm not sure of the exact 'formula' for the relationship(resolution, 'gamecode' and ?).

As far as 'will 5GB be enough for 5 years, have to keep in mind the gamecode factor (which is hugely significant). True, developers are getting better at coding to make more efficient use of hardware. At the same time, though...that same community will continue to try to push the eye candy envelope. Also...3 years in technology is a-g-e-s.

That said, I'd like to believe that 5GB of vram, in most cases, would be sufficient over the next 3 years at 5760x1080 or less (I've haven't seen or tested a 4k display..but I sure would love to! hehe). I say 'in most cases' to cya as well as a guess that there's sure to be a big title (or 2) in 2-3 years that may push the vram usage even higher (and we're currently already at, near or above 3GB for a number of existing titles). I'd reckon that 5GB should be plenty for the next 2 years if you don't move to 4K.

Hope that helps

 

[vdgamer]

I have seen over 2100mb vram usage in AC4 maxed out @1080p, I don't remember the exact value, but it was around 2100-2300, so I would say 3GB is minimum if you're looking to max out games at 1080p and up.