Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Why you should always get more vram - gtx 770 4gb
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why you should always get more vram - gtx 770 4gb - Page 8

post #71 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldfig0 View Post

I don't think anyone has said that in this thread. Certainly it's possible to construct situations where more than 2 GB of video RAM might be used. The context, however, can be found in the title of the thread ("why you should always get more vram"), in particular with respect to a GTX 770. In this scenario, the bottleneck will always be GPU performance rather than video RAM quantity except in the most contrived of situations.
.

What I have personally taken from this thread:

1. I should learn to read before entering a heated argument

2. Not everyone uses the same resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldfig0 View Post

You can do an experiment (this is with system RAM rather than video RAM as you can't remove video RAM easily; however it's perfectly analogous) by noting how much RAM Windows uses when you first start up your computer, removing some RAM (after the computer is turned off, of course), and seeing how much is used afterwards at startup. The amount used will be less, even though the only change made is the amount of RAM available. Programs use less RAM when you have less available.

Im actually curious to try this... This is something I had never began to think of.
iSeven
(16 items)
 
Big Red
(11 items)
 
Ultimate rig 2013
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k Gigabyte z77X-UD5H R9 290x HyperX Red 12 GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Caviar Blue 500GB SanDisk UltraPlus 240GB Corsair H100i Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
VG248QE VE248H x2 Ducky Shine Corsair 750w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT H230 White Razer Ouroborous SteelSeries QcK+ Xonar DG 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320 ASRock 970 extreme 4 XFX Radeon HD 6850 XMS3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Western Digital Blue Windows 7 x64 Acer 21 inch x3 G510 
PowerCaseMouse
Cooler master 750w None ATM G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8350 ASRock 990FX Extreme 9 Asus Radeon HD 7970 32 GB Kingston 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Force GT 240 none Hyper 212 Windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell 27 inch Razer blackwidow Silverstone Strider Switch 810 
Mouse
Razer Naga Epic 
  hide details  
Reply
iSeven
(16 items)
 
Big Red
(11 items)
 
Ultimate rig 2013
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3770k Gigabyte z77X-UD5H R9 290x HyperX Red 12 GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Caviar Blue 500GB SanDisk UltraPlus 240GB Corsair H100i Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
VG248QE VE248H x2 Ducky Shine Corsair 750w 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
NZXT H230 White Razer Ouroborous SteelSeries QcK+ Xonar DG 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320 ASRock 970 extreme 4 XFX Radeon HD 6850 XMS3 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Western Digital Blue Windows 7 x64 Acer 21 inch x3 G510 
PowerCaseMouse
Cooler master 750w None ATM G9x 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX 8350 ASRock 990FX Extreme 9 Asus Radeon HD 7970 32 GB Kingston 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Force GT 240 none Hyper 212 Windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Dell 27 inch Razer blackwidow Silverstone Strider Switch 810 
Mouse
Razer Naga Epic 
  hide details  
Reply
post #72 of 81
So change the title of this thread.
post #73 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Pistol View Post

That is the heart of this issue. 3GB+ vram is not for everyone. In fact, I would wager that for most people on these forums (like you said, probably a third or higher users have a monitor with a higher res than 1080P), 2GB of Vram is not only adequate, but it will actually never be fully saturated during the life of the card. The exceptions to this concern really only include extreme examples (such as modded Skyrim.)

That's part of the reason I don't like the title of this thread: Why you should always get more vram - gtx 770 4gb

People don't ALWAYS need that much vram. I have a hard time believing that games will start to saturate more than 2GB vram @ 1080P over the next several years. I could be completely wrong, but more than likely, GPU cores will run out of steam before the VRAM is saturated to the point that it degrades performance. This has been a recurring theme with video cards for many years, and for people to believe that may change in the next few years... is wild speculation at best.

Perhaps Crysis 3 is a good example for needing more than 2GB vram for 1080p, but then again, once you get to the point that you need more than 2GB vram, the framerate is already below a playable level for about 80% of gamers on this forum. In other words, the GPU core runs out of power first. There are literally 5 stock single GPUs from AMD and Nvidia that are immune to this issue at the moment.

GTX 780 -> 3GB @ 384-bit memory bus - 6Ghz
GTX 780 Ti -> 3GB @ 384-bit memory bus - 7Ghz
GTX Titan (black) -> 6GB @ 384-bit memory bus 6/7Ghz
R9 290 -> 4GB @ 512-bit memory bus - 5Ghz
R9 290X -> 4GB @ 512-bit memory bus - 5Ghz

Each of these cards have a very wide memory bus and fast memory speeds. That combined with the higher core and shader count of each GPU creates a very fast GPU at high resolutions.

This is what you should be looking at. Gaming @ 1440p and higher is best experienced on the cards listed above. A GTX 770 4GB will struggle on some newer titles @ 1440P... and you can forget about 4k on a 770 4GB. That would not be a fun experience.

I'm also a little bothered by the title of the thread, as if vram is a more important factor than the raw speed of the card itself

OP also believes that 770 4gb could be "smoother in future games" than a 690 due to the extra 2 gb of vram

I feel certain that any situation where a gtx690 cannot provide smooth fps, neither can a gtx770 4, or 20, or 100gb for that matter
post #74 of 81
Thread Starter 
Would a 690 with 1000 more mhz and 512 mb of ram would run games like a 2gb gtx 770?
post #75 of 81
What about two cards in SLI with only 2GB each?

This all seems like a trend to me. Last year when I bought my 660tis people said the 192mb bandwidth wasn't enough yet I blew their 680 and 780 benchmarks away.

About 6 months ago people were saying large quantities of VRAM (4+) was a gimmic. Now it's not enough.

What gives?!
post #76 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

What about two cards in SLI with only 2GB each?

This all seems like a trend to me. Last year when I bought my 660tis people said the 192mb bandwidth wasn't enough yet I blew their 680 and 780 benchmarks away.

About 6 months ago people were saying large quantities of VRAM (4+) was a gimmic. Now it's not enough.

What gives?!

Read the last few pages, arguments put for both. Personally I know where I stand smile.gif
post #77 of 81
Honestly this will probably be a Ford-Chevy argument until the end of time with firm stances on both sides, whether grounded in reality or not. All I know for sure is this: I tested a single Galaxy GTX 770 GC 4GB at the highest playable settings I could get in 5760x1080 across roughly a dozen games, including Skyrim with 56 mods loaded. I then swapped it out with a Galaxy GTX 770 GC 2GB, which is 100% identical aside from the extra ram, and there was no measurable loss in performance. That was pretty conclusive for me personally.

If there's a practical, real-world advantage to having an extra 2GB in a single 770, I sure wasn't able to find it despite going out of my way to do so. Granted one card did outperform the other at ludicrous settings and utterly unplayable frame rates, but for obvious reasons I wasn't all that stoked about using that as a selling point.
post #78 of 81
Thread Starter 
This from newest Wolfenstein game



'Graphics Options linked to VRAM Capacity - This game suffers from having its graphics options linked to VRAM capacity. On video cards with 3GB of VRAM, or more, the "Ultra" setting and optional customize graphics to maximum values are present. If you have a video card with 2GB of VRAM, "Ultra" is no longer there. We can imagine if you have less than that, it will decrease optional settings even more.'




So even if you have fast GPU you will have worse graphics than slower GPU with more vram.
post #79 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nugitx View Post

This from newest Wolfenstein game



'Graphics Options linked to VRAM Capacity - This game suffers from having its graphics options linked to VRAM capacity. On video cards with 3GB of VRAM, or more, the "Ultra" setting and optional customize graphics to maximum values are present. If you have a video card with 2GB of VRAM, "Ultra" is no longer there. We can imagine if you have less than that, it will decrease optional settings even more.'




So even if you have fast GPU you will have worse graphics than slower GPU with more vram.

Wolfenstein's graphics options are also quite frankly just weird. It gives you control over some really obscure settings (like Max PPF, whatever the hell that is) yet you can't independently adjust the most obvious settings like AA and AF. One can only hope patches open it up a bit at some point, and if not I imagine some creative person will find a way sorting out the silliness with an ini tweak or something.

On an interesting side note, I've heard some reviewers say there's strangely almost no visible difference between medium and ultra presets in this game. Haven't played it myself to be able to confirm, but either way I can't think of many other games with the same sort of arbitrary limitations on settings so I personally wouldn't make any purchase decisions around it.
post #80 of 81
It cost me what I normally spend for a bottle of wine at dinner to decide on the 4 vs the 2. ($40 difference in price). I had a nice White Reaper IPA instead and got the 4 @ $389 with rebate.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: NVIDIA
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › NVIDIA › Why you should always get more vram - gtx 770 4gb