# How long till 1GB of vram is not enough?



## 1nf3rn0x (Jun 10, 2012)

With games being more advanced and graphics getting better, when do you guys think that 1GB of vram won't be enough? Now it seems that 8GB of ram is normal, yet only a couple years ago 4GB of ram was overkill.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Jun 10, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> With games being more advanced and graphics getting better, when do you guys think that 1GB of vram won't be enough?



About a year or two ago. It all depends on resolution... bigger resolution means more memory... and with modern games 1080p is enough to go well over 1gb.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jun 10, 2012)

ill give it 9 months. some of them are already over 1gb but in a year most of them will be over 1


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 10, 2012)

There will be 1GB of vram again even after a year.
I expect 7750 and 7770 in the new series 8xxx will have again 1GB of vram.
I think now 4GB is normal. When i added a 4Gig to my system it was a little faster.
Now i have 6gigs.


----------



## qubit (Jun 10, 2012)

As the others have said, you can max it out today without too much effort. Even the 1.5GB in my GTX 580 isn't much harder to max out. No consumer gaiming card has more than 4GB of discretely addressable vram to my knowledge.


----------



## Jetster (Jun 10, 2012)

We're there


----------



## Black Panther (Jun 10, 2012)

It already isn't enough to play Skyrim at 2560x1440 on ultra.
After I fast travel it takes 2 to 3 seconds for my fps to get back to a normal 40-60 from 14.


----------



## Protagonist (Jun 10, 2012)

Its not enough already, with games like Max Payne 3 1GB is not enough even at 1366x768 with all settings enabled plus MSAA 1GB is not enough at all


----------



## 1nf3rn0x (Jun 10, 2012)

st.bone said:


> Its not enough already, with games like Max Payne 3 1GB is not enough even at 1366x768 with all settings enabled plus MSAA 1GB is not enough at all



  Even at that res?


----------



## AlienIsGOD (Jun 10, 2012)

Aleksander Dishnica said:


> I think now 4GB is normal. When i added a 4Gig to my system it was a little faster.
> Now i have 6gigs.



His question was about Vram not system ram.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 10, 2012)

I find this thread a bit confusing as it does sound like the OP is talking about physical RAM rather than VRAM based on 4GB two years ago indeed being overkill and 8GB being the norm.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 10, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> With games being more advanced and graphics getting better, when do you guys think that 1GB of vram won't be enough? Now it seems that 8GB of ram is normal, yet only a couple years ago 4GB of ram was overkill.



when you get a monitor with res higher than 1080p.



AA kicks up the FPS massively, so you can always run with 0x or 2xFSAA and get away with 1GB for a bit longer. those people going over 1GB these days are either running multi monitor, higher than 1080p, or massive amounts of AA.

or all of the above, i guess.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jun 10, 2012)

Well the jump in system RAM has really just happened because it has been relatively cheap to buy, the majority of people are now on 64 bit OS's so easy/possible to use more than 4GB of RAM.

 As for VRAM I think 2GB has become the new "standard" tho I have been monitoring my new 7970 and Max Payne and BF3 for example will easily use over 1GB in most cases even something full on DX11 like DiRT Showdown for example, even maxed out isn't using 1GB.

 Depends on the game/engine/mods/settings to push it over the 1GB mark. So you "can" use over 1GB but it is really user dependant.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 10, 2012)

Modern day video drivers will address system memory as video memory if physical vram gets all used up. I would imagine that using faster system memory may mitigate the slowdown due to using more than what you have. I haven't run into many slow downs with my 6870s in crossfire or even one by itself. The real solution would just be to get a better video card, but honestly for a powerful system 1gb should be enough for 1080p.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 10, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Modern day video drivers will address system memory as video memory if physical vram gets all used up. I would imagine that using faster system memory may mitigate the slowdown due to using more than what you have. I haven't run into many slow downs with my 6870s in crossfire or even one by itself. The real solution would just be to get a better video card, but honestly for a powerful system 1gb should be enough for 1080p.



with my crossfire i've ran into the odd game (skyrim with HD texture pack, for one) where say, 2xaa got me 60+ FPS, where 8x would be all over the place and 10-15FPS.

the difference IMO, is because i went over VGA ram and into system ram.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 10, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Modern day video drivers will address system memory as video memory if physical vram gets all used up.






Mussels said:


> the difference IMO, is because i went over VGA ram and into system ram.



Yes, indeed what the OP forgets is Vram isn't that important. Your PC never runs out of memory typically it will borrow from the main memory which should* have enough in plentiful supply. In many cases where Vram is an issue is when there isnt enough system ram available, thus forcing a very slow HDD to compensate. The thread should really be "How long till 4GBs of main memory is not enough".


----------



## GSquadron (Jun 10, 2012)

@alien
Never seen a vram of 8gigs


----------



## radrok (Jun 10, 2012)

It depends on the resolution, for example 2GB isn't enough anymore for me, 8x AA and I go over 2GB on Skyrim.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Jun 10, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> About a year or two ago. It all depends on resolution... bigger resolution means more memory... and with modern games 1080p is enough to go well over 1gb.



This is pretty much the best answer yet. Resolution is very key but so is using certain rendering features like true anti-aliasing. For the record,  I use like 1450MB in BF3 all Ultra except shadows and 4x MSAA, at 1200P.



Widjaja said:


> I find this thread a bit confusing as it does sound like the OP is talking about physical RAM rather than VRAM based on 4GB two years ago indeed being overkill and 8GB being the norm.



You have a point.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 10, 2012)

I think he is using memory as a comparison, let me try and re-word what the OP is trying to say.



> With games becoming more advanced and graphics software becoming more demanding, when do you guys think that 1GB of vram won't be enough?



Just forget the physical memory part.  I think he is trying to use physical memory as an example of normal and overkill. Maybe some like.

Old is to new as 4gb of ram is to 8gb of ram as 1gb of vram is to 2gb of vram. I think he is trying to say that having 8gb of ram used to be overkill and now it is the norm, where 1gb used to be all the rage and now 2gb is the thing to have.

I hope that made sense.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Jun 10, 2012)

I've easily exceeded 1GB in SS3:BF3, Skyrim and really any newer game at 1080p and high detail on my 6950 2GB. I think Metro 2033 used 1.3GB and Serious Sam 3 used 1.5GB.


----------



## DarkVision (Jun 10, 2012)

i have a 580 gtx. however much it came with seems more than adequate at 1080p.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 10, 2012)

DarkVision said:


> i have a 580 gtx. however much it came with seems more than adequate at 1080p.



Do you have 3gb or 1.5gb on your GTX 580?


----------



## DarkVision (Jun 10, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Do you have 3gb or 1.5gb on your GTX 580?



i dunno. its an MSI brand


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 10, 2012)

download GPU-Z from here and that should tell you if you have 1536 MB (1.5 GB)  or 3072 MB (3 GB) Model


----------



## qubit (Jun 10, 2012)

DarkVision said:


> i dunno. its an MSI brand





eidairaman1 said:


> download GPU-Z from here and that should tell you if you have 1536 MB (1.5 GB)  or 3072 MB (3 GB) Model



The driver control panel also tells you - click on System Information at the bottom left of the window.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 11, 2012)

Its a bit frustrating - I can fill up 1GB with Skyrim on Ultra @ 1680x1050.  The GTX 460 @ 875 Mhz has the power to run that setting and rez, its the VRAM filling up after ten minutes or so that leads to stutter.  Prior to that its running between 45-60 FPS.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 11, 2012)

Honestly, my rig doesn't slow down too much for very long if I exceed 1gb. It may have something to do with the quad-channel main memory though, since that's a lot of bandwidth to swap video memory and two full 16x PCI-E channels for each video card. Not to say it won't slow down, but I think it doesn't slow down as much as other machines running with dual-channel setups and PCI-E bandwidth impacts loading speeds to the video card more than anything else. So I guess the faster you can swap that memory out, the less impact you will notice from it. I can't complain too much.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 11, 2012)

Jeffredo said:


> Its a bit frustrating - I can fill up 1GB with Skyrim on Ultra @ 1680x1050.  The GTX 460 @ 875 Mhz has the power to run that setting and rez, its the VRAM filling up after ten minutes or so that leads to stutter.  Prior to that its running between 45-60 FPS.



You are simply exceeding your main physical ram (8GB) is my bet and its probably causing your HDD to compensate.  

Play Skyrim and when it stutters, press CTRL + ALT + DEL and do a print screen of your resources and show me. I bet it's almost exceeding 8GB.


----------



## n-ster (Jun 11, 2012)

for 2560x1440, def not enough


----------



## Disparia (Jun 11, 2012)

Strictly speaking I don't _need_ more than 1GB for gaming at 1920x1200, but could certainly take advantage of more.

Next card will be 2GB or greater.


----------



## blibba (Jun 11, 2012)

It depends on the game. My 9800GTX+ rig has 512MB GDDR3, and has yet to run into any problems at 1440*900 4xAA or 2048*1152 2*AA. That includes Skyrim (+texture patch), SCII, Crysis and Metro 2033, though admittedly not at maxed out settings.


----------



## D007 (Jun 11, 2012)

I say now.. Actually right now is that time.. Games are exceeding 1 gb useage on a fairly regular basis..


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 11, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> You are simply exceeding your main physical ram (8GB) is my bet and its probably causing your HDD to compensate.
> 
> Play Skyrim and when it stutters, press CTRL + ALT + DEL and do a print screen of your resources and show me. I bet it's almost exceeding 8GB.



I'll give it a try next time I play, but I can use the console command "PCB" (purge cell buffer) and it instantly smooths out.  I really doubt I'm exceeding 8GB of system RAM.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 11, 2012)

Jeffredo said:


> I'll give it a try next time I play, but I can use the console command "PCB" (purge cell buffer) and it instantly smooths out.  I really doubt I'm exceeding 8GB of system RAM.



you wont be. the games 32 bit so it CANT go over 4GB.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jun 11, 2012)

As I discovered today running Skyrim even without the texture patch(I'm behind a little and am downloading it now) On Ultra Skyrim is definitely using over 1GB of VRAM unmodded.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 11, 2012)

Mussels said:


> you wont be. the games 32 bit so it CANT go over 4GB.



Not Skyrim but overall system resource, including Skyrim. 

Windows 7 is using 3.71GB sitting here right now.If load up any game I would be almost touching 8GB total.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 11, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Not Skyrim but overall system resource, including Skyrim.
> 
> Windows 7 is using 3.71GB sitting here right now.If load up any game I would be almost touching 8GB total.



sounds like a memory leak somewhere, less if the coding is designed to expand as more memory is in the system...


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 11, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> sounds like a memory leak somewhere, less if the coding is designed to expand as more memory is in the system...



Nah, no memory leak. I keep only the essential background processes alive. It's just the more memory you have the more Windows caches. Remember i've got 16GB total and hard disk page filing is disabled. My feeling is a lot of you guys whom have 4GB and 8GB are running into trouble with Skyrim is because windows is always writing to the HDD.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 11, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Nah, no memory leak. I keep only the essential background processes alive. It's just the more memory you have the more Windows caches. Remember i've got 16GB total and hard disk page filing is diasbled. My feeling is a lot of you guys whom have 4GB and 8GB are running into trouble with Skyrim is because windows is always writing to the HDD.



ya i used to do that in XP to reduce the footprint for gaming, but 7 processes are a lil more unpredictable


----------



## repman244 (Jun 11, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Not Skyrim but overall system resource, including Skyrim.
> 
> Windows 7 is using 3.71GB sitting here right now.If load up any game I would be almost touching 8GB total.



3.7GB   Both my desktop and my laptop have 8GB of RAM and usually sit around 1.8GB of usage...


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 11, 2012)

using 2.8GB out of 8GB sitting mostly idle on my work pc right now. Biggest thing running is internet explorer.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 11, 2012)

repman244 said:


> 3.7GB   Both my desktop and my laptop have 8GB of RAM and usually sit around 1.8GB of usage...





yogurt_21 said:


> using 2.8GB out of 8GB sitting mostly idle on my work pc right now. Biggest thing running is internet explorer.





You've got lesss memory to cache, so windows simply doesn't cache as much.

lol. It wasnt after a fresh boot. At the time I said it my computer was running for 24+ hours and I had about a few internet explorer windows open.  I use the CMD > fsutil behavior set memoryusage option to further increase the amount of data cached into RAM. 


http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/increase-the-filesystem-memory-cache-size-in-vista/


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 11, 2012)

When does the next XBOX come out? - bout that long.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 11, 2012)

Here's the stats with vanilla Skyrim on Ultra @ 1680x1050.  After about 30 minutes (and going through a lot of doors in Riften which finally started the stuttering until the game could clear its buffer):

Idle:   Memory committed:  1671 MB
Load: Memory committed : 4769 MB

GPU Memory used: 1016 MB

I knew I wasn't maxing my system memory (or even coming remotely close).


----------



## repman244 (Jun 11, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> You've got lesss memory to cache, so windows simply doesn't cache as much.
> 
> lol. It wasnt after a fresh boot. At the time I said it my computer was running for 24+ hours and I had about a few internet explorer windows open.  I use the CMD > fsutil behavior set memoryusage option to further increase the amount of data cached into RAM.
> 
> ...



And I wasn't talking about a fresh boot as well, my laptop is now running for almost 6 days. I didn't know about caching so that explains the higher usage.
However isn't it a bit "dangerous" to run with no page file?


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 11, 2012)

Jeffredo said:


> Here's the stats with vanilla Skyrim on Ultra @ 1680x1050.  After about 30 minutes (and going through a lot of doors in Riften which finally started the stuttering until the game could clear its buffer):
> 
> Idle:   Memory committed:  1671 MB
> Load: Memory committed : 4769 MB
> ...




^ Which software are you using to monitor the game?



repman244 said:


> However isn't it a bit "dangerous" to run with no page file?




Not at all. Never had any adverse affects. Page file decreases the overall performance, if you've got enough ram there is no benefit having it enabled.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 12, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> Not at all. Never had any adverse affects. Page file decreases the overall performance, if you've got enough ram there is no benefit having it enabled.



I have the paging file disabled with 16gb of memory and it's working out pretty well. Just have to make sure not to use up all 16gb and if I do, that's just an excuse to add another 16gb to the 4 slots I'm not already using.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jun 12, 2012)

Jeffredo said:


> Its a bit frustrating - I can fill up 1GB with Skyrim on Ultra @ 1680x1050.  The GTX 460 @ 875 Mhz has the power to run that setting and rez, its the VRAM filling up after ten minutes or so that leads to stutter.  Prior to that its running between 45-60 FPS.



When that happens to me I just ALT+TAB out to desktop and then into the game again and it fixes it. Takes 2 seconds. It doesn't happen every 10 minutes to me tho, only every once in a while. Same card, lower clocks here.

I doubt it's related to low memory amount anyway, rather a memory leak and basically bad code. Bethsoft as never been good at that.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 12, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> When that happens to me I just ALT+TAB out to desktop and then into the game again and it fixes it. Takes 2 seconds. It doesn't happen every 10 minutes to me tho, only every once in a while. Same card, lower clocks here.
> 
> I doubt it's related to low memory amount anyway, rather a memory leak and basically bad code. Bethsoft as never been good at that.



Half of the reason I replaced my Phenom II 940 is because the memory controller was a little lacking. It had plenty of CPU horse power but some games were slowing down and overclocking memory was the only thing that made some games run faster (like SC2.)


----------



## CaptainFailcon (Jun 12, 2012)

pretty much right-now if you are serious about gaming


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 12, 2012)

its resolution dependent aswell


----------



## Mussels (Jun 12, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> You've got lesss memory to cache, so windows simply doesn't cache as much.
> 
> lol. It wasnt after a fresh boot. At the time I said it my computer was running for 24+ hours and I had about a few internet explorer windows open.  I use the CMD > fsutil behavior set memoryusage option to further increase the amount of data cached into RAM.
> 
> ...



the cache empties itself when games or programs need it. you're reaching at straws to explain the behaviour, when we all know its Vram that we run out of.


----------



## Jeffredo (Jun 12, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> ^ Which software are you using to monitor the game?



HWiNFO64.


----------



## Phusius (Jun 21, 2012)

Very interesting thread, I enjoyed reading it.  I have 16gb of ram and 2gb of vram, never made any changes or anything and never had an issue.  I feel it is best when building a new system to cushion your ram and vram.  I am not as tech savvy as you guys, but I have seen many many games use 1000-1800mb of vram, MW3 even used 1400mb of vram one time and that game is chump change to graphics cards.  I have been told Nvidia vram is done differently though which is why 1.2 gb is plenty for Nvidia cards... I dunno, heh.  I am happy with my current setup, so whatevs.


----------



## blibba (Jun 21, 2012)

CaptainFailcon said:


> pretty much right-now if you are serious about gaming



Dafuq?

"Pretty much right now if you are serious about playing the latest titles at very high graphical settings", perhaps. You can be very serious about gaming and a hardcore gamer and not even own a title from the last couple of years, let alone play it on max. As I said above, I've yet to find a game in which my 512MB 9800GTX+ is a competitive disadvantage at 2048*1152, moderate settings.


----------



## claylomax (Jun 21, 2012)

1 GB VRAM has not been enough for me since I got my 1900x1200 monitor three years ago, Clear Sky and Crysis with 4xAA use 1500mb or VRAM; some people don't get that it depends on the resolution. I still have my HD4870 512MB and play most of the latest games maxed out, but using an old monitor (1280x1024).


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 21, 2012)

Mussels said:


> the cache empties itself when games or programs need it. you're reaching at straws to explain the behaviour, when we all know its Vram that we run out of.



System memory caching doesn't impact GPU vram unless you're swapping like crazy, which in that case you have other issues. Also the faster your memory is, the faster your rig can swap video memory to system memory and back again will determine how badly running out of vram will impact performance. Honestly, performance is pretty good with my 1gb 6870s in crossfire. Even though I use more than what the cards have I rarely notice performance drops.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> System memory caching doesn't impact GPU vram unless you're swapping like crazy, which in that case you have other issues. Also the faster your memory is, the faster your rig can swap video memory to system memory and back again will determine how badly running out of vram will impact performance. Honestly, performance is pretty good with my 1gb 6870s in crossfire. Even though I use more than what the cards have I rarely notice performance drops.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=47542&stc=1&d=1340276258



system memory is massively slower than GPU ram. thats why the FPS drops so sharply when you run out and it swaps.


you arent noticing performance drops because you arent passing 1GB - but when you do, it becomes instantly unplayable.


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 21, 2012)

Mussels said:


> you arent noticing performance drops because you arent passing 1GB - but when you do, it becomes instantly unplayable.



MSI Afterburner disagrees with you and I do notice a minor slowdown but it speeds up instantly when it does. Also system memory being vastly slower depends on the implementation. For example, my 3820 running quad-channel DDR3-2333 will move data a lot faster than your 1090T at 1600 in dual-channel mode. Depending on how Sandra measures memory bandwidth, the aggregate memory performance of my rig is about 46.9Gb/s, which places it between 1/2 and 1/3 of the bandwidth that the 6870s have available. Even with that said, when push comes to shove, PCI-E bandwidth is really the bottleneck, not system memory when swapping video to system memory and back.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2012)

well yes, you're going to see a large performance difference to what i am, with our ram speed differences. that parts definitely true, and why we have different opinions on this.

when i go over the 1GB, thats it - slideshow.


----------



## radrok (Jun 21, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> MSI Afterburner disagrees with you and I do notice a minor slowdown but it speeds up instantly when it does. Also system memory being vastly slower depends on the implementation. For example, my 3820 running quad-channel DDR3-2333 will move data a lot faster than your 1090T at 1600 in dual-channel mode. Depending on how Sandra measures memory bandwidth, the aggregate memory performance of my rig is about 46.9Gb/s, which places it between 1/2 and 1/3 of the bandwidth that the 6870s have available. Even with that said, when push comes to shove, PCI-E bandwidth is really the bottleneck, not system memory when swapping video to system memory and back.



Then I shall try to play Skyrim on my 3930k system, I'm still using the 1366 box to play games.

I'll let you know mate


----------



## INSTG8R (Jun 21, 2012)

Having just gotten a 7970 and trying to find things to push it with. I have seen Skyrim with the official DLC High res textures touch 1800+MB. I need to fire up Metro 2033 maxed out and see how that one does, not sure how "heavy" it really is but it is a likely suspect to suck up VRAM. Or now that I think about it The Witcher 2 would be another prime candidate.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think 1GB of vram is already not enough Ive noticed I have been getting some crash when I hit 1GB from my cards. I honestly think any mid high-high end card should have 3GB vram.


----------



## micropage7 (Jun 21, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> I think 1GB of vram is already not enough Ive noticed I have been getting some crash when I hit 1GB from my cards. I honestly think any mid high-high end card should have 3GB vram.



return to what you need
for just all around 1 gig is enough
but if you do AA, run big resolution or multi monitors and serious gaming it wont be enough


----------



## blibba (Jun 21, 2012)

claylomax said:


> 1 GB VRAM has not been enough for me since I got my 1900x1200 monitor three years ago, Clear Sky and Crysis with 4xAA use 1500mb or VRAM; some people don't get that it depends on the resolution. I still have my HD4870 512MB and play most of the latest games maxed out, but using an old monitor (1280x1024).



Do you really need 4xAA? Also, I've seen Crysis report 1700MB VRAM usage on 512MB cards with no noticeable FPS issues.



micropage7 said:


> serious gaming it wont be enough



see



blibba said:


> You can be very serious about gaming and a hardcore gamer and not even own a title from the last couple of years, let alone play it on max. As I said above, I've yet to find a game in which my 512MB 9800GTX+ is a competitive disadvantage at 2048*1152, moderate settings.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 21, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> I think 1GB of vram is already not enough Ive noticed I have been getting some crash when I hit 1GB from my cards. I honestly think any mid high-high end card should have 3GB vram.



It isn't vram related, your PC shouldn't be crashing at all.


----------



## Phusius (Jun 21, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Having just gotten a 7970 and trying to find things to push it with. I have seen Skyrim with the official DLC High res textures touch 1800+MB. I need to fire up Metro 2033 maxed out and see how that one does, not sure how "heavy" it really is but it is a likely suspect to suck up VRAM. Or now that I think about it The Witcher 2 would be another prime candidate.



Before total war shogun 2 last huge patch, shogun 2 used 2600+ vram on a 7970 in just 1080p...  hence the patch.  since not many could run that on max.


----------



## Peter1986C (Jun 21, 2012)

It really depends. My HD 4850 with 512 MiB VRAM is enough at 1280x1024 with 2-4x AA, triliniair-4x AF (game dependent) and High settings (without tess etc. obviously). I never use all 4 GiB of RAM when gaming.


----------



## Delta6326 (Jun 22, 2012)

Dent1 said:


> It isn't vram related, your PC shouldn't be crashing at all.



My PC  isn't crashing just the game when it hits 1GB VRAM.


----------



## claylomax (Jun 22, 2012)

blibba said:


> Do you really need 4xAA?



Yes, I hate jaggies; I've become very picky over the years.


----------



## Black Panther (Jun 22, 2012)

It all depends on:

1) monitor resolution
2) textures used (esp if you use textured mods)
3) AA
4) ini file modifications

My 5970 runs vanilla Skyrim excellently (50+ fps), at 2560x1440 as long as it's without texture mods, with no AA and no ini file changes.

Add 4xAA to that and fps drops into the 20's.
Same if I install hi-resolution texture mods.
And if I modify the ini file to get ugridstoload at 5 (putting it simply it's more detail in the distance) the fps drops between 8 and 15!

And that was if I try each of the above separately. I guess were I to try 4xAA, hi-res mods and ugridstoload at 5 or 7 all at the same time I'd get one frame per _minute_!


----------



## claylomax (Jun 22, 2012)

Black Panther said:


> It all depends on:
> 
> 1) monitor resolution
> 2) textures used (esp if you use textured mods)
> ...



Agree.


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 25, 2012)

AT completely max settings(AA included at 16x), Metro 2033 is by far less taxing on my crossfire 5850 setup than Crysis Warhead at 1080p at 4x AA.  

Beautiful game, none the less.  It seems they efficiently programmed it.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

rectifryer said:


> AT completely max settings(AA included at 16x), Metro 2033 is by far less taxing on my crossfire 5850 setup than Crysis Warhead at 1080p at 4x AA.
> 
> Beautiful game, none the less.  It seems they efficiently programmed it.



or maybe that its not DX9?


----------



## rectifryer (Jun 25, 2012)

Mussels said:


> or maybe that its not DX9?



Is dx10 and 11 supposed to be more efficient?  I thought no current processor actually fully supports dx11?  I dont know, metro is set to dx11 and I do run crysis w/ dx9.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

rectifryer said:


> Is dx10 and 11 supposed to be more efficient?  I thought no current processor actually fully supports dx11?  I dont know, metro is set to dx11 and I do run crysis w/ dx9.



yes, heaps more efficient. multi threaded, doesnt duplicate VGA ram in system ram, and heaps more on top.

the only reason DX9 titles still come out, is to milk old game engines for profit, and consoles (same thing really)


----------



## TRWOV (Jun 25, 2012)

DX9 is the baseline for W7 so it makes sense to support it.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

TRWOV said:


> DX9 is the baseline for W7 so it makes sense to support it.



W7 aero can use DX10, saves RAM.


any hardware thats DX9 only, is too slow for modern games anyway.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 25, 2012)

any game that is DX 10 only (Meaning no use of DX9 API) or higher will not work on DX 9 hardware


----------



## Mussels (Jun 25, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> any game that is DX 10 only (Meaning no use of DX9 API) or higher will not work on DX 9 hardware



and what modern game would run on DX9 hardware anyway?


----------



## Aquinus (Jun 25, 2012)

You know, DX 10 and 11 are just extensions of DX 9. Anything DX 9 has, you will find in DX 10 and 11. The only difference is that every subsequent version has extra instructions provided by DX and have typically introduced a number of performance enhancements. So keep in mind that 90% of the time, I bet you games are using DX APIs that have been around since DX 9.


----------



## blibba (Jun 25, 2012)

Mussels said:


> and what modern game would run on DX9 hardware anyway?



Valve games, indie games, community developed games, WoW.

Of course there are also lots of older games that are still very popular (CoD 4, CS 1.6), but that's kinda missing the point.


----------



## Dent1 (Jun 25, 2012)

Delta6326 said:


> My PC  isn't crashing just the game when it hits 1GB VRAM.



Like I said, your PC shouldnt be crashing at all whether you exceed the vram limit or not.

Your issue isnt vram related, a computer is supposed to be robust and handle a vram limitation, hence the reason it borrows reserves from the main memory.


----------



## Calin Banc (Jul 12, 2012)

1nf3rn0x said:


> With games being more advanced and graphics getting better, when do you guys think that 1GB of vram won't be enough?



Today, if you play new games.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 12, 2012)

blibba said:


> WoW



WoW has supported DX11 for a while now.



Calin Banc said:


> Today, if you play new games.


Only if you run games at full graphics, with AA jacked up all the way, at 1920x1200. I find even Skyrim plays fine at 1920x1200, Full graphics with 4x AA, 8x AA and I run out of video memory.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> WoW has supported DX11 for a while now.
> 
> 
> Only if you run games at full graphics, with AA jacked up all the way, at 1920x1200. I find even Skyrim plays fine at 1920x1200, Full graphics with 4x AA, 8x AA and I run out of video memory.



Isn't that the point? To not have to sacrifice quality?


----------



## Calin Banc (Jul 12, 2012)

Exactly. You can play with a 8800GT after all. 

But, there isn't really a problem with the exception of a few cases: multi GPU solutions and perhaps GTX 570 1,2GB, HD6950 1GB/GF 560ti 1GB (even more so in CF/SLI). Newer cards come with at least 2GB/GPU, so it's all good.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 12, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> Isn't that the point? To not have to sacrifice quality?



I wouldn't call bumping AA down to 4x to maintain 60 FPS a huge sacrifice.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I wouldn't call bumping AA down to 4x to maintain 60 FPS a huge sacrifice.



Well I won't argue with that. I have never felt the need to use more than 4xAA myself.


----------



## Calin Banc (Jul 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I wouldn't call bumping AA down to 4x to maintain 60 FPS a huge sacrifice.



Skyrim, Ultra, with mods and 4xAA in 1680x1050 hits around 1,55GB în Whiterun. There is no need for 8xAA to go above 1GB.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 12, 2012)

Calin Banc said:


> Skyrim, Ultra, with mods and 4xAA in 1680x1050 hits around 1,55GB în Whiterun. There is no need for 8xAA to go above 1GB.



If you're using Afterburner to judge that, that isn't purely GPU dedicated memory.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 12, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> If you're using Afterburner to judge that, that isn't purely GPU dedicated memory.



He's not wrong. I have seen Skyrim hit 1800MB on Ultra,4xAA@1920x1080 using the DLC Texture Mod. I was monitoring using AIDA 64 setup to monitor GPU memory usage.


----------



## antuk15 (Jul 12, 2012)

1Gb has been bad since the 5800 series released....

Even games that you don't expect eat over 1Gb VRAM at 1080p


----------



## Krazy Owl (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm currently rolling a 8600GT 256megs with an HDMI adapter to play Battlefield 2 multiplayer at 1080P on a 32inches LEDTV so I suppose that 1gig is still far from being outdated.


----------



## Dent1 (Jul 13, 2012)

Krazy Owl said:


> I'm currently rolling a 8600GT 256megs with an HDMI adapter to play Battlefield 2 multiplayer at 1080P on a 32inches LEDTV so I suppose that 1gig is still far from being outdated.



Battlefield 2?  But the game you are playing is out-dated, so you proved nothing.


----------



## Krazy Owl (Jul 13, 2012)

The game is  outdated but what I meant is that it took time to find games who also outdated a 8600GT with only 256m. That was my point. I know this card wouldnt stand newer games.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 13, 2012)

Krazy Owl said:


> The game is  outdated but what I meant is that it took time to find games who also outdated a 8600GT with only 256m. That was my point. I know this card wouldnt stand newer games.



Exactly! See how well it plays Battlefield 3 and you see the 1 GB argument is pretty valid


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 13, 2012)

INSTG8R said:


> He's not wrong. I have seen Skyrim hit 1800MB on Ultra,4xAA@1920x1080 using the DLC Texture Mod. I was monitoring using AIDA 64 setup to monitor GPU memory usage.



...and mine says that I'm using 1.3Gb of dedicated video memory on my 1Gb card when I run Skyrim at said settings on AIDA. Right!


----------



## Mussels (Jul 13, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> ...and mine says that I'm using 1.3Gb of dedicated video memory on my 1Gb card when I run Skyrim at said settings on AIDA. Right!



readings tend to duplicate in crossfire. so halve that.


----------



## Aquinus (Jul 13, 2012)

Mussels said:


> readings tend to duplicate in crossfire. so halve that.



Touché. Turning off crossfire shows this in AIDA, but Afterburner is still a bit finicky when it comes to reporting though.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jul 13, 2012)

If you're on 1080p and/or 64bit OS you really should have minimum 1.5GB Vram.

1GB is really pushing it with some titles these days. My $0.02 anyways


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 13, 2012)

m1dg3t said:


> If you're on 1080p and/or 64bit OS you really should have minimum 1.5GB Vram.
> 
> 1GB is really pushing it with some titles these days. My $0.02 anyways



still resolution dependent honestly. Coding still meshes better with 1024,2048,4096, 8192 MB of Ram than with 1536, 3072, etc etc.


----------



## Calin Banc (Jul 13, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> If you're using Afterburner to judge that, that isn't purely GPU dedicated memory.



What else can it be? I have a 6970 2GB, it doesn't needs to use the RAM. Besides, when I've loaded a saved game, the counter went to ~ 1,3GB and started to rise. Until ~ 1,4-1,5 GB, the game was a little bit "stuttery", after that, all good. 

In SS 3, after an alt+tab, the game would run at 20-30FPS for a second until the memory usage was up to it's "normal" levels - sometimes waaay beyond 1GB mark - even 1,7-1,8GB at times.

560ti/6950/6850/6870, all 1GB variants will seriously damage the performance of the GPUs în multi-GPU configurations.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 13, 2012)

Calin Banc said:


> What else can it be? I have a 6970 2GB, it doesn't needs to use the RAM. Besides, when I've loaded a saved game, the counter went to ~ 1,3GB and started to rise. Until ~ 1,4-1,5 GB, the game was a little bit "stuttery", after that, all good.
> 
> In SS 3, after an alt+tab, the game would run at 20-30FPS for a second until the memory usage was up to it's "normal" levels - sometimes waaay beyond 1GB mark - even 1,7-1,8GB at times.
> 
> 560ti/6950/6850/6870, all 1GB variants will seriously damage the performance of the GPUs în multi-GPU configurations.



system ram.







also, my 5870 1GB crossfire is doing just fine with 1GB.


----------



## Calin Banc (Jul 13, 2012)

What DX is showing represents the memory for both your cards combined, although as we know, in games it's equivalent to 1GB. It shows the ~ the same amount for my 6970 2GB. 

Why a game would use system RAM instead of much faster, much better vRAM? 

In the pic. with the graphs, it shows, for example, how the vRAM limits the 560ti/6870 setup in BF 3. 6950 2GB has better minimum FPS than SLI/CF 560ti/6870. Of course you'll gain performance from adding a second card, but it will be limited and may experience stutter, lag, big drops or variations in FPS etc. I'd say that it depends how much that limit of 1GB is passed, e couple of hundred MB or more - 3-500MB.

http://translate.google.com/transla...4650-prestandaanalys-battlefield-3/4#pagehead


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 13, 2012)

Mussels said:


> when you get a monitor with res higher than 1080p.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but its a mixed salad. I agree that we have already passed the threshold of 1GB like some others have said. running no AA etc is nice but not realistic. with no AA to make games look good you would need to run a high rez and even not upping the settings is unrealistic since the quality decline after the mobile market took off. games look shitty out of the box or have less and less graphics tuning options so to make the game look the way you want you almost have to crank them. Take skyrim for example too. skyrim is a fantastic game. some of skyrims better attributes are CPU coded. but like skyrim their are games out their that have poorly coded GPU segments. and to compinsate you almost have to have a better card just to over come the clumsyness. I think 1GB vram was good a few years ago when a game ran well on it and it looked how you wanted it to. but to buy a game now and play it looking how you want it to look you need to crank it. and todays games take alot more then 1GB. If you want to play it out of the box and have the same experience as the guy running a dell XPS then 1GB rigs are fine. its when you want to be a PC gamer when you run into problems. anyone can play league of legends no matter what shit i could probably run it on a Vtech. but i dont think anyone on TPU is of the mind to play a game like someone on a netbook running GMA3100 HD or some shit. With that in mind if your of the TPU mind 1GB was dead awhile back. multi monitor or ultra wide rez or not.


----------



## m1dg3t (Jul 13, 2012)

I think For 16 x 10 resolution and under you can still rock 1Gb vRAM, especially if using a top tier core, without much hassle for majority of games. You may get the odd circumstance where you encounter poor coding as mentioned previously but I think it's liveable at that level


----------



## Calin Banc (Jul 13, 2012)

At 16x10 you may encounter some problems here in there, but it should be ok - as long as you don't go multi-GPU. Thankfully, "next-gen" mainstream cards are 2GB, so we're set.


----------

