# Memory Usage?



## INSTG8R (Jul 19, 2018)

I'm wondering what memory this is monitoring  I assume system RAM but regardless it's not accurate?


----------



## Naki (Jul 19, 2018)

This is your GPU - AMD Radeon RX Vega - videoRAM currently in use. This mostly depends on whether GPU is in use, or not. When running a light/less demanding PC game, it will take less GPU RAM than running a heavy/demanding game/etc. OR if watching an online video (or several videos at once) or (offline) movie/video, GPU will be also used to some extent/etc. Same for 3D rendering or video editing software/etc, such as 3D Studio, AutoDesk, Adobe Premiere/etc. 

The 6 GBs shown in use sounds OK, IF a game or heavy software is currently running & using your GPU.
Do you have a game (or games) running, what ones?


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2018)

With the addition of cpu monitoring, maybe that sensor should be renamed?


----------



## Naki (Jul 19, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> With the addition of cpu monitoring, maybe that sensor should be renamed?


Sounds good!  Maybe "GPU Memory Used"?


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 19, 2018)

Naki said:


> This is your GPU RAM in use.
> Use of this mostly depends on whether GPU is in use, or not. When running a light game, it will take less GPU RAM than running a heavy/demanding game/etc.
> OR if watching an online video or (offline) movie/video, GPU will be used to some extent/etc.
> 
> ...


It’s definitely not VRAM as nothing was running at all so the sensor data makes even less sense?
@W1zzard Yes it obviously needs to be clarified but can you explain the inaccuracy? I definitely trust AIDAs readings and I could understand a minor discrepancy, or perhaps AIDA is interfering with GPU-Z and possibly skewing it?


----------



## Naki (Jul 19, 2018)

Windows 10 Task Manager should show some values too. What does it show for your GPU, please?


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 19, 2018)

Naki said:


> Windows 10 Task Manager should show some values too. What does it show for your GPU, please?



Trust me you're barking up the wrong tree here it's NOT VRAM usage...


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2018)

This is vram usage, definitely. I switched to using amds own api for vram usage a few versions back and looks like it's completely worthless. If you have Radeon overlay installed, check if you see that wrong value, too


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 19, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> This is vram usage, definitely. I switched to using amds own api for vram usage a few versions back and looks like it's completely worthless. If you have Radeon overlay installed, check if you see that wrong value, too


Well the card is idle so overlay can’t really apply here. Here is AMD Link.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 19, 2018)

INSTG8R said:


> Well the card is idle so overlay can’t really apply here.


Start a game


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 19, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> Start a game


Okay but this issue is presenting itself in idle on the desktop. I’ll try my best to get both GPU-Z and AMD Link.

Well I think it was a bug. Basically AIDA and Windows were showing the low number while GPU-Z and AMD Overlay were showing the high numbers. Rebooting has kinda sorted but there is still a decent discrepancy. Before I noticed this I had been playing FC5 for a few hours. If I can reproduce it again I will use my Vanguard powers and report it. So W1zzard if you have any input on this it would be helpful to pass on. 



Edit: Here it is under load. Sorry for the phone pic the overlay doesn't show up in screenshots.Both GPU-Z show the higher number. The high RAM usage I saw hasn’t returned though.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 20, 2018)

This is just a bug in how AMD measures memory. GPU-Z is the only other application using that data, everything else uses a different method (same as GPU-Z did a few versions back)


----------



## kastriot (Jul 20, 2018)

It's gpu-z fault, reference should be task manager 1st then all other utilities.

P.S.(I use aida64 gadget also!)


----------



## Naki (Jul 22, 2018)

I see some of you guys use/recommend AIDA64, I would not do that as it is paid software.
For reference checking of GPU load - apart from GPU-Z - I use 8GadgetPack: https://8gadgetpack.net/
And on that I install this GPU Monitor Gadget, it is free!
https://windows10gadgets.pro/pcandsystem/gpumonitor/gpumonitor.html

Works well on my several PCs with Windows 10 64-bit Pro/Enterprise.


----------



## arni-gx (Jul 22, 2018)

why not using


INSTG8R said:


> I'm wondering what memory this is monitoring  I assume system RAM but regardless it's not accurate?View attachment 104129



why u not using OSD from MSI AB+RTSS ??


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 23, 2018)

Naki said:


> I see some of you guys use/recommend AIDA64, I would not do that as it is paid software.
> For reference checking of GPU load - apart from GPU-Z - I use 8GadgetPack: https://8gadgetpack.net/
> And on that I install this GPU Monitor Gadget, it is free!
> https://windows10gadgets.pro/pcandsystem/gpumonitor/gpumonitor.html
> ...


I gladly pay for it.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 23, 2018)

To my understanding, there is no way to actually measure VRAM usage .... just VRAM allocation.  The way this is often explained is this... you have a Visa Card w/ a $5,000 limit.  You bought a new GFX card for $500, so at this point $500 is the amount of credit "used".  However, when you apply for a car loan next week and they run a credit check, the credit agencies will report:   *"Visa - $5,000"   *

So it's measuring RAM "allocated", not used.  So if you play a game on a 4 GB card, it may allocate 3 GB for the game ... if you do the same on an 8GB card, it might allocate 6 GB ... why ?   As the saying goes "cause it's there".  We have seen this tested over an over again from the 7xx series till current and, outside of 4k, the performance usually identical.   When it isn't, it's at 4K and settings have to be set so high, so as to how a significant difference in performance, that performance is in the unplayable (15 - 25 fps) range.

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...y-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x



> We spoke to  Nvidia’s Brandon Bell on this topic, who told us the following: “None of the GPU tools on the market report memory usage correctly, whether it’s GPU-Z, Afterburner, Precision, etc. They all report the amount of memory requested by the GPU, not the actual memory usage. Cards will larger memory will request more memory, but that doesn’t mean that they actually use it. They simply request it because the memory is available.”
> 
> First, there’s the fact that out of the fifteen games we tested, only four of could be forced to consume more than the 4GB of RAM. In every case, we had to use high-end settings at 4K to accomplish this.



 So far outside odd instances like poor console ports, I have yet to see a card that comes in 2 VRAM flavors do better with the higher RAM at 1080 or 1440p

680 - https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
770 - http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/  (Dead Link) *
960 - http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_4gb_review,12.html

Regarding the dead link in the 770 test, you can turn the sound off as likely wont understand the language but can see results here with the 770 2GB / 4 GB up to 5760 x 1080.  










What this article showed is that:

- at 1080p and 1440p performance was virtually identical with the 2GB card sometimes being faster.
- where they were able to show 4GB did better (5760 x 1080), does it really matter if 20 fps is 33% faster than 15 fps ?
- When they could not install Max Payne on the 2 GB card at 5760 x 1080 (not enogh memory message), it installed fine on the 4FB card, but once installed, fps and image quality was identical when the switched the 2GB card in.  With game already installed, it didn't catch the switch.

I initially thought that the TPU reviews on the two MSI 1060s finally showed a difference, but the "aha moment" comes when you realize that the 6GB 1060 has 11% more shaders, so of course it's faster.  But if VRAM had an impact on performance, then we should be able to compare the performance difference by looking at 1080p and 1440p results and if VRAM mattered, the gap between th 3Gb and 6g=Gb should widen at the higher res ... it didn't.  Right now for example, the 3 GB MSI Gaming X is $288 and the 6 GB is $328.  At 1080p, Id choose the 3GB, as ^GB will never bee needed.  For $40 I'd be inclined to spring for the 6 GB at 1440p .... as  a "just in case future" consideration but wasn't long ago that price difference was $100.  So it sure would be useful if we could measure see"'usage" vs "allocation"

I'd love to hear ... well see   ... Wizard's take on this allocation versus / usage topic and whether we will ever really know how much VRAM the game is actually using.  Im not sure manufacturers want us to know ...


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 24, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> Wizard's take on this allocation versus / usage topic


You are completely right, still, memory allocations are not completely useless.


----------



## londiste (Jul 24, 2018)

Allocation is generally good enough to keep track of memory usage.

Engines/games are pretty good with fairly tight allocation/usage. In most cases there is a fixed pool that in general uses all that is allocated and a dynamic pool that gets stuff streamed in and out of it. Keeping the usage of the latter as efficient as possible is what everyone strives for.

When testing for it, you need to test something that actually exceeds the memory available. In Puget's article everything tested has memory usage below 2GB. In Guru3D's article Thief actually shows hiccups that are likely due to streaming stuff in/out of VRAM. Scrolling through the video, everything there is old enough not to exceed 2GB (at least not significantly).

I remember looking for games to test back when GTX970 3.5 GB issue came to light. To my great surprise, I only found a few games at that point that actually required more than 3.5GB VRAM.

The other side of it is that developers do optimize for different VRAM sizes. Fixed pools tend to be fixed size, dynamic pools give a lot of wiggle room provided that the solution for prefetch/streaming is up to snuff. However, there is only so far that can go. As a specific example, Batman Arkham Knight might be a good example of a game that is clearly intended for more than 2GB of VRAM (other optimization issues aside).


----------

