how much VRAM do you need? (1080p)

[Vario]

1070 or Vega 56 at a minimum, which are a bit out of your budget unfortunately, or wait until the next upgrade cycle. 1060 6GB and RX 580 8GB is just overpriced for what you get. You want something that won't go obsolete in 3-4 years, no guarantee on those two I think. If the 1060 6GB / RX 580 8GB was $180-220 it would be more in the ballpark. After-all, the 1060 is 192bit low-mid range card, crazy to pay $300+ for it. 8GB VRAM is really the minimum so you don't have to upgrade again for 3-4 years. With the current inflated prices on cards, I would just hold out until next cycle. The current generation has been out for well over a year, its old tech.

 

[EarthDog]

+1

Yeah horsepower is a different story... but if that is the budget, that is the budget.

 

[Vario]

+1

Yeah horsepower is a different story... but if that is the budget, that is the budget.

I think between the 1060 6GB and the 580 8GB, both being around $300 and some change I'd get the 580.

• First, because 2GB more VRAM and 256bit bus, that extra 2GB VRAM might make all the difference in the next few years on whether you can "run it" or not.
  
• Second, Radeon has been supporting older cards on its current releases, while NVidia has not, so I think you get a longer term solution with the Radeon.

If it were me, and it sort of is right now, since I am in similar boat, I am going to wait until next generation instead of either of these cards. But this reminds me of the 7970 vs 680, the 7970 is still the card to have had in retrospect: more VRAM, larger bandwith 384 bit vs 256bit, and better future driver support.

 

[EarthDog]

I agree with the vast majority (even mentioned your first bullet point much earlier), but you lost me here....

and better future driver support.

 

[Vario]

I agree with the vast majority (even mentioned your first bullet point much earlier), but you lost me here....

I believe Nvidia dropped the ball on Kepler support after Maxwell came out.

 

[EarthDog]

Sorry.. did they stop working or something? I recall seeing rumors about performance slowing down, which was bunked, but, I don't see the issue here, really. For the vast majority, the latest and greatest work a generation or so back. Surely there are exceptions, but... I don't know, I just prefer not to hang my hat on speculation.

I do like the wider bus though!

 

[Vario]

Sorry.. did they stop working or something? I recall seeing rumors about performance slowing down, which was bunked, but, I don't see the issue here, really. For the vast majority, the latest and greatest work a generation or so back. Surely there are exceptions, but... I don't know, I just prefer not to hang my hat on speculation.

I do like the wider bus though!

The wider bus is something people overlook a lot.

 

[dirtyferret]

I have a 1060 3Gb and never had a single issue in any game in achieving excellent performance. I also don't sit there playing games with my Fraps on so I'm not tossing a hissy fit if if get 50FPS in game rather then 60 FPS. There is also the difference of using GPU ram and getting performance from GPU ram. Just because a game will use 5 GB ram doesn't mean you will see a performance increase, it could just be a RAM hog (often times it is).

There is also another side to this story. Nvidia and AMD push developers to use more RAM so it can help sell video cards yet the performance difference with a game on Ultra setting vs the same game at Very High is often negligible at best. Logical Increments does an excellent job to show what you achieve or lose with each drop in graphic settings vs frame rate benefits for certain games.

http://www.logicalincrements.com/games/witcher3

 

[jallenlabs]

Just played some Titan Fall 2 and recorded the vram usage. Never went about 3900mb and stayed around 3700mb most of the time. No stutters or performance issues. As long as you stay at 1080p you'll be fine.

 

[EarthDog]

What were your settings? Important to know.

 

[Vario]

Just played some Titan Fall 2 and recorded the vram usage. Never went about 3900mb and stayed around 3700mb most of the time. No stutters or performance issues. As long as you stay at 1080p you'll be fine.

But in 5 years, will he be fine? He is using a 660ti from 2012 in 2017. The card he used before that, a 5750 was 3 years old when he upgraded. If we expect same time duration until next upgrade, 8GB is needed.

 

[EarthDog]

At least 6... agreed.

 

[dirtyferret]

Just played some Titan Fall 2 and recorded the vram usage. Never went about 3900mb and stayed around 3700mb most of the time. No stutters or performance issues. As long as you stay at 1080p you'll be fine.

Titan Fall 2 is one of those games that more RAM does not always translate into a performance increase @ 1080p

 

[FireFox]

What were your settings? Important to know.

For sure not the same setting i use.

Just played some Titan Fall 2 and recorded the vram usage. Never went about 3900mb and stayed around 3700mb most of the time. No stutters or performance issues. As long as you stay at 1080p you'll be fine.

So, i found the Thread i created in 2016 about Titanfall 2.

Here:

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/8gb-gpu-ram-not-enough-to-handle-titanfall-2.227631/


Here:

Titanfall 2 Ram usage

No stutters or performance issues. As long as you stay at 1080p you'll be fine.

As said before, i never had any performance issue, yeap maybe at 1080p the Ram usage is less than when you play at 1440 and insane satteings.


However, took this screenshot a few minutes ago while playing Titanfall 2

 

[NorthboundOcclusive]

wait until the next upgrade cycle. 1060 6GB and RX 580 8GB is just overpriced for what you get. You want something that won't go obsolete in 3-4 years, no guarantee on those two I think. If the 1060 6GB / RX 580 8GB was $180-220 it would be more in the ballpark. After-all, the 1060 is 192bit low-mid range card, crazy to pay $300+ for it. 8GB VRAM is really the minimum so you don't have to upgrade again for 3-4 years. With the current inflated prices on cards, I would just hold out until next cycle. The current generation has been out for well over a year, its old tech.

have to admit im leaning in the 'wait' direction myself. my 660TI was about $300 on launch, so getting this much use out of it for this long id say it's money well spent and good value at that.
if the current gen cards, both red and green, were anywhere near their msrp, would be a different story im sure (recall seeing something like the 1070 had a $375msrp or something ridiculous like that. bloody miners. )

But in 5 years, will he be fine? He is using a 660ti from 2012 in 2017. The card he used before that, a 5750 was 3 years old when he upgraded. If we expect same time duration until next upgrade, 8GB is needed.

aye, glorious pc gaming master race right here. buy mid-range, milk it until it burns out or you run into a game that you just have to upgrade for.

 

[Vario]

aye, glorious pc gaming master race right here. buy mid-range, milk it until it burns out or you run into a game that you just have to upgrade for.

I think in some ways it is more fun to wait, then the upgrade feels so much more potent.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

You need a bare minimum of 4GB VRAM on an increasing number of games now, and some will require 6GB or more for max textures. Keep in mind that regarding 4GB, the 970 doesn't really count because it really only has 3.5.

 

[EarthDog]

Keep in mind that regarding 4GB, the 970 doesn't really count because it really only has 3.5.

No... it has 4GB... just 512MB of it is slower.

 

[ASOT]

For low setting 2 Gb, medium to high settings 3 Gb,high to vry high or ultra 4 Gb

 

[EarthDog]

Who plays PC on anything less than high unless they are forced to????

 

[Frag_Maniac]

No... it has 4GB... just 512MB of it is slower.

I stand by what I said. All of the VRAM capacity should buffer as quickly as any other VRAM. The fact that that 512MB doesn't results in undesireable performance in some games. They got sued because they should have for the false advertising they did.

 

[EarthDog]

There are people that stand by the Flat Earth theory... that doesn't make them correct.

Being serious, I agree that is what all of it should do... but, its still 4GB total, not 3.5 GB. They were sued for false advertising of the memory subsystem, not because it was missing 512MB.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

There are people that stand by the Flat Earth theory... that doesn't make them correct.

Being serious, I agree that is what all of it should do... but, its still 4GB total, not 3.5 GB. They were sued for false advertising of the memory subsystem, not because it was missing 512MB.

So this off the wall banter was started by you're not being serious? Then what point do you have?

There was no reason for them to cripple the cards with over 12% of the memory performing way too slow to function as normal VRAM. And I never said they were sued on amount of VRAM, just on not being up front about how slow that 512MB of it was. Even though I do feel, as many do, that the way that 512MB functions is effectively not healthy VRAM.

There were a lot of people that bought them whom at first that thought it was of no issue. Funny how many of them ended up opting to get that $30 when it was offered though, and IMO it wasn't enough.

 

[EarthDog]

No... this started by you saying there was only 3.5gb on the 970 without qualifying your statement. It has 4gb... just some is notably slower.

Lol, just because they opted in doesnt mean they had a problem. It just means they bought the card and can. Its a class action lawsuit, only a purchase was required.

 

[P4-630]

I'm glad I didn't buy a 960 or a 970....