Ram size question
- Thread starter GrahamC
- Start date
KING_OF_SAND
New member
2gb but 3gb would be better.
Fez
Moderator
having more memory is good for higher resolutions and multi monitors, as for the ram issue when having 2 cards they dont equal 2gb mate just each card uses its own 1gb for the load it is calculating
KING_OF_SAND
New member
These days with more modern games, if you are a gamer getting a card with anything less that 2gb (arguably 1.5gb) at 1080p is not very good anymore. more and more games are coming out that will have textures like 1024x1024 and if you want AA you will need more.
Scoob
New member
Hi,
In my experience it's using a high resolution (say 2560x1600) with very high AA and super sampling that benefits from more vRam.
At my fairly typical resolution of 1920x1200 (HD+ if you will
) the 1.25gb in each of my GTX 570's doesn't struggle at all...I've never run out of vRam and gotten the resulting slideshow, despite playing around with high AA and SS. Some titles take a bit of a hit, but for me the balance between looks and FPS is at 4xAA - some titles (oddly) can look worse with higher AA, some need a little more, but 4x generally works for me in your average FPS for example.
Check out Toms MARS II videos, he's testing at resolutions of 5760x1080 for some demading titles and while of course the FPS drops when maxed, it never goes to a slide-show. Remember AA and SS do use more ram, but they also hammer the GPU too - looks like the GPU is beginning to struggle at that resolution before vRam becomes an issue.
I remember when I got my prior gamer and Crysis had come out, we tested my 8800GT 512mb on my friends Dell 30" @ 2560x1600 and it played fine with all the highest settings - ok, it wasn't the smoothest gameplay by any means, but the card did it with just 512mb of vRam - it was the GPU that was working hard doing it!
At normal resolutions of say 1920x1200/1080 even a 1gb card will likely not have vRam issues - unless you get really silly with the settings at a driver level.
Note: I've said this before but it's worth mentioning again. Graphics cards DO cache data. For example, after a long play session on MANY games I might see my vRam usage reported as 1.2gb - i.e. near max for me. Yet if I save the game / hit a check point (Crysis 2), quit & then reload the exact same scene my vRam usage is less. This is after doing a quick 360 so all relevant textures and models for the scene are loaded. Must be caching right?
Again, in my experience, maxing things like AA as SS gneerally hammer the GPU before vRam runs out - though remember I only run at 1920x1200 - those running multiple screens might have a different result.
I'd say going forward, so for the next generations of GPUs that can do 128xAA and 32xSS in their sleep, maybe having more vRam will be essential. At the moment I'd say no.
When I had a single GTX 570 I tended to run quite balanced settings, most things maxed but usually a little less AA - no more than 4x. Since I got the 2nd one I've tried everything with maxed AA as SS - even going as far as setting overrides at a driver level where the game doesn't do it. Purely because I now have a 2nd GPU and wanted to push it you understand - such high AA and SS settings definitly give diminishing returns the more you crank them up. However the cards have coped just fine so far.
Cheers,
Scoob.
In my experience it's using a high resolution (say 2560x1600) with very high AA and super sampling that benefits from more vRam.
At my fairly typical resolution of 1920x1200 (HD+ if you will
Check out Toms MARS II videos, he's testing at resolutions of 5760x1080 for some demading titles and while of course the FPS drops when maxed, it never goes to a slide-show. Remember AA and SS do use more ram, but they also hammer the GPU too - looks like the GPU is beginning to struggle at that resolution before vRam becomes an issue.
I remember when I got my prior gamer and Crysis had come out, we tested my 8800GT 512mb on my friends Dell 30" @ 2560x1600 and it played fine with all the highest settings - ok, it wasn't the smoothest gameplay by any means, but the card did it with just 512mb of vRam - it was the GPU that was working hard doing it!
At normal resolutions of say 1920x1200/1080 even a 1gb card will likely not have vRam issues - unless you get really silly with the settings at a driver level.
Note: I've said this before but it's worth mentioning again. Graphics cards DO cache data. For example, after a long play session on MANY games I might see my vRam usage reported as 1.2gb - i.e. near max for me. Yet if I save the game / hit a check point (Crysis 2), quit & then reload the exact same scene my vRam usage is less. This is after doing a quick 360 so all relevant textures and models for the scene are loaded. Must be caching right?
Again, in my experience, maxing things like AA as SS gneerally hammer the GPU before vRam runs out - though remember I only run at 1920x1200 - those running multiple screens might have a different result.
I'd say going forward, so for the next generations of GPUs that can do 128xAA and 32xSS in their sleep, maybe having more vRam will be essential. At the moment I'd say no.
When I had a single GTX 570 I tended to run quite balanced settings, most things maxed but usually a little less AA - no more than 4x. Since I got the 2nd one I've tried everything with maxed AA as SS - even going as far as setting overrides at a driver level where the game doesn't do it. Purely because I now have a 2nd GPU and wanted to push it you understand - such high AA and SS settings definitly give diminishing returns the more you crank them up. However the cards have coped just fine so far.
Cheers,
Scoob.
