Impact of texture quality (requiring more vram) on processing power (fps)

[diego007]

I'm a budget gamer

I know it's a very old topic. But I'm about to upgrade from my ancient gtx 560 ti and I'm planning to do so tomorrow on a 970 because my pc is getting hiccups with all the "next gen" games (watch dogs, ryse, shadow of mordor). I can't stand looking at the all blurred images, especially with all the new games coming this November, I need an upgrade fast.

Browsing through the web the final time before buying though I found a very hot debate between the upcoming 8GB version vs the current 4 GB.

There seems to be 2 sides, and I'm extremely confused because I'm upgrading soon and now I'm facing this debate which is causing me a headache (a lot).

One side claims that vram occupation doesn't impact fps (like at all), but it helps reducing stuttering.

Another claims that 970 chip with 256 bit bus cannot utilize 8gb and when games need 8gb, the 970 will be as my 560 ti right now.

So my question is, should I wait? More information about my spec: I'm playing at 1600x900 and I'm very happy with it and not planning to upgrade it anytime soon. My budget is also very limited (as you can see, 560 ti to 970), so I won't be able to have an SLI build and I'm planning to have a long-term upgrade (hopefully as long as my 560ti has served me)

I know the gpu can use system RAM when its VRAM is full (as I'm forcing high texture with shadow of mordor AND Ryse with playable fps from 25-40 with a bit of tweak here and there), so can I use this method as a shot in the dark for the 970 4GB and see how it turns out?

 

[Suztera]

4GB should be still ok for 1080p unless you really turn up DSR and AA all together. 8GB makes more sense if you running in SLI for a single card, 4GB should be fine at080p or 1440p.

 

[huilun02]

First, GTX 970 is overkill for 900p

4GB of VRAM is more than sufficient for the latest games, even with high/ultra textures. I'm using a HD 7950 with 3GB of VRAM at 1080p and had no problem running Shadow of Mordor and modded Skyrim/GTA4 with all the fancy textures.

The latest console ports tend to overstate VRAM requirements because lazy devs just look at the consoles' unified 8GB of VRAM and say "Oh if the consoles have 8GB then you need at least 8GB on PC"

But VRAM can in fact affect framerates. When VRAM usage is at/near max the card has to flush some of it and load more textures, which require GPU work cycles to be done. However unless you are using obscene texture resolutions, super demanding AA or running super high display resolutions, the impact is barely noticeable.

 

[diego007]

Thanks for the answer huilun02, so if I get it right I won't need to wait for the 8gb version? I know it's overkill, but the bang for buck value is too good to pass, same with my 560ti back in the day (like I said I'm a budget gamer so I'm always looking for the highest value). One more thing though, I'm expecting my next gpu to last for 3 yrs (same with my 560ti), so will the 970 4gb make it?

 

[Suztera]

No 8GB gpu is a bang for your buck. It is always going to be overpriced.

 

[huilun02]

Yes 4GB is good enough.

If you are in the US/Canada/EU you might want to get an EVGA card, because of this:
http://www.evga.com/support/stepup/

Basically if you find your 4GB card unsatisfactory, and the new 8GB cards come out within 90 days of purchase, you get to upgrade to the 8GB card by paying only the difference.

 

[diego007]

Suztera, has it always been overpriced on the double memory version? I'm not looking into the market unless I need to upgrade so I'm not really informative on the price of the older cards

Thanks huilun02, you answer really cleared my mind, I'll get the 970 tomorrow.