Is 2gb VRAM enough?

stonewall712

Commendable
Aug 12, 2016
67
0
1,630
Hello,

I was recently looking for a new graphics card and was wondering whether 2GB VRAM is enough to play new games at a resolution of 1366x768. I don't really mind about texture details, however I would like to get 60 fps.
Any help is appreciated.
 
Solution
This is putting the 1050 against a newer model than the 460 with 4GB Ram, and the 1050 still wins overall. It's comes down to price, and what games you want to play with it really.

The Best $100 Entry-Level GPU: Radeon RX 560 vs. GeForce GTX 1050
By Steven Walton on June 21, 2017
"I'm not too worried about including Doom's results as removing them only changes the overall standings by a single digit: the RX 560 becomes 3% slower without Doom. Feel free to recalculate if you want but as I said, it doesn't change the overall picture and that's the beauty of testing with such a massive amount of games.
The RX 560 was faster by a 5% margin or greater in just 6 games while it was slower by a 5% margin or greater in 12 games.
So, given...


2 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1366x768, but it tells us very little about the actual GPU. Cards with 2 GB of VRAM range from very low-end GPUs like the GT 710 to far more powerful cards like the GTX 680 or the GTX 770.
 


The GPU I was looking at getting is the AMD RX 460 2GB.
 


The 1050 or 1050 Ti would be a better choice.
 
This is putting the 1050 against a newer model than the 460 with 4GB Ram, and the 1050 still wins overall. It's comes down to price, and what games you want to play with it really.

The Best $100 Entry-Level GPU: Radeon RX 560 vs. GeForce GTX 1050
By Steven Walton on June 21, 2017
"I'm not too worried about including Doom's results as removing them only changes the overall standings by a single digit: the RX 560 becomes 3% slower without Doom. Feel free to recalculate if you want but as I said, it doesn't change the overall picture and that's the beauty of testing with such a massive amount of games.
The RX 560 was faster by a 5% margin or greater in just 6 games while it was slower by a 5% margin or greater in 12 games.
So, given their close performance, would I buy the RX 560 or GTX 1050? To me, the choice still seems pretty clear on this one and I'm sticking with the decision I made eight months ago when I first recommended the GTX 1050.
Of the 30 games tested, the 1050 offered superior performance in well over half of them and was also slightly faster overall. On top of that, it consumes less power (doesn't even require an external PCIe power connector) and overclocks better, which is important as many buyers would want to squeeze every last frame from a card in this category."

https://www.techspot.com/review/1430-radeon-rx-560-vs-geforce-gtx-1050/page8.html

30game.png


Edit: "Late last year I set out to crown the best entry-class graphics card by comparing the Radeon RX 460, GeForce GTX 1050 and 1050 Ti in 24 games, which concluded in a victory for Nvidia as its GTX 1050 handily dispatched the RX 460, offering about 18% more performance.
After such a decisive win, why would we bother hosting a rematch?
Since then, AMD has improved its drivers dramatically for the RX 460 in addition to sponsoring several popular triple-A titles and launching the updated, fully enabled RX 560 for the same $100 as its predecessor."
 
Solution