Is a 2GB Video Card enough?

[jkarateking]

So I read somewhere on Eurogamer.net that 2GB graphics cards are rubbish these days because consoles have 3GB graphics cards so all new games are designed to use 3GB graphics cards and don't work on 2GB graphics cards without lots of texture errors.

Is this true?

I only want to play games on medium settings at 30fps. Would 2GB graphics cards be enough?

 

[Onefurrybanana]

Depends on the card and the game. For example a 750ti 2gb is a decent starting card. Where as a 750ti 4gb is a waste of money because the 750ti isn't strong enough anyway to use all 4gb.

 

[jkarateking]

Depends on the card and the game. For example a 750ti 2gb is a decent starting card. Where as a 750ti 4gb is a waste of money because the 750ti isn't strong enough anyway to use all 4gb.

Is a GTX 950 or 960 strong enough to use all the 3 or 4 GB?

 

[Rogue Leader]

2gb is more than enough for medium.

There are no 4gb GTX 950, as for the GTX 960 IMO not worth the extra money, if you're running at medium. Even if you weren't the extra memory only helps with high res textures, which you don't have running at 1080p.

If this was a problem there would be a lot more complaining here.

 

[RobCrezz]

Depends on the game and the settings.

2gb is still enough to play any game on the market, you just have to set the settings accordingly (or let geforce experience do it for you).

 

[ubercake]

I run a GTX 960 2GB on a 1080p TV screen and can run on medium to high details for most existing titles getting great frame rates for that card 50-60fps average depending on settings (of course there are exceptions). I don't get texture errors. I also don't expect it to perform as well as my gaming system running with a GTX 980 in it using a 2560x1440 G-sync monitor. I am satisfied with the performance of the GTX 960 at 1080p though and it's paired with an i3-2100. It's still better than any current-gen console.

Most of the latest titles recommend more VRAM though even if you don't have more to offer, the game is still not going to cause the driver to throw any texture errors at you. The game will run, but just at a lower framerate or you just run with less AA and fewer details.

Also, if you're worried about optimal settings, even though I think the software is clunky, Geforce Experience can give you a good starting point for video settings with whatever card you're using so there's less trial and error time with regard to the settings in any particular title.

 

[Shaun o]

The main reason why you get graphics cards of different memory sizes fitted to the card.
Is down to how powerful and capable the GPU is on the graphics card.


First of all the resolution you set for a game depending on how high you set it will use more of the memory on the graphics card than if you played a game in a lower resolution. It is also where the colour pallet is stored.

Higher screen resolutions require higher quality bit maps or game textures also.
The higher the quality of a single texture the more memory space is required to store it.

Of course the card has to have a high end Gpu on it, if the memory of the graphics card is larger in Gb`s.
And you also have the means to display that resolution by the monitor you are running and its capability's.
for example a 4K monitor.

With a lower end Gpu it is not going to reach the resolutions and the quality setting to be able to run very high quality textures or bit maps , plus all of the in games graphical settings, and game fx such as Ultra settings.

Or the frame rate of the game would be too low to play the game.
So for lower end cards fitted with Entrée level gpu`s or Mid gaming Gpu`s it is why you see them fitted with less memory on the graphics card it`s self.

Plus it would increase the cost of a lower end card, and memory would not be used to it`s best potential if the gpu used on it could only manage graphics setting of low to medium at a lower screen resolution.