Minimum video memory for Full HD resolution

[soligeri]

I'd like to ask how much video memory is needed for using my monitor in Full HD resolution? I don't play games only surfing the net! Thank you!

 

[Moldoror]

You can buy any card with 1 GB, A GT Nvidia series or R7 Radeon series. You can see video on full HD with no problem

 

[soligeri]

I don't wanna buy any card! My system memory is 2 GB, max. shared video memory is 256 MB. So could I use a monitor in full hd resolution with my PC?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

4 GB is more than fine for anything up to 1440p.... as you will see in the links below, there's no reaon to be overly concerned if you have a 2 GB card. The images below compare performance in 3 current games at 1440p.

I won't say that those who claim more don't know what they are talking about, I'll say that they are just misinformed. Many people report if they do this at these settings and that resolution, GPU_z reports that they are using more.

No. GPU_Z and every other utility report VRAM allocation, not VRAM usage. Your credit card company may have "allocated" you a $10,000 credit line based upon your ability to pay but that doesn't mean you use it. Your system "allocates" a specific amount of RAM based upon the amount of VRAM available, and that is what GPU_z and every other utility reports.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

GPU-Z: An imperfect tool

GPU-Z claims to report how much VRAM the GPU actually uses, but there’s a significant caveat to this metric. GPU-Z doesn’t actually report how much VRAM the GPU is actually using — instead, it reports the amount of VRAM that a game has requested. We spoke to Nvidia’s Brandon Bell on this topic, who told us the following: “None of the GPU tools on the market report memory usage correctly, whether it’s GPU-Z, Afterburner, Precision, etc. They all report the amount of memory requested by the GPU, not the actual memory usage. Cards will larger memory will request more memory, but that doesn’t mean that they actually use it. They simply request it because the memory is available.”

The only way to actually see if less RAM impacts game play is to run the same card with different amounts of VRAM, measure performance and make visual observations.

Alienbabeltech broke this myth when they compared a 770 w/ 2 GB to one w/ 4GB and found no difference in performance in a 40+_ game test. The most interesting aspect of the test was with Max Payne. The game would not allow a setting of 5760 x 1080 reporting that it needed 2.75 GB. So they installed the 4GB.... but now the game thought it had 4 GB and when they swapped out the 4Gb for the 2 GB card, it ran at the same fps, same quality, same play ability.

This was the original test link but site is down, you can still see the results on you tube tho video is in foreign language

Other sites where you will see this demonstrated and leave no doubt in your mind are:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_4gb_review,12.html
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

 

[Moldoror]

He don't want to play xD

4 GB is more than fine for anything up to 1440p.... as you will see in the links below, there's no reaon to be overly concerned if you have a 2 GB card. The images below compare performance in 3 current games at 1440p.

I won't say that those who claim more don't know what they are talking about, I'll say that they are just misinformed. Many people report if they do this at these settings and that resolution, GPU_z reports that they are using more.

No. GPU_Z and every other utility report VRAM allocation, not VRAM usage. Your credit card company may have "allocated" you a $10,000 credit line based upon your ability to pay but that doesn't mean you use it. Your system "allocates" a specific amount of RAM based upon the amount of VRAM available, and that is what GPU_z and every other utility reports.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

GPU-Z: An imperfect tool

GPU-Z claims to report how much VRAM the GPU actually uses, but there’s a significant caveat to this metric. GPU-Z doesn’t actually report how much VRAM the GPU is actually using — instead, it reports the amount of VRAM that a game has requested. We spoke to Nvidia’s Brandon Bell on this topic, who told us the following: “None of the GPU tools on the market report memory usage correctly, whether it’s GPU-Z, Afterburner, Precision, etc. They all report the amount of memory requested by the GPU, not the actual memory usage. Cards will larger memory will request more memory, but that doesn’t mean that they actually use it. They simply request it because the memory is available.”

The only way to actually see if less RAM impacts game play is to run the same card with different amounts of VRAM, measure performance and make visual observations.

Alienbabeltech broke this myth when they compared a 770 w/ 2 GB to one w/ 4GB and found no difference in performance in a 40+_ game test. The most interesting aspect of the test was with Max Payne. The game would not allow a setting of 5760 x 1080 reporting that it needed 2.75 GB. So they installed the 4GB.... but now the game thought it had 4 GB and when they swapped out the 4Gb for the 2 GB card, it ran at the same fps, same quality, same play ability.

This was the original test link but site is down, you can still see the results on you tube tho video is in foreign language

Other sites where you will see this demonstrated and leave no doubt in your mind are:

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_960_g1_gaming_4gb_review,12.html
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/213069-is-4gb-of-vram-enough-amds-fury-x-faces-off-with-nvidias-gtx-980-ti-titan-x

 

[soligeri]

??????? what?

 

[JackNaylorPE]

He don't want to play x

You don't need a video card at all to surf the net ... on board GFX will do fine

 

[Moldoror]

If he don't have a GPU he can't play a full HD video from youtube, i know that cos my brother have a laptop with no GPU. GPU works on many things not just games

He don't want to play x

You don't need a video card at all to surf the net ... on board GFX will do fine

 

[Eximo]

Well it does depend a little. Some of the lighter onboard GPUs will have issues with Full HD playback. AMD E-class comes to mind, but that is going back 4-5 years to the early APUs.

A system that has a max of 2GB system memory may actually not be up to snuff for modern content consumption on the interwebs. (One of the reasons I retired me E-350, browsing got very spotty due to heavy flash based websites, and just poor coding in general)

Without an exact model on the hardware in question it is difficult to say.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

If he don't have a GPU he can't play a full HD video from youtube, i know that cos my brother have a laptop with no GPU. GPU works on many things not just games

When building my box, I ran the computer on the stock cooler with no GFX cards while I installed the water blocks, cut all the rigid tubing, assembled the loop which took about 6 weeks. I had no issues viewing youtube content.

I read the OP too quickly and thot he was referring to VRAM ona GFX card in a relatively current system (< 5 years old), hence the long explanation on that topic. But w/o knowing more specifics, (OS, MoBo, CPU, etc), it gets hard to address the question.

 

[Eximo]

Is your system a 5-7 year old system with a 2GB memory maximum?

No one is saying that a recent Intel HD Graphics chip or AMD Trinity or Kaveri APU couldn't do just that, but that isn't the case here.