More VRAM for bigger display?

[guerrero]

Im planning a build to use on my 46" 1080p TV and I'm not sure if I should choose a 2GB 650ti or 1gb 650ti

 

[ProSnipor]

Okay just throwing this out there, if you play really close to your 46" 1080p tv, games and such are going to look very pixelated. Anyways back onto the topic, i would go with the 2 gigabyte model because I've seen games use more than 1gb of VRAM in modern games at 1080p. I hope that helped you out

 

[amuffin]

1GB is enough for 1080P.

 

[ProSnipor]

1GB is enough for 1080P.

No i have seen vanilla skyrim run past 1gig, i have also seen bf3 jump past 1gig at 1080p. So really more modern games do require more vram. So the 2 gig model would still be the one i would recommend. Games like metro 2033 jump past it also.

 

[swifty_morgan]

look under memory usage/final words

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/far_cry_3_graphics_performance_review_benchmark,1.html

 

[azathoth]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130840
This 2GB version is actually on sale, and is cheaper than all of the 1GB versions!

Easy decision!

 

[Munter78]

The amount of memory needed relies solely on the textures the application/game is using, and the resolution being displayed. You can be running at 4k resolution, and playing a game using no textures larger than 640x480 in size and find out that a 512mb card would do the job. Now crank those textures up to 4k res and you will see that the amount of memory needed on that card would sky rocket...and probably bring a 4gb card to its knees.


edit : and as Azathoth said, screen size doesnt matter. 1080p is 1080p. 2 million pixels to control, no matter how you look at it. Only thing that will change is the size of the pixel, the dot pitch, and the amount of power to control the pixels and backlighting.

 

[confish21]

Sir, this is completely incorrect on every single level.

You can have a 3" screen, or a 120" screen. If they are at the same resolution then they will use the EXACT same amount of memory.

The resolution is what matters, the physical size has NO EFFECT on how much VRAM is to be used.

Yup Thats what i wanted to say!

 

[Derza10]

630 GT 4GB + windows 7 64 bits(32 bits will bottleneck) = best performance for such large screens as 46" and even to 84" ones.

What do you not understand about this? lol THE SIZE OF THE SCREEN MEANS NOTHING ITS THE RESOLUTION! a 46 inch 1920x1080 res tv takes no more vram than a 20 inch 1920x1080 monitor or a 120 inch 1920x1080... I am baffled that you have a veteran status and do not understand that.

 

[amuffin]

The GT630 isn't even fast enough to take advantage of 4GB of VRAM.

 

[jtenorj]

part of this also boils down to msaa/ssaa settings too. more data written to and read from vram at higher res.

The thing is this(has been stated at least once before) the physical size of the screen matters not.

what does matter is THE NUMBER OF PIXELS YOU ARE TRYING TO PUSH.

if the gpu on the card(with its number of various units at a certain clock speed) isn't up to it, all the ram in the world would do nothing for you.

You don't want too little, though(1GB is fine for most games at 1080p, some will push beyond that like skyrim with the texture pack).

lower end cards like gt630, gt640 and gtx650 can't even take advantage of 2GB, let alone 4.

Whether it's a 9 inch tablet or a 46 inch tv, if they are both at 1080p they both have about 2 million pixels (just different size pixels).

 

[amuffin]

Size of the monitor and performance.

 

[jtenorj]

Size of the monitor and performance.

"size" or "resolution"?

If we are looking for a card that will last a while, and 1GB is already becoming a limitation at 1080p in some games(a trend that will only continue if history is any indication), then getting a 2GB card seems like a good idea. The card does need to have a gpu powerful enough to take advantage of it, though.

I'm thinking it would be worth it to spring for a 7850 2GB(you can overclock the snot out of a card like that).

 

[amuffin]

Size and resolution.

 

[jtenorj]

Size and resolution.

Didn't we just go through a whole thing talking about how it's not the physical size of the screen that matters, but how many pixels on the screen(res)?

Performance has more to do with how hard a game is on cards in general and if a given card is up to the task of delivering playable FPS at the target res.

The desired settings(or lowest level settings a user is willing to tolerate) also play a part in determining whether a card is up to snuff in a game @1080p.

 

[amuffin]

Yep!

I was just referring to the previous post by him. 😀

 

[guerrero]

Best answer selected by guerrero.