VRAM 2Gb vs 4GB for gaming?

[VadimKhan]

Hi, this is my first thread, I tried finding a similar one with enough detail but couldn't.
My question is, is it better to buy a GPU with 2Gb VRAM or 4GB, I will be using this for gaming running at 1080p, is it worth getting a GPU that's 4gb and are games really going to need it? Also if you can could you recommend a GPU around the £250/$400 mark. Thanks a bunch guys!!

My configuration is :
Z97 pro wifi ac mobo
I7 4790k 8mb Cache 4ghz s1150
8gb DDR3 ram (Kingston)
The video cards I was thinking about were the EVGA Geforce 770 2gb ACX or the
Asus Geforce GTX 770 2gb

If I need 4gb I'd really appreciate if you could suggest one.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

No, if ya paying for the extra 2 GB, it clearly isn't worth it as evidenced here:

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx-770-4gb-vs-2gb-tested/3/

There is one last thing to note with Max Payne 3: It would not normally allow one to set 4xAA at 5760×1080 with any 2GB card as it claims to require 2750MB. However, when we replaced the 4GB GTX 770 with the 2GB version, the game allowed the setting. And there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s.

And that was at 5760 x 1080. yes, a game can allocate RAM and it can claim RAM, but I have yet to see a published test result showing improved performance at 4 GB over 2 GB.

BTW, the MSI is the better card and it's a lot cheaper
$319.99 - 6% off w/ promo code EMCPAPA32, ends 9/15 - $20 MIR = $280.79 ... Asus is $310
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127741

MSI - 9.9 Rating / 1137 MHz Clock / 29 dBA under load / 101.7 fps in BF3
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gaming/31.html

Asus - 9.6 Rating / 1058 MHz Clock / 34 dBA under load / 96.0 fps in BF3
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GeForce_GTX_770_Direct_Cu_II_OC/

 

[zaysk]

That depends on the kinds of games you play and if you don't mind turning texture quality down in some games. If you like to play Skyrim or Fallout with mods at all, then you're going to want the 4GB card. I max out my 2GB's as soon as I load up my save in Skyrim, and I only have a few texture packs, unlike New Vegas. In Fallout, I hit my VRAM limit within minutes of playing the game.

Some games also want 3GB of VRAM for ultra quality textures, Titanfall wants 3GB for insane texture quality, and it stutters pretty badly with only 2GB. Battlefield 4 recommends 3GB for ultra textures, although it actually seems to run fine with just 2GB, but I haven't tried the multiplayer yet so it could be a different story there. Watch Dogs will happily use over 3GB of VRAM if it's able to.

So if you play any of the above games and would like max quality, and don't mind paying a bit of a premium, then get the 4GB card. If you don't mind turning the textures down in some games and don't mod Skyrim or Fallout, then 2GB should do you fine. Although IMO, if you're getting a GPU the caliber of a 770, you should always go for the bigger VRAM card just because it has enough processing power to actually make use of the extra VRAM for games that want it.

For what it's worth, my only regret with my system is that I settled for the 2GB 770 rather than paying 30$ more for the 4GB card. But I mod the hell out of Bethesda games and any games that allow me, plus I LOVE my ultra graphics, so that's just me.

Edit: I'd recommend the 4GB MSI GTX 770, I have the 2GB version and it's a great card, well built, and the temps never go above mid 60's.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

That depends on the kinds of games you play and if you don't mind turning texture quality down in some games. If you like to play Skyrim or Fallout with mods at all, then you're going to want the 4GB card. Some games also want 3GB of VRAM for ultra quality textures, Titanfall wants 3GB for insane texture quality, and it stutters pretty badly with only 2GB. Battlefield 4 recommends 3GB for ultra textures, although it actually seems to run fine with just 2GB, but I haven't tried the multiplayer yet so it could be a different story there. Watch Dogs will happily use over 3GB of VRAM if it's able to.

Again, Max Payne also "used 3GB of RAM"..... but using and performing better are two different things and and "there were no slowdowns, stuttering, nor any performance differences that we could find between the two GTX 770s" when 4 GB was swapped out before in the above test. All my cards are 3 GB so I don't have a horse in the race so to speak, but I have yet to see any test site showing fps impacted when swapping out a 4 GB card for a 2GB card. I have no doubt that day will come, I just haven't seen anything showing it tho.

 

[zaysk]

That depends on the kinds of games you play and if you don't mind turning texture quality down in some games. If you like to play Skyrim or Fallout with mods at all, then you're going to want the 4GB card. Some games also want 3GB of VRAM for ultra quality textures, Titanfall wants 3GB for insane texture quality, and it stutters pretty badly with only 2GB. Battlefield 4 recommends 3GB for ultra textures, although it actually seems to run fine with just 2GB, but I haven't tried the multiplayer yet so it could be a different story there. Watch Dogs will happily use over 3GB of VRAM if it's able to.

Again, Max Payne also "used 3GB of RAM"..... but using and performing better are two different things. All my cards are 3 GB so I don't have a horse in the race so to speak, but I have yet to see any test site showing fps impacted when swapping out a 4 GB card for a 2GB card. I have no doubt that day will come, I just haven't seen anything showing it tho.

I'm talking about personal experience, not "tests". Titanfall alone is a good example that that day has already come, if you enable the highest texture quality the game will start to stutter pretty badly after a few minutes, and that's due to lack of VRAM, not processing power. Sure, you won't get much of, if any, FPS increase, but it will prevent the game from stuttering due to lack of VRAM.

I can't speak from personal experience, but going off what I've read Watch Dogs will run decently on 2GB's of VRAM, but if you're driving around the game will start to stutter due to textures being constantly loaded in and out of your maxed out VRAM. Having more VRAM probably won't increase your FPS by much but it WILL make the games that can actually put that extra memory to use, smoother.

My Skyrim installation isn't to heavily modded, a few texture packs and an ENB, but due to my limited amount of VRAM the game will stutter and "pause" for half a second relatively often due to, once again, textures being loaded in and out of my maxed out VRAM.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Over here ...

2 x 780 w/ 3 GB @ 144 Hz (26% OC) / 4770k (4.6 Ghz) / 16 GB @ 2400 - no stuttering on anything .... yet
2 x 560 Ti w/ 2 GB @ 120 Hz (25% OC) / 2600k (4.8 Ghz) / 16 GB @ 1600- no stuttering on anything .... yet

Seems to me tho, if anyone was able to document this via testing, ya would think they'd be be looking to put a feather in their cap and make a name for themselves by reporting it.

 

[zaysk]

Over here ...

2 x 780 w/ 3 GB @ 144 Hz (26% OC) / 4770k (4.6 Ghz) / 16 GB @ 2400 - no stuttering on anything .... yet
2 x 560 Ti w/ 2 GB @ 120 Hz (25% OC) / 2600k (4.8 Ghz) / 16 GB @ 1600- no stuttering on anything .... yet

Seems to me tho, if anyone was able to document this via testing, ya would think they'd be be looking to put a feather in their cap and make a name for themselves by reporting it.

Let's just agree to disagree, I stand by what I said and I still think the extra VRAM is a wise investment. I know I'm gonna be upgrading to a 4GB 980 mostly for the extra VRAM, the added power is just a bonus.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Well yes, obviously we disagree .... but right now, we only have published data on one side of the argument and I'm earnestly looking for anything that shows differently. I'd hate to find myself or my users disappointed as we continue to use 2 GB at this point in our 770 builds..... well at least for 2 weeks . I point users to the data and let them make their own decision but in the past, those that were thinking of paying an extra $60 for 4 GB, figured they were getting close to the 780 at that point that they went that route.

So if ya ever find some test data to the contrary in this regard, I would certainly welcome reading any such published test data. I didn't see the alienbabeltech article till 6 months after it came out. With more than a year since, I'd have thot someone would have stepped up to the plate but not yet. Or it's out there and I just haven't found it yet.

Of course as the 9xx series approaches, the price difference has been diminishing....only $20 for 4 GB on the Asus 770; at a certain point it becomes a "Why the hell not" issue.

Anyway, it's soon to be a non-issue. RAM is getting cheap enough that the 2 top tier GFX cards will have 4 GB starting later this month. The 860 was indicated to have 2 GB but I'm guessing the 960 might get bumped up. I'm real anxious to see how it falls out tho .... will vendors forgo Hynix or even Samsung and use cheaper lower clocked RAM to offset the greater amount ? That would be a bad thing.

 

[17seconds]

Usually you will only need 2GB, but I have been surprised to see games like COD: Ghosts use nearly all of my 3GB of memory, and Bioshock Infinite use 2.5 GB at 1080p. I have a GTX 780 Ti, so I am able to increase my AA and texture settings, and that plays into it, but it's been surprising. Those are outliers for me. Games like Borderlands 2 and Far Cry 3 run comfortably well under 2GB of VRAM. The point is that you can totally get by on 2GB and if the VRAM amount is a problem, you can tweak your settings easily to get under that limit. If the 4GB card is cheap enough, then by all means splurge for the extra VRAM, but you really won't miss it.