Can I add virtual memory to 1060 3GB

If I use shared memory, would I be able to use some of my ram as VRam? I think there's an option in the UEFI Bios?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=N-XUuLgPcNI
youtube.com/watch?v=Mwmv0FggOu0
youtube.com/watch?v=y1RWItff0eQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What exactly do you want? To make videocard use your PC's RAM for textures? It does that already when it runs out of it's own memory, that's when all the stuttering beings.

Why would you buy the 3gb? That's barely better than a 970

That is not going to help for shit. I believe thats meant for igpu only but not completely sure. You fucked up by buying that

It came with my prebuilt.

>prebuilt
>3gb
Jesus Christ user

What kind of power supply is in it? You could always just upgrade to the 6

Yes. Some systems even do this automatically.
My friend got a 770 2GB few years ago, and the system shows it as 4GB because of this.

There's no difference between 3 and 6gb except for maybe some very recent releases.

Except that's wrong.

No, he got the 4GB version, dumbass.

...

Even at 1080p a lot of games require at least 4 for max quality textures

...

Regular ram is a lot slower than v ram. Unless he has like 128 gigs of ram that's impossible

>buy 6GB 1060
>speccy shows it only has 2GB of memory

nani the fuck? must be a bug right? i dont think i have any games installed right now that show how much gpu memory is being used

>prebuilt

*laugh in stutters*

Wrong. The box says 2, the speccy says 2, startup BIOS info says 2, but dxdiag shows 4, and so do many games.

Ethereum miners can't use anything less than 5GB, so these are the only cards without a $200 markup.

Just get MSI afterburner and turn on the OSD. It'll show how much VRAM a game is using.

If there is an option to use RAM as VRAM in your BIOS, then it's for the iGPU. Current dedicated GPUs can not use system RAM. The game itself has to handle all data transfers between system RAM and VRAM.
The only exception to this is AMD RX Vega, which has a feature called HBCC (High Bandwidth Cache Controller), which allows the cards to use system RAM.
It supposedly works well, but it's academic since the current Vega cards all ship with 8GB of VRAM. Might become relevant on lower end Vega cards in the future.

Except thats true

>There's no difference between 3 and 6gb VRAM

Yeah, maybe if you're running games at 720p and not using high textures. Even GTAV that came out 4 years ago exceeds 3gb VRAM usage at ULTRA settings at 900p+

Wolfenstein 2 requires 4GB of VRAM for minimal settings at 720p.

3gb is literally fine, you won't max everything but it's hardly bad.
You should be getting 1080 60 fps high settings minimum.
You don't need to remorage your house just to play Vidya

Boy I didn't realized we returned in 2014!

Pair it with a Pentium G3258 and you've got the perfect 'show the jew whos who' machine.
You'll be gaming at 4K/60fps 1080/144fps for the next 6-7 years, no sweat.

And 4GB system ram, no one needs anything more than that anyway.

DX12 can use your System RAM as VRAM but no one is adding support for it

Most likely because Nvidia/AMD have a hand in tons of PC games development & want people to pay more for their GPU's with more VRAM

They can sell 16GB VRAM GPU's next year for a huge price, while if you could use your System RAM as VRAM, people would just buy the 4 or 8GB alternative

You're right. At 1080p the 1060 3gb can run most things maxed until up to mid 2016. And then you can just lower from max to high and still keep 60fps. Autists on Sup Forums just don't know what they're talking about and like to brag about their hardware for some reason.

Yeah I think you mean System RAM buddy, there is a difference between system ram and VRAM (Videogame Ram), even the latest games only need 2-3GB of VRAM for even 4K.
Take it from me, I'm the bees knees with this stuffs.

>prebuilt
just throw it into the trash

>prebuilt

Kill yourself

You're fucking retarded, user. They just specified the 770 model which is weak as shit compared to the 1060 3gb and HAPPENS to have 4gb of VRAM. A 1060 3gb would easily run that game.

You're both fucking retarded. Even when limiting texture sizes to high my VRAM gets almost entirely used up (2.9k regularly) by modern vidya. I actually monitor my specs in every fucking game I play so I know damn well what I'm talking about.

Hell, recently a game that doesn't look particularly impressive like ELEX easily eats all VRAM I have available and that's on 1080p.

>hurr no one should have jobs making PCs because I'm a turboautist who dedicates my life to researching components.
Fuck off buddy, you're not helping the economy any, you're just a selfish prick drain on society.
You should kill yourself.

Please post a speccy screencap we want to laugh even harder

Yeah sure OP, just create a GPU page file while you're at it, that'll really make your games run better. Shove an SD card in and use ReadyBoost too!

>minimal for low settings 720p 60 fps
>GPU: Nvidia GTX 770 4GB/AMD Radeon R9 290 4GB or better
The reason these exact cards are for minimal is because of VRAM. Both are companies' first 4GB GPUs. And R9 290 is still very powerful, especially compared to 770, when even HD7950 outperforms it in recent games.

This is seriously how the old Radeons worked

>2017
>dual core
>3GB VRAM
that's just planned obsolescence. The opposite of the future proofing your promise.
For almost same price you can get a true quadcore that's 80-100% faster and on a platform that's not dead.

This is true despite "conventional wisdom".

GTX 1060 is a 1080p card regardless of 3gb or 6gb.

So in 1080p mode, the difference between the two is purely clockspeed and the cuda shader count. Aka 5%. There are almost no game (pretty sure there is one game who pushes >3GB for 1080p).

Meanwhile the price difference between the two is ~50%

For 1440p, I'd go for 1070. For 4K, 1080ti

I did say up until mid 2016 with MOST games. If you're that autistic that you need to have everything on max then that's your own problem.

he's joking.

We're talking about 1080p. Jesus fucking Christ anyone who games at 1440p or 4k will choke on anything less than 4gb.

Maybe you shouldn't make grand claims that turn out to be bogus while telling everyone else they don't know what they're talking about.

That actually says nothing. Without actually benchmarking the games properly, you can't really tell how much vram the game actually requires. The game could be using all of your vram, but your performance would not change even if you were to have double the vram or half the vram. This mostly has to do with the fact that unused (v)ram is wasted (v)ram. This means some games just load all the textures they can into the vram even though they might almost never get used. One example of this is CoD: Advanced Warfare, which would consume over 7 GB vram on a 12GB vram GPU (note: it's a 2014 game).

Indeed, the difference between the two is quite minimal and, while the 6gb has better future proofing, you can still keep 60fps on the 3gb for a long time by lowering the settings just a bit. Many games just DON'T push the VRAM like everyone says.
>50% price difference
Now that's just wrong user. The most I've seen between the two was like 60$ which IS a good amount to save or invest into another component so it is still worth comparing.

youtube.com/watch?v=N-XUuLgPcNI
youtube.com/watch?v=Mwmv0FggOu0
youtube.com/watch?v=y1RWItff0eQ

Virtually no difference across ~20+ games

I clearly specified 1080p in my other post so you should just stop pretending you know everything and that everyone else just doesn't know what they're talking about. There are a few games that push the VRAM, yes, and those might be the ones you play, but the difference between the two cards at 1080p for most games until this year is insignificant.

>turboautists
>there are clear instructions on how to build a computer which can be done simply in a short time
>he can't even follow simple instructions
kill yourself

Anyone who took a 3GB GPU for 1080p in 2017 is retarded. That's 2012-tier memory amount. Even Siege requires 4GB for Ultra textures (not even with 4K textures DLC)

The 1060 3GB goes for $200 right now. 6GB goes for $300. That's 50% difference.

On launch, I got a 1060 3GB for ~$170 with coupons. The 1060 6GB was going for ~$240 with coupons, thats about 40% difference.

>GTX 1060 is a 1080p card regardless of 3gb or 6gb.

Yes but they are not the same card.

No it really wouldn't do anything GDDR5 has a much higher throughput than DDR4

Did you even read his post?

They're not, thats a naming issue. The 1060 3GB should have been GTX 1060 and the 6GB 1060 Ti version.

Naming them both the same was a mistake, but atleast we can tell by the RAM count.

lol I've played games from 5 years ago that require more than 3GB

Not to mention that this chart just mentions peak memory usage which might happen very rarely throughout the whole game.

Yeah, only the game will stutter once it exceeds VRAM limits. You're pretending like nobody else knows what the results of exceeding VRAM limits are while using 2014 (!) games as your base.

You're defending a guy that claims there's no difference between 3gb and 6gb VRAM other than recent releases. Besides, I wasn't sure whether you were the first or second guy I quoted.

The problem with the chart isn't just peak, the peak. Peak memory looks like it could be a good argument for higher memory, but reality of the matter is bit murky.

While its true that having higher memory means less needs to be flipped, however the cost of flipping ram in 3GB variant isn't that high because the GPU itself is pretty fast. So when gaming, the difference isn't noticeable.

>Yeah, only the game will stutter once it exceeds VRAM limits
I didn't realize the only explanation to stutter was running out of vram. Guess I'll get 32 GB of vram so my games never stutter.

>while using 2014 (!) games as your base.
It's like my whole post went way above your head. Did you even try to think?

Last post I said
>I did say up until mid 2016
Only one of those two first posts mention that.
Also, while I agree that there are differences between 3gb and 6gb, these are overblown as fuck here on Sup Forums and most of the elitist pc community.

The game doesn't stutter due to VRAM limit. It stutters when VRAM limit hits a GPU processing speed limit. Its the same argument with the intel i3 vs amd's 8core. While its true the more cores generally is better than 2 cores, however in reality, because the Intel's 2cores are so fast, they don't need the extra cores to help out when competing against AMD CPUs.

It does help much better when you add in the high speed + high core. This is what happens with the new 8600K + 8700K. Completely dominating the charts with 5+Ghz overclocks.

Guys, I need to replace my hard drives since they're starting to fail and I'm running out of space. I've always gone with WD and they've always been super fucking loud, including my current Greens. I've heard Seagate Barracuda is quieter, so is there any reason I shouldn't go with those?

The difference is that 6GB variant was literally made for age proof 1080p gaming while 3GB variant was 1080p with lower quality textures.

A game stutters once it exceeds VRAM. I presume you do understand that at the very least. Now where the fuck did I say the only reason a game would ever stutter is when it exceeds VRAM?

Obviously when your VRAM is faster you have less of an issue because it's less likely to ever hit the limit. So while you're technically right, having more VRAM available also fixes the issue of it capping out and causing the game to stutter. I mean, it's not like the 3gb 1060 VRAM speed is faster so I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the argument. But I presume it's post purchase rationalization.

>He fell for the Nvidia Jew

I knew 8gigs of Dram was going to be necessary one year ago OP, you should always think really carefully when you spend more than $200 on anything. Now you got jew'd up your boi pucci and looking for half baked answers.

>lower quality textures
Sure, but you usually just have to lower it a bit, either to high or medium (former ONLY on the most recent games) while keeping the rest of the setting max. So pretending that the extra VRAM is crucial to gaming is just ignorant when it can keep up very well as long as you're not picky. And if the difference in price you find is between 60-100$, that is much better spent into a better GPU or saved up if you're on a limited budget.

>GPU
I meant CPU. Or more RAM for that matter.

...

yeah i just did that and played some rainbow six siege and it says my my gpu has 6gb of memory weird that speccy says it has 2gb and i even checked dxdiag and that said it had 4gb so i dont know whats going on

hahahAhahahHAHAHA

When did anyone say extra VRAM was crucial? It's not, but some people are spreading misinformation by claiming there's literally no need for 6gb. I can easily hit 3gb VRAM usage by installing a single high texture mod or free release by devs.

Again, it's not crucial but it's a nice bonus that IS useful.

brainlet here
the fuck is OSD

on screen display

...

...

weird, doesn't show up for me

>A game stutters once it exceeds VRAM
>VRAM maxed
>GPU usage at 100%
>game stutters
What caused the stutter?

You need RivaTuner statistics, original poster didn't explain it very well.

did you install rivatuner statistics with it? because you need to

don't sweat over "people's" reaction over here - 95% of visitors here are eternal manchildren penny pinchers with no money, that would scoff at you even if you pay real money for DRM-free games instead of just torrenting them.
DDR4 at max of their clocks can provide a solid trade-off for the lack of VRAM in texture-heavy games on very high resolutions with AA. It's just sometimes not fast enough to avoid microstutter "people" here shit themselves all over from it cuz muh 250hz silky smooth framerate on 16K skyscraper wall projector has to be considered an absolute minimum of acceptable vidya experience

Difficult to say, but assuming there are no CPU/RAM issues it'll be more likely to be your VRAM unless your FPS is literally in the dumps. A minor stutter is not quite the same thing as continuous non existent FPS.

post speccy

also the game in question

whats your fps at?

I'm not saying 3GB has faster ram than 6GB, but rather 3GB/6GB has RAM that's fast enough to feed the cuda cores that it counter most of the VRAM limit issues. Sure occassional stutters might happen, but its not due to simple VRAM limit issue as shown by the chart posted above. So while the game might use 4+GB of RAM or 5GB of RAM, and the GPU is limited to flipping over memory fast as possible due to VRAM limit, the ingame might not actually stutter. Otherwise, those games listed would be totally unplayable.

The COD AW for example uses "7.3GB" but in game, the 1060 6GB can do ~ 80-100 on Ultra 1080p with simple dualcore i3. With 3GB variant doing ~150-170fps with i5s.

There's no real stutter present.

Man, I guess 8GB vram isn't enough for crysis 3 then.

Look, mate, buddy, friend. Obviously when your GPU usage is at 100% you can have the occasional drop in FPS entirely unrelated to VRAM. I'm not sure what you're trying to test here, but it's getting a little ridiculous.

Some games use all the VRAM they can allocate. I'm sure there are no 2014 games that actually exceed the 3gb VRAM limit of a fast GPU with even faster memory speed like the 1060. Hell, were there even GPUs being released back then that had more than 3gb? AMDs newest line of cards, maybe.

And they said the neofags wouldn't try to come here. Jesus christ

gj at derailing discussion, Sup Forumstard

I'd laugh at you but I only have 3gb vram and it would look like I have autism.

>Obviously when your GPU usage is at 100% you can have the occasional drop in FPS entirely unrelated to VRAM
Yes, which is why you in most cases can't tell the exact reason for your stutter, so "my vram was maxed and the game stuttered so I clearly need more vram" is not something you can do unless you want to be wrong half of the time. This is why you actually benchmark shit.

I have a standard 1080 and it does 4k at 30fps most games. Is there much of a difference between the 1080 and 1080ti?

yes - it's a "premium"-tier product, so the price per frame gets unreasonably higher than any previous models.

>implying system requirements mean anything anymore
I'm pretty sure they have no understanding about PC hardware cuz these requirements make no sense

You can quite easily tell the reason for a stutter, when VRAM use shoots up while GPU usage remains low and you stutter it's most likely a VRAM problem. It's also why memory leaks are so easy to detect, RAM usage steadily keeps increasing until windows crashes while the GPU and CPU look fine? Definitely a problem related to memory.

Besides, capping FPS to limit GPU usage is a great way to find out whether the stutter is related to your GPU speed or the lack of VRAM. I usually decrease FPS in intervals of 10 to see if the problem still persists. It takes both the GPU and CPU out of the equation.

this.
"Requirement" part was a thing when with every new series of GPUs there was some brand new shader model released.
Now, when your GPU lacks memory - you can count on your 8-16GB of RAM to compensate.
If that runs out - there's always swap file on your hard drive.
It would stutter as hell, but it will never refuse to launch (unless it's a software bug)