Is 3GB enough for 1080p gaming?

Is 3GB enough for 1080p gaming?

Other urls found in this thread:

pcpartpicker.com/list/JyNrVY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

In 2009

8 gb is standard now desufamalamabam

classic nvidia scumming with their VRAM

You'd want 4GB at least these days, I think.

My 2GB 670 is still doing pretty well though but if you can I'd recommend the 6GB variant just for the extra vram.

Or a 4gb rx 480 at least.

It is enough but always go for more.

Enough for 80-90% of games on high @ 1080p.

Don't forget that reported VRAM is reserved VRAM not used VRAM. When you have less VRAM the game engine will reserve less, similar to how you have higher RAM usage when more RAM in the system.

Just about ever benchmark site is guilty of not properly doing VRAM testing.

Having said that the market is going toward 3GB-4GB minimum for high/ultra. So it will only last 2 years at most.

Some games on ultra will use above 3.5GB VRAM, shadow of mordor and gta5 specifically.

i only have 1gb.

No it wont be because even the budget cards have 8GB now which means that the developers wont even bother with RAM usage being low. They'll just constantly release shit with uncompressed textures because why the fuck not.

>graphic card having more ram than system.
No thank you.

kawaii desu~~ ^_^

>System having less ram than gpu

AbsolutelyHaram.png

Depends.
The Witcher 3, GTAV, and DOOM will all happily use more than 3GB VRAM at 1080p. There are probably plenty of other games that will use more than 3GB as well, those are just the ones I've played recently.

In those three though, I've seen 3.8 GB VRAM being used on my GTX 960 4GB while getting 60+ fps.
Based on this, I'd say that a GTX 1060 3GB is an awful purchase because your graphics settings will be limited by your amount of VRAM rather than what the GPU itself can handle.

1060 3gb is so gimped it's not even worth looking at, it's not a 1060, it has less shader cores and other stuff stripped away. Either get the 6GB one, or if you want to future proof for dx12/vulkan, get an rx480.

Witcher 3 is known to over reserve btw.

Only 2-2.5GB is what is really needed.

since people with 750 ti's are managing with a measly 2gb vram, i'd say yes. nvidia probably have some clever memory compression or some shit with pascal which makes vram usage very efficient.

>witcher 3
>gta 5

nigga what? i play witcher 3 and it only uses like 2 gb vram at max when playing ultra settings. also gta 5 is well optimized for even old ass 2gb video cards.

Are first gen DX11 cards deprecated?

>hd5870

>have 1060 in pipeline
>have 1060 TI ready
>AMD releases a card that might actually compete in the budget market
>OH SHIT TIME TO RELEASE THE 1060 TI AT ONLY 200% PROFIT MARGIN INSTEAD OF 300%
>Release actual 1060 anyway, hoping that some dumbfucks will get confused by the identical names of the two different cards and think the lower price makes it a bargain

Fuck, I hope this monopoly gets broken one day.

3gb might be enough most of the the time, but you're better off saving up for a few more days and getting the 6gb

Okay.
This doesn't change much though, GTX 1060 3GB is still going to be limited by its amount of VRAM more so than its processing power.

I'm pretty sure Rise of the Tomb Raider used around 3.8 GB VRAM while running at 60+ FPS too.

>gta 5 is well optimized for even old ass 2gb video cards
GTA 5 can run on a 2 GB card, yes. It ran decently on my 750 Ti at lower settings with 2 GB VRAM.
But the point still stands. At higher settings, GTA 5 will happily eat much more VRAM than that, easily shooting well above 3 GB at 1080p, at settings that a slower GPU than 1060 can handle at 60+ fps. So in this case, a GTX 1060 3GB would indeed by limited to lower graphics settings because of its amount of VRAM. The same goes for DOOM, which will happily use over 3GB at 1080p with high settings too.

I'm on a 650TI 1GB and I'm starting to get low VRAM errors when playing games like Forza 6 Apex.

I also notice ram errors when trying to watch hardware accelerated movies while having a game open on another monitor.

The GTX 1060 seems like a good choice to me as I don't game that often, mostly just loading hardware accelerated stuff onto the GPU.

I was originally looking at the EVGA 1060 6GB SC but the fucker is never in stock, while the 3GB version is in stock.

If I only plan to keep the card for 3 years tops before moving on to the next mid range card down the line will I be severely limited?

People say to get the 6/8GB cards for future proofing but there are also others that say a midrange card cannot make full usage of the extra VRAM like the GTX 960 for example and by the time games require 4GB+ become mainstream that it'd be time for an upgrade anyways.

Currently running 3*24"@1080P + 1*40"@ 1080P for a total of 4 screens.

In markets outside the US the 3GB version is like $50-$80 cheaper and is clearly labeled as 3GB GDDR5 in title.

It's not so much a scam, as it's probably because people can't afford to pay $400 for a video card, but can do $320.

RX 480 has been sold out in Canada everywhere, it's near impossible to find and costs exactly the same if not more then a GTX 1060 6GB non-reference models.

Nvidia will probably win outside of US, unless AMD can figure out supply and get proper pricing in outside markets.

Also we have higher tax rates so, when you pay $300 in Ontario, Canada for example, you pay an extra 13% HST, which becomes $340.

never mind about the 3GB. nvidia can't async and dx12, it's doomed to tank soon

True, I would only recommend the 3GB version if price difference is significant and u only want the card for under 24 months and have a lower end processor like an i3 or old i5.

Because you can still resell it after 2 years when u do your big upgrade.

>The Witcher 3, GTAV, and DOOM will all happily use more than 3GB VRAM at 1080p.
That doesn't mean they NEED 3GB of VRM or more. I use under 3GB in GTAV with a GTX 980 and I've run The Witcher 3 on a card with 1GB of VRAM.

Obviously I wasn't maxing out settings though.

u wot?

2GB 680 running three monitors. runs pretty much everything medium to high. ultra in some like overwatch.

it should be fine. 3gb at 1080p will be alright and they probably did a bunch of internal testing with all sorts of games to see if it affects the 1060. i wouldn't sweat on it like all these people are.

Futuremark sold themselves to nvidia to make them look good

They sold themselves to MSI before that. Why aren't you complaining about that?

>MSI nvidia and AMD
>GALAX Nvidia only
i wonder

>Obviously I wasn't maxing out settings though.
Exactly.

A while ago, I benchmarked GTA5 on my system. Pic related to show specs.
This hovers around 3.6-3.8 GB VRAM while playing. Granted it dips below 50 occasionally for a few seconds at a time at most, but as you can see it averages above 60.
2016-07-12 11:25:10 - GTA5
Frames: 63435 - Time: 969063ms - Avg: 65.460 - Min: 46 - Max: 96

Now if a 960 can handle games like this while almost maxing out its 4 GB VRAM, why would one want a faster card with less VRAM ? This doesn't make much sense when games are only going to require more VRAM and processing power in the future.

Don't buy the 3GB 1060. It's gimped. Fewer CUDA cores. Should've been called the 1050Ti. Either buy the full non-gimped 6GB 1060 if you really want to buy nvidia or get the RX470 in that price range. It's a better choice.

Is it safe to buy a 980 Ti? I'm scared of being gimped and haven't bought an nvidia gpu since 9600GT

The GTX 1060 has 6GB?

I'm retarded, There's two versions. Pls no bully

Dips below 60 are unacceptable. Also it's really easy to bring down GTAV VRAM usage while keeping the graphics mostly intact and frame rates well over 60.

Point is, you don't need particularly much of VRAM. I don't care if you PREFER more VRAM becuase it makes you feel secure about the future, that's your thing and more power to you. That product is clearly not suitable.
The fetish for 8GB+ of VRAM is ridiculous though. Yea if you really want to, you can make use of it, but it's not needed in any game.

Cards with 3 or 4GB of memory still have a place. Even cards with 2GB of memory do.

You will have to lower texture settings, but aside from that yes.

>Cards with 3 or 4GB of memory still have a place.
>Even cards with 2GB of memory do.
Yes. But that place isn't in the high-end or mid-range where 1060 is placed. 4GB of VRAM would have been fine on the 1060, I'm not trying to advocate for the 8GB fetish here.
4GB is enough for just about every game currently released to be played at 1080p with very high settings. This would have been fine, and would have made the gimped 1060 a good purchase.

3GB though ? When there are already several games that can easily use more at 1080p ? That's a bit too little for what it is, because now you have a card that's more limited by its amount of VRAM than its GPU.

See

sure at medium settings, higher will cause your system to overflow into ram and hit performance.
average 1080p usage is 1-3.5gb vram depending on the application

anyone who unironically says this for 1080p
you can just laugh at for wasting money on nothing.

1060 3gb is not high end. It's low mid range.

Also being limited by VRAM is better than being limited by GPU. Because VRAM usage is easily configurable by disabling AA/lowering texture quality but GPU usage is much harder to keep up on if future games do something more intense.
If you had something like a GTX 460 with 8GB of VRAM it would be just as bad as the real deal with 1GB of VRAM today. No difference whatsoever. Because it's GPU limited and there is nothing you can do to compensate for that. Modern games run on 1GB of VRAM, but they don't run well on a GPU that weak. By comparison with a GTX 480 you can still play a lot of modern games. It has 1.5GB of VRAM, but the GPU is much more powerful than 460 specially when overclocked.

GPU is not something you want to be limited by over VRAM. If you have a choice of being limited by something, always pick VRAM. If you have a choice of being limited by neither, pick neither.

I guess you've never used an old high end 2gb gpu then a modern high end

Low vram creates constant stutter, texture pops and input delays as the system struggles to supply the core with information.

yes it is, don't let autists tell you otherwise

>Have no experience buying cards
>Get 'recommended at price range' one
>Works fine for several years, I'm not the sort of person to put it under constant strain
>Bought a mobo + CPU to replace current build, haven't put them in yet
>Recently crashed a few times to black screen while playing games that usually play fine
I'm gonna have to get a new card now too, aren't I.

>1060 3gb is not high end. It's low mid range.
Reading comprehension. I didn't say it was a high-end card.

>7years
Yes. Yes you will have to replace your paper weight.

The GTX 1060 3GB might not be that appealing to US residents.
But here in SEA and Asia in general, the prices are alot different
Let me list a few.

MSI RX 480 Gaming X 4G is $272 USD
MSI RX 480 Gaming X 8G is $307 USD
MSI RX 470 Gaming X 4G is $230 USD
MSI RX 470 Gaming X 8G is $250 USD
Gigabyte RX 460WF2OC 4GB is $170 USD
Gigabyte RX 460WF2OC 2GB is $ $139 USD
These are the only RX cards available in stock locally.

EVGA GTX 1060 3GB GAMING is $230
EVGA GTX 1060 6GB GAMING is $285

For an Apples to Apples comparison
MSI GTX 1060 3GB GAMING X is $263
MSI GTX 1060 6GB GAMING X is $310


The locals will pick the 1060 3GB over the RX 470 always because it's labeled and certified as VR-Ready and they see the 1060 6GB benchmarks beating out the RX 480

The will pick the 1060 6GB over the RX 480 because the 1060 6GB is cheaper and beats out the RX 480 most of the time.

You guys can nitpick your arguments and benchmarks all you want but you're not the masses, and the masses will buy the GTX 1060 3G/6G based on the two points I just pointed out.

AMD might have a small victory in the USA, but they've lost the global battle, both in pricing and in shipment availability.

I'm not even posting the lesser known Nvidia cards like Galax, Inno3D and other brands yet.

Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte are known as AMG here, hinting that their prices are the highest.

See you in the next Sup Forums humor thread.

I didn't say seven though Data, I said several. As in, nearer to 3 than 7.
If I had a 7-year-old card, I probably wouldn't be the sort of person who plays games.

I'll probably replace it though, since I'll be going through the trouble of reinstalling everything anyway to put the other things in.

I have reading comprehension. Which is why I noticed that you biased it toward high end, despite it being on the low end bottom of the barrel of gaming hardware. There will probably only be 1 or 2 dota cards below this one.

Hey that's fine bro, I have a friend that was still running a 7300LE passive cooled PCI-E card till just this month.

He upgraded to a 650 1GB for 50 bux because the 7300LE was crashing and didn't have hardware decoding.

He runs a Q9400 with the 650 1G atm and he's perfecting happy, pushes 4K videos in Edge on youtube without dropping a single frame with the GPU acceleration.

>But that place isn't in the high-end or mid-range where 1060 is placed
>mid-range

I can tell you Doom 4 needs it if you plan on playing more than 30 minutes.

This, sadly. I personally have an R9 390 because it was closely priced to the 970 when I bought it, but I was in the market for a GPU right now, I'd be considering the 1060 over the 480, since they're so closely priced or the 1060 is even cheaper, even though I prefer AMD as a brand.

For a card that was announced to be selling in retail for 200-250$ to reach the EU and be at 310€ is just down right ridiculous. AMD has to realize that the US market isn't the only market. Nvidia can manage to sell their cards here for around 30 to 50 € more expensive than in the US, even through taxes, and AMD can't manage to do it under 80€ price difference, it's insane.

You're shit at configuring your game settings to suit the graphics card, unless you're talking about a game that doesn't enable configuration.
I have run Witcher III on a GTX 460. It's not limited by VRAM. Runs smooth as silk at 25 FPS because the GPU is tapped out while VRAM usage hovers around 75%

Yeah, that's right. Silky smooth 25 FPS. No stutter, no input delays, no texture pops. Just silky smooth 25 FPS at 99% GPU usage. That core has more information than it needs.

>25 FPS
>no stutter
>no input delay
rofl

>Runs smooth as silk at 25 FPS
That's not smooth as silk you fucking moron.

no

It's stable at 25 FPS. It doesn't stutter. You don't honestly think a GPU that old can run any modern game right? It's not the VRAM.

No shit, retard.

So you're advocating for a bottleneck either way? Just fuck off.

3gb is too little OP. Many games use more. Get a 4gb card or get the 6gb (I have one, it's fucking great).

Rip Fury.

Yet AMD benefits more from async than in any DX12 game so far.

Nah, modern games can easily use more than 7gb of vram.

Why not just get the 6GB one? Pic related, MSI 6GT, got it for exactly 300 usd.
I think TW3 is a pretty solid game to base performance on, and I am able to run it fluidly at 60 fps, but can sometimes dip to 50, with all sliders cranked to the right except for hair works which I set only for Geralt.

Except I'm not? I'm saying that if you have a choice between botteneck of GPU and bottleneck of VRAM choose the latter. It would help if you read the whole post, like the part where I say that if you have the option of bottlenecking either you should choose that. Problem is, such an option doesn't exist. You'll always bottleneck either the VRAM or the GPU and it's better if you're bottlenecking the VRAM if you want your card to last you a long time - VRAM usage is easier to bring down and vice versa it's harder to bring up if you have a weak GPU.

>what are frametimes
I can tell you guys are straight outta leddit PC master race

Horrible shadow

Yeah, well, it's set on low.

I just went on a part picker to see what it thinks of my current build and the card isn't registered on there, so uh... yeah, I'll be switching it I think.

yep. i have a 2gb 960 and i rarely have any issues with vram at 1080p. so 3gb should be fine for the most part.

It is, it's an entry level card after all. So don't mind the faggots saying "Muh maxing out ultrah".
Still, it's as powerful as a 980, just can't go above 3GB of VRAM.
You'll be able to play games such as TW3 and any game, with the option before Ultra.
So yeah, for 150-180$ I say go for it.

I heard Minecraft uses 12GB, Titan can barely max it out

*Sup Forums humor

works for me with 2G vram

You can get the 6gb 1060 for like $260. I personally wouldn't get the 3gb card.

4GB is the standard for 1080p

6 for 1440p and 8GB for 4k.

That 3GB will deprecate faster than used condoms.

where is that even going?

i used to play pic related on a 16M card at 1280x1024

If 4k has three times the pixels of 1080p, then why is double the ram good enough?

Fuck knows, mate. Ask the Slavs who made it.

vram doesn't equal performance

Ultra Mordor

no but 3.5gb is :^)

It has four time the pixels.

No, because the GTX1060 3GB variant is NOT as good as the GTX1060 6GB variant. Literally cut down in more ways than just the VRAM.
Nvidia cucking its userbase yet again.

>Not AbsolutelyHarambe.gif

So, building something for my bro for his 18th birthday, how does this look?
pcpartpicker.com/list/JyNrVY
I'm tired of looking at him gaming on a laptop so I want to build him a real pc

You said it was fucking imbecile. Pic related its fucking (you)

My 2GB GTX 770 does fine at 1080p

GTX 970 here
Yes
Never really crest above 2.5GB

Don't cheap out on the psu, dude.

/thread

Fellow Canacuck here, managed to pick up the RX 480 sapphire for 360sh at Canada Computers with no hassle because pcpp doesn't list it on the site.

It's expensive as fuck but I'd rather get the 480 than a 1060 which under performs.

I chose it mainly because it was gold certified, there's a platinum one like 3 dollars cheaper, waht do?

P good. Don't listen to the other guy 550W is just fine. Your whole system won't exceed 250W, which is just the right amount of power so that your PSU is close to 100% efficient (in regards to its efficiency rating).

>2011
>6970 $400
>6950 $300
>6870 $170-200
>580ti $500
>570 $400
>560ti $200
tfw the third best GPU on the market was under 200 dollars
tfw the best gpu now is over $1000 (twice what they used to charge for top of the line)
tfw they release all these bullshit tiers inbetween (founders edition, ti, blah blah blah) to make distiguishing between tiers harder for normie idiots
tfw they're releasing gpus with price points as if they were competing with the performance of 2011 priced gpus

tfw i have no face for when gpu market is absolute dogshit and will likely never recover from this faggotry.

think it's time to get a console, these price points and no performance increases are just fucking retarded.

Question: does having a 32-bit CPU also limit the amount of memory your GPU can address? Or is it just system RAM?

It's more about the manufacturer and the specific model than the certification. Some gold units can be unreliable turds that kill your system too.