Could a fellow laptop gamer with a 6GB version of the 970m run a few benchmarks for me?

Trying to figure out if the 970m 3GB version is enough or if I need a laptop with the 970m 6GB.

Can you find the FPS and VRAM usage at each of the following settings and games?

Shadow of Mordor: 1080p, Ultra, 4xAA
Shadow of Mordor: 1080p, Ultra, No AA
GTA5: 1080p, Ultra, 4xAA
GTA5: 1080p, Ultra, No AA

 

No, 3GB VRAM is not enough to run SoM on Ultra, with the optional textures downloaded. There are plenty of desktop benches out there, that prove so.

GTA V, Ultra, No AA:

 

From my experience, despite what vRAM numbers say, there is no difference in performance between 3GB and 6GB 970m.

Check out these two reviews:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...with-gtx-970m-6gb-review-by-htwingnut.765829/
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...650se-with-gtx-970m-htwingnuts-review.765376/

970m 6GB / 3GB FPS
Bioshock Infinite: 69.1 / 70.7
Crysis 3: 40.4 / 37.1
FFXIV: 78 / 80
Grid 2: 88 / 90
Metro Last Light: 51 / 52
Mordor: 47.1 / 47.2
Sleeping Dogs: 44.5 / 44.8
Thief: 47.4 / 47.4

All above tests were run at 1080p and "Ultra" or highest config setting. The 3GB actually did slightly better than the 6GB version in most cases.

 

What if you turn on AA, wouldn't that greatly increase VRAM consumption?

What about in future games? Could we see new games using more VRAM in the next 12 months or so?

 

1) Yes
2) If history is anything to go by... Yes

 

This has been bantered about a lot at NBR. But vRAM used does not equate to performance. It all depends on the vRAM bandwidth and the performance of the chip. There are some instances where more vRAM will help, but in those cases, performance isn't usually any more than 10%. It's not like if you have 3GB you will magically be able to play "UBER" settings if you have 6GB vRAM because the performance of the chip and bandwidth are the same. It can just hold more in it's vRAM.

AA will consume more vRAM of course, but for same reasons mentioned above, it's really tied to bandwidth and performance of GPU.

Will more vRAM help with future games? Maybe, but we won't know until they come out. It was only until recently that even the highest end desktop GPU's offered more than 3GB vRAM. Desktop GPU's were typically 384-Bit which means either 3GB or 6GB and 3GB seemed to be enough. Unless everyone goes out and upgrades their GPU's, games in the near future will be perfectly playable with 3GB vRAM.

All that being said, it can't hurt to go with 6GB vRAM all else being equal on the laptops you're considering.

 

VRAM consumption is different per game, sure. But how much is being used has little to do with requirements and performance.



This video shows that 2GB vs 4GB makes no difference in terms of performance. The difference is negligible at best. A game will consume more VRAM if there is more VRAM to consume. That doesn't mean it properly utilizes this extra VRAM. I'm assuming DX12 will allow for better utilization of memory in the future. Maybe that's why cards will start coming with up to 32GB's of VRAM.

 

I have the 3GB version and i ran with everything on ultra (except motion blur if i remember, which i always turn off) with 50 fps, even though it said on options it required +6gb vram. Just had the +135/+400 OC

 

He very specifically asked about two games in particular, both widely documented as needing more than 3GB VRAM at highest settings, neither of which were covered in the video you provided.