Because more vRAM is always better...

Here is a very nice review showing the difference between 1 GB of vRAM and 2 GB:

http://www.fudzilla.com/reviews/ite.../24078-gainward-gtx-560-2gb-reviewed?start=11

Basically the differences are close to none-existent.

Just wanted to share this information.

 

I thought we are all aware of this, more VRAM is more or less just a marketing gimmick that tricks consumers into thinking cards with more VRAM give better performance.

There are cases that more VRAM can make a little difference, but those are VERY VERY RARE and in practical use, it doesn't matter. I believe AW, at some point at least, offered 3GB 555M 150$ more than the 1.5GB version 555M and there was actually one guy called the AW representative asking about the difference, the "well-informed" representative told him the 3GB version is "33% faster than the 1.5GB 555M", now that's what I call BS.

 

If we were all well aware of this then companies would no longer add useless vRAM to their cards. Unfortunately this is not the case.

But this wasn't my point, my point was to give everyone a strong reference point in any debate regarding how much vRAM makes sens.

 

I think for most games, 512 MB of vRAM should be quite enough. Not many games justify the usage of 768 MB, 1 GB, etc. unless it's on a desktop with a ton of screens.

 

VRAM is only dependent on resolution and 1080p for most games do require about 1 GB or more to run sufficiently. However, if your GPU can't funnel enough data to the VRAM due to a poor memory bandwidth or not enough processing cores, you will never ever use up 1 GB no matter how much RAM you add to it.

It is no surprise that if you GPU can't even run a game well on 1080p on one screen, that you won't do any better with more monitors or more pixels displaying the game. Therefore in that case, having any more than 1 GB is totally irrelevant.

 

It's because it used to be true, back in the 16-128MB video card days.

 

Reminds me of a 2 GB 8400 GS we sold...64 bit memory bus. Super good!

As long as you have the necessary cores and memory bandwidth bus then the amount of memory is fine.

Going from a GTX 460 1 GB to a 6950 (flashed to a 6970) 2 GB, I did notice a difference in 1080p gaming. Then I traded up to a GTX 580 1.5 GB, not much difference (though my room stays cooler).

 

As others said, it is very dependent on the resolution, unless you run more than one monitor or use high texture mods for a couple of games, you shouldn't go over 1GB. Then there's the fact that some nVidia GPUs have wider a bus for some memory configurations which means that lower memory configs might actually give better performance.

GTX560m 2GB -> 128 bit
GTX560m 1.5 or 3GB -> 192 bit

In this case, getting a 1.5GB is actually beneficial over the 2GB...

EDIT lol @ the 64-bit 2GB 8400, i knew memory amount was marketing, but i wasn't expecting something as ridiculous as that.

Given how cheap memory is, with a 256bit bus, there's no reason not to go for the larger memory configs.

 

Maybe if you have a really crappy graphics card. Even a couple of years ago between my 1GB HD4850 and 512MB HD4850 there was a huge performance difference. On the low end, the quantity of RAM is not important. On the high end it is though.

 

Yeah, there's a difference between a 512MB HD4850 and a 1GB HD4850 but that's because the cards fast enough to using it. That's a rare case where they sold the card with too little RAM.
Normally, the "base" model of the card will have more than enough RAM and adding more will make very little difference. For example, if you added another gig to my GTX260 or even to your HD4850 I reckon they'd be very little difference in actual performance.

 

Why don't they simply create gpu's with proper amount of VRAM and of higher bandwidth instead of sticking 1GB extra VRAM onto a gpu which will never use it?
Seriously, they could have subtracted the cost of that extra 1GB VRAM to actually make a 1 or 1.5GB GDDR5 VRAM for the gpu, instead of sticking it with the DDR3 for example.

Moronic manufacturers.
And even more moronic the general population for falling for it.

 

They make it because people will buy it. More=better for the general populace.

 

I agree with all of you.

However, the article is talking about a desktop GTX 560 Ti. For which there is absolutely no difference between 1 GB and 2 GB of vRAM at a resolution of 1920x1080 or even higher.

Now, for laptops, I don't think the GTX 580M is more powerful than the GTX 560 Ti and yet it has 2 GB of vRAM. I can thus conclude that anything more than 1 GB of vRAM is overkill for even the most powerful notebooks.

Getting back to marketing, I think most of those who buy a 580M or a 6990M are informed costumers who know very well how much vRAM is needed. Thus we are simply paying for more... because ... I don't know. See my problem ?

 

Because the manufacturers don't put 1GB versions of 'high-end mobile GPU's'.
It's mostly well over 1GB, and we end up paying more than we should anyway.

 

Unless you have 3D 1080p , 1GB or vRAM is enough.

 

Because DDR3 is almost free compared to the cost of GDDR5. Adding an extra gig of DDR3 makes an almost negligible difference to the cost of manufacture.

 

But it's stupid as it won't make any difference whatsoever.
Here's an idea, they could have used recycling to brake down those DDR3 chips into base elements and reconstitute them into new GDDR5 chips.
The costs are next to nothing for manufacturers, they just like to tell you it costs a lot so they can charge a lot more.

 

I remember someone left GPUZ open while they were playing games to log VRAM use and on some games when really pushed then it would go beyond 1GB. So for a powerful card I would say that while you shouldn't usually be limited by 1GB, going up to 2GB might be worthwhile, any higher would be wasted though. Also, bear in mind this only really applies to high end (mainly desktop) cards which could handle such settings. So if you want to be future proof when you're getting a new gaming rig then looking at 1.5/2GB cards probably isn't such a bad idea, what with games like BF3 round the corner.

How much VRAM do you need for today's games? - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

vram usage under 1920x1200 captured by GTX580 3GB x 2 SLI - Overclockers UK Forums

 

And if you notice in all these circumstances, highest memory usage is with AA cranked up, which lesser powered video cards couldn't handle anyhow regardless of RAM available. Not to mention that just because it's used vRAM doesn't mean it's required to be in video memory, it just is because it's available.

 

The same reason pharmaceutical companies don't manufacturer a cure to the common cold--or any other common ailments--economic incentive. Unless you can show where it's profitable, it's not going to be made.

 

How do you check in-game RAM usage?

Im running at 1440p which is nearly twice as many pixels as 1080 and i only have 1GB vRAM i think.

 

^^^^^^^ flipfire
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...gpu-zs-vram-usage-part-log-file-reliable.html

I have not done it but I do see the option in MSI after burner

 

I think you're mistaking it to the horizontal pixel count? Vertically it would be the same, or less. At least it is in reference to video.

 

Well around 80% more.

 

I tried playing BC2 at 2560x1440p and it hit a max of 700mb according to MSI afterburner. Settings are set to low-medium, No AA.

 

But doesn't it basically load as much as it can if it's available, but doesn't necessarily mean there will be performance issues? Kind of the way Windows 7 loads stuff in system RAM?

 

At the same time, cures for various ailments already exist, and were never put into market.
Just as technology has actually progressed decades ahead of what we presently have and yet consumer grade tech is essentially child's play in comparison.

When someone says capitalism promotes progress, I laugh at just how much that's WRONG.