2gb vram enough?

Hey all. I'm looking to get the r9 270x, which is available in 2gb and 4gb,both ddr5. I'm gona be playing games till 2016 ( March or April) so I'm thinking whether the 4 gb will actually be used just for playing @ 1080p. I wana get the 2gb version cause I like the sapphire toxic tri x version and it's only available in the 2 gb variant. So should I go with an Asus or saphire dual x 4gb or saphire tri x 2gb toxic? I'm confused. Please help.

Actually im gona be running it as much as possible so il be saving in the middle for a better gpu, so judging by how things look, itl last me till 2017 max.

What games you play REALLY makes a difference. I.E GTA 5 can use almost 4gb on 1080p. So examples of games you play maybe?

No! next. :) 280 285 even the 290 and 290x are getting much cheaper. Personal exp leads me to believe that the 280 is the most solid( for the min ) for 1080p gaming. I am running a pair of 280's that i purchased for 160/170 a piece. Deals are out there/coming. Don't take my word for it. Hit a few benchmarking sites and compare.

1 Like

Not a bad option but theres a lot of variables in comparing performance of SLI cards vs. a single gpu card.
I.E two thermal throttled cards aren't gonna beat one 970. And again what games? If your primary game is mantle based then definitely go 2x280.

No not what i meant. Single card. Cf'ing and Sli is never gonna be practical. Which reverts back to purchasing the single most powerful card you can afford for best results.

You might use slightly over 2GB, but the R9 270 is nowhere near powerful enough to utilize 4GB of vram.

Go with the R9 280 or similar.

I run modded Skyrim with HD textures on a GTX670 with 2G vram fine. It plays smooth enough to not experience any problems. I have 100's of hours played on this setup.

If I was to buy a new card I would most likely spend the extra few dollars on GPU speed over VRAM. My reasoning is however I am sticking to 1080p gaming for at least another 2-3 years even if I get a 4K display for desktop productivity. I cant see pixels at 1080p gaming. I dont need 4K.

If you are saving up a bit more i reccomend the MSI Radeon R9 280X 3GB TWIN FROZR. 3GB is pretty much the sweet spot atm and the card itself is not that much more expensive than the R9 270

Ummmm, i really can't buy the 280. Here in India it's about 50% more costly. no I'm not talking about skyrim. I'm talking about witcher 3, dead island 2, dying light, killing floor 2, mirrors edge 2, assassin's creed rogue, victory, unity, and all the games which will come out in 2015,16 and 17. Is 2gb enough? I heard unity itself hogs vram like anything.

1080p sucks

I would go for 4GB. You will start running out of VRAM at 1600x1200 with those games, and the VRAM issues will become severe around 2048x1536.

If you can afford it your going to want to get the 4GB version. Some games now, like GTA V, require up to 4GB of VRAM to play 1080p.

Yea if you want this to last untill 2016, then definitely do not buy a 2gb card. On a side note however, the newest gta v update reduced my vram usage to a little bit over 2gb. So I guess that proves that you will still need over 2gb after optimizations.

Ok. Il try getting the 4gb version from overseas. Thanks all.

You should really try to hold out until the launch of the R300 series cards. New product launches can do crazy things to old prices, almost always for the better.

it's more than enough for any game released before 2013

Depends mostly on the resolution, I purchased a R9 290 so I could play safely at 1080p for a good few years, at the moment 2GB is fine, but for up coming games like Witcher 3 not a chance, the console quality is improving massively at an alarming rate which is forcing the PC market to stay on top.
How I look at a GPU is this.
Speed 1st then Memory buffer.
A GDDR5 card is like having 2/3GB DDR3 buffer on GPUs just look at clock speed first.

I highly recommend if you want a 270x to get the 4GB version, I got one for a customer and its done well