2gb vs 3gb vs 4gb - When do I need it?

Hardware Hub GPU
1

So, because of very generous relatives I'm ptotentially (although I might end up not buying one at all) in the market for a new GPU to replace my 260X.
I don't want to spend a ton (970 would be nice, but I only have an i3-4130 to pair it with and can't argue with my consciousness that it's too much money to spend), it should do 60fps at 1080p. I think the graphically most demanding game I played so far were Batman Arkham Origins and Skyrim with mods and they really were demanding for my 260X (ultra was never an option for them with 60fps in mind), although now I primarily play WoW and it too could look better (improving the draw distance would be nice).

I didn't do any research as to which manufacturer offers the best GPU in that segment (~200€, maybe a 960 or) but the first question that came to my mind is: should I go with 2GB or do I need more (if not now, then maybe in a year?)? Or in general: when should I go for the variants with more memory?

2

It depends on the game honestly. The more vram you have the more your GPU can shift processed work in and out. Needless to say games have a LOT of processing and a LOT of textures. As we see them get more advanced we will slowly see the need for more and more VRAM. There are some games that are even hindered by not having enough. i.e shadow of mordor at 4K... Skyrim with crazy ENB's and lots of other examples.

You should honestly get the GPU class of your choosing that has the most memory of its class. That will be the best bang for the buck. Thats what I did with my two sapphire r9 290X 8GB cards.

That being said. Think of the GPU like its own mini system. Why did we put more ram in our systems? Same reason applies. Other bottlenecks also occur in a system. There comes a point where the GPU can have a lot of memory and be fast and process a lot but then the CPU of the system cant process all the data thats finished fast enough. but thats a discussion for another day

*which yes AMD im still pissed at what you pulled with the damn fuckin 390X :(

1 Like
3

Right now you you are probably still fine with 2GB but that won't last for long, I'd say get a 960 with 4GB to be a bit more futureproof, a 970 would be a bit overkill for your i3.

4

It depends allot on how you like to play your games.
I would definitely grab a 4GB card for 1080p nowdays,
especialy if you want to play with some filters turned on.

R9-380 / GTX960.

1 Like
5

Listen to this guy he knows his stuff.

1 Like
6

I would always get the highest performing single card you can afford. Based on PC Perspectives article on processing only certain games really need anything higher then an i3. In the synthetics the i3 will fall behind but in most games its not life or death. Hell some of the games the i3 beats the highest end AMD CPU

I am a team green kind of guy so I would shoot for a 960 4gb at the minimum but optimally get a 970.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need

7

2 GB is definitely not enough for 1080p anymore, not to mention foreseeable future. Currently 4 GB is just right for GPUs around GTX 960 to 970 level of power.

2 Likes
8

If you're considering a 970, don't. Go with AMD and get a card that actually has 4gb of Vram. The 970 is powerful for what it is, but it still has a gimpy leg.

1 Like
9

Thanks for the replies, guys! @cynicrf @MisteryAngel @Dissentient @anon43920604 @lucimon97 @yeehti @mouf

A 970 would be in my budget but I don't want to blow all my money on "just" a GPU. There are other things I want to upgrade/replace too (finally an ext. HDD for proper backups, replacing my old Samsung HDD, maybe get a cheap SSD for games, new keyboard, DAC/Amp, open-back headphones, maybe a new case, mousepad, etc.). As I mentioned before, I might end up not buying a new GPU at all.

@mouf So far I haven't encountered any problems in games with my i3. I don't play the "newest" games, where some of them require at least 4 threads. I somewhat know the limits of my hardware and because I want to play my games at least at high settings I stick to older and/or less demanding games. The only time where I really wish I had a better CPU is when I use Handbrake for converting my DVDs/BRs from .mkv into .mp4. Other than that I feel like I'm fine for now - regarding the CPU (maybe WoW could do better, since it's very CPU-heavy). I already think about possible upgrades but am still not sure if I should - when I want to upgrade and have the money for it - got Skylake (or Zen if it's out by then and doesn't suck) or stay on Haswell a bit longer with an i5, i7 or Xeon.

@cynicrf I'm asking this question because before the 900-series was released I've read a lot that people shouldn't go for the variant with the higher vRAM but for the next best model (e.g. 770 2GB vs. 770 4GB -> 780 / 270X 2GB vs. 270X 4GB -> 280). I'm aware that games have become more demanding (and if it's only because they are poorly optimized/programmed).

@lucimon97 And there lies the problem: "probably still fine with 2GB" for now, but how much longer? I dont know when I'll be able to get enough money that I can even consider using it for a new GPU. 2GB seems already the bare minimum for gaming. I've been gaming on low/mid settings for years (crappy 8600GTS), I don't want to go back to that situation again where I can't play games because my hardware is too weak or only able of putting out low settings or even 768p/720p.

@MisteryAngel I only use the presets in the settings menus. Only time I "tweaked" the graphics was in Skyrim with texture packs.

@mouf Of course. I don't understand why people would - let's say - buy two 960 or 380 instead of a single 970 (you can get even a 980 for some of the prices of two 960s) or single 390X (and with a few bucks more the cheapest Fury). I absolutely agree. Unless you're already getting the best card on the market and want even more power (Fury X, 980Ti, Titan X).

@anon43920604 Nah, I could get one right now, but I don't really want to spend that much money for one part of my PC. And exactly as you say: it's powerful, but the 3.5GB issue would bug me (even if most of my games never fill up enough memory to experience the gimping).

Thanks a bunch for the replies! Prices seem to be a over the place as of right now, ~200€ (+/-20€) aren't realistic for 4GB variants of the 960/380 (I prefer ordering from Amazon since they don't charge a fee for paying like other places do and sending stuff back under warranty has always been amazing). And then there's the old "which one should I get?" dilemma (brand, model, which has the least coilwhine/is overall very quiet, etc.).
But thanks a lot for the information!

10

There are some valid points but there are some major oversights. One if your in the tier you prefer i.e 290X and you dont want a 295X2 youd opt for the 8gb card. That being stated. On the nvidia side this stands true. You frequently will see Nvidia specify to manufacturers to stick with the original vram because they want to tier their graphics cards a lot more than AMD does because Nvidia prefers to make money over be nice to gamers. This can be seen with how they gimp their cards drivers for no other reason than to show off a new card. That being said Sometimes you need to analyze the situation. Does the card have enough power to shuffle through this x amount of memory if it doesnt go next tier. If it does its a good option and will save you money in the longer run. That being said the 390 is always ALWAYS going to outperform the 970 for many reasons and one of them actually is VRAM. Game engines like luminous studio DX 12 (2015) are going to take all the VRAM they can get and push some insane reality and with VR around the corner it makes since to go with the largest amount of vram possible in your tier. If you get what I am saying here. Memory speed also plays a factor but this gets a lot into more complicated stuff.

Valid question none theless and even if your tweaking with presets.. Ultra tends to be a vram hog

11

I'd say get at least a 3GB card, should be enough as long as you stick with 1080p and as long as the xbox one and ps4 are still around you should be able to play on pretty decent settings with a 960 or 380.
Regarding the "which one should I get" dilemma, I wouldn't worry too much about it, performance won't make such a big jump that its actually noticeable in-game, I would rather check who has the best cooler, which on the AMD side is probably sapphire.

12

I think I understand.
Yes, dual-GPUs are kind of a special case, I think. Not the usual way to go.

That makes the 390 quite interesting but it's still in a price-segment that I'm not willing to spend money on. 250€ is my personal limit, even if I had more to spend.

Would a 380 be up to the task for 1080p high/ultra and 60fps for most current games?

@lucimon97 Unfortunately it seems that Sapphire's 380s have a software problem which affects the fan control.

13

Isn't that just the new Radeon Software Crimson that is fucking up with lots of AMD cards? Can't speak for the 380, but got the sapphire 390 and so far the fans didnt do anything weird for me, but I also adjusted the fancurve with msi afterburner so maybe that did the trick

14

If you plan on ever playing on more than 1920x1080, you can hit that wall pretty fast. I play some games on 5760x1080 and they're pretty quick to go over 3.5gb. Specifically games like GTA V.

Games like Skyrim, not so much. Unless you mod them. Haven't tried Fallout 4 yet because it doesn't have native support for that resolution, and Wide Screen Fixer doesn't have support for it yet (AFAIK)

15

People on Amazon weren't very specific about the problem. Also, I'm not sure what the cause seems to be, since one reported case on pcpartpicker.com occured before Crimson drivers were released.

@anon43920604 Yup. I only bought a new monitor a year ago, so I'm not going to replace it anytime soon. Multi-monitor-setup is also out of question because of lack of desk space. So, 1080p it is for me.

16

That's too bad, multi monitor is quite enjoyable, and least of all for gaming. It's been a boon to my school work. And no, not just for having my notes open on one screen with a quiz open on another lol. It's nice for projects like network diagrams and what not, because I can have the project information open on one screen, and the diagram I am making on another, etc.

Usually with youtube, or netflix open on the third.

At this point, I would recommend AMD, but that's mostly because I am still butthurt about being lied to about the GTX 970's specifications (bought mine before the 3.5 thing came out). I can say this, I am definitely giving AMD a shot the next time I buy a GPU. (also because Nvidia's idea of multi-monitor support is a joke.)

17

I tried to add my old monitor (22" 1050p) but there's just no space for it. A monitor-arm would most-likely solve that problem but I would go mad having 2 different monitors with 2 different sizes and 2 different resolutions to look at. Another U2414H + monitor-arm would eat up the budget for a 380 :/ I already looked for tablets or auxiliary monitors but they are either crap or expensive. Now I have my laptop on a small foldable table on which I have movies, shows or YouTube running while gaming or studying.

1 Like
18

For a while, I had two monitors of different sizes and resolutions. Not that bad when the bigger one with lower res (that was in reality, a TV and not a monitor) is just for movies or something. I wouldn't try and game across them lol

I'm lucky enough to have a giant antique desk that my parents bought years ago. Only problem with it is that it has almost no leg room. But it does have one of those pull-out slabs of wood on the right hand side. Which I like for my ash tray and as an arm rest.

19

Hm...I might be able to fit a second monitor on there if I swap the desk with the other one in my living room. The 16:10 aspect ratio was just getting on my nerves when watching movies/shows.....black bars...black bars everywhere.

20

btw, would my PSU (Seasonic S12II-620, version with 1x 6pin, 1x 6+2pin PCIE cables; not like the one on their website with 2x 6+2pin)) have the required amperage for a 380? (I suck at physics)

seasonic.jpg1637x738 216 KB