Graphics Card Help!

[arthurp123]

I want to upgrade my GPU to a GTX 760 but i don't know if I should get a 2GB or 4GB because I am also planning on buying a Asus VG278HE 27 inch 144 hertz monitor and I was wondering if getting 4GB would be more useful since it is a huge powerful monitor that I will be gaming on. I would like to know the differences, advantages, and disadvantages I would have from getting the 2GB and the 4GB, I don't know if I would get an advantage or it's useless for my build. Also if 4GB is better than should I get the GTX760 4GB or GTX770 2GB. Would any of these gfx run BF4 on max setting smoothly, and if so how many fps, and what amount of fps is considered decent and what is considered great. I would also like to know an estimate of when the GTX 860 will come out because If soon I'd rather just wait and get that. Thank you

 

[salvage-this]

Adding more VRAM is more important when you have displays that are over 1080 or multiple displays spanning games. As of now I don't think there are many titles that will go over 2gb of VRAM used at 1080. I can't think of any that actually need that much to function properly.

The 760 2gb will be just fine but it will not be hitting 120\144fps in games if you need to have the settings set to max.

Get a 2/3gb card and spend the extra cash on the best performing GPU that you can.

 

[Okedokey]

Agreed at 1920 x 1080, you don't need 4GB. And running a 760 will never be fun on multiple screens, even in SLI, so just get the 2GB 770. That is a much better option. The 760 you'd (guessing) looking at around 40FPS at 1080p Ultra. 770 around 60 fps i think. That's OK.

Ideally, however a 780 is what you really want, or a R9290. - you have a 144hz monitor, you want to be aiming for 150FPS. This requires two 780s.

 

[G80FTW]

Agreed at 1920 x 1080, you don't need 4GB. And running a 760 will never be fun on multiple screens, even in SLI, so just get the 2GB 770. That is a much better option. The 760 you'd (guessing) looking at around 40FPS at 1080p Ultra. 770 around 60 fps i think. That's OK.

Ideally, however a 780 is what you really want, or a R9290. - you have a 144hz monitor, you want to be aiming for 150FPS. This requires two 780s.

Adding more VRAM is more important when you have displays that are over 1080 or multiple displays spanning games. As of now I don't think there are many titles that will go over 2gb of VRAM used at 1080. I can't think of any that actually need that much to function properly.

The 760 2gb will be just fine but it will not be hitting 120\144fps in games if you need to have the settings set to max.

Get a 2/3gb card and spend the extra cash on the best performing GPU that you can.

BF4 will use 3.7GB at least at 1080p with scaling above 100%. Assassins Creed Black Flag will use just over 2.2GB at 1080p. Crysis 3 will use over 3GB at 1080p. Those are the only games I have monitored using over 2GB, Im sure I have other games on here that do as well but if your wanting to max out games even at 1080p you will need more than 2GB.

Especially for BF4, trust me, you will NEED a 4GB card to max it out.

 

[salvage-this]

I think that might be the same thing that we saw with BF3 if it has the extra VRAM room it will use it. That is why I was careful to say I can't think of any that actually need that much to function properly. I don't think that BF4 only functions with 3+gb of VRAM. Their recommended cards are 2gb cards.

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/pc

Also the 760 does not have enough power by itself to push Ultra 1080 so the details would need to be taken down enough to get it into a good frame rate and he wants to run a 144Hz monitor. To get the most out of that he will want to take down the details even further

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html

Same goes for Crysis 3. if it uses more than 3gb @ 1080 I should have a terrible experience at 1600 with 3gb of VRAM. It plays just fine for me.

If he plans on SLI 2 760 4gb that makes a bit more sense for more VRAM but if it is a single card only the 760 doesn't have the performance needed to make 4gb absolutely necessary. I think Okedokey is right he should be shooting for 780s/R9 290s or better if he wants to hit that frame rate without taking down the settings.

 

[G80FTW]

I think that might be the same thing that we saw with BF3 if it has the extra VRAM room it will use it. That is why I was careful to say I can't think of any that actually need that much to function properly. I don't think that BF4 only functions with 3+gb of VRAM. Their recommended cards are 2gb cards.

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-4/pc

Also the 760 does not have enough power by itself to push Ultra 1080 so the details would need to be taken down enough to get it into a good frame rate and he wants to run a 144Hz monitor. To get the most out of that he will want to take down the details even further

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html

Same goes for Crysis 3. if it uses more than 3gb @ 1080 I should have a terrible experience at 1600 with 3gb of VRAM. It plays just fine for me.

If he plans on SLI 2 760 4gb that makes a bit more sense for more VRAM but if it is a single card only the 760 doesn't have the performance needed to make 4gb absolutely necessary. I think Okedokey is right he should be shooting for 780s/R9 290s or better if he wants to hit that frame rate without taking down the settings.

BF4s recommends 3GB on that link you posted.

But anyway, those 3 games appear to be the only games I have that will use more than 2GB of VRAM at max settings at 1080p.

I just tested Tomb Raider, ETS2, and Far Cry 3 and all 3 of those games max at 1080p were using around 1.5GB at the most.

If he doesnt want AA at 1080p, then 2GB wont be a problem. But once you start applying AA at 1080p in those 3 games I listed a 2GB card would start to struggle.

As for Crysis 3, the most I seen it use at 1080p on my system was just over 3.1GB I think so your 3GB card is probably sufficient in that respect. A 2GB card, I wouldnt be so sure...

I personally would not get a card with less than 3GB today, since all the newer games I have seen are using over 2GB with AA at 1080p. At least, I wouldnt get a 2GB card if you want the PC gaming experience anyway...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-review/13

As close as the 760 is to the 670, I think it might be able to make good use of 4GB. Considering the 670 didnt perform much more than 5% worse than the 680. So in terms of raw power, I think the 4GB 760 could show some better potential in certain situations but if he is just looking to get the highest framerates your probably right he wont be able to truly max out any of those games with a 760 or 770 anyway.

 

[salvage-this]

They did post 3gb recommended. Then they posted 2 cards (7870 and 660) that are 2gb cards...

I just tested Crysis 3 and on a 780 3gb on high with no AA @1600 I use just over 1.5gb VRAM. Plays smooth at 65 fps.

 

[G80FTW]

They did post 3gb recommended. Then they posted 2 cards (7870 and 660) that are 2gb cards...

I just tested Crysis 3 and on a 780 3gb on high with no AA @1600 I use just over 1.5gb VRAM. Plays smooth at 65 fps.

Try it using 8x MSAA.

 

[salvage-this]

Setting everything to Ultra with AA and AF @ 1600 I hit 2.5gb used. 20 fps. 1080 is right at 2gb. 40 fps

EDIT: updated.

So neither I would call very playable at their respective frame rates. 1080 was close but I would hate to see the frame rate dip lower than what it already is. So that brings me back to what I was saying earlier. with a 760 it doesn't have the horsepower for more than 2gb of VRAM to be absolutely necessary. If he is shooting for the higher frame rates (like over 100+) it will matter even less. If he is set on a 760 I see no problem with a 2gb version. If he goes for more performance, then it would be more reasonable for more memory.

 

[G80FTW]

Well, honestly I would save up another $100 for a 4GB 770. Since he mentioned BF4, BF4 would certainly make good use of it if no other games he has does.

You dont want to really buy into mid-range hardware too much if your a gamer, as you will find yourself spending more on upgrading more often in the end. With a 4GB 770, I think you would be able to use that for a much longer period of time as opposed to the 2GB version just based on the fact that games will only continue to use more and more VRAM not less. 2GB just isnt worth it to have anymore if your a PC gamer unless like I said you keep AA off. For me though, I cant call myself a PC gamer without being able to use a good amount of AA in my games. To me its what has always been able to seperate consoles and PC. Even next gen console games can look slightly better on PC and run better with more AA. Assassins Creed is a prime example if you ask me.

He is never gonna see over 100FPS in modern games with a 760 or 770 anyway unless he is running the games on medium to low settings and resolutions. Which to me, defeats the whole purpose of a gaming PC. So I think unless he wants to invest in a similar setup as Okey, he might as well forget 100+fps plus.

 

[Okedokey]

at 5760 x 1080, never seen it go close to 3GB, ever.

 

[G80FTW]

at 5760 x 1080, never seen it go close to 3GB, ever.

On which game are you referring to? If you want, I can go back through the list and post some screenshots of my memory usage. Would take some time.

 

[Okedokey]

bf4, and others. never had an issue. Plus you dont' have 5760 x 1080. Yet again you're trying to justify your 4GB crappy gpu. Before you take offence as I know you inevitably will, the 680 struggles with less than 50FPS in BF3, so really a 4GB memory frame buffer has no place in the coversation. You only consider 4GB VRAM at ultra high (read 4K) resolutions with GPUs that can push it, currently the only single gpus that can do that 780ti, titan and 290x. Every other card is laughing to do that.

Speaking of memory configurations, in most cases, cards with 3GB of memory or more would usually see a video memory usage of about 2.25GB at any given time while gaming. However, for cards with less than 3GB, we typically observed about 1.75GB of memory being used.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...deo_card_performance_iq_review/7#.UwdQjvmSy2Y

but to be honest with you i cannot be bothered getting into another argument with you. I have a high end system, you don't; i run 5760 x 1080, you don't; and im telling you, real world, 3GB is plenty in 99% of cases! I run 3K gaming which you haven't, only when you get to 4K gaming does VRAM above 3GB matter. My rule of thumb, 1GB per 1K (1080p).

In fact even at 200% resolution in BF4, 1080p doesn't need 3GB

as has been the trend for a long time where at 1080p, VRAM makes no performance difference

SO! to answer the OP's question. Forget VRAM unless you plan on multiple screens or 4K gaming, in which case you'd never buy a 760, 770 or even a 780. Just get the fastest GPU you can afford at 2GB VRAM.

 

[salvage-this]

Okeydokey covered my thoughts in his last post.

I cant call myself a PC gamer without being able to use a good amount of AA in my games. To me its what has always been able to seperate consoles and PC. Even next gen console games can look slightly better on PC and run better with more AA. Assassins Creed is a prime example if you ask me.

He is never gonna see over 100FPS in modern games with a 760 or 770 anyway unless he is running the games on medium to low settings and resolutions. Which to me, defeats the whole purpose of a gaming PC. So I think unless he wants to invest in a similar setup as Okey, he might as well forget 100+fps plus.

This is the worst argument you have made so far. If watching pretty explosions were the only thing that mattered no one would be playing CS, Minecraft, COD4 etc...

Also being able to change the graphics is one of the things that makes PC gaming great. I can play games a wide range of systems because I can change the settings to make it playable. Don't play the PC Master Race card. It's BS. If you play games on a PC, then you are a PC gamer. The settings you have the game set to doesn't determine that.

 

[G80FTW]

Okeydokey covered my thoughts in his last post.



This is the worst argument you have made so far. If watching pretty explosions were the only thing that mattered no one would be playing CS, Minecraft, COD4 etc...

Also being able to change the graphics is one of the things that makes PC gaming great. I can play games a wide range of systems because I can change the settings to make it playable. Don't play the PC Master Race card. It's BS. If you play games on a PC, then you are a PC gamer. The settings you have the game set to doesn't determine that.

Im not playing the PC Master race card. Im playing the "I like to have decent hardware so I can play games that look like they are from this generation" card. Which is why people invest in PC gaming. I dont invest in my PC gaming the way Okeydokey does, yet I am completely satisfied and play games that look amazing.

bf4, and others. never had an issue. Plus you dont' have 5760 x 1080. Yet again you're trying to justify your 4GB crappy gpu. Before you take offence as I know you inevitably will, the 680 struggles with less than 50FPS in BF3, so really a 4GB memory frame buffer has no place in the coversation. You only consider 4GB VRAM at ultra high (read 4K) resolutions with GPUs that can push it, currently the only single gpus that can do that 780ti, titan and 290x. Every other card is laughing to do that.



http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013...deo_card_performance_iq_review/7#.UwdQjvmSy2Y

but to be honest with you i cannot be bothered getting into another argument with you. I have a high end system, you don't; i run 5760 x 1080, you don't; and im telling you, real world, 3GB is plenty in 99% of cases! I run 3K gaming which you haven't, only when you get to 4K gaming does VRAM above 3GB matter. My rule of thumb, 1GB per 1K (1080p).

In fact even at 200% resolution in BF4, 1080p doesn't need 3GB

as has been the trend for a long time where at 1080p, VRAM makes no performance difference

SO! to answer the OP's question. Forget VRAM unless you plan on multiple screens or 4K gaming, in which case you'd never buy a 760, 770 or even a 780. Just get the fastest GPU you can afford at 2GB VRAM.

First off, here you go again. I told you, I will post screens of my VRAM usage with the 3 games I listed. 1GB per 1K? Whats a K? That doesnt even make sense.

Also, 4K is much higher than your 5760x1080 which is effectively what I can run BF4 at with its 200% resolution scaling (which WILL use more than 3GB) since 2x 1920x1080 is what again? Honestly I dont see the difference between it and MSAA which is why I use MSAA over it but even that will use more than 3GB.

When I get home from work, I will show you how much BF4 really uses because 2.8GB at 1080p with 200% scaling is a laugh and a half. It uses way more than that even without 200% scaling. Now, if these are 3GB cards perhaps 2.8GB is their limit and in that case their test is really pointless. Also, your graph displaying 2GB versus 4GB, where is your link to that? Because that graph is not in the link your provided.

Advising someone to buy into a mid-range card when they just bought an expensive montior and obviously want decent graphics just makes no sense when for $100 more they can have a card faster than mine, and mine can max everything out at 1080p so I think he would be perfectly happy with a 4GB 770 over the 2GB version.

 

[G80FTW]

Crysis 3 all settings max 1080p 8xMSAA is 2.7GB on my card:

http://s163.photobucket.com/user/Nick_Palaroan/media/VRAMC3_zpsf60b6337.jpg.html

I can maintain a constant 30FPS or more at these settings.

Assassins Creed Black Flag everything max 1080p CSAA8x(16x) 2.4GB:

http://s163.photobucket.com/user/Nick_Palaroan/media/VRAMAC4_zps9a4beda6.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1

This game I keep a good 40FPS at these settings.

I will do BF4 when I get home. But if you use AA, 2GB is not enough.

But your right salvage, no one spends a grand plus on a gaming PC to look at pretty graphics, its ALL about gameplay. Wait.....

 

[salvage-this]

First off, here you go again. I told you, I will post screens of my VRAM usage with the 3 games I listed. 1GB per 1K? Whats a K? That doesnt even make sense.

http://scarletuser.com/archive/index.php/t-78.html

Crysis 3 all settings max 1080p 8xMSAA is 2.7GB on my card:
I can maintain a constant 30FPS or more at these settings.

Assassins Creed Black Flag everything max 1080p CSAA8x(16x) 2.4GB:
This game I keep a good 40FPS at these settings.

I posted the reason for this in post #5

I think that might be the same thing that we saw with BF3 if it has the extra VRAM room it will use it. That is why I was careful to say I can't think of any that actually need that much to function properly.

Just because the GPU has the overhead does not mean that the game needs all of that VRAM to function properly If that was the case than any 1080p players with any 2gb cards would see stuttering just playing the game at graphic settings achievable by their GPU.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

But your right salvage, no one spends a grand plus on a gaming PC to look at pretty graphics, its ALL about gameplay. Wait.....

Not the point that I was making. Please do not misquote me. I never said that graphics were not important. I just stated that graphics are not the ONLY important part of a gaming system, or what you think it means to really be a PC gamer...

Im not playing the PC Master race card. Im playing the "I like to have decent hardware so I can play games that look like they are from this generation" card. Which is why people invest in PC gaming. I dont invest in my PC gaming the way Okeydokey does, yet I am completely satisfied and play games that look amazing.

So you agree that acceptable graphics levels are per person basis. So medium might be a fine trade off for the OP if he is looking for high frame rates to take advantage of the monitor refresh rates.

The right answer might be as easy as not buying the ASUS VG278HE and getting a 60Hz monitor and spending the extra cash on a better GPU. But since we have not heard back from the OP, we can't tell for sure.

 

[G80FTW]

http://scarletuser.com/archive/index.php/t-78.html



I posted the reason for this in post #5

I think that might be the same thing that we saw with BF3 if it has the extra VRAM room it will use it. That is why I was careful to say I can't think of any that actually need that much to function properly.

Just because the GPU has the overhead does not mean that the game needs all of that VRAM to function properly If that was the case than any 1080p players with any 2gb cards would see stuttering just playing the game at graphic settings achievable by their GPU.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/



Not the point that I was making. Please do not misquote me. I never said that graphics were not important. I just stated that graphics are not the ONLY important part of a gaming system, or what you think it means to really be a PC gamer...



So you agree that acceptable graphics levels are per person basis. So medium might be a fine trade off for the OP if he is looking for high frame rates to take advantage of the monitor refresh rates.

The right answer might be as easy as not buying the ASUS VG278HE and getting a 60Hz monitor and spending the extra cash on a better GPU. But since we have not heard back from the OP, we can't tell for sure.

Sure. That works for me. Id still like to see 2GB cards benched against their 4GB counterparts in BF4 using 200% scaling but i have never been able to find such a thing. So i cant say for sure if the 4GB will be faster, i can only say it has the potential to be faster when the games can make use of it which todays games obviously use it for something.

EDIT:

BF4 all settings max 1080p 200% scaling with 2xMSAA 3.1GB:

http://s163.photobucket.com/user/Nick_Palaroan/media/VRAMBF4_zpsb482093a.jpg.html

These settings keep me well in the 30s, which as I said is playable enough for me. Which compared to even the 3GB 780 is better:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2013/11/27/battlefield-4-performance-analysis/7

So does VRAM make a difference? Well, in my machine I would say it certainly does. And like I said, this is only the beginning. With the next gen consoles now out, we should see a good leap in graphic quality which with it will bring higher resolution textures which will in turn require more VRAM. The need VRAM has always been increasing, it doesnt stay the same for very long. A 4GB card will not only give you better performance with AA, but it will allow you to squeeze more life out of the card.