How much does graphic memory matter? say a game recommends 4 or 6GB but you only have 3

how much does graphic memory matter? say a game recommends 4 or 6GB but you only have 3

Attached: 41w6-WIbjpL._AC_SY400_.jpg (420x267, 15.91K)

sometimes you'll get stutter other times you won't

it matters a lot, you generally want 8gb of it and with the absolute least being 4gb.

It is quite important for storing textures. The higher the quality of texture is the more VRAM is required. If you have only 3gb then you will face a lot of stutters, as the game would have to load textures and remove textures constantly which will result in poor performance. So, consider setting the texture quality to low or medium.

Games are needing more and more of it nowadays, even at 1080p. If you're only ever going to do 1080p, you can get away with 8GB of VRAM with most games today and in pretty much all games in the past 5 years or so. 1440p is where it gets tricky, I would recommend getting a card with at least 10 GB of VRAM there, but more is better for sure. 16 GB of VRAM is a nice sweetspot for both 1440p and 4K today, but expect VRAM budgets to get higher in future games, especially with the new gen of consoles coming out in a couple weeks. Good luck finding a nice GPU for your rip user.

depends on the settings. texture size, render resolution etc.
system requirements are always a ballpark figure and usually you can even run the game perfectly fine on a system that is (relatively) slightly below minimum requirements, assuming you crank the settings down enough

im going to keep it at 1080p though

>say a game recommends 4 or 6GB but you only have 3
Have you ever seen the blurry texture in a game, that turns into detailed ones after a second or two?
Well.. that's a visual presentation of "no enough vram". It just unload some less used texture from VRAM and load the one that's needed from RAM.
Despite what people here say you most likely won't get lots of visible stutters, since games nowadays handle that shit pretty well.
I've played Shadow of Mordor with HD texture pack (recommended VRAM was 6Gb IIRC) on 3.5Gb 970 and the game played great honestly.
So it definitely matters, but there's little point of overkilling it too.

Attached: u549el0qwy131.png (1920x1080, 1.87M)

What if you have 12 gigs of Vram but the fucking game dosent use them, and you still have those low texture things?

970 4gb(3.5gb) here. It matters. At least I got 25% refunded back to me.

>970 4gb(3.5gb) here. It matters. At least I got 25% refunded back to me.
What games did you had problems with?
"Ultra" texture setting is a bit too much now ofc, but most of the stuff still works great on High or at very least Medium texture settings.

it could result in low framerates or microstutters as the game swaps assets in and out of VRAM as everything doesn't fit at once. Game might also outright refuse to work.

There are some youtube videos that show older graphics cards and how low ram can bottleneck them

only faggits play AAA games

Attached: 1603825787194.jpg (500x500, 14.79K)

Never checked too be honest. I play low at 1080p on my 2080ti.

it matters if you run out of it

Attached: RTX 2060 6GB vs Vega 56 8GB.webm (1280x720, 2.92M)

only faggits play games

>There are some youtube videos that show older graphics cards and how low ram can bottleneck them
Ehh.. In my experience old architecture in the first thing to bottleneck your GPU. Game might run great, but then it just reaches some point full of shaders that are optimized for next generation GPUs and it will just shit itself. Prime example is nvidia 700 series. That shit aged really bad. Similar, but not as extreme are 900 series and Vulcan/DX12. It works, but it's just not as fast.
"Good" example is GCN in this case. Since it was in consoles, pretty much whole industry was trying to squeeze every last bit of it.

If you have enough RAM, VRAM shouldn't be a critical problem in _most_ games. Yeah, max fps will be lower and low res textures will pop up here and there, but generally it should be playable (if the whole frame that can't fit into VRAM, it might turn into ugly mess tho). After all APUs are working with RAM only and are doing "ok" for what they are.

the actual VRAM usage is quite lower than it looks on software overlay
someone did the math and i think the figures came 2GB for 1080p, 6GB for 1440P and 10GB for 4K

Honestly? Because it overcomes incompetent studios like Ubisoft

>Honestly? Because it overcomes incompetent studios like Ubisoft
There's nothing incompetent about vram usage.
Studios just get some Steam survey with vram, divide that shit into few categories and optimize texture sizes for common lower denominator of each category.
Like this:
Low: 8191 is 5% tops. Not even worth bothering and increasing game size because of them

Stats are probably based on potential users of their product, but you get the idea.

graphic memory is not synchronized like system ram, so it is the best memory for the parallel processing of the Gpu. One of the main reasons APU's never worked on PC was because they were being bottlenecked by the system ram but if AMD included GDDR then it would make them almost as expensive as an entry level discrete Gpu.
Using only system ram would heavily tank the frame-rate the higher the resolution is due to their much lower bandwidth. But system ram is still necessary for Cpu, which work better with synchronized memory.

If you want to be 100% safe at 1080p, get 6GB for the most demanding modern games, but most games that are like 5 years old would likely only need 4GB max and if older or less demanding then well

/thread

>1080p - 6gb
>1440p - 8gb
how much for 4k?

1080p 2-3GB max
1440p 3-5GB max
4k 4-7GB max

Fucking retards everywhere. Look at benchmarks of 1060 3GB and 1060 6GB in 1080p. The 6GB model is only 5-10% faster, and that's because of more CUDA cores, not more VRAM.
Don't listen to retards recommending more than 3-4GB for 1080p.

Attached: 1601059556701.jpg (483x700, 119.12K)

really widely varies from game to game, some under recommend, some over recommend, some accurate, some just blatantly retarded, like Resident Evil 2/3 remakes saying they use 6-7GB at med settings at 1080p, but run just fine at 90 fps on a GTX 970 3.5 meme

How much vram do I need for 4k cunny?

hol up
you be sayin...
vram only works for texture shit?

>Games are needing more and more of it nowadays, even at 1080p. If you're only ever going to do 1080p, you can get away with 8GB of VRAM with most games today and in pretty much all games in the past 5 years or so.
But this is not the truth. I have 4gb and a budget card and I play my games at 1080p and I never encounter stuttering. In any game. Ever. Playing High to Ultra. Reducing shadows quality to mid or low. I agree that more the merrier but particularly for 1080p , 4gb seem more than enough.

You better believe ray tracing is a vram (and bandwidth) rapist as you can't cheat on it via compression like you can on other tasks (Nvidia's colour compression saved them a staggering amount on the bandwidth requirements). RDNA2's infinity cache is an attempt to basically not need nuclear memory chips or going down HBM again as memory very quickly eats into the TBP budget which has all kinds of knock-on engineering issues. See: why the 3090 cooler is fuck huge.

As much as you can get with the bandwidth to feed it.

Attached: 2020.10.30-08.30.jpg (3840x2160, 3.32M)