VRAM

Does it make sense to purchase a GPU with 6GB of VRAM, even if it performs well in current games?

Attached: [email protected] (1284x754, 111K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pcgamer.com/dooms-nightmare-graphics-image-quality-compared-and-benchmarked/
guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1660_ti_ventus_xs_review,29.html
anandtech.com/show/13973/nvidia-gtx-1660-ti-review-feat-evga-xc-gaming/4
computerbase.de/2019-02/geforce-gtx-1660-ti-test/3/
pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1660-Ti-Review-EVGA-and-MSI-Cards-Tested/2560x1440-Game-Be
tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-turing,6002-3.html
tweaktown.com/reviews/8910/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-ventus-xs-review/index8.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>muh future 6000000 gib vram

Yes.

thread/

>current games
either no or

If you keep your gpu for 2-3 years or even longer it's a bad choice.

If you're gonna replace in a year go for it. When games already use 5gb at 1080p it's obvious 6gb won't be enough for max in a year. It's the same situation as the 1060 3gb or 570/580 4gb, it was enough for the time but is not future proof.

It's meant to be a 1080p card. 6gb vram will be fine on ultra-high for a few years if not longer. Wanting good frames at 1440 and higher needs more ram but that's a given.

Thanks, I had a tough time deciding whether the RX 580 or RTX 2060 was more future proof.

You plan to play games that will take up more than 6gb of vram? Remember that people said that you dont need more than 3.5gb of vram with the 970 was new.

>games already use 5gb at 1080p

[Citation]

6GB in 2019 = 3GB in 2016
And 3GB is still okey for 1080p right now. Of cource you couldn't have Ultra setting with 1060 3GB.

If you want to run games like Rainbow Six Siege on higher res textures than High it requires more than 4GB. also Doom's Nightmare tier texture pack won't even be visible unless your system has 8+

[Citation]

Heres your spoon, user.
pcgamer.com/dooms-nightmare-graphics-image-quality-compared-and-benchmarked/

Attached: jzw75ab6k1jz[1].png (1366x768, 391K)

Post the real VRAM usage

>pcgamer.com/dooms-nightmare-graphics-image-quality-compared-and-benchmarked/
>And then there's the Ultra + Nightmare quality. It may not look substantially different, but at least it doesn't tank performance too badly...except for the Fury X. The 980 Ti loses about 1-2 percent in performance is all, the 980 and 390 drop about 3 percent, but the Fury X takes a 30 percent hit. Maybe we'll see a 16.5.2.2 hotfix, as it doesn't seem to be a problem for the 4GB 980 card. Outside of the Fury X (and Fury and Nano, if you're wondering), Nightmare mode isn't a problem, at least on cards that have a chance of running such settings in the first place; that's good news of a sort, but there's bad news as well
>it doesn't seem to be a problem for the 4GB 980 card
>it doesn't seem to be a problem for the 4GB 980 card
>it doesn't seem to be a problem for the 4GB 980 card

You feel on the VRAM meme goy

1050 Ti (4GB) vs 1060 (3GB)
Does it make sense to purchase a GPU with 3GB of VRAM in 2016?

Look, you're buying a *60 card. Do you REALLY think you're going to be playing games released in 2021 at max settings?

Moar VRAM

Attached: VRAM.png (616x48, 6K)

>And then there's the Ultra + Nightmare quality. It may not look substantially different, but at least it doesn't tank performance too badly...except for the Fury X. The 980 Ti loses about 1-2 percent in performance is all, the 980 and 390 drop about 3 percent, but the Fury X takes a 30 percent hit. Maybe we'll see a 16.5.2.2 hotfix, as it doesn't seem to be a problem for the 4GB 980 card. Outside of the Fury X (and Fury and Nano, if you're wondering), Nightmare mode isn't a problem
>it doesn't tank performance too badly...except for the Fury X
>it doesn't tank performance too badly...except for the Fury X
>it doesn't tank performance too badly...except for the Fury X
>The 980 Ti loses about 1-2 percent in performance is all
>The 980 Ti loses about 1-2 percent in performance is all
>The 980 Ti loses about 1-2 percent in performance is all
How will amdrones ever recover?

Attached: Doom's 'Nightmare' graphics.png (650x433, 108K)

It doesn't make sense to buy 2 year old GPUs that weren't even good for their time, no.

still better than Radeon

8 > 6 sir it's as simple as that. Do the needful.

1060 6 GB is the correct answer. Or 1050 Ti for low profile or to work with a PSU that doesn't have PCIe power connectors.

16 GB WILL BE EVEN FASTER FUCK YEAHHHH

Attached: 2019-02-24 21_27_43-Radeon RX 570 with 16GB of graphics memory spotted.png (940x690, 194K)

I'm still using a Nvidia GTX 580. I really fucking need to upgrade someday. This thing just keeps on ticking though.

What is a 570 even going to do with 16 GB? It can't even play on high enough settings to reasonably use 8

More future proof.

As the article says, it's for miners

By the time you need 16 GB to play on medium, you'll be playing on lowest to get playable framerates. By the time you need 16 GB to play on lowest you'll either have a newer GPU or you'll be telling us how amazing it is that you can get 10 fps on your 16 GB 570.

It's 2019. Who the fuck mines anymore?

third-worlders who get their cards as they "fall off the back of a truck" from the manufacturer in their country, and who's governments subsidize electricity.

Alot of people do
The figurative gold rush is over but that doesn't mean the mining of gold has stopped. It just means all the faggots who though they could get rich quick are gone which only leaves people who give the slightest of a fuck about crypto

Why is my quadro 8000 with 48GB VRAM only as fast as my RTX 2080 Ti with 11GB?

Because unused VRAM is wasted VRAM.

Drones BTFO

Hahahahahah fuck off

RX 580 (8GB) is more futureproof than GTX 1660 Ti (6GB). Prove me false.

(Higher = better)
580 + 8 = 588
1660 + 6 = 2666
1666 > 588

Your GPU numerology is strong but you fail to note that the 666 in 1666 is bad unless you're getting it to play Doom.

You are funny

Attached: relative-performance_3840-2160.png (500x810, 48K)

Vram requirements always go up over time too. You wont be maxing textures in a couple months with 6gb, Doom eternal will probably lock you to high.

Attached: 6gb.png (1243x716, 367K)

>shillpowerup
do people still take them seriously

You think the 590 is fater tha 1660ti?

What the fuck, no fucking way. This can't be real.

Because why not?

Attached: 1550846503985.png (500x254, 21K)

guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1660_ti_ventus_xs_review,29.html
anandtech.com/show/13973/nvidia-gtx-1660-ti-review-feat-evga-xc-gaming/4
computerbase.de/2019-02/geforce-gtx-1660-ti-test/3/
pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1660-Ti-Review-EVGA-and-MSI-Cards-Tested/2560x1440-Game-Be
tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-turing,6002-3.html
tweaktown.com/reviews/8910/msi-geforce-gtx-1660-ti-gaming-ventus-xs-review/index8.html

>muh tpu shill
It's 25% faster than poolaris with the half of power

Attached: 2019-02-24 22_56_10-Greenshot.png (1920x1080, 466K)

not him but they gimp radeon by disabling DX12 on Civ VI for no reason

Attached: civilization-vi_2560-1440.png (500x570, 38K)

and see this
I don't care about their unfair paid reviews

Attached: a2ffbf77-cfa8-413e-bce1-29a91fe8c3a8.png (757x831, 47K)

>Vega 56 = 1070Ti
>Vega 64 = 1080
>2070 < Radeon VII < 2080
Seem totally legit.

8gb is the minimum going forward.
Why anyone wouls buy a rtx 2060 when vega 56 just got a price cut to match and is much more capable. $279 for a better card vs 279 for a shittier card

>$279
Nonexistent price, very hard to find one.

Fwiw my gtx 760 4gb outperforms a 1060 3gb in nu-d44m
Btw new doom is shit play zandronium

what's the wattage on a 56 again?

>Cuckoo Algorithm
>Cuckoo
Cant make this up

>4k
Post 1440p
Post 1080p

>cuck chumpions uses shit tons of vram yet looks like shit runs like shit and feels like shit
back to quake 3 it is

navi will break the 1660ti in half

I don't understand you point

Attached: relative-performance_1920-1080.png (500x810, 48K)

about 140 undervolted

>wait © ™ ®

Typical Amdrone

>about 140 undervolted
prove it

Youtube it

i remember when 2gb was considered overkill

Mine draws 190w UV and oc'd past stock 64 performance
Oc 2060 draws about the same
Not in yurop, in UK pulse v56 has been £300-330 for months and is now £280 with the games. Shitty reference one is £250.
Decent 2060 models are £350 which is in v64 AIB card price range here.

GPU power isn't the entire board power

£280 = $317 right now. And Pulse is not decent at all. You will want a Nitro+.

lol fuck off you dumb nigger

Ignore the retarded shills if 8gb is good on a 700+ dollar 2080 6gb is enougb for the 350+ dollar 2060. Youll be a solid 4 years out of it at 1080 ultra and gonna be dropling settings down at 1440p in 2

140 is half lmfao its gonna run like a dog with 2 legs

Yes and £350 (2060) = 460 freedom bux. GPUs are always more expensive in eu if you directly compare currency but for here it's a really good price.
There is no nitro 56 available, it was a limited edition. The pulse is good enough, it stays below 65-70c with manual fan set to 33-35% which is about 1400 rpm and silent. Mine also came with Samsung memory so I can flash v64 bios and whack the memory to 1100+ if I want.

The only better 56 is the red dragon which is not worth the price premium.

>£350 (2060)
That's why 1660 Ti ($280) is a good choice for 1440p until 2022, unless you fell for the more VRAM meme.

Other than the 960 2gb i dont know a single recent card that actually has forced anyone to upgrade because of the vram

1660ti is the same price as v56 aib here.. £280
If you are fine with lower texture settings 2-3gb is still enough. The point was why pay so much for a gpu and then turn down the textures in a couple months.

New Dawn uses 7.5GB VRAM with high settings/'HD textures' at 1440p.

Attached: FarCryNewDawn_2019_02_24_18_11_06_289.jpg (2560x1440, 2.71M)

All card require turning down settings if the port is shit and japenese enough. Welcome to the pc mustard race

>Buy the 580

Attached: images (1).png (223x226, 9K)

>I still use a 550 4gb
Eat shit, minimum graphics settings give an authentic vintage experience with modern games.

>1660ti is the same price as v56 aib here.. £280
And Vega 56 is NOT $280 here.
And 1660 Ti is $280 everywhere.
And 1660 Ti is not a card for Ultra Settings.
>turn down the textures in a couple months.
Stop projecting.

Attached: wtf.png (1029x884, 138K)

>And 1660 Ti is $280 everywhere.
Not outside US it isn't

It is a 1080p ultra card though?

No one cares euromutt stop voting for muh gibs and then bitching about the cost

Because the card is still new. Just wait more few weeks.

>minimum graphics settings give an authentic vintage experience with modern games.

Attached: 1491917608353.jpg (653x726, 138K)

>american education

*pays 20% tip in vat*
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Hahahahahahahshahahahshshahshabshah
Hahahahshshshahshaha
20%
Hahahahahahabahabsbsbababababa

Reminder that Vega 56 is on very low stock right now, so hurry up and place an order fast.

Yes pls buy amd sir quickly do the needful

Attached: IMG_3304.jpg (498x548, 86K)

I would order one if it is $280 + 3 free games.

>minimum graphics settings give an authentic vintage experience with modern games
Lmao

you won't have any issues with vram don't fall for the meme

even if games that require more come out you can easily turn textures down from ultra to high and have enough ram without barely any difference in quality

If you have any plans to run over 1080p, in the cards lifetime, then dont buy anything under 8GB vram

6GB after PS5 release is gonna end up like 2GB after PS4.