Is GTX 980 4GB VRAM enough for 1440p ???

^

for games like GTA V

No

Can you elaborate ? what about 1080p

even a 970 would be

SHould be, unless GTA5 will be poorly optimized.

Wait and see...

Maybe 1080p...

I say maybe because GTA IV ran like poo and wanted insane amounts of vram, and also because the PS4 runs it at 1080p with a crapload of vram already.

Thats just my speculation and you are free to disagree, but I honestly think you need 6GB vram for 1440p and higher would need 8GB.

I'm with GTR12. If you buy a 4GB card for 1440p gaming, you'll regret it.

Not for all future games. I think 6GB of VRAM is the sweet spot for high res games.

Yes, easily in GTA V's case. 4k is the question, on the other hand.

I can't speak for GTAV but I've had no trouble at all running games at 1440p thus far. Could do with a bit more power to run Ultra settings with maximum AA at 60fps in some of the most demanding games I've played (Crysis 3, Metro LL, Far Cry 4, ) but that's it. Just knock the AA down a notch or two and you get a solid 60 in these games at 1440p though with everything else right up. I don't think it's a V-Ram limitation either and is more to do with overall raw power as my friend with two in SLI can max AA in these games and get a solid 60fps. In fact they do very well at 4K for him too.

I have 2 970s in sli, clocked so they perform higher than a stock 980 each. I've dinked around with a single card, and can tell you a single 980 is plenty for any game at 1440. You'll have games maxed, or near to. If you need to push more pixels (4k) or a higher refresh (I have a 144hz Swift Rog) you'll want 2 cards, but for 1440/60, one 980 is going to make your games look amazing.

This is from TechpowerUp for the review of TitanX about if we need 12GB VRAM.

In order to investigate, we ran our full suite of games and recorded the peak memory usage for each game. We tested all resolutions, including 4K. Depending on the game, the highest memory usage happens at 1440p with 4xAA or 4K, and the reported number is the maximum of all four resolutions. The average bar (2799 MB) represents the average of such peak usage, not the average of all games at all resolutions.

Our results clearly show that 12 GB is overkill for the Titan X. Eight GB of memory would have been more than enough, and, in my opinion, future-proof. Even today, the 6 GB of the two-year-old Titan are too much as 4 GB is enough for all titles to date. Both the Xbox One and PS4 have 8 GB of VRAM of which 5 GB and 4.5 GB are, respectively, available to games, so I seriously doubt developers will exceed that amount any time soon.

As you can see the average peak VRAM usage is 2799MB. That means most games will run fine in 4K and 1440p with 4xAA even in a 3GB VRAM.

That makes the GPU horsepower the real limit in 99% of games rather than the VRAM.

2 games wanted far more 4GB VRAM (Shadow of Mordor and Dead Rising) but they are becoming unplayable with these settings due to the lack of GPU power:

But the VRAM requirement for 1440p will be much lower cause the pixels rendered per sec will be lower.

Oh you might noticed I didn't refered to COD: AW. The reason is that COD will just use as much as you have.

W1zzard from TechpowerUp explains the issue:

Modern games use various memory allocation strategies, and these usually involve loading as much into VRAM as fits even if the texture might never or only rarely be used. Call of Duty: AW seems even worse as it keeps stuffing textures into the memory while you play and not as a level loads, without ever removing anything in the hope that it might need whatever it puts there at some point in the future, which it does not as the FPS on 3 GB cards would otherwise be seriously compromised.

ps: Sorry for the loooooooong post. :P

I have 2 GTX 970s and a 1440p monitor so I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that a GTX 980 is fine but it's not really a great bang for buck card.

lol according to those benchies 970 in SLI beats a Titan X? WTF

Why exactly are you surprised?

Generally, I find that you can expect half the performance of 1080 at worst. Processing power will become a bottleneck before VRAM most likely. I'm glad that my 770 is a 4GB model though, it allows me to DSR some games and retain good framerates.

So is that right DX12 will enable SLI users to take advantage of both video cards' VRAM instead of only one?

Looks like GTX 980 is plenty

http://www.pcgamer.com/what-youll-need-to-run-gta-5-pc-in-4k/

"To run the game on a 4K display at 30fps," says Hoare, "you’ll need at minimum an AMD HD 7870 or Nvidia GTX 760 with 2GB of VRAM." As for the 4K at 60 frames-per-second, that'll require a "high-end SLI or Crossfire setup."

I don't see how you got a GTX 980 out of that. All I got was seemingly contradictory quotes.

haaa, are you serious ? If a 2GB GTX 760 is enough to run 4k at 30fps, what makes you think my GTX 980 4GB is not enough for 1440p at 60fps ultra settings????

It's enough but you won't be maxing games.

Yeah: no.. A) Both LA Noire(though it was capped at 30fps) and Max Payne 3 were well optimized on the pc.. B) The PS4 shares system memory with video card memory.. There is no way in hell the 7850 is using anywhere near 4gb of vram, at 1080p....

Titan X is a more powerful card lol

.. A more powerful card to a single 970 and 980 gtx.. Not a SLI of either card..

https://youtu.be/NtlBDKDLOVU

Sorry, I forgot we were talking about 1440P and not 4k. But I highly doubt a GTX 760 will do 30FPS at 4k if you need SLI GTX 970+ to get 60 FPS. That's way more than double the power to get twice the framerate.

Actually GTX760 in SLI might not be able to reach GTX970 in performance, LOL...

LA Noire was co-devoloped with console versions, it released 6 months after PS3/360, 6 months is a relatively short timeframe for an open-world game and the PS3 had the weirdest way of creating games for it.

Max Payne 3 was also co-developed with consoles, 1 month after consoles released their versions, we got ours, thats not enough time to port over a console game.

COD:AW uses ~7GB or whatever it gets its hands on, as @Coseniath chart shows, so I dont doubt if GTA V will also use an insane amount.

Oh shit I didnt see it was SLI

I've been rocking a 980 and a 1440p monitor and I've been maxing out most games no problem.

Might not get 60 FPS all the time, but that doesn't bother me.

i think a 970 or 980 can do most games at 1440p. Like someone already said... a poorly optimized game like GTA 5 could have problems running smoothly... this is just going by other GTA games i've played and they usually run worse then they should.

i'd just wait for some benchmarks on GTA 5 and see how the 980 performs... if it can handle gta5 at 1440p then you should be in good shape for any game. i know its a last gen game but its been beefed up to beyond a current gen game and will stress gpus pretty hard i would guess.

I used to use a 1440p display and even my 680gtx could do 95% of my games at 60fps. Just a few struggled.

Yeah, if I was going to upgrade to 1440p right now I'd get a titan x.

I wouldn't get a Titan under any circumstances, I'd get the GTX 980 and plan to SLI it or I'd wait for the 980ti, which will be faster and cheaper than the Titan.

faster - yes - but will it have more cuda cores?

Also, I feel sli'ing is just a headache - but each to their own I guess.

What's the point of titan if DX12 will be able combine SLI VRAMS ?

I'd say so. I'm using a 770 4gb card and I'm doing anywhere from 30-60fps depending on the game at that resolution. Should be far better off considering there is a considerable gap in to two's performance levels. Only games I really run into issue with are Ubisoft tittles. For instance I have to play Black Flag at 720p to even get a steady 30fps. When I can run games like the new metal gear fine at 60fps maxed at 1440p.

Because there are no DX12 games yet lol. But you're right though. By the time games are exceeding that 4Gb at 1440P, games will be coming out in DX12.

SLI GTX 970, Crossfire R9 290 / 290X is more powerful then Titan X indeed. The only thing Titan X has on em is VRAM.

To answer the question 4gb is plenty for GTA 5 at 1440p with ultra settings with 2x MSAA. It only uses 3.5gb. With GTA 5 at 1080p Ultra, 4x msaa + MFAA uses around 3.7gb. GTX 970 at 1440p is able to get 55 average while a 980 is able to average 61 fps.

Even with 4k ultra with 2x MSAA GTA 5 uses around 4.2gb , Even with the original Titan 6gb vs GTS 780 3gb was only 1-2 average fps difference even with the need to allocate over 4gb.

A single GTX 980 isn't enough to max out games at 1440p, at least newer titles that is.

I wasn't able to completely max out The Witcher 2 at 1440p till I got dual 970's. I still don't have everything maxed out in Dragon Age: Inquisition. When you go over 1080p your system will feel it.

Topic is old folks. Closing it now.