Its tough to say. My 780 3GB version seems to take everything i throw at it, quite reasonably. I doubt we will see anything with 6GB come Maxwell, in regard to stock cards, maybe 4GB at the most. PC gaming is demanding if you want all the eye candy, but i don't believe it justifies an insane amount of VRAM needed to power today's PC games.

It's scary to see VRAM starting to reach System RAM capacities, although 12/6gb are mostly for workstation purposes. Put one of those suckers in the gaming industry and people will buy them regardless of price!
 
In the end, its just getting out of hand, so much memory, hell i see no need for me to even want more then 8GB of system memory, as nothing even comes close to using it.

Why they do that, I mean why they drain supplies, to keep price?
I mean NVIDIA and AMD dictate that not brands. 
Rumors says there ate lot of chips in reserve... Who knows. 
I don't believe in that, I would be very irritable and nervous and suspicious waiting something what I want to back on stock. 
But because I provide my unlocked GK110 situation is completely difference.

Get a 6GB GTX780 and eventually another one in SLI.

flyinion
Thanks, so if I'm running say 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 it probably won't matter?

No.  It wasn't long ago that it was assumed the 1GB in a GTX280 was enough for that same resolution-- but back then the games of the day didn't need the resources; that isn't the case today, it won't be the case next year or for however long you keep the card.   
 
 
Time doesn't stop, you need to accept that; and if you do, you get the 6GB card now because it isn't like you won't ever need more because you will get new games from here on out, right?  Within 2 years, 6GB will be on reference model high-end card and you will need at least two GTX780's in SLI to match that future single-GPU card's performance.  But a pair of 3GB cards won't match it.  Do you understand what I'm saying?  Don't make your decision on whether you get immediate gains, this is about later on.
 
FYI, in terms of rendering performance 3-way GTX280's match a GTX770 today, but since GTX770 had 2GB on reference, you would have had to get the EVGA non-ref 2GB GTX285 which was available back then-- and like today, there were people insisting that you don't need 2GB at 1080p.  

 
I'm still waiting for the 6gb cards. With more demanding games like Watch Dogs, we are going to need it.

XrayMan
 
I'm still waiting for the 6gb cards. With more demanding games like Watch Dogs, we are going to need it.

Yep, guess we'll once again see a whole new standard and beefed up VRAM with Maxwell, particularly with 4K maturity / popularity ;)

EVGA_JacobF
3GB is good enough for today at 1080P, but given the choice I would go 6GB if you plan on keeping the card for a few years.

 
Exactly.
 
Keep in mind if you ever want to add a second card for SLI the 6GB will really shine as the GPU horsepower will be matched by enough VRAM for sweet high resolution gaming.

rjbarker
Well I can say playing all DX11 Titles at 1440p with 3GB 780Ti's has been painless and no problems at all cranking up settings really.....I did play a little bit of Watch Dogs just to see what settings my Rig liked and I found I did have to dial some stuff down for sure to get extremely smooth gameplay, but not sure yet whether thats a VRAM issue or a quirky game.......
Its in my queue to play in the future but will wait until its fully patched or whatever, I've got a line up of games to play before that one ;)

rjbarker
Well I can say playing all DX11 Titles at 1440p with 3GB 780Ti's has been painless and no problems at all cranking up settings really.....I did play a little bit of Watch Dogs just to see what settings my Rig liked and I found I did have to dial some stuff down for sure to get extremely smooth gameplay, but not sure yet whether thats a VRAM issue or a quirky game.......
Its in my queue to play in the future but will wait until its fully patched or whatever, I've got a line up of games to play before that one ;)

Its just a terrible coded game. It stutters regardless of how much vram you have. If a game like Crysis 3 or BF4 can play at 1440p with max settings and tons of AA and use less than 3gb of vram, so should a game like WD. I get stuttering on 2 games, WD and Serious Sam 3(same exact stuttering issue), and get stuttering regardless if Im using a 3gb 780ti or a 6gb Titan. It has nothing to do with the card used and everything to do with the game coding(or lack of).

EVGA_JacobF
3GB is good enough for today at 1080P, but given the choice I would go 6GB if you plan on keeping the card for a few years.

3gb is "good enough" for today at 1080p? I would sure hope that a $500-800 780 series card IS "good enough", not just for today at 1080p, but for the next few years as well........1440p too.
 
  When the 780/780ti was released just a few short months ago, I highly doubt the it was advertised as being just "good enough" for 1080p today by EVGA and all the other resellers.................

Going over to a friends house on Friday to setup 2 780 6g cards
should be able to overclock to ti speeds  ill let yawl know how it turns out!

mdzcpa

Ntrain96

mdzcpa

EVGA_JacobF
3GB is good enough for today at 1080P, but given the choice I would go 6GB if you plan on keeping the card for a few years.

 
Exactly.
 
Keep in mind if you ever want to add a second card for SLI the 6GB will really shine as the GPU horsepower will be matched by enough VRAM for sweet high resolution gaming.

This has already been tested to be false currently as well too. There have been a number of tests with Titans in SLI vs 780ti's on dozens of games in SLI and the extra 3gb of vram has shown no performance gains made when gaming at 4k even. But the GPU in sli at 4k has already shown to be the bottleneck and well BEFORE vram becomes an issue.
 
  

 
Doesn't have to be 4K.  1080p is already at the rear end of high end gaming. 1440 is the middle ground now and SLI goes a long way to pushing those pixels with the eye candy maxed out.  If I knew I was going the SLI route I wouldn't waste my money on a card limited to 3GB VRAM when a better option already exists. 
 
And we're not really talking about todays games.  It's what's coming on the near horizon.  It's pretty obvious.  PS4 and XB1 are already allocating 5 to 5.5 GB of VRAM.  It is not going to take long for developers to utilize that.  And whether it's better visuals or crappy coding it won't matter.  Those with lesser VRAM will be left behind on the high end.
 
I notice you pop up on every one of these VRAM threads.  You remind me of the guys that used to insist that 1GB VRAM was plenty.  Then it was 2GB.  With the trend in gaming across all platforms is pushing greater VRAM every day with higher resolutions and textures it won't be long before 3GB is inadequate at the high end.  3GB isn't crap by any stretch, but I wouldn't be plunking down cash on a high end 3GB card that I plan to run for a year or two when a better option already exists today.
 

In simple form "those guys were right" about X amount of vram being plenty. There is no point in having a ton of extra VRAM if your GPU isn't really strong enough to use it. Its about balance.


 
   And Im glad you brought up the XB1 and PS4. Yep they got about 5 gigs of unified memory(DDR3?)................and its coupled to what is in essence a tablet cpu and a Radeon 7790/7850 GPU video solution. Those next gen games look great running at 792/900p 30fps...........all the memory in the world isn't going to make those consoles push out "next gen" graphics no matter how you spin it.
 
   As for resolution, these current high end Keplar(and Maxwell eventually)gpu's are in reality optimized 1080p/1440p gpu's. We are still 3-4 years away from GPU's that can comfortably push 4k resolutions. Static resolution alone isn't what sets high end either. Motion resolution is also part of the equation too. I'd take a 1080p monitor that can run at 120hz or 144hz any day over a 1440p/1600p monitor stuck at 60hz. And Id rather run at a slightly lower resolution if it means higher framerates, smoother gameplay and higher settings for detail as well too. High end is about the sum of the end result, not just spec #'s.
 
   3gb will become obsolete eventually your right........but by the time it is, so will today's GPU's become obsolete as well.

get the 780 6gb i sent back my 780 ti and im start to see bench marks for the 780 6gb beating the 780 ti 
there r now games like watch does that will use more than 3 gb on the highest setting 
plz if you r a youtuber like i am then you will use more than 3 gb video ram easy . overclock your 780 6gb and it will be faster than the ti.
with the cash i save im getting a water block for it .
my plan is to do 2 r 3 way sli as it would render my 4k vids much faster  
 

djcrossfade
get the 780 6gb i sent back my 780 ti and im start to see bench marks for the 780 6gb beating the 780 ti 
there r now games like watch does that will use more than 3 gb on the highest setting 
plz if you r a youtuber like i am then you will use more than 3 gb video ram easy . overclock your 780 6gb and it will be faster than the ti.
with the cash i save im getting a water block for it .
my plan is to do 2 r 3 way sli as it would render my 4k vids much faster  
 

Oh really?!?!? Now you are seeing 6gb 780 cards(with 3 SMX cores disabled and memory frequency lowered 1000mhz over a ti)beating out 780 ti's in benchmarks? LOL! Please post those links up.
 
  And youtube needs more than 3gb of vram? LOL!
 
To match a BASE 780ti's performance you have to overclock by about 250mhz on the gpu and raise the memory frequency up 1000mhz. A lot of 780's can't do that Ive found.
 
 

I would not base any thing off watch dogs, its broken in the way it uses Vram its trying to use Vram and system ram like the consoles do. Who knows we might start seeing more of this with lazy coders and console ports doing this but I will not be spending my money on them, Watch Dogs should be used as an example of what not to do.
 
I run Titan Fall @ 5760x1080 with zero problem max in game settings on my 780 3gb with no problems, if i was buying a card now I would go with the 6gb but not because of Watch Dogs, but because its available and was not when I got mine.

mdzcpa

Ntrain96In simple form "those guys were right" about X amount of vram being plenty. There is no point in having a ton of extra VRAM if your GPU isn't really strong enough to use it. Its about balance.

Yes, in simple form....for a single card...on a single monitor.  But in reality most were wrong when considering extending the life of their high end GPU.  Search the web.  There are many articles and posts out there that SLI/CF significantly alters that balance.  This typically occurrs near the end of a GPUs life cycle when newer games were straining the current GPU's architectural capability.  Guys were buying a second card only to be hindered by the inadequate VRAM of the card they thought was previously in "balance." 
 

Ntrain96 
And Im glad you brought up the XB1 and PS4. Yep they got about 5 gigs of unified memory(DDR3?)................and its coupled to what is in essence a tablet cpu and a Radeon 7790/7850 GPU video solution. Those next gen games look great running at 792/900p 30fps...........all the memory in the world isn't going to make those consoles push out "next gen" graphics no matter how you spin it.

 
I'm glad I brought it up too, because it's a fact.  And regardless of the horsepower of the GPU nothing prevents the coders from using the extra resources.  Crappy coding alone can account for huge sums of VRAM to be put into use. Although you appear to be an intelligent guy, I'm sorry to say I have a tad more faith that the newest console designers added that VRAM for a purpose.  And it isn't marketing.  Console folks don't read specs like PC folks do.  That VRAM was needed based on their understanding of where developers were going or they wouldn't have wasted money on it in the highly price sensitive console market.  Believe what you want, but the console market wags the PC tail and VRAM use is going to be used by developers.
 

Ntrain96 
As for resolution, these current high end Keplar(and Maxwell eventually)gpu's are in reality optimized 1080p/1440p gpu's. We are still 3-4 years away from GPU's that can comfortably push 4k resolutions. Static resolution alone isn't what sets high end either. Motion resolution is also part of the equation too. I'd take a 1080p monitor that can run at 120hz or 144hz any day over a 1440p/1600p monitor stuck at 60hz. And Id rather run at a slightly lower resolution if it means higher framerates, smoother gameplay and higher settings for detail as well too. High end is about the sum of the end result, not just spec #'s.
 

 
Actually I'd prefer a 1440p monitor pushing 120mhz myself.  Like the ROG Swift coming out next week. I like high buttery smooth frame rates AND high resolution.   The experience SLI and CF can deliver at the high end. But, hey, that's just me I guess.  It is certainly true that what we are all looking for boils down to personal preference.  Some folks just want more than others.  1080p is already being left behind.
 
If anyone is considering adding a second card or going SLI out of the gate it makes absolutely no sense to consciously choose a card with less available VRAM. I agree for a single card solution the 780 ti is nicely balanced.  But two 780s provide more horsepower to bridge the gap until the next architecture change and handle any games coming along that might demand more VRAM.  The bottom line is that it makes no sense to choose an SLI setup to be limited to 3GB when 6GB was readily available.  That's the same mistake the 1GB SLI users made when the 2GB cards were out.

A. Id even go on to say in dual/sli card form as well. There are a number of cards from the 4 and 5 series that come with 1-1.5gigs of memory(including the top tier ones)that when pair together still aren't as powerful as a single 2gb GTX 770, and in reality, that's all they can effectively utilize even in SLI before running into gpu bottlenecks. Again, no point in having a ton of extra VRAM is the gpu is becoming the bottleneck FIRST, which in many cases it actually is on some of the cards with more vram plied on to boost sales.
 
B. The console designers adding in extra vram for a few reasons, one big one being to reduce load times from the platter drive(A known issue and complaint with the previous generation), since these consoles are effectively $3-400 budget machines, as an example. Again though, these consoles have already proven to majorly underwhelm performance wise. Nearly 10 years to upgrade 720p consoles to current consoles that still can't effectively run 1080p/60 on many games without major compromises put into place. But as stated beyond the gpu issues, the unified memory architecture has benefits, but with good coding, there is no way a $300 console should outperform even a mid tier PC build. In the case of Watch Dogs, it actually doesn't. People seem to forget that this specific game does not run at 1080p/60. Its way below that. One big reason why this game doesn't have stuttering issues is the low framerate it runs at, unified memory or not........it has nothing to do with it.
 
C. I get the high resolution thing, Im all for it as well. But not a significant difference between 1080p and 1440p, especially if screen size is taken into consideration. Example: On my desk, I can basically shoehorn in a single 24" 1080p Monitor(Asus 144hz VG248QE with G-sync module installed). Going to a 27" 1440p monitor even if its 120hz, would be in reality a sidegrade for me at best assuming G sync is still installed. The pixel density between the 2 would be so close that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the 2 in clarity due to resolution. But there would be a FPS penalty going to resolution still, Id gain a modest size increase, keep roughly the same pixel density and clarity, yet take a FPS penalty at the same time. For me, not worth it, motion resolution due to lowered fps takes a slight dip. This I know first hand from previously having a 27" 1440p monitor on hand with a pair of Titan GPU's. I will eventually upgrade to 2160p, but will wait till GPU's are effectively 4 times as powerful as a current 780ti/Titan Black........which I expect is about 3-4 years off still. Right about the time I will do my next upgrade/build.
 
   If someone is upgrading a monitor(due to significant size increase, refresh rate, or having a resolution already significantly less than 1080p)and a quality 1440p is an option, Id be all for it assuming they have the GPU power to drive it. But if they were in a situation like me, it wouldn't be a real upgrade at all.
 
D. The 780 ti is nicely balanced, but IMO the VRAM is balanced out of the gate for dual card setups, not a single one as you imply. And IMO a 6gb heavily gimped 780 makes no sense. Bqsically a quarter of the GPU is disabled and the memory speed dropped on top of it. If someone really wants 6gb vram, get a Titan Black, or wait for the 780ti's to come out with 6gb, at least those 2 cards will be better suited and balanced better for extra vram. On a 780 or 780sli though? Waste IMO.