Tylerslikewhoa
6 to 8 gb of vram is 4k standard. 4 to 6 for lesser res.  I go over 4 gb of vram daily in 4k

That's really strange, because 2D surround with 3 monitors at 2560x1440 each (7680x1140) is way higher then only 4k res and I'm running that with "just" 4GB without problems and even got a 1920x1080 monitor on the same card.

Mh, I guess Star Citizen and Planet Explorers don't use that high textures.

Tylerslikewhoa
4GB of vram is good for 1080p but not higher res or multi monitor

I know what you mean, but the generalization is wrong because I can always generate a circumstance that proves it false regardless of how unpopular the circumstance is (i.e. if I play a decade-old game across three 2160p displays, I don't think I need a 4GB GTX980 to give me max detail smooth-- definitely more than a 256MB GeForce 6800 Ultra since the resolution combinations of the day couldn't add up to 11520 x 2160).
 
 
 Every time a new flagship comes, it is the same conversation where many claim the flagship's reference Vram is good enough for the mainstream resolution standard, but not for combinations of display totaling more resolution.  Two years ago, it was GTX680's 2GB as the assumed "enough" for 1080p with no reason for 4GB unless we go for multiple displays or larger resolutions.  Two years from now, we'll have the same conversation about 6GB for reference cards and +8GB for more displays.  
 
The Vram discussion isn't solely about resolution, dare I say, little to do with resolution.   Older games use less Vram, newer games use more, it also varies by game settings.  But many seem to take their preferences for granted when this discussion come up, that is why there isn't a consistent answer.

lehpron
 
The Vram discussion isn't solely about resolution, dare I say, little to do with resolution.   Older games use less Vram, newer games use more, it also varies by game settings.  But many seem to take their preferences for granted when this discussion come up, that is why there isn't a consistent answer.

I agree with that statement. It's soooo true.

Also DSR also adds to the question.  Some will not want it others will, some games you see a huge difference with it, others, not much at all.  This is like my 6804gb cards, some said it was a waste, but when all my Crysis issues went away and I saw heavy combat was going to 2.2-2.5gb of RAM used I could see the value.  I do not believe there is a blanket answer for all situations.  If you are playing GalCiv3 on 2160P, the memory won't make any difference, but some of the games you can really see the difference.  Especially with games that have tons of texture packs and lots of mod content, things can add up.  High rez texture packs + DSR will chew up tons, but I imagine it would look AWESOME.
 
Is 8gb necessary for all the enthusiasts, definitely not, will it be handy for some, of course it will. 
 
I also fully agree with the gist of Lehpron's post too.

yapchagi
this is nuts. COD Advanced Warfighter is using all of ur VRAM.
 
 

 
Exactly
 
Dont tell some of these people on this board that though. They refuse to believe that even 4gb is not enough. Wish people would stop being so stubborn 
 
 
 

What's going on with graphics memory usage ?

Here is a fun fact, the game engine fill whatever amount of graphics memory is available.

So if you have a 4 GB Radeon R9 290X or GeForce GTX 980 then it'll slowly fill that 4GB memory with textures, and then slowly but steadily in a minute or so (if you have disabled pre-caching) your graphics memory utilization will start to rise until nearly maxed out as shaders load up in video memory. Above you can see the Titan Black for example, already filling 5.4 GB of video memory.

Verun

Tylerslikewhoa
6 to 8 gb of vram is 4k standard. 4 to 6 for lesser res.  I go over 4 gb of vram daily in 4k

That's really strange, because 2D surround with 3 monitors at 2560x1440 each (7680x1140) is way higher then only 4k res and I'm running that with "just" 4GB without problems and even got a 1920x1080 monitor on the same card.

That might be true, but you're also using multiple cables to feed those monitors instead of one cable to feed a 4K monitor.  Big difference.  Not to mention if you're running multiple video cards and multiple cables to feed the screens.

Verun

rsbrownjr
That might be true, but you're also using multiple cables to feed those monitors instead of one cable to feed a 4K monitor.  Big difference.  Not to mention if you're running multiple video cards and multiple cables to feed the screens.

Why is it a difference how many cables I use? The card has to calculate the same, no matter where it goes, doesn't it? And additional to that my overall resolution is way higher than just 4K in 1440p surround + 1 HD TV.
 
4K Res is 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 Pixels
2D Surround with 1440p plus a HD TV is 2560*1440*3 + 1920*1080 = 13132800 Pixels
 
Where is my mistake?

Yes, but you have to consider the amount of data that needs to be transferred to the screens.  That is one of the issues with 4K - a cable that can carry 8294400 pixels at 60Hz instead of at 30Hz.  With multiple monitors there are multiple cables that each carry less data than one carrying data to a 4K screen.

No, it's not.  You're right.  But, you're able to run three 1440p monitors at 60Hz because you have three cables.  You wouldn't be able to do that with one cable.

You guys simply need to just go sli, Even though vram for an SLI setup doesn't add up it will still help greatly for high resolutions 2560 x 1440p and above. I played  through Shadow of mordor with Two gtx 980's SC acx 2.0 @ max settings/ Max AA also 144hz and had no problems at all. Game ran smooth as butter. Cant wait to see how they perform with DA Inquistion and Far cry 4

I think you'll find that as it stands for now ram is not really a concern.
 
Buy a 4gb card or not the choice is yours
 
Interestingly this review never claims that 4gb is not enough at 4k for the games tested
 
http://www.kitguru.net/co...vapor-x-8gb-cf-review/

Dwarfy
Not being able to play a game at max settings can also mean the game is just not well built - or it's "just" a crappy console port. Just forget all those wanna be console games that got copy/pasted to the superior platform. Of course a bad port will perform bad too. Play a game, built for the main platform: the PC.
I can play Star Citizen at max settings in 2D Surround with one 4GB GTX 680 card at 40 FPS. I'm sure 2 980's can handle that real easy at 60 fps and more. That's a far higher resolution than the 4k, everyone is so hysterical about.
Tripple 4K - that may not be possible with current hardware. But even there I'd not bet on it.

Star Citizen is far from release and doesn't have all the graphical bells and whistles yet. Plus no AI characters running about. I don't think the final version will run as good as it is now because so many parts are missing. Just look at the planet side preview and you could see it was pretty laggy. I am very happy Star Citizen is using cryengine as it is probably the best PC engine right now as it is highly optimized for pc. It also scales extremely well in SLI.

I think there are simply too many myths and not enough knowledge about VRAM...

I've ran Shadow of Mordor at a steady 30fps with my GTX 560 ti 1g, the amount they asked for was stupid. I am sure with a good overclocked 560 ti it would run at 40fps

I wouldn't worry too much about how much vram you need for 4k, but how much you need to run 90fps on two small 1080 screens for each eye, because i have a feeling, that's what you're going to be gaming on for a long time coming.