The GeForce 9-series has been released

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that anyone with any knowledge of computer hardware would try to argue that 2GB cards won't be able to run games a year from now. I won't try to stop you from insisting that's the case though.

I thought we went over the max settings thing but, ok. We already have games recommending 4gb you don't think that will change to a min spec in a year or 2.

I'm not saying all games. I'm talking mainstream AAA games. Just as we now have some games that are 64 bit only we will start to see some games with 4GB min specs.

I'll leave you with one thing we can agree on.

Go Lions!

Didn't you just say that you were standing by your initial point? It's not a big deal though.

And yeah, I'm talking about mainstream AAA games. Cards that are 3+ years old now can still run today's AAA games. Today's (fast) cards will run AAA games 2 years from now. Not on the highest settings of course, but they'll run them.

Personally, I'll be waiting until they actually change the architecture rather than upgrading it tiny bit by tiny bit and calling it a new series. And then I'll get at least 4gb VRAM so I can play Fallout 4 with oodles of modded textures. Fallout 4, you know, the game coming in 2022.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Didn't you just say that you were standing by your initial point? It's not a big deal though.

Yes but remember this was in reference to my main point.

"Your right there I don't ever think of running games at any other settings than max. So yes when I talk about it, running on lower settings didn't even cross my mind."

Originally Posted by JDR13
And yeah, I'm talking about mainstream AAA games. Cards that are 3+ years old now can still run today's AAA games. Today's (fast) cards will run AAA games 2 years from now. Not on the highest settings of course, but they'll run them.

New consoles Didn't come out 3 years ago I think you'll find things different now. Just to reiterate I'm not saying all games but I definitely believe there will be games that require 4 GB vram within 2 years.

The evil within all ready requires 4GB vram to run at 1920 x 1080. Now think about 2 years from now.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasoneva…ard-for-1080p/

I will gladly admit I was wrong if that's not the case when the time comes but for now I believe we are heading in circles.

the evil within specs

System Requirements
MINIMUM:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7 SP1/Windows 8.1
Processor: i7 or an equivalent with four plus core processor
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: GTX 460 or equivalent 1 GB VRAM card
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 50 GB available space
Additional Notes: It’s worth noting that the 50 GB of space required is for the PC install. When the installation is complete, the game will take up ~41 GB of HDD space

RECOMMENDED:
OS: 64-bit Windows 7 SP1/Windows 8.1
Processor: i7 with four plus cores
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: GeForce GTX 670 or equivalent with 4GBs of VRAM
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 50 GB available space
Additional Notes: It’s worth noting that the 50 GB of space required is for the PC install. When the installation is complete, the game will take up ~41 GB of HDD space

And I still have 2 more years to add more games to the list.

Originally Posted by sakichop
New consoles Didn't come out 3 years ago I think you'll find things different now. Just to reiterate I'm not saying all games but I definitely believe there will be games that require 4 GB vram within 2 years.

That's not quite what you said though.

Originally Posted by JDR13
We're still a long time away from needing more than 2GB of VRAM just to run most games.

Originally Posted by sakichop
We'll just have to disagree on that.

I was clearly talking about simply running the games, not playing them on max settings, and you were clearly disagreeing.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though and assume you misunderstood.

As far as The Evil Within is concerned, how much would you like to wager that I can run it just fine with my 2GB 770?

I suppose I should have taken "just to run" more literally. I guess if your talking about running min setting no AA at 25-30 FPS then you may be right.

However that's not running a game to me. I haven't run a game at less than max settings since getting my voodoo cards in sli.

I run dual Titans now and when the day comes that I can't run a game at max settings @60+ FPS I will get rid of them and buy the next latest and greatest.

As for the evil within I'm sure you could run it there's usually a good amount of headroom built in to system requirements but fact that 4GB is a min requirement today doesn't bode well for 2gb cards 2 years from now.

If you bought a card today would you really buy a 2GB one?

Guys, thanks for the heads up on the current gaming requirements. I might very well wait for a 960 or 950 model with 4GB or so (although I read an opinion that the 750 "is" the 950, given that it's Maxwell too), which it will most likely come to because I want to upgrade my entire rig first and the budget is needed elsewhere right now. I don't need the latest and greatest at max, but it should still feel like a big upgrade.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I suppose I should have taken "just to run" more literally. I guess if your talking about running min setting no AA at 25-30 FPS then you may be right.

Nah.. before I got my GTX 770, I was playing games like Bioshock Infinite and the new Tomb Raider at near-max settings with a 3+ year old GTX 470. I don't think the next 3 years are going to see such a jump in graphics that the cycle will be that much different.

Originally Posted by sakichop
As for the evil within I'm sure you could run it there's usually a good amount of headroom built in to system requirements but fact that 4GB is a min requirement today doesn't bode well for 2gb cards 2 years from now.

Except that you're completely wrong about that. Do some more research and you'll see that the min requirement for The Evil Within is only a 1GB graphics card. 4GB is the "recommended" requirement.

Don't get a card with less than 4 GB VRAM, I am with sakichop on this. It might very well be that developers will not bother to include low-res textures and such for the PC version in a year or two, meaning it won't even run on 2 GB VRAM.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
It might very well be that developers will not bother to include low-res textures and such for the PC version in a year or two, meaning it won't even run on 2 GB VRAM.

Which is complete nonsense.

Were the textures of say.. Watchdogs for instance, low-res? Because that's a high-profile AAA game on the new consoles that's known for its visuals, and it runs fine on a 2GB card.

Even if the new generation of consoles are even capable of running a game that wouldn't run on a PC with a decent 2GB card, no publisher in their right mind is going hinder their own potential profits by putting out a PC version that won't run on cards older than a year or two.

That's because the console version of watchdog used lower-res textures than initially planned, if you see the unlocked PC version which require more memory, which they were planning to run on the consoles at first, you have a different situation.

However once the console life-cycle is more mature, developers will learn to optimize for those consoles. Then they might very well use 4 GB of the consoles graphics memory for textures, effects and so on, especially on the PS4. If they don't include a low-res version for PC that is able to get by with 2 GB video-ram it might very well not run at acceptable FPS or resolution.

They still aren't going to put out a PC port that won't run on cards more than 1 or 2 years old. It goes against everything from a business perspective, and the gaming industry is all about business.

Well, given how poor some console ports have been recently it wouldn't surprise me…

But let's wait and see! Either way, I don't think anyone will regret that they bought the 4 GB card, if you have a fairly new card you don't want to be limited to minimum settings anyhow, so it makes no sense to buy such a card with less memory than that.

No fairly new card is going to limit you to minimum settings any time soon unless we're talking about budget cards.

But yeah, no one is going to regret getting a 4GB card especially at the rate prices are dropping.

I side with JDR just because the id Tech 5 is an engine that is poorly unoptimized ever since it was first used in Rage. The same could be said for the Watch Dog engine.

Also no publisher will alienate 90% of the PC market.

Link - http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I would love to see the stats a year from now just to compare them.

Update: Also Someone should tell AMD to stop selling their new R9 285 2GB cards. So until I can buy a good 4GB card for close to $200 I'm not upgrading.

Some of us live on budgets.

Here in UK, 2GB is standard with 960 and 4GB is standard with 970. I can't really find 4Gb with 960 or 2 Gb with 970. So is this really debate if you are buying a new card?

My GTX 765M with 2GB of RAM has been able to handle everything I've played until now at high settings.

I've never really played games on high settings before unless they're older games, so I don't see it as a problem.

Graphics are a bonus on top of good gameplay for me.

I can easily still play Gothic 2 even though that's from 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Nah.. before I got my GTX 770, I was playing games like Bioshock Infinite and the new Tomb Raider at near-max settings with a 3+ year old GTX 470. I don't think the next 3 years are going to see such a jump in graphics that the cycle will be that much different.




Except that you're completely wrong about that. Do some more research and you'll see that the min requirement for The Evil Within is only a 1GB graphics card. 4GB is the "recommended" requirement.

I don't really have anything else to say on the subject. I think we've exhausted it and are now just going in circles.

I believe they'll be some games that require more than 2 GB you don't.

The only way to find out is wait 2 years. I'm starting now.