Can ram help with low Vram?

[Crumbal]

I have a GTX 1060 SC 3gb and I wanted to know if my 24gbs of ram which is in 2x4 and 2x8 by the way could help with its unfortunately low ammount of vram. Any answers will be appreciated.

[Omega]

No it doesn't help. The VRAM on the GPU can be access by the GPU significantly faster then it can access the system RAM, this is why your GPU has dedicated VRAM.

Stuff will already be offloaded to the system memory or disk when the GPU runs out of VRAM. When it does this your performance will stuffer significantly..

[𝔇ave]

what he said ^

unfortunately the 3gb 1060 was a stupid card in the first place. Nvidia should be ashamed of themselves for making it. such an unbalanced card.

your only option is to upgrade to the 6gb model. you might get half of what you payed for your card on the second hand market to put towards an upgrade

[nullable]

Messaggio originale di Dave:

what he said ^

unfortunately the 3gb 1060 was a stupid card in the first place. Nvidia should be ashamed of themselves for making it. such an unbalanced card.

Seems like you have some strong opinions there. And I'm always amused by these quasi-morals/values arguments. A 3GB bottom half of midrange GPU released in 2016 isn't a crime... it was a card placed between the 1050 and 970. It's just not amazing 2.5 years later, who would have thunk...

[Omega]

Messaggio originale di Brockenstein:

Messaggio originale di Dave:

what he said ^

unfortunately the 3gb 1060 was a stupid card in the first place. Nvidia should be ashamed of themselves for making it. such an unbalanced card.

Seems like you have some strong opinions there. And I'm always amused by these quasi-morals/values arguments. A 3GB bottom half of midrange GPU released in 2016 isn't a crime... it was a card placed between the 1050 and 970. It's just not amazing 2.5 years later, who would have thunk...

We were already hating on the 1060 3gb since day 1. Mainly because we have a 1050 ti 4gb a tier below it.

[𝔇ave]

Messaggio originale di Brockenstein:

Messaggio originale di Dave:

what he said ^

unfortunately the 3gb 1060 was a stupid card in the first place. Nvidia should be ashamed of themselves for making it. such an unbalanced card.

Seems like you have some strong opinions there. And I'm always amused by these quasi-morals/values arguments. A 3GB bottom half of midrange GPU released in 2016 isn't a crime... it was a card placed between the 1050 and 970. It's just not amazing 2.5 years later, who would have thunk...

it was never amazing. there were 4gb cards long before the 1060 came about and 4gb should be the minimum vram that pascal was released with. possible exception of the 1050 2gb which was very entry level and should have been cheaper. Nvidia saw a market opening and took it. a year later every 1060 3gb owner is left regretting not spending the extra for the 6gb model

[nullable]

Messaggio originale di Dave:

it was never amazing. there were 4gb cards long before the 1060 came about and 4gb should be the minimum vram that pascal was released with. possible exception of the 1050 2gb which was very entry level and should have been cheaper. Nvidia saw a market opening and took it. a year later every 1060 3gb owner is left regretting not spending the extra for the 6gb model

I don't personally have much sympathy for the idea that Nvidia has to release hardware to protect customers from being cheap or uninformed.

A lot of people in the midrange/1080p crowd seem to overestimate the amount of VRAM they need. And I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wouldn't have all their problems solved solely by an additional 1GB of VRAM, when what they really want, after the fact, is to have bought a better card with more processing power.

The 1060 3GB is just a product, not a representation of all the evil in the hardware industry.

[Omega]

Messaggio originale di Brockenstein:

Messaggio originale di Dave:

it was never amazing. there were 4gb cards long before the 1060 came about and 4gb should be the minimum vram that pascal was released with. possible exception of the 1050 2gb which was very entry level and should have been cheaper. Nvidia saw a market opening and took it. a year later every 1060 3gb owner is left regretting not spending the extra for the 6gb model

I don't personally have much sympathy for the idea that Nvidia has to release hardware to protect customers from being cheap or uninformed.

A lot of people in the midrange/1080p crowd seem to overestimate the amount of VRAM they need. And I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wouldn't have all their problems solved solely by an additional 1GB of VRAM, when what they really want, after the fact, is to have bought a better card with more processing power.

The 1060 3GB is just a product, not a representation of all the evil in the hardware industry.

He didn't claim it to be "a representation of all the evil in the hardware industry", he simply called it a bad product.

[r.linder]

Messaggio originale di Dave:

Messaggio originale di Brockenstein:

Seems like you have some strong opinions there. And I'm always amused by these quasi-morals/values arguments. A 3GB bottom half of midrange GPU released in 2016 isn't a crime... it was a card placed between the 1050 and 970. It's just not amazing 2.5 years later, who would have thunk...

it was never amazing. there were 4gb cards long before the 1060 came about and 4gb should be the minimum vram that pascal was released with. possible exception of the 1050 2gb which was very entry level and should have been cheaper. Nvidia saw a market opening and took it. a year later every 1060 3gb owner is left regretting not spending the extra for the 6gb model

3GB wasn't bad when it released, and it released months before the 1050 and 1050 Ti released, so at the time it was the budget option for Pascal.

Despite having more VRAM, however, the 1050 Ti is significantly outclassed in overall performance by the 1060 3GB, and 3GB is typically enough for a lot of games at 1080p, and if a game starts exceeding VRAM limit causing performance to drop a bit, just lower the settings a little bit by bit until it's more stable.

Not even the 1060 6GB can play all games at 1080p with ultra or maximum settings, same with the RX 580 4 and 8GB models. The 3GB model is not a bad product, and it's still better than the 1050 Ti because VRAM doesn't mean anything if the card doesn't have the power to make good use of it. Same reason why Intel users rag on AMD users; more cores doesn't mean more power; the 7700K can still outperform all current generation Ryzen CPUs in single-threaded performance and can be overclocked to a greater degree.

[𝔇ave]

Messaggio originale di Brockenstein:

The 1060 3GB is just a product, not a representation of all the evil in the hardware industry.

wow buddy.. you need some reading practice. i never said it was a representation of all the evil in the hardware industry, i said it was a stupid unbalanced product that quickly became obsolete and should never have existed

[𝔇ave]

Messaggio originale di Escorve:

Despite having more VRAM, however, the 1050 Ti is significantly outclassed in overall performance by the 1060 3GB, and 3GB is typically enough for a lot of games at 1080p, and if a game starts exceeding VRAM limit causing performance to drop a bit, just lower the settings a little bit by bit until it's more stable.

i know i would rather play games at 40fps on a 1050ti with smooth frame rate than 50-60fps with massive stuttering and freezes on a 3gb 1060. you waffle on about this and that but don't look at the bigger picture. \unsubscribed

[InfinityJosh]

I was undecided between GTX 1060 3GB and 6GB, fortunately they released the RX580 4GB so I purchased this one.
I can say 4GB VRAM are rarely not enough in ultra settings 1080p, if you set high settings and bland AA (CMAA/FXAA) you'll never exceed the limit.
Anyway ultra settings with late 2018/2019 AAA titles would be hardly achievable by mid range GPUs like GTX 1060 3GB/RX580/GTX 970/GTX980 without many frame drops.
But yes 3GB was a very bad commercial move, because even entry level gaming card 1050ti had 4GB.
With 3GB VRAM you should set medium settings on most latest AAA titles because RAM will reduce framerates.

[r.linder]

Messaggio originale di Dave:

Messaggio originale di Escorve:

Despite having more VRAM, however, the 1050 Ti is significantly outclassed in overall performance by the 1060 3GB, and 3GB is typically enough for a lot of games at 1080p, and if a game starts exceeding VRAM limit causing performance to drop a bit, just lower the settings a little bit by bit until it's more stable.

i know i would rather play games at 40fps on a 1050ti with smooth frame rate than 50-60fps with massive stuttering and freezes on a 3gb 1060. you waffle on about this and that but don't look at the bigger picture. \unsubscribed

That's why you turn down the settings a bit... Usually it's just things like blurs and higher quality AA that does it.

I'm done trying to explain things to you. Even a 1050 2GB is enough for what most people play.

[InfinityJosh]

Messaggio originale di Escorve:

Messaggio originale di Dave:

i know i would rather play games at 40fps on a 1050ti with smooth frame rate than 50-60fps with massive stuttering and freezes on a 3gb 1060. you waffle on about this and that but don't look at the bigger picture. \unsubscribed

That's why you turn down the settings a bit... Usually it's just things like blurs and higher quality AA that does it.

I'm done trying to explain things to you. Even a 1050 2GB is enough for what most people play.

2GB not really.

[𝔇ave]

Messaggio originale di Escorve:

Messaggio originale di Dave:

i know i would rather play games at 40fps on a 1050ti with smooth frame rate than 50-60fps with massive stuttering and freezes on a 3gb 1060. you waffle on about this and that but don't look at the bigger picture. \unsubscribed

That's why you turn down the settings a bit... Usually it's just things like blurs and higher quality AA that does it.

I'm done trying to explain things to you. Even a 1050 2GB is enough for what most people play.

i just had to check back in to see if you had made another uneducated comment, sure enough you have.. lol

for starters no one uses blur effects so that rules that out. no one with a mid range gpu is gonna use higher quality AA like MSAA. FXAA is pretty standard and has been for years.

I'm done with your unintelligable comments. have fun with your 2gb of vram

\done

[r.linder]

Messaggio originale di Infinity Josh:

Messaggio originale di Escorve:

That's why you turn down the settings a bit... Usually it's just things like blurs and higher quality AA that does it.

I'm done trying to explain things to you. Even a 1050 2GB is enough for what most people play.

2GB not really.

A 1050 2GB is enough for a lot of entry level gamers that just want to play games even at low settings. Nobody needs to run at high settings at 1080p, that's something for a 1060 6GB and RX 580 8GB. RX 570 4GB and 1060 3GB are perfectly fine cards.

Messaggio originale di Dave:

Messaggio originale di Escorve:

That's why you turn down the settings a bit... Usually it's just things like blurs and higher quality AA that does it.

I'm done trying to explain things to you. Even a 1050 2GB is enough for what most people play.

i just had to check back in to see if you had made another uneducated comment, sure enough you have.. lol

for starters no one uses blur effects so that rules that out. no one with a mid range gpu is gonna use higher quality AA like MSAA. FXAA is pretty standard and has been for years.

I'm done with your unintelligable comments. have fun with your 2gb of vram

\done

You're under the wrong impression. One of my earlier builds before I upgraded had an R9 270X 2GB and still held up well at high settings at 1080p in a lot of games, and it's weaker than a 1050 Ti 4GB.

I also have 8GB VRAM nowadays, stop being an idiot.