And in VRAM News:
VRAM Put to the Test (conclusion page)
The takeaway quote for me:
Basically, the tests showed that when the extra VRAM made a significant difference, it was while using graphical settings at which the cards couldn't give playable framerates. Once the settings were set in the playable range, the extra VRAM didnt do much if anything.
For example, Assassin's Creed Syndicate at 1080p using the R9 380 and GTX 960 on "Ultra High" settings, frame rates went from the low 20s on 2GB models to high 20s for the 4GB models.
You're
still getting better framerates on the 4GB models, even if it ain't that much more on "Ultra High". For the extra $20, you might as well drop the extra $20 to be at 4GB instead of 2GB. It's not like you're talking say $50-100 difference here b/t 2GB to 4GB - when you're talking that kind of money ($50-100 more), you'd be flat-out better off with a 4GB 3.5GB 970.
I often go Custom w/ my settings - I'm running a mix of stuff w/ some stuff High and some other stuff on Very High and can get 40-50 FPS with AC:S on my 4GB 960. I'm absolutely fine with this.
If there's ever a point when cards will flat-out require more than 2GB just to actually even
boot a particular game or games you want to play - all over a measly $20, you're flat-out screwed.
At 1080p using the highest possible visual quality settings, the 4GB model was 41% faster, though it averaged just 31fps with 25fps minimums, not exactly smooth performance then. Backing off the quality settings a bit allowed for a massive boost in performance and now both the 2GB and 4GB models delivered the same 68fps average with minimums of over 50fps.
41% performance boost, to me, is a big-deal. Framerate and performance is life.
I would say 25-31 FPS is the typical console-quality performance and I consider playable (in most cases). It's not rocking the boat of having crazy dips and rises of 10 frames per clip on the rise + fall, so it should be smooth. It's basically similar to the performance I had for Batman: AK at 1080p with High settings when it first launched, before they patched it a few times - which I was fine with, but not entirely thrilled with.
And even in some cases, we have games completely locked at 30 FPS on the PC. Some games, even if you work-around the 30 FPS lock - the game's performance (Batman AK); hit-detection/collision-detection (Dark Souls 1); speeds + playability (NFS: Rivals); and other things go out the window b/c of how it was synced + hard-coded by the dev's.
Sure, 60FPS is always better - but, these day and age, especially with lackluster optimizations on PC version and/or some games being visually amazing - you're not always going to get that kind of performance at highest settings on new games unless you break your bank on $400+ cards for 1080p and above. Not everybody can or will even want to go that route for dropping that kind of money.
EDIT:
To our credit, I do think a lot of people were telling MysterD the 960 wasn't worth it at 4GB.
Yet, the games I have running at 1080p at often High or above settings are running very well at often 30+ FPS, IMHO.
4GB 960 is certainly tons better than my aging 1GB 560 Ti was pumping-out & would pump-out for performance. As great as the 1GB 560 Ti was for me, it was aging and getting behind the times.
My 560 Ti couldn't even run AC:U or W3 at 30FPS at 1080p (which is my requirement); hell, even at res's below that, in some cases (especially with ACU - no supported-res would even go over 15 frames). My 4GB 960 is certainly doing very well with those two games w/ 1080p at 30FPS+ at High or above settings - amongst many other games, as well.
