Yes it has been proved that anything over 1GB video RAM at present is a waste of money. A bit like going over 4GB on a 32bit system because only a small amount of it is used for the game the rest is retained for system (unless you use the 3GB switch).

At present it is advised to run 64bit with minimum 4GB RAM (so more of it will be used) but no need to go mad, a 1GB graphics card and the fastest cpu you can afford with plenty of cache.

well not sure about the proven stats I know for a FACT that ArmA2:OA in some mission uses close to 1180mb video ram in game?? so I would say 1.5 should be good for vid ram but then again maybe if your flying FSX I hear that can get pretty demanding on ram for system & Vid memory especially if using the advanced graphics for scenery addons..

I for one would rather have more then not enough..couldnt hurt much but not having enough can.. plus if you are using a 32bit OS more then 3.5gb ram would be a waste and that would be a total of ALL Memory used..

This is a good argument but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. It sounds like the amount of video RAM needed is program dependent. That a sim like FSX with tons of scenery add-ons would scream for as much video RAM as possible, even 3 gigs worth might not be enough depending on how much sh*t you've got loaded in the game, while most PC games will run like greased lightening with only 1 gig of vid ram and have plenty left over.

Am I right? So, is the 3Gig GTX 580 worth the extra cost over the standard 1.5Gig GTX 580? I've seen the xtra cost at about $150 bucks. I want to upgrade my GTX 285.

As I said before, use GPU-Z and you`ll see how much VRAM is used.

I have GEX, REX, UTX, ORBX, Global X and a ton off addon Airports including some Megaairports. The only thing I can`t comment on is Cities, like Manhattan X as I have none.


My VRAM usage nearly never goes past 900 MB, mostly it is around 800 MB. This is on a 1280 MB card with a single monitor @ 1920x1080. So if the main goal is FSX, I wouldn`t spend more money if the fps are okay.

If you are interested in say CoD, it seems it is better getting a 2 GB card, as folks say they have better results in smoothness. GPU-Z logs a usage of around 1100 MB in CoD on my machine, so it`s pretty saturated.

There is no way FSX will EVER call for over 3 Gigs of video ram. I told you before, that FSX has never called for more than 800 on my 580 and nver more than 6 Gigs system ram (this might have been a freak issue). I run FSX all sliders to the max Antialising on at 2650 x 1600 res and have no problems. The 590 is two underclocked 580's in SLI. I got the GTX 580 and money was not a factor in the decision. You only need a 590 if you use 3 monitors for FSX. The 580 only runs 2. Later when the prices drop I can SLI the 580;s which will beat the 590 for speed. It is speed (cpu and gpu) you need not memory.

I don't think CoD is optimized yet and should get better. Also, SLI is borked on it and causes huge fps loss. So, a 590 will not help him there since it is an SLI 2x 580 card. That said, My rig runs CoD now on full at 2650 x 1600 with max AA + bombers over London. I agree, Plainsman only needs a GTX 580, even for CoD.

Thanks guys.

Plainsman. The GTX 580 with 3Gb is totally not worth $150. You can't use enough monitors to warrant such massive memory use (it only can support 2). Going from a GTX 285 (my 2x GTX 260's were slightly faster than that) to a GTX 580, you willget DX11 and notice a decent difference in speed and fluidity, because I did. You will also be able to play games at much higher resolutions and AA without a performance loss (increased memory). IMHO, its areally nice card. Warning: If you use two monitors it will idle at approx 60 C, instead of approx 40 C for one monitor. Thats normal.

GTX 580 outperforms GTX 590 http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html GTX 580 out performs GTX 590