8GB VRAM not enough (and 10 / 12)

[BFG10K]

8GB

• Dying Light 2, Battlefield 2042, Avatar Frontiers of Pandora, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, Starfield, Forza Horizon 5, Horizon Forbidden West, Alan Wake 2, The Last of Us, Tekken 8, FC 24, Detroit Become Human, Death Stranding, Alone in The Dark, Overwatch 2
  3060 12GB higher 1% low than 4060 8GB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfz57wmywg
• Cyberpunk 2077, Diablo 4, Hogwarts Legacy, Horizon Zero Dawn, Microsoft Flight Sim 2020, Witcher 3, Watch Dogs Legion skip to 4K + DLSS for each game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPiaWWd0xGc
• Ratchet & Clank, Plague Tale Requiem, Last Of Us, Jedi Survivor, Far Cry 6, Hogwarts Legacy, Forza Horizon 5, Cyberpunk 2077 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr3MckDxMfE&pp=ygUTMTZnYiB2cyA4Z2IgNDA2MCB0aQ==
• Far Cry 6, Godfall, Hogwarts Legacy, Forza Horizon 5, Forspoken, Doom Eternal, Watchdogs Legion https://youtu.be/fJc--C01P90?t=268
• Last Of Us, Resident Evil 4, Callisto Protocol, Plague Tale Requiem, Halo Infinite, Forspoken https://youtu.be/2_Y3E631ro8?t=429
• Last Of Us, Hogwarts Legacy, Resident Evil 4, Forspoken, Plague Tale Requiem, Callisto Protocol https://youtu.be/Rh7kFgHe21k?t=288
• Hogwarts Legacy, Last Of Us, Spider Man Remastered, Doom Eternal, Forza Horizon 5 https://youtu.be/R943CbDTq_s?t=1473
• Horizon Forbidden West 4060 has issues @ 1080p + DLSS unless you switch off frame generation and reduce settings to high https://youtu.be/3AyKvI23VGw?t=233
• Horizon Forbidden West 3070 requires reducing textures 2 notches https://youtu.be/xTwEGy6HHKo?t=351
• Deathloop https://youtu.be/lu_XHyO-6zY?t=918
• Ghost Recon Breakpoint https://youtu.be/iUGppQVpXzU?t=529
• Resident Evil 2 https://youtu.be/Aa-gsgRjMII?t=796
• Talos Principle 2 https://youtu.be/K6FATQAuEwI?t=337
• Spider Man Remastered https://youtu.be/vRVR_plVSlc?t=1060
• Witcher 3 https://youtu.be/vRVR_plVSlc?t=1240

Horizon Forbidden West 3060 is faster than the 2080 Super despite the former usually competing with the 2070. Also 3060 has a better 1% low than 4060 and 4060Ti 8GB.

Spoiler

Resident Evil Village 3060TI/3070 tanks at 4K and is slower than the 3060/6700XT when ray tracing:

Spoiler

Company Of Heroes 3060 has a higher minimum than the 3070TI:

Spoiler

10GB / 12GB

• Plague Tale Requiem 3080 10GB tanks if you enable ray tracing, would be fast enough if it had more VRAM because if you stop moving, the framerate stabilizes to >60FPS https://youtu.be/7zjrMww3fAc?t=496
• Hogwarts Legacy 4K + RT, 4060Ti 16GB is faster than 4070 12GB https://youtu.be/X-h_R488Mq8?t=191

Reasons why still shipping 8GB since 2014 isn't NV's fault.

Spoiler

1. It's the player's fault.
2. It's the reviewer's fault.
3. It's the developer's fault.
4. It's AMD's fault.
5. It's the game's fault.
6. It's the driver's fault.
7. It's a system configuration issue.
8. Wrong settings were tested.
9. Wrong area was tested.
10. Wrong games were tested.
11. 4K is irrelevant.
12. Texture quality is irrelevant as long as it matches a console's.
13. Detail levels are irrelevant as long as they match a console's.
14. There's no reason a game should use more than 8GB, because a random forum user said so.
15. It's completely acceptable for the more expensive 3070/3070TI/3080 to turn down settings while the cheaper 3060/6700XT has no issue.
16. It's an anomaly.
17. It's a console port.
18. It's a conspiracy against NV.
19. 8GB cards aren't meant for 4K / 1440p / 1080p / 720p gaming.
20. It's completely acceptable to disable ray tracing on NV while AMD has no issue.
21. Polls, hardware market share, and game title count are evidence 8GB is enough, but are totally ignored when they don't suit the ray tracing agenda.

According to some people here, 8GB is neeeevaaaaah NV's fault and objective evidence "doesn't count" because of reasons(tm). If you have others please let me know and I'll add them to the list. Cheers!

 

[psolord]

I can pick cherries too:


View attachment 95644


How many times do you need to be told that it's not just about todays games, it's about the next few years' worth? Or that fps graphs often miss things like textures that are downgraded or don't load properly?

All of these charts you keep posting are missing the point.

This thread is running since 2021. We are well into 2024. Go see all 1080p benchmarks of gamegpu till today. No vram problems. GPU problems though? Yeah quite a few...

When I am posting charts that prove otherwise of what this thread preaches, I'M the one that is doing the cherry picking. xD

Oh yes and when 8GB cards win, there must SURELY be something wrong with them....

 

[psolord]

View attachment 95646

What did you infer from that?

Let's forget 4K coz that is a massacre for the majority of the tested cards. Coming to 1440p VRAM consumption, 6651MB vs. 8472MB? You know what that means? Textures being degraded!

Nothing is degraded. This is how the gpu-pcie-ram subsystems work. It's called asset streaming and has been around since the AGP bus was around.

 

[psolord]

Horizon Forbidden West: PC Performance Benchmarks for Graphics Cards and Processors | RPG/Role Playing | GPU TEST

We tested the release Horizon Forbidden West at the highest graphics settings, on video cards from the GEFORCE RTX and RADEON RX series. Also, during the tests we conducted, we assessed the perform

gamegpu.tech

This reviewer has something against showing V-cache advantage in games. He has the newer 8700G in the CPU results but not even a 5800X3D!!!

We can guess pretty easily who's paying him or where his allegiance lies...

This is a Russian site and restrictions do apply due to the war. They are against the war though and they had painted their logo in Ukraine's colors when the war started. This did not go well.....

They have nothing against AMD. They show things as they are. Case in point Forbidden West. It does run better on AMD cards. Guys stop seeing conspiracies everywhere for the love of vram. xD

I did ask them to bring in a 4060ti 16GB, a 7600XT 16GB and a 7900GRE to see when the vram differences will start showing if ever, but they cannot at the moment.

 

[psolord]

The 4GB Vs 8GB cards show you will be wrong.

If you are referring to the 6500XT 4GB vs 8GB you couldn't be more wrong. Where do I start?

4GBs vs 8GBs is NOT the same as 8GBs vs whatever more. I explained why. The more we go up in vram, the closer we get to the good enough forever point. The explanation is very simple. Human vision and the panels we are using are finite. We will need exponentially much more gpu power, than we will need vram size.

Also seriously, the 6500XT is pcie X4 card. This ain't helping with the vram-pcie-ram collaboration. If you are drawing conclusions from that, you are destined to draw the wrong ones.

Hey I am not saying extra vram is bad. I am just disputing at what tflops (per architecture) / vram ratio is actually needed. That being said, the 6500XT IS a 6tflop card, which probably means that it could use more than 4GBs.

I mean my rx6600 is a 8tflop card with 8GBs vram. It runs fine and has a 1:1 tflop to vram ratio. That's a good balance for the RDNA 2 architecture. The 6500XT 4GB has 1:0.66 ratio. That's not good and not the best case to extract your conclusions.

4060Ti 16GB managing RT at over 60fps.

We've discussed this before. It is a mixed bag of results. The 4060ti 16GB has a clear win here not gonna lie, but 50fps for the 8GB model aint bad. I mean you paid more you get more. The 4070 12GB is destroying the 4060ti 16GB though. So this just an example where the settings are just causing a winny bit of trouble for the vanilla 8gb card. It could be 9GBs for all we know. The correct stance here, is that a user paying 400$ for a card should not expect the same performance as the person paying 500. And the latter would be much better of with a 4070. That's why steve at hardware nexus called the 4060ti 16GB a useless card.

Also vram is not everything. The 7600XT 16GB from that same graph, is still giving an unplayable experience. The 12GB 4070 has double the performance of the 12GB 6700XT.

The 8GB 4060ti has almost THREE times the performance of the also 8GB 7600. That's what I am telling you all along. VRAM aint everything. It can cause the main gpu to lose some cycles, sure, that's why you fine tune your freaging settings, according to the monetary amount you paid for.

 

[psolord]

You have to ask him a question. He will pretend he has no idea what you are asking about

I honestly did not understand. I used the 1080p results to show how heavy it gets. Please explain.

 

[Aapje]

@psolord

Pretty ballsy to claim that a 30 year old trend of increasing VRAM requirements ends today.

And we are certainly not yet at the point where our screens max out human vision. At typical viewing distances, a 400 PPI is about the lower limit where things on screen may seem realistic, at least from the point of view of no longer seeing individual pixels. Our screens don't achieve that, but with things like mini-LED, we may get screens with a large PPI. That means much higher resolutions as well.

And current games make a lot of decisions that reduce VRAM use at the expense of quality, like using repeated textures, simplified textures, etc, etc. To truly get realistic images, I think we need way more VRAM, in addition to way more performance.

 

[psolord]

@psolord

Pretty ballsy to claim that a 30 year old trend of increasing VRAM requirements ends today.

And we are certainly not yet at the point where our screens max out human vision. At typical viewing distances, a 400 PPI is about the lower limit where things on screen may seem realistic, at least from the point of view of no longer seeing individual pixels. Our screens don't achieve that, but with things like mini-LED, we may get screens with a large PPI. That means much higher resolutions as well.

And current games make a lot of decisions that reduce VRAM use at the expense of quality, like using repeated textures, simplified textures, etc, etc. To truly get realistic images, I think we need way more VRAM, in addition to way more performance.

You don't understand what I am saying.

A 1080p panel will still be used 10-20 years from now. It is good enough for most people. You want to take that up a notch? Fine, lets say 1440p is the standard. There's a finite amount of information that can be shown in those pixels. You can have a trillion seperate textures that have sub pixel dimentions, that's what I am saying. You need good LOD management is all, and the higher we go in vram, the close we move to the point of subpixel texture dimensions. After a point, there's no point for bigger textures.

And no I didn't say it ends today. I said it is considerably slowing down.

 

[psolord]

In other news, I am testing Forbidden West as we speak. On a GTX 970 lol. Yeah it's not optimal. It has some framedrops to 8fps at cinematic points, but during gameplay it's ok. 30-60fps.

Here are some screenshots at medium preset, 1080p, fsr quality. Fsr is bad.




The game has xess, but in case you didn't know, xess is a no go for the GTX 970. It actually makes the games slower. It seems there's a limit of what gpu processing power a card must have, to use it. I mean it is fine on the GTX 1070 (FW not tested yet).

The game DOES have a problem with 3.5GBs, not gonna lie, lol. However even if you take it down to low preset, the vram drops to 3GBs, looks ugly AF and you gain like 3fps. Not worth it. Once again, it is primarily gpu limited, not vram limited. Eyeballing it, I'd say the factor of gpu limit to vram limit, is 95:5. I will upload vids on all my systems, with correct settings™, as well. xD

The fact of the matter remains, the game is a beaut even at medium. If you don't use a FAFO mentality with your settings, you will be fine.

 

[igor_kavinski]

The 4060ti 16GB has a clear win here not gonna lie, but 50fps for the 8GB model aint bad. I mean you paid more you get more.

The correct stance here, is that a user paying 400$ for a card should not expect the same performance as the person paying 500.

How about one skip paying $400 for that POCrap and get an A770 16GB or a 3060 12GB, save money and still get not bad performance with the benefit of not hitting the VRAM wall in future games? Your logic is fun to decipher. You say anything less than 60 fps is unplayable but now you are favoring the 4060 Ti 8GB for doing 50 fps. And you don't see any problem with the fact that had the 8GB POGarbage not existed, people could've had the 4060 Ti 16GB for $400.

 

[coercitiv]

Barely manages to get playable framerates on GTX 970 with FSR enabled. Calls FSR bad. Maybe should switch to the supersampling method GTX 970 owners received from Nvidia.

 

[psolord]

How about one skip paying $400 for that POCrap and get an A770 16GB or a 3060 12GB, save money and still get not bad performance with the benefit of not hitting the VRAM wall in future games?

Well I don't know. How about, because you get to play Horizon Forbidden West at 70fps, while you get 45fps on the 3060? You will hit far more performance walls on the 3060 due to gpu power. The vram walls are very thin. Go see all 2024 gamegpu graphs, and see how much of a problem the 4060ti has. The future problem that is coming, has been coming for three years now and counting....The 3060 is having problems NOW.

Your logic is fun to decipher. You say anything less than 60 fps is unplayable but now you are favoring the 4060 Ti 8GB for doing 50 fps. And you don't see any problem with the fact that had the 8GB POGarbage not existed, people could've had the 4060 Ti 16GB for $400.

Sure it is, but at 50fps its fixable. You are probably looking at the tweak of ONE setting here, to make it 60fps worthy. And it could be something seriously stupid, like using half res raytracing or something.

If we could have a 400$ 16GB 4060ti it would be preferable. We can't. Become Nvidias CEO and dictate what should be done if you can.

 

[psolord]

Here is Digital Foundry's piece. Timestamped at the vram comment. No problemo if you are not a buffoon. Up to 1440p it's fine. I wouldn't use an 8GB card for 1440p, but that's just me. Even if it goes out of spec, no degradation of quality is happening. Data takes a round trip through ram. Still why make it take a round trip?

 

[coercitiv]

No problemo if you are not a buffoon.

Let's quote Alex Battaglia instead, straight from the video:

At 1800p and specifically on the RTX 3070, I saw at a couple moments, after a cut scene played or during a cut scene playing, or after fast traveling, that the game could overuse the amount of VRAM possible and it would dip into system memory. In such moments the framerate goes down extremely hard and the game start to run really poorly. In moments like this I saw a total usage of VRAM for Win and the game for around 7.6GB or so.

Given this behavior I would say only play the game at 1440p unless you're willing to drop texture quality. Instead of degrading some texture quality on said GPUs, the game is dipping into system memory at the moment which really is going to destroy the performance of the GPU even if it technically has enough shading power to take care of it.

Let's hope there's no increased memory pressure during longer gaming sessions, otherwise we may start seeing buffoons at 1440p as well.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Let's quote Alex Battaglia instead, straight from the video:

Just masterful quoting that! Using the defense attorney's exhibit against him!

 

[Timorous]

The 8GB 4060ti has almost THREE times the performance of the also 8GB 7600. That's what I am telling you all along. VRAM aint everything. It can cause the main gpu to lose some cycles, sure, that's why you fine tune your freaging settings, according to the monetary amount you paid for.

Here is what I know will happen in the next 5 years. The 7600XT will last far longer than the 4060 and 4060Ti 8GB. Sure the 4060Ti 8GB has more compute and far better RT. It won't matter, at 1080p the VRAM limit will be exceeded and IQ will go to pot or the frame rates will tank depending on if the game just flat out does not load textures or if it waits for them and stalls the rendering. You may be able to manage playable settings at the lowest texture qualities on 8GB cards but the 16GB cards will probably still be fine with ultra textures and the IQ gap there is pretty large compared to the high - ultra gap.

The 4060Ti 16GB will probably be able to make use of the RT at 1080p pretty nicely and DLSS 1440p + RT with some frame gen may be a great combo in some games for some people.

The 4070 is flat out a better card and for 1080p the compute / VRAM balance is far far better, it will be fine at 1440p as well for the foreseeable. The issue is that it is 25% more money than the 16GB 4060Ti (at least it is where I am) and some people cannot afford or are not willing to pay that amount extra.

Nobody is saying that an 8GB card will be unusable, we are saying that the current cost of entry at certain compute performance tiers are going to be held back by the small buffer and alternatives that have similar compute but more VRAM will offer a better solution long term for those who are going to keep a card for 3/4/5 years or so.

Having said that there is no true successor to the RX580 8GB yet. IMO the 4060Ti 16GB comes the closest but misses out on cost and the 7600XT comes in behind getting the cost roughly right but falling short on compute and RT performance. If the 5060 has 4070 tier performance and 12GB - 16GB of VRAM in a $300-$350 window then that would probably be the go to card IMO, it hits the nexus of performance, VRAM, price and longevity that made the RX480 8GB/ RX 580 8GB/ 1060 6GB such good buys.

I think by now you get this and are purposefully missing the point so I don't think I can be bothered to engage further with someone who is clearly acting in bad faith.

 

[Aapje]

You don't understand what I am saying.

A 1080p panel will still be used 10-20 years from now. It is good enough for most people. You want to take that up a notch? Fine, lets say 1440p is the standard. There's a finite amount of information that can be shown in those pixels. You can have a trillion separate textures that have sub pixel dimentions, that's what I am saying. You need good LOD management is all, and the higher we go in vram, the close we move to the point of subpixel texture dimensions. After a point, there's no point for bigger textures.

And no I didn't say it ends today. I said it is considerably slowing down.

From my perspective, 1440p is the budget option now for desktops. I got a decent enough 1440p 165Hz screen for 160 euros. Those are bargain-bin prices and to me the visual difference between 1080p and 1440p is quite large.

And I'm not sure how LOD will help with VRAM size. When you get closer, you will need to have that texture available in the higher quality. And with Nvidia being quite stingy with the bus size, you better have those textures in VRAM.

Above, people have already explained to you that when you run out of VRAM, it starts swapping from/to RAM, which destroys your 1% lows much more than it hurts the averages. But the 1% lows result in really ugly stutters.

 

[psolord]

Let's quote Alex Battaglia instead, straight from the video:


Let's hope there's no increased memory pressure during longer gaming sessions, otherwise we may start seeing buffoons at 1440p as well.

Seriously? At 1800p?

 

[coercitiv]

Seriously? At 1800p?

I'm not the one making the argument, Digital Foundry is. And it's the video you posted, not my initiative.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Seriously? At 1800p?

Maybe you could take it up on THEIR forums?

 

[psolord]

I'm not the one making the argument, Digital Foundry is. And it's the video you posted, not my initiative.

At this point, it is evident that you guys are just trolling me.

Can we have a serious conversation at some point? We are talking about cards being usable, at their intended resolutions. The 3070 is not a 1800p card ffs. The dude was giving an example. Even 1440p is very good for the 3070 and Alex said it is fine there. What else do you want? god

 

[psolord]

A bit OT, sadly the Sandys cannot run Forbidden West. It gives a cpu error requiring F16C instructions, lol. My luck. The GTX 1070 will have to wait.

They can run UE5 fine, but noooo, Forbidden west needs F16C.

 

[Thunder 57]

Whenever I feel I could use a little laugh, this thread rarely dissappoints. Still convenieniently ignoring the 480 4GB vs 8GB but instead brings up the 6500 XT? That's not a winning comparison as it came much later and was never a good GPU.

The 480/580 4GB aged decent enough. The 8GB vairiants aged quite well. All for $40 more. Not $100 like certain compaines wanted.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Everyone in this thread: OMG just give us more than 8GB of RAM for a reasonable amount of money. 12Gb, 16GB whatever. If you're going to stick with 8GB of RAM at least keep the cost around $200 or something...

Psolord: YOU WILL ACCEPT 8GB, USE MY SANCTIONED SETTINGS, PAY THROUGH THE NOSE FOR IT, AND YOU WILL LOVE IT.

 

[igor_kavinski]

The 8GB Terminator. I'll be BACK with more videos with correct settings!

 

[Ranulf]

Since you have a 6700XT, can you please test the Deus Ex Manking United that is given for free on EPIC until tomorrow? I want a benchmark run at Ultra 1080p+4XMSAA.

Missed this earlier, but probably not anytime soon. I have the game, probably on many platforms now. The 6700 is on the test bench system that needs to be rebuilt/transfered into a case with a cpu swap and probably just a fresh win install.

Barely manages to get playable framerates on GTX 970 with FSR enabled. Calls FSR bad. Maybe should switch to the supersampling method GTX 970 owners received from Nvidia.

Hairworks, working as intended.