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!

 

[BFG10K]

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

It's straight from The Gospel Of Jensen(tm).

14. There's no reason a game should use more than 8GB, because a random forum user said so.

 

[blckgrffn]

I also don’t think that 1080p screens will remain the standard. 27” and 32” 1440p screens are so inexpensive, available and just plain better than a smaller 1080p screen that by 2030 I think even the high refresh 24” 1080p screen will largely be viewed as the absolute bottom budget gamer screen. I mean, it’s true now I my mind but as many for him folks have told me I am a quorum of 1.

I’ve got 8 monitors in use in my house right now and not one of them is 1080p. Closest I’ve got is an old 1920*1200 ultrasharp on my test bench and a 2560*1080 ultrasharp straightup chilling on a bench. I gave away my last 1080p monitor to one of my son’s friends a couple months ago. My daughter is using some Uber HP monitor from like 2010 that’s got DVI and DP, is 30”, is 2560*1600 and weighs like 25lbs 😂 A friend of mine gave it to me when he he finally upgraded to a new pro monitor.

Yeah, maybe I am an outlier now but I think it’s really going this way. My wife’s monitor cost like $110 on a deal and is 75hz freesync, 32”, IPS and 1440p. At that point why settle?

 

[Ranulf]

At that point why settle?

When a $200 GPU can run that 1440p monitor at 60fps minimum for a majority of games for two years from its release. Without upscaling or frame gen. It has taken 5+ years for those 1080p 120hz+ monitors to drop to $150 or less.

 

[dr1337]

When a $200 GPU can run that 1440p monitor at 60fps minimum for a majority of games for two years from its release

Okay I am not trying to target you but I know a lot of people share this sentiment. When you say "a majority of games", what exactly do you mean? Because for one thing, no hardware review outlet tests any majority of videogames, even for a given time period, whatsoever.

Second of all, most review sites do their reviews at max settings... Now I know I am tickling the dragon here because some people like to use settings as a crutch for low VRAM cards, but on the other hand every game I have played from a different dev has a different set of optimizations compared to another. Just because you might not be able to spend $200 on a brand new card to run the latest 10 new games at 1440p60fps max settings, doesn't mean a $200 card wont hit 90+fps on medium, or a used $200 card even exceeding that.

But then at this point I really start to wonder what games all of you are actually playing. Because even the new games I have played in the past year, no review site has ever benchmarked them (tbf thats only a couple games). And let us not forget that here in 2024 most games with active communities get constant updates, benchmarks that don't specify game version and such can easily begin misleading people. What I am trying to say is, why do ppl take reviews at face value all the time esp. when trying to make abstract comparisons?

I have been gaming at 1440p for over a decade and at 4k for over 3 years now, often on very subpar hardware. Never once have I ever regretted buying a high res monitor. In the instance that a game runs bad at 1440p/4k compared to lower res, turning down the resolution on the ingame settings has always been fine and never looked any worse than my other monitor. And when you consider things like text and video that more resolution is always better, I really can't wrap my head around the idea of people being against it.

You use your monitor more than you play games, so why buy a cheap and inferior part? I really also don't get the appeal to the wallet. A 1080p monitor is cheap AF these days, my 2nd and 3rd monitors both I got from thrift shops back in 2018 for an avg price of $20. Everyone has a budget yes, but, revolving that budget exclusively around new products is a total folly.

Sorry for doing a bit of a ramble but like, I think these concepts aren't really related to each other. A games geometry and VRAM needs do not entirely rely on resolution alone. New videogames are more dense than ever but also at the same time less optimized than ever. HOWEVER at the same time, video games are getting huge and new games often take up 50+gb of storage. Even if the game is only graphically 10gb big, its still always more optimal to have everything running in ram instead of swapping.

So settling for a worse monitor because you think you don't have enough VRAM, or vice versa, isn't really tangible to reality. 10 year old macbook pros can output 4k, and do it well enough to be very usable for most tasks, but nobody ever mentions a mac and gaming in the same sentence seriously.

But 8gb of VRAM for a gaming dGPU in 2024 is not enough unless it is ~$150 IMO.

 

[coercitiv]

Can we have a serious conversation at some point?

Go back to my reply, read my own words: let's hope the memory swaps don't happen on 1440p as well, after longer gaming sessions. The game would really like to have more than 8GB of VRAM for 1440p, or at the very least it's very close to wanting more. Any increased pressure on VRAM, from the game itself or even from the user having hardware accelerated programs open (browser, discord, etc), is likely to trigger stutter.

Let's take a look at RAM pressure as well, see if the above reasoning holds up, we'll look at 1080 and 1440p numbers only:

The game uses plenty of system memory too, in the case of the 3070 it's relatively close to hitting the swap on 16GB systems. This confirms what I wrote above, any VRAM spill or any other VRAM pressure from other active programs is likely to create a domino effect and hit the swap. It explains the behavior Digital Foundry was talking about. On the AMD side the RAM usage is even higher for all cards, so it's likely platform specific. I suspect the 6700XT would have had really big issues at 1440p if it came with only 8GB of VRAM. "Luckily" for the 6600XT, anything above 1080p is big no-no anyway.

In my view, the game is closely balanced around 8GB @ 1440p, and it's a delicate balance too. Folks who want to have a worry free experience @ 1440p should have 12GB VRAM or 20+GB of RAM. Therefore, this game is not the example you thought to have found, it does not support the idea that cards with the shading power of 3070 or 4060TI are well balanced with just 8GB of VRAM. If anything, it shows just how much more useful 12GB of VRAM are today.

Also, if you want serious conversations, behave like a serious person. Stop provoking folks by inserting words such as "stupid" and "buffoons". It would be very nice if people stopped insulting you too (bold so they can see it too), but responding in kind to provocation is the sure way to renounce honest debate.

 

[Aapje]

When a $200 GPU can run that 1440p monitor at 60fps minimum for a majority of games for two years from its release. Without upscaling or frame gen.

With that kind of budget I wonder how you can even afford the newer games. For example, Elden Ring is still not even at half price during sales after 2 years.

My strategy with that kind of budget would definitely be to primarily play older, heavily discounted games, which play better on slower hardware, can run at 1440p even with quite high settings on cheap GPUs (which is a huge quality boost, IMO) and allow you to have more budget for hardware upgrades.

And frame gen works much better on 1440p than on 1080p.

It has taken 5+ years for those 1080p 120hz+ monitors to drop to $150 or less.

Yes, and high refresh 1440p dropped to lower prices during that same period, so you pay only a little bit more for high refresh 1440p.

 

[psolord]

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.

I am not ignoring anything sir, but if you want a laugh, you can watch these.

Not the disaster you are portraying it to be.

Also here are another 12 benchmarks from gamegpu from back in the day. I am showing the 1650 super 4GB vs the polaris 8GB cards. It beats them in ALL of them, aside Call of duty, where it lost only by the more powerful ones. Still beat the slower ones.

Spoiler: 12 1650super 4GB vs 8GB cards

Oh yeah and I never said, good guy nvidia for charging 100$ for an extra 8GB. I am just saying, that exactly due to that extra charge, the 4060ti 16GB is a useless card, since there is the 4070 for a little more.

 

[psolord]

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.

No worries. What I wanted you to see, is this 8yo game, was also primarily gpu limited by far. A friend on another forum complained about framedrops below the 30s, on his 6700XT.

 

[psolord]

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.

Can you please explain to me, how on earth do you just draw a flat 200$ line, with the vram alone as the prime characteristic. We are discussing Horizon Forbidden West this very moment. Did you see the benchmarks?



The fastest 8GB card, gives 70fps and the slowest 40fps. How do you reach the conclusion that 8GB cards should cost 200$ max?

Also I never justified expensive 8GB cards. I am just evaluating things as they are, and as I have said 100 times, I care about my OWN 8GB card. I didn't go out and buy a 3070ti now, did I?

 

[psolord]

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.

Oh my God, you don't dare say anything remotely negative, for anything AMD derived in these forums, people are jumping to devour you. My good man, I have said many times, that we are extremely grateful for fsr in general. It's just that in this particular game, forbidden west, there is too much information on the screen, for which the fsr2 resolving is not good, what do you want me to say, that it is? And I mean specifically for the resolving at 1080p. In higher resolutions it may be good.

Anyhoo, this is my GTX 970 run of forbidden west.

edit sorry posted wrong media

Let me rephrase. Without fsr, the game would be even more unplayable and I am glad that it exists, so it will help people with weaker systems. Are we good?

 

[psolord]

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

I did something better. At least I tried. My good recorder is in the summer house and this one aint helping.

Anyhoo I tested many settings, on the 3060ti, from very low, to very high, dlaa, dlss, fsr, xess, so to see what impact they have visually, vram impact and power impact, along with the performance of course, with a cap at 60fps.

0:03 very low 1080p dlaa
1:31 low 1080p dlaa
2:59 medium 1080p dlaa
4:30 high 1080p dlaa
5:48 very high 1080p dlaa
6:58 very high 1080p dlaa dynamic res
8:15 very high 1080p dlss dynamic res
9:36 very high 1080p fsr2 dynamic res
10:50 very high 1080p xess dynamic res

The 3060ti is not a very high preset card, as has been shown by gamegpu.

However, I did my main 20min run at high, with maxed textures and anisotropic filtering. It seems OK to me.

 

[psolord]

Go back to my reply, read my own words: let's hope the memory swaps don't happen on 1440p as well, after longer gaming sessions. The game would really like to have more than 8GB of VRAM for 1440p, or at the very least it's very close to wanting more. Any increased pressure on VRAM, from the game itself or even from the user having hardware accelerated programs open (browser, discord, etc), is likely to trigger stutter.

Look, for me 1440p for an 8GB card is too much. I didn't get my 8GB cards for anything above 1080p and that's why their price point was carefully selected. Personally I am glad for what the 3070 managed in DF's testing. Now if the game starts wanting more in longer periods of time, that's a memory leak and should be fixed.

Also speaking for myself, I don't have a bucket load of programs running in the background, when gaming.

Therefore, this game is not the example you thought to have found, it does not support the idea that cards with the shading power of 3070 or 4060TI are well balanced with just 8GB of VRAM. If anything, it shows just how much more useful 12GB of VRAM are today.

The 3060 12GB is losing from 8GB cards in gamegpu's testing, so this alone, shows it is primarily gpu limited, not vram limited.

That, and also the 70fps vs 40fps difference that the fastest and slowest 8GB cards show.

Also, if you want serious conversations, behave like a serious person. Stop provoking folks by inserting words such as "stupid" and "buffoons". It would be very nice if people stopped insulting you too (bold so they can see it too), but responding in kind to provocation is the sure way to renounce honest debate.

I only said that users that go looking for trouble, setting things outside their card's tier, are buffoons or idiots. I didn't resort to personally name calling anyone. Which is the exact contrary what other posters are doing towards me personally. It has been suggested, by people of authority, to use the ignore button, because people do not like the opposing voice. Which is really funny, because we are discussing trivial stuff, like games. Imagine if we were discussing politics, or religion. lol

 

[Hitman928]

I am not ignoring anything sir, but if you want a laugh, you can watch these.

Not the disaster you are portraying it to be.

Most of those examples in the video actually work against you because the games shown either struggle with stuttering on the 4GB model or the tester had to turn down texture quality to keep the game playable (sometimes both). These are actually clear examples where the 8GB model would give you much smoother game play and allow higher image quality without effecting performance.

Watchdog: Legions ran fine but they had to set the texture resolution to Low for the 4 GB card. The 8 GB card would show much higher image quality by raising the texture resolution without a significant performance impact.

Assasin's Creed Valhalla you even get an FPS chart that shows how often the 4 GB model is stuttering vs. one drop for the 8 GB model. This is with medium textures as well so another case where the 8 GB model could up the image quality and give you better performance:

Dirt 5 does play fine in their example, but they get a message about not enough VRAM at the beginning so I'm pretty sure you'd run into VRAM issues on other maps or in extended play sessions.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Can you please explain to me, how on earth do you just draw a flat 200$ line, with the vram alone as the prime characteristic. We are discussing Horizon Forbidden West this very moment. Did you see the benchmarks?

View attachment 95727

The fastest 8GB card, gives 70fps and the slowest 40fps. How do you reach the conclusion that 8GB cards should cost 200$ max?

Also I never justified expensive 8GB cards. I am just evaluating things as they are, and as I have said 100 times, I care about my OWN 8GB card. I didn't go out and buy a 3070ti now, did I?

-Easy, we've had 12 and 16 GB cards around the $300 price point for a while (6700xt & 7600xt & 3060) so it clearly isn't too expensive to put that quantity of RAM at that price, so logically 8gb of RAM should be in the $200 price range, preferably on the lower end like $250 or $230.

I'm not saying that NV should charge $200 for a 4060ti, I'm saying it should come with 16GB standard for $400.

 

[nurturedhate]

-Easy, we've had 12 and 16 GB cards around the $300 price point for a while (6700xt & 7600xt & 3060) so it clearly isn't too expensive to put that quantity of RAM at that price, so logically 8gb of RAM should be in the $200 price range, preferably on the lower end like $250 or $230.

I'm not saying that NV should charge $200 for a 4060ti, I'm saying it should come with 16GB standard for $400.

Just for clarity's sake, we had 8gb vram cards 8 years ago at $239.

 

[DeathReborn]

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

Yup. Some people just cannot be reasoned with, they just want to watch things burn.

 

[Ranulf]

No worries. What I wanted you to see, is this 8yo game, was also primarily gpu limited by far. A friend on another forum complained about framedrops below the 30s, on his 6700XT.

Ok. Good to know. Some games don't run great. See Bethesda games and ram speeds.

And to respond to others on my 1080p argument, you are both missing the point. Where has the tech advanced in terms of price/performance? There has been no real advancement. It is the same argument we're having over gpu price/perf and vram. If you are telling me that 1440p is the new entry level resolution, I need gpu's that can run things at acceptable framerates at those peasant entry level prices. Just give me 60 fps on average, ignoring various outlier games that obviously exist and have existed for many years. Yet another reason to be a patient gamer. Dragon's Dogma 2 is just another new example of badly performing games even on high end hardware, far far above the new entry level standards you are talking about.

1440p was $330 with the gtx 970, ten years ago. Today that is $500-600. So, great. Monitors are cheap now and have finally advanced, 8-10 years after adaptive sync tech shows up and high refresh rates. La-de-dah.

 

[psolord]

Most of those examples in the video actually work against you because the games shown either struggle with stuttering on the 4GB model or the tester had to turn down texture quality to keep the game playable (sometimes both).

0.1% lows are split second measurements my friend and more often than not, go unnoticed. We are going to discard the average now, in favor of the 0.1%? wow.

I don't know why the tester used the low preset of textures in Legion, while he was testing different vram versions of the same card. Maybe this is a setting that is selected automatically by a preset? Can't answer on befalf of the tester, but I am downloading Legion right now from my ubisoft account, to see how the settings fair and why not do some testing too.

Assasin's Creed Valhalla you even get an FPS chart that shows how often the 4 GB model is stuttering vs. one drop for the 8 GB model. This is with medium textures as well so another case where the 8 GB model could up the image quality and give you better performance:

There are more stutters yes, but these could also be part of a multitude of reasons. The 8GB run could be preheated for example.

I do have a Valhalla run, on my GTX 970 with even less vram, and the game runs fine at medium while still looking great. We are getting extremely nitpicky here...

In any case, we are discussing 4GB vs 8GB all of a sudden? Who gives a crap? You cannot draw conclusions from comparisons of the past and I have explained why. We are ever reaching the good enough point as far as game assets are concerned.

 

[psolord]

-Easy, we've had 12 and 16 GB cards around the $300 price point for a while (6700xt & 7600xt & 3060) so it clearly isn't too expensive to put that quantity of RAM at that price, so logically 8gb of RAM should be in the $200 price range, preferably on the lower end like $250 or $230.

I'm not saying that NV should charge $200 for a 4060ti, I'm saying it should come with 16GB standard for $400.

I'd like the 4060ti 16GB to be at 400$ and be the only model actually, on that we agree. However the reality is different. Heck, I'd like the 4090 to cost 200 if it could.

You don't buy vram. You buy performance in the form of a graphics card in its totality. That's the problem with the perception of things that exist.

I mean let's see the TPU's Alan Wake 2 test again.

Look how many 8GB cards are in there. How many 12GB cards too. Look how different their performance is. How are you so focused on the vram and ignoring the performance itself? How do you reach the reasonable conclusion, that the 4060ti for example, should cost as mush as the 3050? The 4070 should cost as much as the 3060? I don't get it.

It seems to me, that you don't understand, that there is excess vram in some models, as a marketing gimmick really. Vram that they don't have the processing power to use anyway. Still you think they are better cards. They are not.

 

[Hitman928]

0.1% lows are split second measurements my friend and more often than not, go unnoticed. We are going to discard the average now, in favor of the 0.1%? wow.

Umm, we've known that you can't just look at averages and that frame times matter for what, over a decade now? If you actually watch the video, you can see that the 0.1% lows shift and the 8 GB model actually drops a few times to low 0.1% lows but then they come back up again meaning that the 4 GB showing a constant 0.1% low is caused by fairly frequent frame drops (which is shown in the ACV FPS over time graph). This frequent frame drops is the definition of stuttering that people notice and don't like and is the main reason crossfire/SLI went out of favor.

I don't know why the tester used the low preset of textures in Legion, while he was testing different vram versions of the same card. Maybe this is a setting that is selected automatically by a preset? Can't answer on befalf of the tester, but I am downloading Legion right now from my ubisoft account, to see how the settings fair and why not do some testing too.

He obviously was trying to keep the VRAM from being an issue when comparing the cards, there's no other reason to not increase the VRAM on the 8 GB model. Even at low textures, it was filling up the available 4 GB VRAM.

There are more stutters yes, but these could also be part of a multitude of reasons. The 8GB run could be preheated for example.

What? Running cold vs. pre-heated doesn't cause frame drops. You're grasping for straws to ignore the evidence plainly presented, which you brought into the thread, BTW, when you thought it supported your argument but clearly didn't look closely enough at the video.

I do have a Valhalla run, on my GTX 970 with even less vram, and the game runs fine at medium while still looking great. We are getting extremely nitpicky here...

Congrats? So you can run the game with less image quality, great. This has nothing to do with the thread topic.

In any case, we are discussing 4GB vs 8GB all of a sudden? Who gives a crap? You cannot draw conclusions from comparisons of the past and I have explained why. We are ever reaching the good enough point as far as game assets are concerned.

Lol, you're the one that posted the link to the video to begin with. Now that it actually goes against your argument, you want to say we should ignore it. Then you're saying that game assets are good enough anway as if that removes any requirement for higher VRAM cards. Your claims that others supposedly are not wanting to have an honest conversation seem extremely hypocritical from where I'm sitting.

If you're happy with your cards for your pursposes, great, go use them and be happy. But please stop filling this thread with straw men and superfluous screenshots that no one asked for just to try and prove a point that no one was arguing against in the first place.

Edit: I'll say this as well. If you want to take the examples where games become VRAM limited and run tests to show which settings can be reduced to relieve the bottleneck while minimizing the visual impact, that would probably be welcomed in this thread as well and would be a good PSA to those with lower VRAM cards rather than trying to argue that there is no problem at all.

 

[psolord]

He obviously was trying to keep the VRAM from being an issue when comparing the cards, there's no other reason to not increase the VRAM on the 8 GB model. Even at low textures, it was filling up the available 4 GB VRAM.

No, he was just using the medium preset, which uses low textures. Just checked. These are the preset settings.

Spoiler: legion presets

He obviously chose this preset, because this was the performance these cards could muster. The 8GB could probably get away with better textures, sure. I didn't say they are the exact equal. I said it's not the disaster you/he/they claimed. The 4GB model runs fine. There is no unplayability problem, whatsoever.

Edit: I'll say this as well. If you want to take the examples where games become VRAM limited and run tests to show which settings can be reduced to relieve the bottleneck while minimizing the visual impact, that would probably be welcomed in this thread as well and would be a good PSA to those with lower VRAM cards rather than trying to argue that there is no problem at all.

But I am? That's why I posted the tlou pics before? And that's why I posted gamegpu's performance study of Forbidden West, which showed under 60fps problems for the 3060ti, but then posted two videos, one with various settings and one long run with the preferred best settings this card can muster.

If you're happy with your cards for your pursposes, great, go use them and be happy. But please stop filling this thread with straw men and superfluous screenshots that no one asked for just to try and prove a point that no one was arguing against in the first place.

The guy implied that there was a defacto outcome of 4GB vs 8GB polaris cards and how better the 8GB aged. I posted 12 results that showed the 4GB 1650 super beating them (because there isn't enough 4GB vs 8GB polaris data on that site). How is that superflous? He did argue about exactly that in the first place.

Lol, you're the one that posted the link to the video to begin with. Now that it actually goes against your argument, you want to say we should ignore it. Then you're saying that game assets are good enough anway as if that removes any requirement for higher VRAM cards. Your claims that others supposedly are not wanting to have an honest conversation seem extremely hypocritical from where I'm sitting.

Oh no it does not go against my argument at all. We are seeing two cards with 100% difference in framebuffer, with minimal difference as an end result in real performance. The 4GB provides an absolutely playable result.

There is a Hogwarts Legacy result in the OP, which claims that the 4060ti 16GB is faster than the 4070 at 4K. So I click it and I see 19fps for the 4060ti 16GB and 15Fps for the 4070. While the rest of the actually playable results, are much faster for the 4070. THESE are the kind of examples that have been given time and again and you are all applauding them and I AM the hypocrite? lol jfc man.

 

[Hitman928]

No, he was just using the medium preset, which uses low textures. Just checked. These are the preset settings.

Spoiler: legion presets

View attachment 95744
View attachment 95745

View attachment 95746

View attachment 95748

He obviously chose this preset, because this was the performance these cards could muster.

It's the best the 4 GB model could muster and it's already struggling with VRAM issues. The 8 GB model could handle high and still give a smooth experience.

The 8GB could probably get away with better textures, sure. I didn't say they are the exact equal. I said it's not the disaster you/he/they claimed. The 4GB model runs fine. There is no unplayability problem, whatsoever.

Straw man. No one said 4 GB models all of a sudden makes games unplayable despite the settings.

But I am? That's why I posted the tlou pics before? And that's why I posted gamegpu's performance study of Forbidden West, which showed under 60fps problems for the 3060ti, but then posted two videos, one with various settings and one long run with the preferred best settings this card can muster.

Big difference between acknowledging the issue and providing solutions with pros/cons and trying to argue the issue as a premise.

The guy implied that there was a defacto outcome of 4GB vs 8GB polaris cards and how better the 8GB aged. I posted 12 results that showed the 4GB 1650 super beating them (because there isn't enough 4GB vs 8GB polaris data on that site). How is that superflous? He did argue about exactly that in the first place.

If I tell you I have an ant infestation in my house around the sink and you come and only check the bedrooms and declare there is no ant infestation, would you say that's an honest assessment? You can't just ignore the problem areas and only look at the good ones and say everything's fine.

You post way too much media, way more than anyone else on this forum. it's uncalled for and unnecessary.

Oh no it does not go against my argument at all. We are seeing two cards with 100% difference in framebuffer, with minimal difference as an end result in real performance.

If you just ignore all the ants in the kitchen, there's no problem!

The 4GB provides an absolutely playable result.

Same straw man. No one's arguing you can't get playable results with 4 GB cards.

There is a Hogwarts Legacy result in the OP, which claims that the 4060ti 16GB is faster than the 4070 at 4K. So I click it and I see 19fps for the 4060ti 16GB and 15Fps for the 4070. While the rest of the actually playable results, are much faster for the 4070. THESE are the kind of examples that have been given time and again and you are all applauding them

There certainly have been some hyperbolic examples, I agree. Calling those out is fine, but there have been a lot of other examples and well reasoned arguments as well.

and I AM the hypocrite? lol jfc man.

Correct.

 

[BFG10K]

You post way too much media, way more than anyone else on this forum. it's uncalled for and unnecessary.

It's actually an intentional disinformation tactic. Try to bury the facts with a shower of unrelated diarrhea in the hopes to extinguish the topic. That's exactly why the posts are constant masturbation of inline images and videos.

"There are no elephants in my backyard, therefore elephants don't exist anywhere. Here are 39 irrelevant pictures of my backyard so you can scroll for 5 minutes to get past them!"

Also the more he trolls the thread, the more his personal Youtube channel gets views because he keeps linking to his own videos. I've reported this, as there's no way this is acceptable under the forum rules of self-promotion.

There's something very fishy about this whole thing, and the agenda here needs to be questioned. "Oh, I'm just a poor lil' enthusiast that likes debating graphics cards" isn't fooling anyone.

 

[BFG10K]

Yup. Some people just cannot be reasoned with, they just want to watch things burn.

I know, right? Speaking of which, I was thinking of starting a thread:

Dual-core CPU and 4GB system RAM are getting close to the good enough forever point.

I'll have my friend Bill Gates pop in and tell me I'm wrong about the RAM, it's actually 640K.

Do you think people will agree with me, or think I'm a flat-earther lunatic?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I'd like the 4060ti 16GB to be at 400$ and be the only model actually, on that we agree. However the reality is different. Heck, I'd like the 4090 to cost 200 if it could.

You don't buy vram. You buy performance in the form of a graphics card in its totality. That's the problem with the perception of things that exist.

I mean let's see the TPU's Alan Wake 2 test again.

Look how many 8GB cards are in there. How many 12GB cards too. Look how different their performance is. How are you so focused on the vram and ignoring the performance itself? How do you reach the reasonable conclusion, that the 4060ti for example, should cost as mush as the 3050? The 4070 should cost as much as the 3060? I don't get it.

It seems to me, that you don't understand, that there is excess vram in some models, as a marketing gimmick really. Vram that they don't have the processing power to use anyway. Still you think they are better cards. They are not.

-The bolded portion is deliberately misstating the point I made in my prior post. I explicitly said I am not asking for a 4060ti for $200, but am asking for 16gb of RAM at $400.

I am asking for an excess of RAM at $400.

At $200, I am ok with enough RAM for today. For $400, I want enough RAM for tomorrow, even if the GPU runs out of processing power.