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!

 

[Ranulf]

Well, I would hope a 4060ti 8GB runs the game just fine. The minimum specs are for 7-10 year old parts. The gameplay issues and bugs are more of a concern from what I've read than the graphics/cpu performance.


Manor Lords Req from Steam:

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows® 10 (64-bit)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4670 (quad-core) / AMD® FX-Series™ FX-4350 (quad-core)
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1050 (2 GB) / AMD® Radeon™ RX-460 (4 GB) / Intel® Arc™ A380 (6 GB)
DirectX: Version 12
Storage: 15 GB available space

RECOMMENDED:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows® 10 (64-bit)
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-7600 (quad-core) / AMD® Ryzen™ 3 2200G (quad-core)
Memory: 12 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1060 (6 GB) / AMD® Radeon™ RX 580 (8 GB) / Intel® Arc™ A580 (8 GB)
DirectX: Version 12
Storage: 15 GB available space

 

[Aapje]

It only takes two seconds with a search engine to know that Manor Lords is an Unreal Engine 4 title.

 

[psolord]

^+^^ Yeah I know. All that is mentioned in gamegpu where I got the above screenshot, remember?

I also have already done my tests. Runs fine on a GTX 970 with correct settings, without being butt ugly.

I am just showing "the grand scheme of things" I keep telling you about. PC gaming is a huge range of stuff. This thread focuses, on the 2%, at their respective 1% worse and pays most attention at the 0.1% lows. It's the essence of 2%, of 1% of 0.1%.

I have shown you UE5 games too and you keep ignoring them. Hellblade II, Vindictus and Black Myth will put some perspective to the vram issue...

 

[nurturedhate]

^+^^ Yeah I know. All that is mentioned in gamegpu where I got the above screenshot, remember?

I also have already done my tests. Runs fine on a GTX 970 with correct settings, without being butt ugly.

I am just showing "the grand scheme of things" I keep telling you about. PC gaming is a huge range of stuff. This thread focuses, on the 2%, at their respective 1% worse and pays most attention at the 0.1% lows. It's the essence of 2%, of 1% of 0.1%.

I have shown you UE5 games too and you keep ignoring them. Hellblade II, Vindictus and Black Myth will put some perspective to the vram issue...

Your argument then boils down to 'we don't need gpu's because nethack and pong are playable without one...'
That's your 'correct settings' argument, that older cards are still usable under certain conditions. That isn't revelatory in any manner as it's what nearly all of us do always. We buy the best card that fits our use case and budget. This isn't a thread about how a GTX 970 is still playable today. It's not, no matter how much you want to change the subject or move the goal posts. A Voodoo 3 is still usable today under the 'correct settings', it's a non starter. It's water is wet...

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well, I would hope a 4060ti 8GB runs the game just fine. The minimum specs are for 7-10 year old parts. The gameplay issues and bugs are more of a concern from what I've read than the graphics/cpu performance.


Manor Lords Req from Steam:

FX 4350 Vishera. I need someone to test it, because I will bet against it providing a playable experience. The FX 6100 Zambezi I recently sold was so much slower than the FX 8350 Vishera I also had. Not to mention being stuck on PCIe 2.0

I am playing Hogwarts Legacy and at 1080 ultra with ultra RT it eats over 12GB of ram in some areas of the map. That's used not allocated, which almost reaches 14GB. While it allocates over 17GB of system ram it only uses 5-6GB likely because the framebuffer is plenty big at 24GB. I'd recommend a 7600 or 4060 at $225 and not a penny more. The $400 tie will only grow in infamy as the years pass. It will be the quintessential example of too little costing too much in the DIY space.

 

[Mopetar]

It's not Groundhog's Day when new stuff comes out, problem free.

Case in point, Manor Lords. . . . Sure it is a light game . . .

Once again you miss the entire point of this thread. Just because 8 GB is not sufficient for some game doesn't mean that this will be true for all games.

I could probably find some new release on Steam that's a glorified Flash animation game. It probably runs great with only 2 GB of VRAM. By your logic that means that 2 GB of VRAM is sufficient and if games can't run well with that it must mean that the game is unoptimized or people just need to use correct settings or that a few dozen charts need to be posted.

What part of this do you have have difficulty understanding? I feel like I (and everyone else here for that matter) am trying to have a conversation with someone who just can't get it. Like I say, "Imagine you didn't eat breakfast today or any meals yesterday. How would you feel right now in that case?" and you just respond "I would feel fine. I ate breakfast this morning."

Upon seeing this difficulty, a few other people try rephrasing the question or explaining what's being proposed, but you just keep saying "But I did eat breakfast this morning." Then you start showing them graphs about how many slices of toast you had while everyone is trying to figure out where the disconnect is at. It's all very surreal.

 

[maddie]

Once again you miss the entire point of this thread. Just because 8 GB is not sufficient for some game doesn't mean that this will be true for all games.

I could probably find some new release on Steam that's a glorified Flash animation game. It probably runs great with only 2 GB of VRAM. By your logic that means that 2 GB of VRAM is sufficient and if games can't run well with that it must mean that the game is unoptimized or people just need to use correct settings or that a few dozen charts need to be posted.

What part of this do you have have difficulty understanding? I feel like I (and everyone else here for that matter) am trying to have a conversation with someone who just can't get it. Like I say, "Imagine you didn't eat breakfast today or any meals yesterday. How would you feel right now in that case?" and you just respond "I would feel fine. I ate breakfast this morning."

Upon seeing this difficulty, a few other people try rephrasing the question or explaining what's being proposed, but you just keep saying "But I did eat breakfast this morning." Then you start showing them graphs about how many slices of toast you had while everyone is trying to figure out where the disconnect is at. It's all very surreal.

Yep. It's what I imagine talking to an alien would be like. Apparently too few shared experiences to communicate. Too many ???????????????????

 

[dr1337]

At a certain point I really start to wonder how much engagement from people is real. How a thread can go for over 2,000 posts and the discussion literally has not changed... its actually astounding. People in this thread have admitted they're wrong and then they keep debating, it just seems like it really says something about our world today.

 

[igor_kavinski]

New data point for our cause: https://www.techspot.com/review/2833-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-revisit/

Today's contest is 11GB GTX 1000 flagship vs. 8GB RTX entry level.

While the 4060 does pretty well in most games against the fat and power hungry old geiser, when hit with VRAM flooding, this is what happens to it in TLOU @ 1440p:



Definitely the wrong settings but it's only Nvidia who very much like to prevent entry level cards from giving "free" performance by limiting VRAM.

 

[psolord]

Your argument then boils down to 'we don't need gpu's because nethack and pong are playable without one...'
That's your 'correct settings' argument, that older cards are still usable under certain conditions. That isn't revelatory in any manner as it's what nearly all of us do always. We buy the best card that fits our use case and budget. This isn't a thread about how a GTX 970 is still playable today. It's not, no matter how much you want to change the subject or move the goal posts. A Voodoo 3 is still usable today under the 'correct settings', it's a non starter. It's water is wet...

Older cards being usable even today, is only ONE of my arguments. I am only using them, to show that with correct settings, gaming can still be enjoyable. What this thread is doing, is the exact opposite.

Time and again, there have been results shown with utter ridiculous settings, on cards that were never meant for them, trying to say, hey vram aint enough.

I mean the guy above mentioned Hogwarts 1080p Ultra+RT and the other guy *again* brings tlou maxed at 1440p on a 4060 vs a 1080ti, while they are both useless in these settings, lol.

 

[psolord]

I am playing Hogwarts Legacy and at 1080 ultra with ultra RT it eats over 12GB of ram in some areas of the map. That's used not allocated, which almost reaches 14GB. While it allocates over 17GB of system ram it only uses 5-6GB likely because the framebuffer is plenty big at 24GB. I'd recommend a 7600 or 4060 at $225 and not a penny more. The $400 tie will only grow in infamy as the years pass. It will be the quintessential example of too little costing too much in the DIY space.

How can some one reach these conclusions with a straight face is beyond me.

Have you seen the Hogwarts results at 1080p ultra+rt sir?

Spoiler: hogwarts gamegpu

It cannot hold a steady 1080p/60/rt on anything below a 4070ti with a 11900k. Are you kidding me? You need a 1.5k PC for borderline 1080p Ultra+RT and you complain for the prices of 4060/7600 in regards to Hogwarts specifically?

I have numerous Hogwarts Legacy tests below (non monetized). From 2500k to 13500 and from GTX 970 to 3060ti. Each with the settings they could muster.

https://www.youtube.com/@toutagamon/search?query=hogwarts

Seems I forgot to test the 4070ti. No RT in any of them! Why? Look at gamegpu's results above, that's why. I will make one special mention on the 6600. It runs the game fine at 1080p high. What more do you want?

 

[psolord]

New data point for our cause: https://www.techspot.com/review/2833-geforce-gtx-1080-ti-revisit/

Today's contest is 11GB GTX 1000 flagship vs. 8GB RTX entry level.

While the 4060 does pretty well in most games against the fat and power hungry old geiser, when hit with VRAM flooding, this is what happens to it in TLOU @ 1440p:

View attachment 98298

Definitely the wrong settings but it's only Nvidia who very much like to prevent entry level cards from giving "free" performance by limiting VRAM.

New useless data point you mean.

The 4060 is not a 1440p card. If anyone got a 4060 for 1440p, yeah good luck with that.

Also it is generally faster than the 1080ti at 1080p, but with worse minimums. Which as I have said quite a few times already, these will go away if you use the high preset for textures, which is absolutely fine.

This is one more overall *unplayable* "data point" with your favorite mentality:

 

[igor_kavinski]

This is one more overall *unplayable* "data point" with your favorite mentality:

And isn't yours "You are holding it wrong!" ???

You are seriously wasting yourself in your complacent life of moving from one house to the other house and making gameplay videos with 8GB cards.

You BELONG in the corporate world and you could easily be a millionaire in no time, if not a multi-millionaire.

At least do it for AT's sake. Make the millions and buy AT!

 

[psolord]

If you need data points I can give you data points. UE5 data points, that are the future.

Spoiler: bellwright gamegpu

Spoiler: gray zone gamegpu

These are 1080p.

Bellwright:
-is unplayable on anything below a 6950xt with fafo settings.
-the 4060ti 8gb is faster than the 6800s again, while it is more than twice as fast compared to the slowest 8GB card

Gray Zone
-Is both gpu and vram limited. Very interesting.
-The 3060 is 2fps faster than the 3060ti, which is interesting, but what's the point? They are both hovering around 30fps. They will both need correct settings, in which case the vram problem will go away and all that will matter at the end of the day, is the gpu power.
-The 4060ti 8GB does not seem to have this problem however. This has been demonstrated time and again. Either ADA has better memory management or memory compression, or direct storage does not work well on older cards yet.
-The cheap 12GB cards are not saved by their vram. The expensive 12GB are a hell lot better.
-The 6800s are ok in this one, but this is 1080p we are talking about. I doubt anyone got 6800s for 1080p, but if you did, good for you.

This is the future, either you like it or not.

 

[psolord]

And isn't yours "You are holding it wrong!" ???

You are seriously wasting yourself in your complacent life of moving from one house to the other house and making gameplay videos with 8GB cards.

You BELONG in the corporate world and you could easily be a millionaire in no time, if not a multi-millionaire.

At least do it for AT's sake. Make the millions and buy AT!

I am just showing you, how to hold it right, while having fun with my hobby. I've been doing this for a loooong time, way before this thread even existed.

I have been registered in AT since 2009. Did you ever see me fighting with anyone, intel vs amd vs nvidia, which is the favorite past time of many people here? No. Why start now? Because this thread is missing the point and is actually damaging for what PC gaming really is.

 

[CouncilorIrissa]

What part of this do you have have difficulty understanding? I feel like I (and everyone else here for that matter) am trying to have a conversation with someone who just can't get it. Like I say, "Imagine you didn't eat breakfast today or any meals yesterday. How would you feel right now in that case?" and you just respond "I would feel fine. I ate breakfast this morning."

It's not "can't get it right", it's "willingly misinterprets the point of the thread to suit his own agenda".

 

[igor_kavinski]

UE5 data points, that are the future.

Spare us already. UE5 isn't the de-facto future engine.

Studios have their in-house engines too. Bet you didn't know that

 

[igor_kavinski]

Because this thread is missing the point and is actually damaging for what PC gaming really is.

Oh yes. PC gaming has been damaged irrevocably coz 12GB cards keep beating the crap out of Jensen's 8GB cards worth their weight in silver, if not gold.



And now you will remind us that 47 fps is crap. Just crap!

 

[igor_kavinski]

I am just showing you, how to hold it right, while having fun with my hobby. I've been doing this for a loooong time, way before this thread even existed.

Nuh uh. Not letting you off that easy.

Show us your performance comparisons between Radeon 9700 PRO and Geforce FX 5900 Ultra.

 

[Timorous]

Oh yes. PC gaming has been damaged irrevocably coz 12GB cards keep beating the crap out of Jensen's 8GB cards worth their weight in silver, if not gold.

View attachment 98346

And now you will remind us that 47 fps is crap. Just crap!

4K + RT is just a stupid setting...

Look how much the 6800 trounces the 3070Ti by in this game and even the 3060 12GB here is over 30. With some settings tweaks or maybe upscaling it could probably get to 60 fps.

 

[Mopetar]

It's not "can't get it right", it's "willingly misinterprets the point of the thread to suit his own agenda".

There's always someone posting in any given thread that's doing this, but not for however many months this has been going on. That's why I have a difficult time attributing this to malice.

When most people with an axe to grind make a disingenuous post and it gets picked apart and shown to be a bum argument they tend to scuttle off. This is like watching a bear attack where the guy getting mauled keeps telling the bear that it's not really eating him.

There are plenty of other people on this forum who are NVidia users and you don't see them in here carrying on like that. Most of them aren't going to pull the wool over their own eyes and deceive themselves into believing that 8 GB is enough. They want more VRAM to do they can enjoy their card for longer.

 

[psolord]

Spare us already. UE5 isn't the de-facto future engine.

Studios have their in-house engines too. Bet you didn't know that

Unreal Engine has the biggest gravitational pull, of all engines and dictates where things will go. We've talked about other engines too, Igor. All games that truly pushed graphical boundaries, were mostly gpu power limited and not vram limited. Alan Wake 2 (no rt), Starfield, Avatar, no vram problems for each card's respective tier.

 

[psolord]

Oh yes. PC gaming has been damaged irrevocably coz 12GB cards keep beating the crap out of Jensen's 8GB cards worth their weight in silver, if not gold.

View attachment 98346

And now you will remind us that 47 fps is crap. Just crap!

This is 3 year old news. Gamegpu had also shown that.

Spoiler: gamegpu far cry 6

I am not impressed. Why am I not impressed? Because you are showing 4k results for 8GB cards, again.

And once more, you (not you specifically-rather the narrative of this thread which many are using repeatedly) are leaving out perfectly good usable results of the 8GB cards and you are hell bent on focusing at a resolution which these cards were not made for.

Gamegpu also showed why this happened in their vram measurements.

Spoiler: gamegpu far cry 6 vram

At 4k, it does go convincingly above 8gbs, in a manner where the pcie bus cannot cope.

So my question is this. Why on earth don't use dlss to bring the resolution down to 1440p where it runs fine and you will never see the diffrerence? Why don't you turn off RT or do some other kind of fine tuning? The freagin settings are there to solve your problems, not create them.

I do have a 32min run of far cry 6, on my 3060ti and my sandy. (non monetized)

This is not a very good run, due to cpu limits, as was the intention of this test, however at 1080p/ultra no rt, the freagin game uses less than 5GBs. Is it ugly? No. Then why are people hell bent to go looking for trouble, using an 8gb card for 4k? I don't get it.

 

[SolidQ]

Studios have their in-house engines too.

Especially japan devs

 

[psolord]

4K + RT is just a stupid setting...

Look how much the 6800 trounces the 3070Ti by in this game and even the 3060 12GB here is over 30. With some settings tweaks or maybe upscaling it could probably get to 60 fps.

You can see gamegpu's results above. The 3060 is beating the 3060ti at 4k. So what? It's still unplayable. No one would get a 3060ti or a 3060 for 4k. These are academic at best.

Look at the 1440p results. The 3060 is still below 60fps. The 3060ti goes up to 72fps. Therefore enabling the upscaler as you suggest, the 3060ti could do 4k/dlss quality easily. The 3060 would have framedrops below 60.

And if someone is willing to stress things, the 6800 cannot do 4k/60 either. Therefore you will have to go to 4k/fsr quality. And this is how you would end up with 4k/fsr quality on a 16GB card vs 4k/dlss quality on a 8GB card. And we all know the result of that. See how the turn tables? I can do stupid comparisons too!