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]

Uh, I guess I do not see the difference. Apart from the fact that the 1070 will celebrate its 8th birthday next month.

I do not mean the difference in visual quality per se. I mean the difference in performance. The 1070 cannot do what the 3060ti can do, not even close. And they both have the same buffer.

The 1070 still does a good job, besides its age. We have reached a point, that the vram requirements of what this card can muster settings wise, is much lower than 8GBs. It had more vram than it needed from the get go.

Also the fact that you cannot see the difference in epic from high, again points out to what I am saying. People post benchmarks with settings over 9000, while a tiny fine tuning will make the problem go away. You will never see the difference.

 

[psolord]

Any official URL?

How is the typical gamer supposed to know that?

I don't know? Do some research maybe? See some youtube videos? Ask Psolord? xD

 

[psolord]

-From my point of view, you've unilaterally decided that if something doesn't run at 60FPS it's unplayable.

A steady 30FPS, I'd agree, is the lower bound for what can be considered playable, especially with bargain bin hardware, but it is still playable.

Yes, absolutely, 60fps is a must for anything that has vivid movement on the x and y axis. Which is, I don't know, 95% of games. Look, we had per pixel scrolling back in the amiga days. We had 60fps gaming back in the Dreamcast days. We had 60fps gaming back in the 3dfx days. We are not going to re-author the holy book of good gaming now.

If I wanted to see a motion, like little smurfs are hammering the screen from the side with their tiny hammers, I would get a console.

 

[psolord]

What are your findings after the Lumen patch?

It's much heavier but prettier. The returns or diminishing returns, can be disputed of course. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[psolord]

Are you familiar with the saying "you're missing the forest for the trees"? That's what you're doing every time you single out one particular game with different settings outside of a wider context.

Yes I know the expression. We say it my country too. It's global I think.

However, all these singling outs, you know what they do? Each one is a tree. And you know what many trees make? A forest. It's not me doing the singling out, it's people posting exorbitant tests.

Yes, there are some instances where the restricted VRAM buffer on a 4060/ti isn't an issue, but there are also some games where the 4060/ti are being held back BECAUSE of that 8 gig buffer. That problem is going to increase in frequency as time goes on. Yes, you can 'fix' it temporarily by changing settings, but in the end the card will reach an expiry long before price competitors with larger buffers and a wider data bus; e.g. an RX 6800.

The 4060ti is just one 8gb card. Once again, I am not defending the 4060ti per se. I am using it, to show, how different all 8GB cards are. I don't care about the 4060ti. I care about my own 8GB cards and they are doing fine, because I use them correctly.

I doubt the frequency will increase, just because of vram. I have explained why. 8GBs are a crazy lot of data. You can fit great graphics in there. With correct settings, they will be fine. What I am saying however, is that all these cards and their superiors, will face serious gpu power troubles. These can also be put at check, with correct settings, but from what I have seen, the image degradation is even worse, when you have to face gpu power limits, than vram limits. I mean TLOU, put the textures to high, boom, same game. Turn down the rest of the settings though and the game loses its shine.

This is the crux of what dozens (hundreds?) of people have been trying to get through your skull for an eternity. Not that some 8 gig cards are faster than others (no duh), but that certain cards are a heinous value foisted upon consumers by a company that doesn't give two hot you-know-whats about whether or not their silicon is going to end up in a landfill in 5 years.

HEY! My skull is not thick OK? It only has medium thickness.

The problem, is that people have absolutely coupled vram with a cards value, which is wrong. I mean it's not the only characteristic. I mean see the 3060. It has already tanked in many games man. How is vram helping it? Only if you push things to crazy levels and then start accepting that 30fps is enough and then accuse psolord of goalpost shifting, fml.

Cards will go to the landfill because of gpu power, not because of vram.

 

[psolord]

He's not missing anything, he's not dumb.

Finally, someone that appreciates me around here!

He's doing it on purpose. We're long past giving the benefit of the doubt.

*sigh* and I thought this going well.

Look, I am defending my point of view, with graphs, vids and own tests some times. You don't accept it, fine. I am not doing anything "on purpose".

 

[psolord]

These guys are IDIOTS.

Just saw the tech demo and it is nothing too special. These visuals could've been attained on even older hardware. They are doing something really bone-headed to drive up the rendering requirements. On top of that, these morons (or rather opportunistic amateurs) are charging almost $200 for the privilege to run their turd demo on our hardware. Enough said.

Please tell me how this tech demo's visuals beat Unigine Superposition visuals or how the techniques used in Superposition demo could not be used to mimic this tech demo?

I like to appreciate stuff, as I see them too.

I wouldn't say they are idiots though. UE5 is a different kind of beast. There's a finer quality in it. UE4 was good for its time, but we must move forward. I can bet you, that UE5 is more efficient. It also has new techs, like directstorage support, that will actually drive vram requirements down. I mean if you try to do the same things. But it was made with the purpose of the sky being the limit, so ultimately everything will go up. Gpu power to vram, will have a 3:1 ratio in increased requirements, mark my words.

Tim Sweeney himself, was saying some 10 years ago, that you need gpu power to grow 10fold, in order to actually go to the true next visual level. He didn't mention the vram though. This will increase too, but not nearly as much.

Now unigine is interesting , yes. But I can raise you Unity too. Their Adam Demo run decently even on the 7950 (only 3GBs on that one as a reminder). And their Enemies tech demo, was awesome as well.

I tested them here (non monetized)

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

Watch the Enemies demo on the 3060ti (damn I forgot to test these on my newer cards-thanks for the side reminder). It uses, less than 6GBs, yet the card tanks. Visual quality stellar. Vram irrelevant. Gpu power very much so.

Watch the Adam Demo on the GTX 970. When did you see graphics like these on a game? Even recent one. This was SEVEN freagin years ago. And you guys are worrying about vram. At 4k+RT non the less, lol.

 

[igor_kavinski]

But I can raise you Unity too. Their Adam Demo run decently even on the 7950 (only 3GBs on that one as a reminder). And their Enemies tech demo, was awesome as well.

Thanks. Will try these out.

 

[nurturedhate]

Also I want to see the error of my ways, in coming years.

You could simply look at history. We've had this same exact thread before. Nearing 30 years worth of history showing cards with more vram within the same tier or even the same card age better. We even had a massive 960 2gb vs 4gb and a user just like you stating the 960 2gb was the card to get. It wasn't. Here we are again.

GTX 960 2gb vs 4gb
GTX 580 1.5gb vs 3gb
8800gts 320mb vs 640mb

The list just goes on and on.

Most of us have been dealing with pc gaming or been here long enough to have seen this song and dance repeat itself multiple times now.

 

[MrTeal]

Whatever happened to the smiley face avatar guy? Is he still around?

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Yes, absolutely, 60fps is a must for anything that has vivid movement on the x and y axis. Which is, I don't know, 95% of games. Look, we had per pixel scrolling back in the amiga days. We had 60fps gaming back in the Dreamcast days. We had 60fps gaming back in the 3dfx days. We are not going to re-author the holy book of good gaming now.

If I wanted to see a motion, like little smurfs are hammering the screen from the side with their tiny hammers, I would get a console.

-I reject your subjective position with a subjective position of my own.

A steady 30FPS is not my ideal, but I can absolutely play games at 30FPS.

Hence, it is playable.

 

[Mopetar]

Whatever happened to the smiley face avatar guy? Is he still around?

Happy Medium? I haven't seen him a long time. Unless he changed his name or just made a different account.

 

[Thunder 57]

You could simply look at history. We've had this same exact thread before. Nearing 30 years worth of history showing cards with more vram within the same tier or even the same card age better. We even had a massive 960 2gb vs 4gb and a user just like you stating the 960 2gb was the card to get. It wasn't. Here we are again.

GTX 960 2gb vs 4gb
GTX 580 1.5gb vs 3gb
8800gts 320mb vs 640mb

The list just goes on and on.

Most of us have been dealing with pc gaming or been here long enough to have seen this song and dance repeat itself multiple times now.

View attachment 98640

RX 480/580 4GB vs 8GB. GTX 1060 3GB vs 6GB. Granted the 3GB version was cut down in other ways and never deserving of being called a 1060.

Based on GPU power Radeon Fury was the one to get. But how well did 4GB age compared to 8GB on a 390X? That Fury was a stupid card because of VRAM limitations.

It will be funny when the 4060 Ti 16GB starts beating the 4070. But but but GPU power, and correct settings!

And 46fps being unplayable, what a joke. Clearly that was said just to get a rise out of people. 40+fps is very playable. Even 30fps, while not great, should be managable as long as lows are decent.

 

[igor_kavinski]

GTX 1060 3GB vs 6GB. Granted the 3GB version was cut down in other ways and never deserving of being called a 1060.

Oh man, don't remind me. Got the crappy 1060 3GB in good used condition a long time after the Geforce 560 Ti coz I had been using consoles and was out of the PC game so had no idea about Nvidia's price gouging. Didn't really have any serious problems with my past Nvidia purchases like the Geforce 2 MX 400, Geforce 3 Ti 200, 9600 GT and the 560 Ti. But then I saw benchmarks for the RX 580 against the 1060 3GB and I was like, WTF did I do! And then I saw someone selling a used RX 580 8GB for the SAME price as what I had paid for 1060 3GB. Went outside the city to this almost desolate community to get his card. It was great and I was really impressed with it. Until trying out Pimax VR blew my Z77 mobo's PCIe lanes!!! All this could've been prevented if there never had been this blasted 3GB card. Then I wouldn't have needed to get the RX 580.

So yeah, there is no love lost between Jensen and I. Hope he is extinguished in a plane crash soon. Anyone think I'm exaggerating and overdramatizing? This is just MY story. Imagine how many other people have been hurt by him.

 

[igor_kavinski]

And 46fps being unplayable, what a joke. Clearly that was said just to get a rise out of people. 40+fps is very playable. Even 30fps, while not great, should be managable as long as lows are decent.

Yeah, I've enjoyed games running at 15 to 20 fps in my poorer years.

 

[psolord]

You could simply look at history. We've had this same exact thread before. Nearing 30 years worth of history showing cards with more vram within the same tier or even the same card age better. We even had a massive 960 2gb vs 4gb and a user just like you stating the 960 2gb was the card to get. It wasn't. Here we are again.

GTX 960 2gb vs 4gb
GTX 580 1.5gb vs 3gb
8800gts 320mb vs 640mb

The list just goes on and on.

Most of us have been dealing with pc gaming or been here long enough to have seen this song and dance repeat itself multiple times now.

View attachment 98640

We've been over that. Although you do have a point, I mean I've been here during all this time and I know what happened, things are now different. We are ever reaching a point of diminishing returns. 8GBs are good enough for a majority of applications. GPU power isn't.

8GBs will be good enough, for the next 5 years. May we be in good health and argue until then. And I am talking about with reasonable, non butt ugly settings. If you show me a game that is an absolute graphical disaster on a 8GB card vs a 12-16GB card, I will say, yeah man you are right.

Things will move even slower after that. I've explained why:

- Finite screen real estate (you don't need 4k assets for a 1080p panel fml)
- Better streaming and memory management overall
- Faster PCIe buses
- Faster storage that is coupled with the above better streaming
- Quixel Megascans
- All next gen engines show significantly more gpu power dependencies and not vram dependencies

New case in point of the above, is the Unreal Engine 5.3 demo The Scarecrow
You can download it at https://fishtankstudios.itch.io/thescarecrow

This is how it runs on my 4070ti, just uploaded (non monetized)

This is at 4k/epic/dlss with default dlss setting at quality, meaning not native 4k, but 1440p instead. End result? It has framedrops to the 30s. Yes it is beautiful. Vram is only between 8-9GBs. Whatever game world like this one, will be severely gpu power limited and not vram limited. If the 4070ti cannot run it properly at 4k/dlss and 8-9GB vram usage, you think lesser cards like the 3070/ti/4060ti will have a vram problem or a gpu power problem, hmmm? You think the 3060 with its 12GBs will make any difference? The 4060ti 16GB? They won't!

 

[psolord]

-I reject your subjective position with a subjective position of my own.

A steady 30FPS is not my ideal, but I can absolutely play games at 30FPS.

Hence, it is playable.

Human biology is not a subjective position. There is a specific way the nervous system works, and the time required to assess, process and respond to visual stimuli. You cannot possibly aim or drive properly at 30fps. The industry has been in on that for decades. Don't try to push 30fps as enough, in order to assert your (not your specifically) ridiculous arguments of 11fps vs 30fps at 4k+rt, ffs.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Human biology is not a subjective position.

I hope no one ever asks you for any medical advice. Everyone's biology is DIFFERENT!

I should know. I have more non-life-threatening health problems than the typical person. I also get motion sick easily. Hate traveling because of that. A bumpy ride can ruin my entire day. I also cannot see active 3D. Passive 3D I can see stuff only when it pops out of the screen and that also not very consistently. Some games make me very, very nauseous. I tried to play XIII at least two times because I like cartoonish graphics but it gave me too much of a headache for me to continue playing.

60 fps looks weird to me. It seems like it's "too" smooth. Though I think I've seen a 120Hz movie in cinema and the faster framerate did make the explosions look exquisite. Like I could see the explosion in slowmo but in real time. Hard to describe. I haven't tried 120Hz or higher fps gaming yet so I'm oblivious to that. Point is, most people's brains are geared towards 30 fps due to watching movies and TV. Just because you spend a lot of time on high refresh displays and it has rewired your brain doesn't mean that everyone's neural pathways resemble yours.

 

[psolord]

Point is, most people's brains are geared towards 30 fps due to watching movies and TV. Just because you spend a lot of time on high refresh displays and it has rewired your brain doesn't mean that everyone's neural pathways resemble yours.

Igor, come on man, you are on a tech forum. Don't fall for that argument. Movie framerate and video game framerate, are two complete different things. In movies, you have the natural occurring, shutter motion blur included in each frame (if it's cgi, it's simulated). Not the same thing. Even worse, you watch a movie passively. You don't have to react to it, each 16.66ms milliseconds or less.

 

[igor_kavinski]

You don't have to react to it, each 16.66ms milliseconds or less.

The ONLY time I've had a bad reaction to console gameplay is when I tried to turn the image quality settings to MAX on my LG OLED C8. Forza Horizon 4 became unplayable due to massive input lag. And I've played MGS3 on a laptop with a lame TV tuner box connected to a PS2. There was a noticeable lag but my brain adjusted for it. Other than these instances, I've never had a problem with <=30 fps on consoles so why would I suddenly care about that on PC?

Everyone's brain is different coz everyone has a different DNA with different strengths and weaknesses. You've been conditioned by the marketing lies of Nvidia to see the world the way they want you to see. This is not you speaking. This is the demon of Jensen speaking through you. You need to consult with a decent exorcist. I believe you shouldn't have much trouble finding one. Italy is just a boat ride away?

 

[Timorous]

You need to consult with a decent exorcist. I believe you shouldn't have much trouble finding one. Italy is just a boat ride away?

LET THE POWER OF VRAM COMPEL YOU!

 

[nurturedhate]

Human biology is not a subjective position. There is a specific way the nervous system works, and the time required to assess, process and respond to visual stimuli. You cannot possibly aim or drive properly at 30fps. The industry has been in on that for decades. Don't try to push 30fps as enough, in order to assert your (not your specifically) ridiculous arguments of 11fps vs 30fps at 4k+rt, ffs.

We've had sub 30fps consoles for literal DECADES...

Again, history, learn it.

 

[Ranulf]

Well here we go... ram in theory doesn't matter that much in Homeworld 3. 1080p tests from gamegpu. The most interesting part though, is that gamegpu confirms what I've seen reported by the early access players in the Steam forums, the game's built in benchmark does not represent gameplay. Namely the game runs faster than the benchmarks.

Almost all cards in the benchmark are the same on a 7800x3d cpu and really the same for all cpu's tested. Basically no matter the ram, Nvidia cards were getting 33fps min, 68max. AMD, 31min and 72 max fps. In the actual game, current gen cards are hitting 70-80 min fps, upwards of 170 for a 7900XTX.

Then they show Vram usage, to quote:

At a resolution of 1920x1080, video memory consumption for video cards with 8 gigabytes is 8 gigabytes , with 12 gigabytes 11 gigabytes , with 16 gigabytes 12 gigabytes , with 24 gigabytes 11 gigabytes .


At a resolution of 2560x1440, video memory consumption for video cards with 8 gigabytes is 8 gigabytes, with 12 gigabytes 11 gigabytes , with 16 gigabytes 12 gigabytes , with 24 gigabytes 12 gigabytes .


At a resolution of 3840x2160, video memory consumption for video cards with 8 gigabytes is 8 gigabytes, with 12 gigabytes 11 gigabytes , with 16 gigabytes 13 gigabytes , with 24 gigabytes 13 gigabytes .

The whole review is worth a look, I sure am not impressed with the game's RT.

https://gamegpu.tech/rts-/-strategy/homeworld-3

 

[mikeymikec]

This video was posted in another thread (the video dated 23/03/2024):

I had a quick scroll through it and from what I saw, I'd say that 75% of the games included in the test used over 8GB VRAM at 1080p. I also observed a few using 10/12GB at 1080p.

One thing that was noteworthy though was the VRAM usage difference between the three cards. The GRE typically used about 0.5GB more than the others, but for some games there was nearly a 2GB difference.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This video was posted in another thread (the video dated 23/03/2024):

I had a quick scroll through it and from what I saw, I'd say that 75% of the games included in the test used over 8GB VRAM at 1080p. I also observed a few using 10/12GB at 1080p.

One thing that was noteworthy though was the VRAM usage difference between the three cards. The GRE typically used about 0.5GB more than the others, but for some games there was nearly a 2GB difference.

If that is afterburner, the single VRAM field provided is allocated not used. Red Dead does not require anywhere near that amount of VRAM. I doubt the actual usage is more than 6GB or so for the 1080 bench.