8GB VRAM not enough (and 10 / 12)

Page 52 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
8GB
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.
Resident Evil Village 3060TI/3070 tanks at 4K and is slower than the 3060/6700XT when ray tracing:
Company Of Heroes 3060 has a higher minimum than the 3070TI:

10GB / 12GB

Reasons why still shipping 8GB since 2014 isn't NV's fault.
  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!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Chicken76, iLLusiveMan, maddie and 29 others
Sort by date Sort by votes
M

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,917
6,187
136
psolord said:
Ingoring screenshots with data and then adding the poster to a block list....

The first guy that goes against his commandments in this thread, by actually providing data and personal work and adds him to an ignore list. Lol, what a biased snowflake.
Click to expand...

While I find his comment childish, you've been crapping up the thread with the same argument again and again and when someone points out why your core argument is flawed and it doesn't matter what kind of charts you post because it's missing the point, only for you to just return and do more of the same, I can't really fault someone for being frustrated and reacting poorly.

So I don't think you'll find overly much sympathy even though you were treated rudely and were essentially called a paid shill.

psolord said:
If you told me a number of times already, while I've been posting examples that show something different than what the title of this thread says, then there must be quite a few examples I have posted already, in just a few days of contradictions. This thread has 25 games since it started. How are MY examples cherry picked and not YOURS?
Click to expand...

The premise that "8GB is not enough" takes but one example to provably demonstrate. No number of games where it is sufficient can change that. Just like it can be shown that smoking increases the likelihood of lung cancer. Finding smokers without lung cancer doesn't make the original claim wrong. It's similarly missing the point.

If you really care about games that can run fine on older hardware or current generation cards that have less VRAM, I suggest you make a separate thread for it. Maybe then the OP can go crap in your thread in a similar manner.

Why isn't anyone convinced? Easy. Because this is an AMD vs Nvidia thread in disguise and people in this forum hate Nvidia.
Click to expand...

Not that I particularly care one way or the other, but this makes you look like exactly what the OP essentially accused you of. You're coming off as some Internet white knight who feels m'lady has been slighted and you must rush to her defense. "It's not that my argument is bad, it's that everyone secretly hates NVidia!" Once you adopt that fallacious reasoning there's really nothing you can't justify or dismiss based solely on whether it agrees with your preconceived notions or not.

Can you tell me EXACTLY what part of the charts did not convince you? Because they prove what I say about the aforementioned games and yet people chose to discard them. This is willful blinkering one o one.
Click to expand...

Let's try this one last time. I'm typing this really slowly, so please read it slowly. You're asking the wrong question. Your argument is flawed from the start. It doesn't matter what the charts say, they cannot change the fact that there exists at least one title where 8 GB of VRAM is not enough. It similarly doesn't change that going forward that number will only increase.

If you upgrade every generation than you can probably afford not to care. If you're the type of person that holds on to a card for 5+ years than the difference between an 8 GB, 12 GB, or a 16 GB card is going to have a considerable impact on what your experience looks like in 5 years.

Let's liken this to mathematics where there is some belief. Let's pick one that's easy to understand and works as a similar example. Suppose everyone believed that prime numbers could only be odd. Someone demonstrates that 2, an even number is also prime according to the rules of what constitutes a prime number. No amount of other people showing all manner of other even numbers (4, 736, 18, etc.) which aren't prime doesn't do add anything meaningful.

As I said before, you can use your own line of reasoning to claim that 4 GB is sufficient for gamers as long as you're willing to ignore cases where that's not true. If you wanted to go back several years you can probably find this very same debate on 4 GB vs. 8 GB. Unless you'd be willing to accept me premise that 4 GB is sufficient, you'd need to employ the same arguments you're claiming are inadequate in this thread.

About the only relevant point you've made at all is that most games as a percentage of the overall total don't need more than 8 GB. But that's probably true of 4 GB as well if you're willing to include titles from far enough back. So even that argument is bad because it has to carefully pick the correct start and end dates for what games to consider in order to reach the desired conclusion. When you're choosing the parameters to fit a desired outcome it looses all validity. If the first thing you've written is your conclusion then everything after it is worthless because it can't ever lead to anything except that conclusion.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, Rigg, KompuKare and 13 others
Upvote 0 Downvote

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,958
1,201
136
@Mopetar

You explained it very nicely sir and very calmly. I can understand that from your angle, my posts can be annoying.

However, when I read something like "8GBs not enough", in order to reach this conclusion too or to understand how this conclusion was reached, I need percentage of games that have problems, at what settings and what weight do these games carry. And when I say percentage, yeah I don't mean 2010 games. Lets see what 2023 has to show. I am not seeing this disaster that is portrayed in this thread. Maybe there is an angle barrier, as to what people consider not enough and what I consider not enough. Also a per card evaluation should be made clearer. You don't like the 4060ti 8gb at 400$. Yeah I don't either, but one I didn't buy it and two, I can find reasons a person would want it. Also I can understand that maybe a 600$ 3070ti running 1440p+RT and failing, is inexcusable, for which I could agree, but this distinction needs to be made clearer. Maybe we are saying the same thing, with different words. For example I am ok with the performance of all my 8GB cards, at their price points. I doubt my 12GB card will face any problems, but we'll see. Yeah 15vs19 comparisons will not cut it for me, but you all seem to be ok with it, therefor I cannot dismiss there is a bias here.

There have been given some examples, 3 fps vs 27, huge difference but both cards were useless with these settings and that 15 vs 19fps, which make me react and start posting arguments.

Also aside from vram, from my own testing, I see UE5 having a more serious problem regarding gpu processing power, than vram itself.


If everyone is ok with it, I'd like to post opposite findings, that show that 8gb is enough. Actually there's a very easy way to do it. Gamegpu.tech has a vram reading for all their tests. I believe if the reading is low enough, it should mean 8gb is good, right? Do I need a separate thread for that?

I don't mean to antagonize this thread. I have a purely academic interest as a person that follows gpu performances for decades.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Tlh97 and Thunder 57
Upvote -1 Downvote
N

nurturedhate

Golden Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,751
718
136
psolord said:
If everyone is ok with it, I'd like to post opposite findings, that show that 8gb is enough.
Click to expand...
Opposite findings would be presenting data showing games (example: Doom Eternal 4k+rt) that have been shown to be vram limited to not be vram limited using the same hardware, setup and settings. In essence you need to prove prior data points are themselves invalid.
Presenting other non related games is just hand waving and fails to address the point of the thread in any meaningful way. As @Mopetar said "The premise that "8GB is not enough" takes but one example to provably demonstrate. No number of games where it is sufficient can change that. Just like it can be shown that smoking increases the likelihood of lung cancer. Finding smokers without lung cancer doesn't make the original claim wrong. It's similarly missing the point."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,978
126
nurturedhate said:
Opposite findings would be presenting data showing games (example: Doom Eternal 4k+rt) that have been shown to be vram limited to not be vram limited using the same hardware, setup and settings
Click to expand...
Even that won't be enough because it's trying to use negatives to disprove positives ("there are no elephants in my backyard, here are 27 photos of my empty yard, therefore elephants don't exist anywhere!"). This is a logical fallacy.

Also we now have multiple sources for most of the games confirming 8GB is a problem, including live video footage and in-game performance counters. He'd need to provide direct proof that every source is either fabricated and/or a testing failure due to incompetence.

This was already covered a few pages back when I asked several other "disbelievers" if they thought the presented results were fabricated. No surprise, I never got a straight answer. Instead we kept getting repeats of the 20 tenets of Jensen (tm).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
N

nurturedhate

Golden Member
Aug 27, 2011
1,751
718
136
BFG10K said:
Even that won't be enough because it's trying to use negatives to disprove positives ("there are no elephants in my backyard, here are 27 photos of my empty yard, therefore elephants don't exist anywhere!"). This is a logical fallacy.

Also we now have multiple sources for most of the games confirming 8GB is a problem, including live video footage and in-game performance counters. He'd need to provide direct proof that every source is either fabricated and/or a testing failure due to incompetence.

This was already covered a few pages back when I asked several other "disbelievers" if they thought the presented results were fabricated. No surprise, I never got a straight answer. Instead we kept getting repeats of the 20 tenets of Jensen (tm).
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing nor is it what I said. He'd have to claim that everyone else's data and/or methodology is either fabricated or flawed (your elephant pictrures are AI generated etc, etc) and have concrete proof of such. That is not happening here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,958
1,201
136
Just to be clear, I never said the data is fabricated. I am not disputing their validity. Nor am I disputing that more vram isn't better. I am disputing however, the weight of some results.

Moreover, I cannot comprehend how, if 1 game amongst 10 for example, has some issues, proves that 8gb is not enough. Math is not my strong suit, but if A>B doesn't it mean that A is more important? How is that negatives disproving positives? Also why a rx6600 should be able to run doom eternal at 4k+RT? Unless you mean the strongest most expensive 8GB cannot do it and therefore 8GB is not enough. However, even so, you don't know why an individual wanted the strongest 8GB card. Maybe he wanted 1080p at max framerate.
 
Upvote -1 Downvote

Tup3x

Senior member
Dec 31, 2016
969
954
136
A770 beating RTX 3080:

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty Benchmark Performance Review - 25+ GPUs Tested

The Phantom Liberty expansion brings big improvements to Cyberpunk 2077 and adds an exciting new story line. The game also gets support for DLSS 3.5 and Path Tracing. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection of modern...
www.techpowerup.com

Btw, ignore RTX 4000 series results for now since those apparently had DLSS frame gen enabled accidentally.

But... that might not even be VRAM limitation.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, Ranulf and Thunder 57
Upvote 0 Downvote

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
6,887
7,283
136
Recurring trend with NV, where the older gen slowly but surely begins punching way below its weight class in premier titles, and this is with NV (and intel) having updated game specific drivers and AMD not.

That said, with the 40 series had frame gen enabled for these results, the updated charts aren't going to look great for NV one way or another.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, NTMBK and Thunder 57
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,578
1,723
136
Tup3x said:
A770 beating RTX 3080:

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty Benchmark Performance Review - 25+ GPUs Tested

The Phantom Liberty expansion brings big improvements to Cyberpunk 2077 and adds an exciting new story line. The game also gets support for DLSS 3.5 and Path Tracing. In our performance review, we're taking a closer look at image quality, VRAM usage, and performance on a wide selection of modern...
www.techpowerup.com

Btw, ignore RTX 4000 series results for now since those apparently had DLSS frame gen enabled accidentally.

But... that might not even be VRAM limitation.
Click to expand...
"Accidentally"
Those last gen scores though. Oof.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,379
1,257
136
VRAM usage shows that if you want RT and frame gen on it will use 2-4GB more ram for RT alone and FG adds another 2-3GB of ram. So, 12GB minimum needed for 1080p.
 
Reactions: Saylick
Upvote 0 Downvote

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
6,247
12,134
136
Ranulf said:
VRAM usage shows that if you want RT and frame gen on it will use 2-4GB more ram for RT alone and FG adds another 2-3GB of ram. So, 12GB minimum needed for 1080p.
Click to expand...
FG contribution to VRAM usage is probably proportional with screen resolution, meaning it would go down at 1080p.

That being said, it can still push a card over the edge. Reminds me of advice such as closing the browser while gaming, since every few hundred MB can help.
 
Reactions: Ranulf
Upvote 0 Downvote

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,017
585
126
psolord said:
Moreover, I cannot comprehend how, if 1 game amongst 10 for example, has some issues, proves that 8gb is not enough.
Click to expand...
Because the future is a thing that exists, and most people who are buying a new card will expect to play new games, in at least the mid-term, with it.

The trend is clear and undeniable: 8GB already has one foot in the grave.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: StarFall, Tlh97, KompuKare and 3 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
I

igor_kavinski

Lifer
Jul 27, 2020
16,639
10,632
106
psolord said:
Moreover, I cannot comprehend how, if 1 game amongst 10 for example, has some issues, proves that 8gb is not enough.
Click to expand...
That one game could put someone in a fit of rage or heart sinking disappointment. Imagine someone's feelings when they realize that their card is being held back by something that was only an extra $20 or so, had nGreedia cared. Imagine someone's surprise and anger when they visit a friend running their favorite game on a card with more VRAM and notice more frame fluidity or worse, better texture quality and hence more immersion. The point of this thread is to let visitors know that they can get MORE for their money. That they don't have to pay the nGreedia tax for extra VRAM. The point is to let frugal people know that they can expect better longevity from affordable 16GB cards rather than plumping down cash on an 8GB card that costs more. To make way for a brighter future of higher texture fidelity and better eye candy by making 16GB the new 8GB.

If nGreedia comes out looking bad, it's their fault because of the VERY conscious decisions THEY made. They can do a course correction even now by dropping their 8GB turd to $250 or less and at that point, you can argue that the people buying them shouldn't expect miracles from such cards and your argument would be fair. I'm sorry but your point that 8GB cards aren't that bad and it's ok to waste money on them instead of a comparably priced 12GB or 16GB card and then run such a swanky new card with reduced graphical settings when other people spending similar amount of money on better cards don't have to do the same, stinks of disingenuity.
 
Reactions: StarFall, Tlh97, Racan and 3 others
Upvote 0 Downvote

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,656
1,526
126
DAPUNISHER said:
The wink indicates he wasn't serious.

There is no real debate about vram to be had. From the start of PC gaming, hardware demands have constantly increased. That has not, and will not for the foreseeable future change. 8GB was flagship many years ago, now it is entry level, or it should be anyways (Which is why we are looking at you Nvidia.) It isn't a debate, just irrational users being stuck in the first stage of the Kubler-Ross model.

More vram is better for gaming until it reaches a point of diminishing returns. And that point definitely ain't 8GB.

"Hurr Durr they have to cater to us low vram owners we are the majority!" They will. Enjoy your last gen console experience, possibly worse, in new AAA games. While the rest of us see what nanite can really offer.
Click to expand...
Yes, at this point in time, let's call a spade a spade. All 8GB cards should be 16GB and all 12GB should be 24GB cards. The only reason they're not is because the workstation equivalent sales would get cannibalized if they put that much VRAM on all their gaming graphics cards. Maybe nVidia needs a click through license to state, "If you're making money with the outputs of this graphics card, you can't use this for those purposes, only gaming" when you install drivers. If AMD would get their RT on par with nVidia, this would be a non-issue. That's my take on things anyway. Also, I personally don't care about fake frame generation. Don't sell me software promises that may or may not work well, I only care about pure rasterization and RT performance. i.e. I want to buy physical hardware and for a reasonable price please.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Tlh97 and DAPUNISHER
Upvote 0 Downvote

psolord

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2009
1,958
1,201
136
igor_kavinski said:
I'm sorry but your point that 8GB cards aren't that bad and it's ok to waste money on them instead of a comparably priced 12GB or 16GB card and then run such a swanky new card with reduced graphical settings when other people spending similar amount of money on better cards don't have to do the same, stinks of disingenuity.
Click to expand...
Um where exactly did I say that? Show me the post.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |