8GB VRAM not enough (and 10 / 12)

Page 117 - 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
2,997
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: static shock, IonBinTF, marees and 32 others
Sort by date Sort by votes

psolord

Platinum Member
Sep 16, 2009
2,095
1,235
136
Mopetar said:
You're just factually wrong here. Here's a nearly two decade old review from AT: https://www.anandtech.com/show/2116/20

Here's the relevant bit:

"In our game tests, in every game we enabled the highest level of quality possible as far as features and effects are concerned. Where it was an option we enabled 16xAF in game. In games with "texture filtering" settings (like Battlefield 2) we endabled the highest level of filtering in game. In Oblivion we forced 16xAF in the control panel.

With the exception of Oblivion, we enabled AA in all our general performance tests. Where we were given the option, we chose 4xAA. In Black & White 2 and Company of Heroes we enabled AA in game (High for BW2 and Enabled for CoH)."

And then the results:

View attachment 107264
That's just one game, but you can read the rest of the review if you want.

Max settings with results for the three main resolutions. The resolutions have changed and in time will change again, but that's immaterial for my argument.

You're not trying to "correct" anything. You're just wrong. No one says that you have to personally play at those settings, but benchmarking GPUs has been done by maxing out settings for generations now. You only choose to promote your own approach because it suits your argument and for no other reason. Never mind that doing what you suggest makes it far harder for consumers to compare cards because there would be no apples to apples comparison.



RT certainly is a separate category which is why most reviewers have results for it enabled vs. disabled. However because it is executed on specialized hardware the connection to traditional GPU execution units isn't really relevant to the discussion. It does require more VRAM in order to store the additional data structures used for performing the various calculations used. That's not at all a point in your favor.

Making a card better a RT would require more dedicated hardware and would either mean bigger dies or come at the expense of traditional raster performance as shaders are cut to make room for more RT hardware. Maybe consumers would be willing to take that deal, but that's not for me to decide. Your tired arguments about GPU power aren't relevant because increasing shader count (or other conventional GPU hardware) does nothing for RT performance unless it's a software implementation, which is nowhere near as fast as the dedicated hardware accelerators.

But even if someone built a card where it's effectively a 4060 Ti only the RT hardware is quadrupled so that it has more ray tracing cores than a 4090 the performance would still suck because 8 GB or VRAM wouldn't be enough.
Click to expand...
I understand your reasoning, but I will have to insist that nowadays things are more complicated and a fairer amount of reading between the lines (results), must be applied.

Otherwise you are telling me, that you accept that the 3060ti and the 7900XTX are equal in AOM Retold when maxed settings are used without any shred of second thoughts.

I will also refer you to the above gamegpu's results as well the previous ones. Things are different today, in the sense that you didn't see high end solutions back then, struggling at 1080p, which is even lower than the resolutions used in the above test.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,980
12,098
136
psolord said:
But it does. You clearly said:


And I said, that if they increased the texture quality of a texture that is rendered 400 times, then you don't increase the memory requirement by 400 times.

You assume:

1 texture = 1MB. You render it 400 times and it's 400MB. Increase it to 5MB. Render it 400 times and it's 2000MBs. No. It's not "each".
Click to expand...

Ah man, you've absolutely got this argument with yourself nailed! You can do it! But maybe you ought to finish off demonstrating your grasp of this topic in the shower, everyone knows the best arguments are won there.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

psolord

Platinum Member
Sep 16, 2009
2,095
1,235
136
Golgatha said:
Diablo 4 with all the visual goodies turned up at 1440p on my 2nd system with a 4070 Ti Super. This is a good example of a video card that has enough performance to justify needing more than 8/10/12GB of VRAM. And yes, I could dial down the graphics settings to make it fit into less VRAM, but there's plenty of performance to run everything at max settings, so why not run it like this?

P.S. Also, I was using around 16-18GB of system RAM running Diablo 4, Discord, a couple of web browser tabs, and some hardware monitoring software. IMO 32GB of system RAM should be in every high end gaming rig now.

View attachment 107642
Click to expand...
The 4070ti super is a super powerful card and sure as hell I am glad that it has the video ram it has. I am not crazy. Still what you see in terms of vram usage, does not mean it's 100% needed. This has been discussed before.

See here the 4060ti 8GB vs the 7600XT 16GB at 1440p/ultra. The 4060 ti is still a little faster, even though the vram usage on the 7600XT is twice as much. The 4060ti also consumes 50W less. The 1% lows are better on the 7600XT, but still very high at 60fps on the 4060ti. Sure the 4060ti 16GB did even better, but overall not the disaster this thread projected it to be. And the 4060ti 8GB is not a 1440p card anyway.

(not my vid)

I have also done my own testing. All my 8GB cards performed within their capabilities just fine.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,888
25,676
146
Another PS5 port that is vampiric



Some of W1zz's comments -

Thanks to Frame Generation and upscaling it'll be easy to get 60 FPS on most hardware configurations though.
Click to expand...
1. 25 second loop is not going to translate to what the game needs after playing an hour with heavy fights. Or reveal the other negative effects of low vram.
2. WTF level of upscaling and FG is that, if it'll grab over 9GB at 900p low? That 60fps is going to be a much lower actual fps and feel terrible. What a bad hottake?

The performance scaling of FF16 is quite bad, going from ultra to low, you can increase FPS by only +25%, +40% in some best-cases, depending on the map. This is a surprisingly small range, and what makes things worse is that even at lowest settings the game almost looks like ultra—the differences are pretty minor
Click to expand...
Then low it is bro. 25%-40% is going to let cards with enough vram enable FG without crazy lag. 8GB cards will probably be at upscaled 540P to turn it on. Advantage goes to cards with more vram.

Our benchmarks confirm that even at 4K with 8 GB there is no VRAM bottleneck in actual gameplay—the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB runs at virtually the same FPS as the RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB. However, on AMD things are different. We can clearly see that RX 7600 XT and RX 5700 XT, our only 8 GB AMD cards, clearly fall behind the rest of the pack at 4K. I suspect that this has to do with how AMD manages VRAM, vs what NVIDIA does.
Click to expand...
Is he just shilling for Nvidia here? Do you guys agree the bus interface speed is impactful here? Nothing mentioned is remotely playable and he was using ultra preset. Meanwhile the significantly less expensive last gen RX 6800 is almost 20% faster than a 4060ti 16GB at 1440 and over 20% for lows. Even the 6700XT is just as fast.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, Mopetar and Thunder 57
Upvote 0 Downvote

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,258
672
126
DAPUNISHER said:
Another PS5 port that is vampiric



Some of W1zz's comments -


1. 25 second loop is not going to translate to what the game needs after playing an hour with heavy fights. Or reveal the other negative effects of low vram.
2. WTF level of upscaling and FG is that, if it'll grab over 9GB at 900p low? That 60fps is going to be a much lower actual fps and feel terrible. What a bad hottake?


Then low it is bro. 25%-40% is going to let cards with enough vram enable FG without crazy lag. 8GB cards will probably be at upscaled 540P to turn it on. Advantage goes to cards with more vram.


Is he just shilling for Nvidia here? Do you guys agree the bus interface speed is impactful here? Nothing mentioned is remotely playable and he was using ultra preset. Meanwhile the significantly less expensive last gen RX 6800 is almost 20% faster than a 4060ti 16GB at 1440 and over 20% for lows. Even the 6700XT is just as fast.
Click to expand...
Kinda makes sense. I would imagine the developer would shoot for highest resolution possible (1440p ish probably) within the 10GB dedicated VRAM on the PS5. Also, the PC port typically isn't going to be as optimized. Sucks for 3070 and 3080 owners, as those cards would have had 16/20GB of VRAM in a perfect world where consumers needs and reducing e-waste were considered as parts of the equation.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, Mopetar and DAPUNISHER
Upvote 0 Downvote
J

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
15,365
5,884
136
DAPUNISHER said:
Is he just shilling for Nvidia here? Do you guys agree the bus interface speed is impactful here? Nothing mentioned is remotely playable and he was using ultra preset. Meanwhile the significantly less expensive last gen RX 6800 is almost 20% faster than a 4060ti 16GB at 1440 and over 20% for lows. Even the 6700XT is just as fast.
Click to expand...

I've seen that in games where NV cards manage memory better. But yes, RDNA 2 at fire sale prices are a better deal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,888
25,676
146
jpiniero said:
I've seen that in games where NV cards manage memory better.
Click to expand...
Now provide 3 examples where it provides a better gameplay experience. And the rest of the homework is to show where it makes FG useable on an overpriced 8GB card when it previously was not.
 
Reactions: ToTTenTranz
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,575
1,728
136
Minimum 1% fps are interesting when combined with the vram data. I definitely question how good the game will run with frame gen turned on with many cards that aren't the current top of the line for 1440p and 4k. You need a 7800XT and above to hit 60fps in 1080p, 1% lows. $400 8GB cards live on, in final fantasy anyway.

 
Reactions: marees
Upvote 0 Downvote

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,888
25,676
146
Ranulf said:
Minimum 1% fps are interesting when combined with the vram data. I definitely question how good the game will run with frame gen turned on with many cards that aren't the current top of the line for 1440p and 4k. You need a 7800XT and above to hit 60fps in 1080p, 1% lows. $400 8GB cards live on, in final fantasy anyway.
Click to expand...
Don't put to much faith in a 25 second test loop. I suspect it will be worse yet after playing awhile. Until patches come out as per usual. Got to start that ROI first. Would not be surprised if they use the terrible performance on launch as free publicity at this point. E.G. I had no idea this game was even being released on PC until I saw the performance analysis.
 
Reactions: Ranulf
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,149
6,861
136
psolord said:
I understand your reasoning, but I will have to insist that nowadays things are more complicated and a fairer amount of reading between the lines (results), must be applied.

Otherwise you are telling me, that you accept that the 3060ti and the 7900XTX are equal in AOM Retold when maxed settings are used without any shred of second thoughts.

I will also refer you to the above gamegpu's results as well the previous ones. Things are different today, in the sense that you didn't see high end solutions back then, struggling at 1080p, which is even lower than the resolutions used in the above test.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you've found a title that's CPU bound as opposed to GPU bound. I'm not sure what kind of profound point you think you're making here when it has been pointed out multiple times that identifying one game where it isn't an issue does not disprove the point about VRAM being a limiting factor in an increasing number of games. For games that aren't as graphically intense (eg, Factorio) the bottleneck shifts elsewhere. Does the fact that the best bang for buck uplift you can get for that game happens to be getting a 3D v-cache CPU mean the same is true for all games. No, of course not.

But this is nothing new. I'm sure that in 2006 someone noticed that if they fired up a copy of the original Doom their shiny new 8800 GTX wasn't running the game any faster than a two year old 680 Ultra, but that didn't mean that the 8800 GTX wasn't one of the biggest leaps in performance in gaming history. Meanwhile in Doom 3 the difference between the cards would have noticeable. If you understood the reasoning I don't think you'd be making such fallacious arguments.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, IEC, DAPUNISHER and 1 other person
Upvote 0 Downvote

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,980
12,098
136
XCOM 2: War of the Chosen (2018 game)

I was just playing it for an hour or two; it's not a particularly graphically amazing game, but I have it on near-max settings @ 1080p and VRAM usage hit 7.8GB.

- edit - I've just finished the game again, and it occurs to me that playing this game on a 12GB card isn't all that different to a 4GB card, so even though the VRAM usage figure is higher than expected, overall I think 'nevermind'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,888
25,676
146
Reactions: Tlh97, IEC and Mopetar
Upvote 0 Downvote

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,116
763
126
I picked up FFXVI over the weekend and played for half a day or so.

On my pc with 5800X3D/7800XT, it's running really well at 1080p Ultra, but I'm regularly seeing 11-12GB VRAM usage in open areas. I'm guessing 8GB cards are going to have problems (even at reduced visual quality) in some areas of the game.

Just a hunch, though.
 
Reactions: Tlh97, Mopetar, DAPUNISHER and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote

psolord

Platinum Member
Sep 16, 2009
2,095
1,235
136
Mopetar said:
Congratulations, you've found a title that's CPU bound as opposed to GPU bound. I'm not sure what kind of profound point you think you're making here when it has been pointed out multiple times that identifying one game where it isn't an issue does not disprove the point about VRAM being a limiting factor in an increasing number of games.
Click to expand...
Ummm....I was referring to the Age of Mythology RT results. CPU has nothing to do with it here. According to your logic, this is a proper result that we should pay attention to, since it's "maxed out" settings right?

 
Reactions: ToTTenTranz
Upvote 0 Downvote

psolord

Platinum Member
Sep 16, 2009
2,095
1,235
136
DAPUNISHER said:
Another PS5 port that is vampiric



Some of W1zz's comments -


1. 25 second loop is not going to translate to what the game needs after playing an hour with heavy fights. Or reveal the other negative effects of low vram.
2. WTF level of upscaling and FG is that, if it'll grab over 9GB at 900p low? That 60fps is going to be a much lower actual fps and feel terrible. What a bad hottake?


Then low it is bro. 25%-40% is going to let cards with enough vram enable FG without crazy lag. 8GB cards will probably be at upscaled 540P to turn it on. Advantage goes to cards with more vram.


Is he just shilling for Nvidia here? Do you guys agree the bus interface speed is impactful here? Nothing mentioned is remotely playable and he was using ultra preset. Meanwhile the significantly less expensive last gen RX 6800 is almost 20% faster than a 4060ti 16GB at 1440 and over 20% for lows. Even the 6700XT is just as fast.
Click to expand...
8GBs are fine here too. I showed you above.

This is my 3060ti run. 46 minutes (non monetized). 1080p, DLSS Quality, ULTRA preset.



In order to keep 60fps, DLSS was mandatory. The card runs at 180-200W with 7GBs of vram usage. Meaning it's 100% gpu power limited. In some cutscenes, it is even hitting that although all cutscenes are capped at 30fps.

Also shown below.

The 3060 with its 12GBs, will need both lower settings and dlss. VRAM ain't helping.


 
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/    |