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]

I can't even....

VRAM isn't horsepower. Architecture determines GPU "horsepower", especially when combined with plenty of VRAM.

The only words I can use to describe your post is cognitive dissonance.

Sir, you clearly said:

Most others want to experience a beautiful game the way it was meant to be played and they need the GPU horsepower to do it. That includes plenty of vram.

With my examples of the 3060, 7600xt, that's what I am saying. That vram is not horsepower. That's why I put it quotation marks.

Also good job, attacking the poster and not argument. And then you are accusing me of logical fallacies.

 

[psolord]

Maybe this analogy will help the 8GB dude?

A person's only job is creating these large squares from different colored blocks. He has a table to do it. But the table is only so big. So he creates a square as large as the table allows, then puts it someplace a bit far with more storage space. One day, he has an idea. What if he got twice as large a table? He does that and lo and behold, he can create two squares and also carry both of them back to storage. His output doubled and number of trips to storage space halved!

Now I'm just itching to see how the dude invents a new table with "settings"

My friend Igor, you are describing how random access memory works. I know how it works. The debate here, is if that table is enough, in relation to the speed of the worker.

Here's Gamegpu's findings, of the workers and their tables, on The First Descendant too.

Spoiler: gamegpu the first descendant

See that 3060 with its big table? How is it helping? The 4060ti with its smaller table, is destroying it. With RT, which suddenly became so important for entry level cards, it's 62% faster than the 3060. How'd that happened?

Also, the 4060ti is 3.5X faster, compared to the rx6600. BOTH 8GB cards. Seems to me, the worker of the 6600 is super damn lazy, even if they have the same sized table.

 

[psolord]

No, it won't help. As per:



You're only seeing problems you want to see. Ergo if you think the table isn't big enough for your job, you just ignore the parts of the job that make it "too large" until you have a small enough job to fit on the table.

So really the Amiga 500 was perfectly capable of playing Doom and therefore is still the best gaming computer ever. It's just a case of correct settings. 640KB? Pah. The stock A500 could easily have done it. Ignore anyone who suggests otherwise, especially the incompetent devs.

No. I am just evaluating the situation as a whole and I am looking at the whole forest, not just a damn bush.

All the problematic examples of 8GBs that have been given, are easily fixable. For what gpu processing power they have, they are just fine. Are you happy with how the 3060 has ended up? Go see all 2024 gamegpu tests, to see in how many, it cannot even do 1080p properly. How does this not compute?

Here's one more game for everyone to put under their radar. Good luck running this on a 3060.

 

[igor_kavinski]

See that 3060 with its big table? How is it helping? The 4060ti with its smaller table, is destroying it. With RT, which suddenly became so important for entry level cards, it's 62% faster than the 3060. How'd that happened?

Yes, trust the dude to compare non-Ti previous gen card to current gen Ti card

Sad that I have to say this but a proper comparison would be between 3060 8GB and 12GB versions. You really should stop posting graphs from that site. I don't trust that site and I'm sure a lot of people here don't put much stock in their results either.

 

[Iron Woode]

See that 3060 with its big table? How is it helping? The 4060ti with its smaller table, is destroying it. With RT, which suddenly became so important for entry level cards, it's 62% faster than the 3060. How'd that happened?

Also, the 4060ti is 3.5X faster, compared to the rx6600. BOTH 8GB cards. Seems to me, the worker of the 6600 is super damn lazy, even if they have the same sized table.

this is a prime example of cognitive disonance.

Even Igor is pointing it out:

Yes, trust the dude to compare non-Ti previous gen card to current gen Ti card

 

[marees]

All the problematic examples of 8GBs that have been given, are easily fixable.

How much would you pay for a card that can play all games at 1080p ultra with all bells & whistles turned on

For comparison:

6800 <=$400
7700 xt ~$400
4060 ti 16gb =$440+

Next question is:

In the past what would be the minimum price to buy a card that can play all games at 1080p max ?

 

[Ranulf]

Yes, trust the dude to compare non-Ti previous gen card to current gen Ti card

Hey, at least there is some improvement from the 3060ti to the 4060ti. Yet, 3 years later we're still at the $400 dollar mark for 8GB of ram and a 5-15fps jump in one free to play game.

So much stagnation in price/perf and overall performance capabilities. Yet again, the hardware needs various tricks to run games at 1080p or 1440p. We've gone up in costs for a 1440p or 1080p cards over the last 10 years.

 

[psolord]

Yes, trust the dude to compare non-Ti previous gen card to current gen Ti card

Sad that I have to say this but a proper comparison would be between 3060 8GB and 12GB versions. You really should stop posting graphs from that site. I don't trust that site and I'm sure a lot of people here don't put much stock in their results either.

this is a prime example of cognitive disonance.

Even Igor is pointing it out:

Attacks again. Typical.

For the umpteenth time, the reason I am bashing the 3060 and comparing it to the 4060ti, is for all you people, to undestand that video ram will do F all, if the main chip does not have the grunt to perform.

Igor I'm sorry you don't like gamegpu's findings. If you find any other publication that tests the games they test, let me know. I wouldn't like it either, if my wrong point of view was handed to me on a platter.

Speaking of which, let's see Riven. One more UE5 title.



There you go.
3060 unplayable at 1080p again.
3060ti beating it as usual, with the very important distinction of >60fps vs <60fps
4060ti beating at 1080p,the 6800, 6800xt, 6900xt
And of course, top 8gb vs lowest 8gb card, have a performance delta of 2,26X.

And all that, exactly 3 years today, after this thread was started. Good job everyone. Remind me not to bet where you're betting.

 

[psolord]

How much would you pay for a card that can play all games at 1080p ultra with all bells & whistles turned on

For comparison:

6800 <=$400
7700 xt ~$400
4060 ti 16gb =$440+

Next question is:

In the past what would be the minimum price to buy a card that can play all games at 1080p max ?

Don't jump off your chair, but not even the 4070ti can do that. I mean ALL games 1080p maxed. It can do 99.5 of that, sure. For exampe, I did play a large chunk of Avatar on 4070ti/1080p maxed and it had severe framedrops at very specific areas. 100% gpu related, not vram related. Same goes for Jedi Survivor and others.

I'm telling you, video cards are made to cope with a range of games and settings. If you push your focus to the extremes, you will end up with the wrong conclusions.

I will give you a different answer. I am very very happy, with my 3060ti, because I can stay away from the extremes. Never have I met a game, where I toned down a setting or two, or a whole tier and I was like, daum, this is now ugly.

If you are looking for an honest suggestion, for the highest possible coverage, for 1080 ultra, I would look at no less than a 4070. If you really need 1080p ultra or something less, it's a whole different discussion.

 

[cebri1]

I recently moved from a 6GB 2060 and VRAM was never an issue at 1080p. I mean, you can always crank up the settings, enable RT and the GPU will run out of VRAM. But the "buying an 8GB card is a waste of money" is BS in my opinion. An 8GB card is still very viable at 1080p. Yes, there are outliers that HW Unboxed always brings up in their reviews, but 99.9% of the games run fine.

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

I recently moved from a 6GB 2060 and VRAM was never an issue at 1080p. I mean, you can always crank up the settings, enable RT and the GPU will run out of VRAM. But the "buying an 8GB card is a waste of money" is BS in my opinion. An 8GB card is still very viable at 1080p. Yes, there are outliers that HW Unboxed always brings up in their reviews, but 99.9% of the games run fine.

Let's be honest, 1080p is currently only basic resolution, so If a 8GB card can play only that resolution, then that's hardly anything to write about, even IGPs are capable of gaming at that resolution with reduced settings depending on how old the game is.
It's not that 8GB Vram card is useless per se, It's more about how much It is sold for or how powerful GPU is paired with It.
For example, 4060Ti level of performance would be great paired with 12GB Vram and not just 8GB Vram in my opinion, If It costs $399.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Attacks again. Typical.

You are the one who is interpreting our friendly critical advice to think straight, as an attack.

MSI Radeon RX 6650 XT Gaming X Review

With the Radeon RX 6650 XT priced at a competitive MSRP of $400, AMD is offering a new contender for the 1080p Value King title. Thanks to an improved 18 Gbps memory subsystem, the RX 6650 XT can extend its performance lead over the NVIDIA RTX 3060.

www.techpowerup.com

6650 XT beating the 3060 12GB in raster mostly, except in CP2077, Control and almost getting beat in some games.

Far Cry 6, Witcher 3 and Warhammer III run counter to your assertion that brute force power matters more than VRAM. How come 3060 12GB turns defeat at 1080p in these games to a victory at 4K in the same game? How does it manage to turn the tables on the 6650 XT that has proven its muscle in the other games and at lower resolutions? It couldn't have anything to do with that useless extra VRAM burden that the 3060 is carrying, could it?

Let's not go above 1080p. What if future games use the same amount of textures that they are using at 4K? Wouldn't the faster 8GB cards suffer then, having to constantly swap textures in and out of VRAM from system RAM?

Ponder on these questions coz somewhere in there is enlightenment.

 

[igor_kavinski]

100% gpu related, not vram related. Same goes for Jedi Survivor and others.

How can you be so sure? You didn't play these games with a 4070 Ti Super. Do you have GPU performance profiling tools which indicated that it was not a VRAM issue causing the performance slowdowns? May we see the proof?

By the way, if the 4070 Ti was so successful and amazing and perfect, why did Nvidia bother to release the Super with 16GB VRAM? They could have focused on making it Super in some other way.

Why bother adding additional VRAM if it's so useless? (Gonna brace myself for one of your extraordinary "boggles the mind" answers).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Cognitive dissonance isn't a personal attack. It's an oft made observation when contradictory statements or ideas are all held as correct. The observation can be invalid too of course.

This thread is 3yrs old and over a 100 pages so I can understand newer members not understanding the source of debate. It is simple-

When this thread began there were 8GB cards with $500+ MSRPs. Good luck finding one for anywhere close to that back then, but even at MSRP it was clear it was a bad value. This gen anything from the MSRP $270 RX 7600 and up with 8GB of ram gets the terrible value rating.

There is no beef with the 8GB itself, only the pricing.

 

[gdansk]

Oh wow, it is 3 years old. That is long enough that even if you did think 8GB was adequate at the start it is normal for your opinion to have changed due to new games, etc.

 

[blckgrffn]

Oh wow, it is 3 years old. That is long enough that even if you did think 8GB was adequate at the start it is normal for your opinion to have changed due to new games, etc.

Now, now. We aren't allowed to change our minds. We must make up our minds and stick to it!

/s for sure.

 

[Iron Woode]

For the umpteenth time, the reason I am bashing the 3060 and comparing it to the 4060ti, is for all you people, to undestand that video ram will do F all, if the main chip does not have the grunt to perform

This was stated to you several times already. A powerful GPU like a 3070 will perform well in most games. However, it's limitations will become apparent at certain settings and available features like FG and RT. Over priced 8GB cards are bad value. 8GB cards need to be classed as low tier cards rather than mid-tier. Extra VRAM does help most cards but if the architecture is weak, then it does no good. That was why the 3060 with 12GB was a dubious idea. The 3060 Ti should have been a 12GB card from the start. Why a 4060 Ti with 8GB exists is also a mystery. That's a mid-tier card and it should have been offered either in 12GB or 16GB VRAM only. The 4070 is only 12GB and that should have had 16GB. But you start posting stuff like "see that! A 3060 12GB is slower than a 4060 Ti 8GB so therefore more VRAM is not necessary". Yes, you can play the Calisto Protocol on a 3070 but after 10 minutes or so of gaming the frame rate tanks due to VRAM limitations. What's the point of buying a video card but not being able to properly use all of it's features?

Also, we all know what your position is on this issue. We know it is pointless debating someone that refuses to see reason. The rest of us want better pricing and better features with plenty of VRAM for them. We also understand that newly released games are not optimized and will have performance issues. For all of these reasons I upgraded from a 1070 Ti to an RX 6800. The difference is amazing and no worries about running out of VRAM.

As an aside, Doom Eternal @ 1440P with everything set to Ultra and no upscaling or RT used almost 10GB of VRAM and gave me solid 144 FPS using Vsync. My old 1070 Ti would need medium or lower settings to get similar FPS numbers. Architecture and VRAM matter.

 

[jpiniero]

Why a 4060 Ti with 8GB exists is also a mystery.

Because it has a 128-bit bus.

You might be shocked to hear this, but 100% there will be 8 GB Blackwell desktop cards. And given TSMC's prices, it sure seems like the GPU card prices will be higher too.

 

[Spjut]

Yes, you can play the Calisto Protocol on a 3070 but after 10 minutes or so of gaming the frame rate tanks due to VRAM limitations. What's the point of buying a video card but not being able to properly use all of it's features?
.

Part of the problem is that very few of the big sites do extensive enough tests to show that, for them it's just a one minute test sequence for each card and publish the performance bars.

It's one of those times I wonder why the heck eg Digital foundry, which is a site that actually does do very detailed and picky tests between the different quality settings and/or techniques, doesn't actually pick up on this.

 

[igor_kavinski]

It's one of those times I wonder why the heck eg Digital foundry, which is a site that actually does do very detailed and picky tests between the different quality settings and/or techniques, doesn't actually pick up on this.

And incur Jensen's displeasure or worse, wrath??? NEVER!

 

[Ranulf]

I recently moved from a 6GB 2060 and VRAM was never an issue at 1080p. I mean, you can always crank up the settings, enable RT and the GPU will run out of VRAM. But the "buying an 8GB card is a waste of money" is BS in my opinion. An 8GB card is still very viable at 1080p. Yes, there are outliers that HW Unboxed always brings up in their reviews, but 99.9% of the games run fine.

I'm not seeing any real justifications, or motivations to get me to upgrade anything then.

 

[marees]

Part of the problem is that very few of the big sites do extensive enough tests to show that, for them it's just a one minute test sequence for each card and publish the performance bars.

It's one of those times I wonder why the heck eg Digital foundry, which is a site that actually does do very detailed and picky tests between the different quality settings and/or techniques, doesn't actually pick up on this.

I can show you with proof:

In Digital Foundry's opinion —

"Since more than 80% of gamers have 8gb or less vram, UE5 (& other game developers) have to optimize for such cards"

My brain melted when I read that article

https://twitter.com/x/status/1801624750457754108

His recommendations were:

1. Add hardware RT even if it was completely unnecessary (because PCMR ??)
2. Add optimization for 8 gb cards because they are >80% on steam?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

And incur Jensen's displeasure or worse, wrath??? NEVER!

Digital Founder's Edition, with your host Alex.

Part of the problem is that very few of the big sites do extensive enough tests to show that, for them it's just a one minute test sequence for each card and publish the performance bars.

You are being overly generous, few do a whole minute, most are 25 second runs. Our crowd has undergone decades of Pavlovian level conditioning to accept bigger bar better. It is going to take a long time before most accept where the utility ends. They are particularly useless in this discussion. Because as so many of us, including yourself, have noted, they are too short. They also do not tell you anything about textures not loading, being low res, or popping in and out. Nor are those performance graphs often representative of the most demanding areas of the game.

The bigger bar better graphs showing vram usage can even be misleading if they are all done on a 4090 or 7900XTX. Just because the game shows that level of allocated and used vram does not mean that is how much it needs. Daniel-San Owens has good content on that topic.

Some ask: Then what's the answer? Extended gameplay with stats displayed from highly reputable sources. Even if they only provide highlight clips. If the frame pacing and or textures are nerfed you can see it for yourself.

It's one of those times I wonder why the heck eg Digital foundry, which is a site that actually does do very detailed and picky tests between the different quality settings and/or techniques, doesn't actually pick up on this.

They have picked up on it. Alex covers vram issues. But because he is in Nvidia's pocket, he does not make it an Nvidia issue. He makes it a game dev issue. Instead of exhorting Nvidia to stop cheaping out on vram on $300+ cards, he tells the game devs it's on them to make their games run well on 8GB cards.

Because, you know... it makes more sense to keep those constantly ballooning development costs sky high heading for outer space. Leading to more layoffs and studio closings. Than it does to ask a 3 trillion dollar plus company to add more vram to their cards.

Some point out what about all the gamers with older 8GB cards or less? They are legion and if they don't buy the games, the games fail. They will need lower settings and upscaling. Which is fine because their card is older. It is an expected compromise. For those that bought $500+ 30 series or $270+ current gen all I can say is -

@marees

You and I were thinking the same thing. You caught me typing.

 

[Iron Woode]

here is a snippet from a Eurogamer review of the 4060 Ti 8GB card:

Page 7 | Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB review: the disappointment is real

The Digital Foundry review of the Nvidia RTX 4070, looking at performance, power efficiency, RT, DLSS 3 and more. This page: design, power efficiency testing.

www.eurogamer.net

Nvidia believes that the total addressable market is so dominated by 8GB cards that developers will continue to support them and that it's not an issue at 1080p. I disagree on this and think the situation we've seen on so many 2023 games will continue. Cross-gen is over and all of the titles I just mentioned have had issues precisely because PlayStation 5 was the main target platform. And for a $400 GPU, I don't just expect console parity - I expect better. On the GPU side, the 4060 Ti can do this. Its raster power exceeds the consoles, its RT performance is way ahead. However, for console-grade textures and room for the data required for RT, 8GB is already straining the limits. I have serious reservations about the future-proofing of the card in a world where the far less capable RTX 3060 12GB performed better than 3060 Ti in all of the above titles at launch. Put simply: if we're having problems now, what about next year... or the year after that?


The 8GB framebuffer also deals even more damage to the upgrade path from the Pascal or Turing cards. Maybe you're looking for a replacement to a GTX 1070 or RTX 2060 Super? Well, if you had VRAM problems with those products, you'll have them with the RTX 4060 Ti too. Nvidia's solution is to offer a 16GB alternative, but unfortunately the firm has positioned it with an astonishing $100 price premium - a 25 percent price rise which simply cannot be justified and of course, it then makes you wonder whether you should spend a further $100 on top of that instead for the RTX 4070, which as the benchmarks reveal is typically 35 percent faster (and much more in some cases at 4K).


All of which raises the question of how this product could have avoided the critical firestorm it now finds itself consumed by. Even with the 8GB of memory, this would have been a commendable RTX 4060 non-Ti if the price was right. Owing to the memory interface configuration, 12GB isn't really possible, but a 16GB 4060 Ti at $399 would have also made a lot more sense: at least then the most pressing limitations facing the 3060 Ti and 3070 going forward would have been comprehensively addressed, and it would also have resolved the problem of VRAM-limited GTX 1070 and RTX 2060 Super owners looking for an upgrade that delivers the exact same issue seen in so many big games.


As things stand though, this is a disappointment and I can only assume that Nvidia's GeForce Experience telemetry tells them that 60-class users only game at 1080p and aren't interested in the latest triple-A games. Even more depressing than that, it seems to set the stage for an equally disappointing RTX 4060 launch, though based on the reviews I've read this week, AMD may well have got there first with the RX 7600. We'll be taking a look at that one next.

 

[Spjut]

I was unfair to accuse DF of ignoring it completely, but have they done any lengthy test regarding high vs low VRAM?
I mean, they can zoom in on miniscule differences in all other comparisons, but I can't remember them investigating the cases of lower VRAM cards getting worse looking textures or slower loading textures, or lower performance after 15 minutes of playing, than higher VRAM cards despite using the same settings

I saw that the Eurogamer article linked above was by Richard and IMO he strikes me as more neutral than Alex