8GB VRAM not enough (and 10 / 12)

[BFG10K]

8GB

• Dying Light 2, Battlefield 2042, Avatar Frontiers of Pandora, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, Starfield, Forza Horizon 5, Horizon Forbidden West, Alan Wake 2, The Last of Us, Tekken 8, FC 24, Detroit Become Human, Death Stranding, Alone in The Dark, Overwatch 2
  3060 12GB higher 1% low than 4060 8GB https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIfz57wmywg
• Cyberpunk 2077, Diablo 4, Hogwarts Legacy, Horizon Zero Dawn, Microsoft Flight Sim 2020, Witcher 3, Watch Dogs Legion skip to 4K + DLSS for each game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPiaWWd0xGc
• Ratchet & Clank, Plague Tale Requiem, Last Of Us, Jedi Survivor, Far Cry 6, Hogwarts Legacy, Forza Horizon 5, Cyberpunk 2077 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr3MckDxMfE&pp=ygUTMTZnYiB2cyA4Z2IgNDA2MCB0aQ==
• Far Cry 6, Godfall, Hogwarts Legacy, Forza Horizon 5, Forspoken, Doom Eternal, Watchdogs Legion https://youtu.be/fJc--C01P90?t=268
• Last Of Us, Resident Evil 4, Callisto Protocol, Plague Tale Requiem, Halo Infinite, Forspoken https://youtu.be/2_Y3E631ro8?t=429
• Last Of Us, Hogwarts Legacy, Resident Evil 4, Forspoken, Plague Tale Requiem, Callisto Protocol https://youtu.be/Rh7kFgHe21k?t=288
• Hogwarts Legacy, Last Of Us, Spider Man Remastered, Doom Eternal, Forza Horizon 5 https://youtu.be/R943CbDTq_s?t=1473
• Horizon Forbidden West 4060 has issues @ 1080p + DLSS unless you switch off frame generation and reduce settings to high https://youtu.be/3AyKvI23VGw?t=233
• Horizon Forbidden West 3070 requires reducing textures 2 notches https://youtu.be/xTwEGy6HHKo?t=351
• Deathloop https://youtu.be/lu_XHyO-6zY?t=918
• Ghost Recon Breakpoint https://youtu.be/iUGppQVpXzU?t=529
• Resident Evil 2 https://youtu.be/Aa-gsgRjMII?t=796
• Talos Principle 2 https://youtu.be/K6FATQAuEwI?t=337
• Spider Man Remastered https://youtu.be/vRVR_plVSlc?t=1060
• Witcher 3 https://youtu.be/vRVR_plVSlc?t=1240

Horizon Forbidden West 3060 is faster than the 2080 Super despite the former usually competing with the 2070. Also 3060 has a better 1% low than 4060 and 4060Ti 8GB.

Spoiler

Resident Evil Village 3060TI/3070 tanks at 4K and is slower than the 3060/6700XT when ray tracing:

Spoiler

Company Of Heroes 3060 has a higher minimum than the 3070TI:

Spoiler

10GB / 12GB

• Plague Tale Requiem 3080 10GB tanks if you enable ray tracing, would be fast enough if it had more VRAM because if you stop moving, the framerate stabilizes to >60FPS https://youtu.be/7zjrMww3fAc?t=496
• Hogwarts Legacy 4K + RT, 4060Ti 16GB is faster than 4070 12GB https://youtu.be/X-h_R488Mq8?t=191

Reasons why still shipping 8GB since 2014 isn't NV's fault.

Spoiler

1. It's the player's fault.
2. It's the reviewer's fault.
3. It's the developer's fault.
4. It's AMD's fault.
5. It's the game's fault.
6. It's the driver's fault.
7. It's a system configuration issue.
8. Wrong settings were tested.
9. Wrong area was tested.
10. Wrong games were tested.
11. 4K is irrelevant.
12. Texture quality is irrelevant as long as it matches a console's.
13. Detail levels are irrelevant as long as they match a console's.
14. There's no reason a game should use more than 8GB, because a random forum user said so.
15. It's completely acceptable for the more expensive 3070/3070TI/3080 to turn down settings while the cheaper 3060/6700XT has no issue.
16. It's an anomaly.
17. It's a console port.
18. It's a conspiracy against NV.
19. 8GB cards aren't meant for 4K / 1440p / 1080p / 720p gaming.
20. It's completely acceptable to disable ray tracing on NV while AMD has no issue.
21. Polls, hardware market share, and game title count are evidence 8GB is enough, but are totally ignored when they don't suit the ray tracing agenda.

According to some people here, 8GB is neeeevaaaaah NV's fault and objective evidence "doesn't count" because of reasons(tm). If you have others please let me know and I'll add them to the list. Cheers!

 

[Ranulf]

"8GB cards survive to fight on in a another AAA title", because the textures ain't that great. "Texture quality straight outta 2016." 8GB works with Ultra settings but vram warning ensues. 4GB is non playable as it causes bugs. Game is mostly cpu dependent though. 2060Super and 5700XT can handle 1080p high at 50-60fps.

HUB on vram in Space Marine 2, time queued to section:

 

[psolord]

He's a shrink's wet dream for psychoanalysis

Another personal attack.

 

[psolord]

Consider the opposing viewpoint.

Just imagine what this thread seems like from the other side. One valiant defender holding the line against a mob of ignorant, resistant to education, barbarians. Have some pity folks.

Right?

 

[Thunder 57]

Your brain is broken. I change my vote and wish to put this thread out of its misery. Lock it.

 

[psolord]

"8GB cards survive to fight on in a another AAA title", because the textures ain't that great. "Texture quality straight outta 2016." 8GB works with Ultra settings but vram warning ensues. 4GB is non playable as it causes bugs. Game is mostly cpu dependent though. 2060Super and 5700XT can handle 1080p high at 50-60fps.

HUB on vram in Space Marine 2, time queued to section:

These look quite good for a 2016 game tho... (from gamegpu)

https://en.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/warhammer-40-000-space-marine-2-test-gpu-cpu

And yes, 8GB cards are doing fine, while the fastest 8GB card is 73% faster than the slowest one. And also quite faster than a few cards with more vram.



Btw, this is my run of Space Marine 2 on the 3060ti. Notice how vram usage is below 7GBs for the most part and how the card's power is maxed out, while having framedrops below 60fps. Would 16GBs help? Don't think so.

Spoiler: psolord's 3060ti space marine 2

Also not all 4GB cards have the same problem. It is an AMD problem. My r9 290x is missing all characthers even at low. The GTX 970 did run it successfully though. A bit on the ugly side, but hey it's a 10yo card.

Spoiler: psolord's GTX970 space marine 2

 

[igor_kavinski]

Your brain is broken. I change my vote and wish to put this thread out of its misery. Lock it.

Why punish the poor thread? We just have to make him obey some rules. Maybe one post per month?

 

[Ranulf]

These look quite good for a 2016 game tho... (from gamegpu)

Watch the video to see Steve's explanation. Yes, the game can look quite good. But some of the textures do not. Game and or drivers definately have some issues from reports I've seen online.

Would 16GBs help? Don't think so.

Again, the video says points out that beyond 12-16GB isn't that much help here as the game seems to be designed for 8GB cards.

 

[psolord]

Your brain is broken. I change my vote and wish to put this thread out of its misery. Lock it.

Thanks.

If my brain is broken, can you please explain this?





You can find the demo here

The Casting of Frank Stone™ on Steam

The shadow of Frank Stone looms over Cedar Hills, a town forever altered by his violent past. As a group of young friends are about to discover, Stone’s blood-soaked legacy cuts deep, leaving scars across families, generations, and the very fabric of reality itself.

store.steampowered.com

Unreal Engine 5 once again. I am not seeing how vram is helping here either.

And this is the whole freagin demo run on a 4070ti 4k Dlss quality, 1440p essentially. VRAM less than 9GBs, framerate hovers at 30-40fps. How more vram would help? My broken brain is trying to understand.

Spoiler: psolord's 4070ti The Casting of Frank Stone

 

[mikeymikec]

"8GB cards survive to fight on in a another AAA title", because the textures ain't that great. "Texture quality straight outta 2016." 8GB works with Ultra settings but vram warning ensues. 4GB is non playable as it causes bugs. Game is mostly cpu dependent though. 2060Super and 5700XT can handle 1080p high at 50-60fps.

HUB on vram in Space Marine 2, time queued to section:

It seems odd for a reviewer to notice the game giving an implicit "don't do this" warning and then conclude "meh, it's fine...". How often do games do a "here be dragons" warning with regard to graphics settings, the higher graphics settings are typically precisely want the devs want to show off!

I suspect the reason for the lower-end textures in this game might be because if hundreds of units are being rendered then even a slight increase in texture quality for each of those units would take its toll on VRAM usage.

 

[psolord]

Watch the video to see Steve's explanation. Yes, the game can look quite good. But some of the textures do not. Game and or drivers definately have some issues from reports I've seen online.

*some* textures do not look good, in all games under the sun. This has nothing to do with 8GB cards.

Again, the video says points out that beyond 12-16GB isn't that much help here as the game seems to be designed for 8GB cards.

Games are designed by gpu power, not by vram. Go on and make a fantastic looking game for the 7600XT and see how it runs.

 

[psolord]

It seems odd for a reviewer to notice the game giving an implicit "don't do this" warning and then conclude "meh, it's fine...". How often do games do a "here be dragons" warning with regard to graphics settings, the higher graphics settings are typically precisely want the devs want to show off!

They are doing it sometimes, not the first time. See here RE3 on the GTX 970



The game was calculating it needed 12.34 out of the <4 of the GTX 970. Yet the game run fine.

Spoiler: RE3 GTX 970

You can argue that there could be a specific point in the game, that would reach these values. Well that's bad game design then. The fact remains that for this session, the GTX 970 did fine with 1/3 the vram requirement.

I suspect the reason for the lower-end textures in this game might be because if hundreds of units are being rendered then even a slight increase in texture quality for each of those units would take its toll on VRAM usage.

That's not how vram works. I think I understand the misconceptions in this thread. If you render the same stuff over and over and over, you don't multiply vram usage as far as textures are concerned. There is this specific texture in memory and you render it at specific angles over and over and over.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Go on and make a fantastic looking game for the 7600XT and see how it runs.

It can certainly be done. But: https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-str...tize-market-scale-over-enthusiast-radeon-gpus

Developers are not willing to make their games for AMD cards. Thanks to people like you buying Nvidia crappy 8GB cards. You are part of the problem. I personally don't have anything against you but it's your way of thinking that rubs me the wrong way. You want games to be stuck at 8GB framebuffer which would be fine if Nvidia also thought the same and didn't release cards with more than 8GB. But they do and they do it mainly to deprive the people on a budget from good graphics performance. And you rub salt into the wounds by telling everyone to "lower your settings!". Almost no one here agrees with you. But you persist in trying to change our minds.

Let me make it clear to you in no uncertain terms: We are the "Expensive 8GB cards Haters Club!".

You want to expect us to buy an 8GB card? We won't unless it's $250 or below. That's where 8GB belongs. Progress needs to be made and only buyers can force the AIBs and GPU makers by NOT buying crappy expensive 8GB cards. And I don't get why you care so much. 90% of the sheep who buy expensive 8GB cards don't even visit this thread or these forums. They will continue to wreak havoc on the dynamics of the consumer GPU market with their lame buying habits and decisions. This is just a corner of like-minded individuals who dislike the 8GB cards with a vengeance and we were doing just fine until you decided to show up and started pointing at graphs, "Look Look! 8GB is more than enough!". Enough for you. Not for us. Get it?

 

[igor_kavinski]

That's not how vram works. I think I understand the misconceptions in this thread. If you render the same stuff over and over and over, you don't multiply vram usage as far as textures are concerned. There is this specific texture in memory and you render it at specific angles over and over and over.

Don't try to school us on game development or how the 3D graphics pipeline works unless you have a game on ANY online store that has sold at least a million copies.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Another personal attack.

I said "he". How do you know who "he" is? It could be a ghost

 

[mikeymikec]

That's not how vram works. I think I understand the misconceptions in this thread. If you render the same stuff over and over and over, you don't multiply vram usage as far as textures are concerned. There is this specific texture in memory and you render it at specific angles over and over and over.

Which has nothing to do with the point I was making, but thanks for once again demonstrating your unshakeable belief that you know better than anyone here.

 

[Mopetar]

This is a prime example of the wrong mentality that is going on in this thread, which I am trying to correct, to no avail.

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:


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.

Things have changed. Now we have max settings + RT. This is a different playground. No matter how good RT is, it IS a different thing.

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.

 

[coercitiv]

Death, taxes, and the 8GB thread. There must always be a Lich King!

 

[Mopetar]

I change my vote and wish to put this thread out of its misery. Lock it.

Think of it as a containment zone at this point.

Besides, there's no way this can be closed before Blackwell launch. I'm just saying that if there are 8 GB 5000 series GPUs and somebody around here were to opt for a model with more VRAM the amount of grief they would receive from other forum members would be off the (five posts of) charts. Either that can be contained here or it will spill over into some other thread where unsuspecting posters would be caught completely off guard and crushed beneath the landslide of posts.

 

[mikeymikec]

Which reviewers do people here recommend who are reviewing graphics cards for long enough to observe issues such as running out of VRAM?

 

[marees]

Which reviewers do people here recommend who are reviewing graphics cards for long enough to observe issues such as running out of VRAM?

Hardware Unboxed
Daniel Owen
Tech Yes City

Also Digital Foundry but they spin it as if developers have to optimize for 8gb vram

 

[cebri1]

 

[Golgatha]

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.