Question Is 10GB of Vram enough for 4K gaming for the next 3 years?

[guidryp]

The people have spoken. Whether 10GB is "enough" or not is case dependant and is now beside the point. However, with a "flagship" card, there should be no question about it, and clearly, there is nothing but questions about Nvidia's choice to screw people with 10GB of ram. People want more and aren't happy with a new "flagship" card having less ram than the previous two generations had. It's looking more and more likely that Dr. Su is about to kick their Vram-skimping butts. They deserve to get rekt.

"The people" have created larger demand for that 10GB card than just about any GPU in history.

 

[dr1337]

Bottom line: More VRAM won't future proof current cards. Because you will need to turn settings down sooner and more often for the lack of bandwdith/cores, before you need to turn them down from lack of VRAM.

This is false and I have proof.

The Retro Series - the HD 7870 versus the GTX 680

The Retro Series Review - the HD 7870 versus the GTX 680 compared with the RX 570 and the GTX 1050 Ti benchmarking 38 games

babeltechreviews.com

Please I implore you to read this whole article. Really pay attention to the summary and the tests at max settings but the Real Bottom Line: is that more vram 100% can contribute to the performance of a GPU. Back then a 50% increase in memory was a big selling point and while the 680 handily beat the 7970 at lower resolutions, it really fell behind at higher res. And now here in the future the 7970 absolutely eclipses the 680 and can handle high texture settings much much better.

One could argue something along the lines of AMD fine wine or nvidia gimping drivers/not adding new support. And maybe thats part of it, but seeing this massive divergence in performance historically, why would you want to artificially limit how "future proof" your gpu is? Especially considering consoles are easily going to be using 12gb+ of vram in a few years easy.

 

[amenx]

Cant compare different architectures to make a case for vram. All other variables must be identical. Best wait for RTX 3070 8gb and 16gb versions and put them through the tests.

 

[guidryp]

This is false and I have proof.

The Retro Series - the HD 7870 versus the GTX 680

The Retro Series Review - the HD 7870 versus the GTX 680 compared with the RX 570 and the GTX 1050 Ti benchmarking 38 games

babeltechreviews.com

Please I implore you to read this whole article. Really pay attention to the summary and the tests at max settings but the Real Bottom Line: is that more vram 100% can contribute to the performance of a GPU. Back then a 50% increase in memory was a big selling point and while the 680 handily beat the 7970 at lower resolutions, it really fell behind at higher res. And now here in the future the 7970 absolutely eclipses the 680 and can handle high texture settings much much better.

One could argue something along the lines of AMD fine wine or nvidia gimping drivers/not adding new support. And maybe thats part of it, but seeing this massive divergence in performance historically, why would you want to artificially limit how "future proof" your gpu is? Especially considering consoles are easily going to be using 12gb+ of vram in a few years easy.

Aside from completely different architectures, the real problem here is are you making an argument for keeping a top end GPUs past the point, where new entry level GPUs are beating it.

By that point, it's kind of moot. Sure 7 years from now 16GB will likely be a much bigger factor, but 7 year old GPU will be considered obsolete by then, and if you are the type of person that buy brand new top end GPUs near release, then chances are you will replace before 5 years is out.

 

[CastleBravo]

This is false and I have proof.

The Retro Series - the HD 7870 versus the GTX 680

The Retro Series Review - the HD 7870 versus the GTX 680 compared with the RX 570 and the GTX 1050 Ti benchmarking 38 games

babeltechreviews.com

Please I implore you to read this whole article. Really pay attention to the summary and the tests at max settings but the Real Bottom Line: is that more vram 100% can contribute to the performance of a GPU. Back then a 50% increase in memory was a big selling point and while the 680 handily beat the 7970 at lower resolutions, it really fell behind at higher res. And now here in the future the 7970 absolutely eclipses the 680 and can handle high texture settings much much better.

One could argue something along the lines of AMD fine wine or nvidia gimping drivers/not adding new support. And maybe thats part of it, but seeing this massive divergence in performance historically, why would you want to artificially limit how "future proof" your gpu is? Especially considering consoles are easily going to be using 12gb+ of vram in a few years easy.

So there are a tiny handful of modern games that, eight years later, the 680 chokes on while the 7970 can still manage 60+ fps at 1080p medium settings. Looking at the 2017 or earlier titles, the 680 trades blows with the 7970, so even with its tiny 2GB of VRAM, it still performed well for at least five years.