The "8GB not enough" thread

[Mopetar]

My thought on it is at 1440p, I want 10GB or more. My reasoning is the current generation of gaming consoles have about 10GB available, so a lot of games will be developed going forward with that in mind, and most 4k console games are actually rendered at something close to 1440p and upscaled.

In my mind, 8GB is ok for all 1080p and most 1440p gaming, and 12GB or more is ok for 4K gaming.

I think the consoles are closer to 12 GB since the OS isn't eating up 6 on its own. Really though, 16 GB should be the new minimum target if you plan on having the card for 5+ years.

 

[Golgatha]

I think the consoles are closer to 12 GB since the OS isn't eating up 6 on its own. Really though, 16 GB should be the new minimum target if you plan on having the card for 5+ years.

I haven't looked much up on the XBox side of things, but 10GB on the PS5 is much faster memory. So I don't see a developer using more than 10GB for VRAM, as there's a huge performance penalty past 10GB in terms of memory bandwidth available.

 

[jpiniero]

I haven't looked much up on the XBox side of things, but 10GB on the PS5 is much faster memory. So I don't see a developer using more than 10GB for VRAM, as there's a huge performance penalty past 10GB in terms of memory bandwidth available.

No, you are thinking of the Series X.

Series X = 10 GB @ 560 GB/sec, 6 GB @ 336 GB/sec
Series S = 8 B @ 224 GB/sec, 2 GB @ 56 GB/sec
PS5 = 16 GB @ 448 GB/sec

 

[Golgatha]

No, you are thinking of the Series X.

Series X = 10 GB @ 560 GB/sec, 6 GB @ 336 GB/sec
Series S = 8 B @ 224 GB/sec, 2 GB @ 56 GB/sec
PS5 = 16 GB @ 448 GB/sec

You're right. The overall point is that's the lowest common denominator on current generation consoles right now.

 

[blckgrffn]

You're right. The overall point is that's the lowest common denominator on current generation consoles right now.

Yeah, the Series S doesn't really count. I feel like generally that is being targeted by games simply by using the Xbox One (non-x) profile but with perhaps targeting 60 fps instead of 30 fps. It's the value play - I've seen it as low as $235 with an extra controller, at which point that's a lot of bang for the buck but it is clearly not the flagship.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I mean, the Series S is like the definition of entry level, and it has 8 gigs of slow RAM.

As such, I'd say an 8 gig GPU is definitely packing entry levels of RAM at this point if it's essentially matching an entry level console.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

My thought on it is at 1440p, I want 10GB or more. My reasoning is the current generation of gaming consoles have about 10GB available, so a lot of games will be developed going forward with that in mind, and most 4k console games are actually rendered at something close to 1440p and upscaled.

In my mind, 8GB is ok for all 1080p and most 1440p gaming, and 12GB or more is ok for 4K gaming.

I think you have convinced me to opt for 6700 or 6700 XT instead of 6600 XT or 6650 XT. Especially since for big Sony releases I'll probably just get them on PS5 instead of waiting a year for a PC release. Wonder if I can undervolt a 6700XT to have 6700 like power consumption (~160W in gaming) without killing performance too much.

 

[Golgatha]

I mean, the Series S is like the definition of entry level, and it has 8 gigs of slow RAM.

As such, I'd say an 8 gig GPU is definitely packing entry levels of RAM at this point if it's essentially matching an entry level console.

The Series S is marketed as a 1080p to 1440p console rather than a 1440p to 4k console. So yes, for entry level gaming at 1080p, and most 1440p gaming, 8GB is enough.

 

[BFG10K]

Another comment. We've been on 8GB of VRAM since the GTX 1080, and that was released on 5/27/2016. That's way too long in my book.

Exactly right, not to mention the 1070 is one of the best cards ever made. High-end performance, low power consumption, compact, very reasonable price, and 8GB was cutting edge at the time.

In contrast 3070Ti is an oversized, overpriced furnace monstrosity with the VRAM equivalent of a missing left nutsack.

 

[blckgrffn]

Exactly right, not to mention the 1070 is one of the best cards ever made. High-end performance, low power consumption, compact, very reasonable price, and 8GB was cutting edge at the time.

In contrast 3070Ti is an oversized, overpriced furnace monstrosity with the VRAM equivalent of a missing left nutsack.

If gamers had been able to buy the 3070ti, they needed to have been 16GB.

Since most of them went to the mines, I guess it only matter so much.

 

[Golgatha]

If gamers had been able to buy the 3070ti, they needed to have been 16GB.

Since most of them went to the mines, I guess it only matter so much.

I bought a used one from a gamer friend awhile back for $550. At the time I got it, it was an amazing price.

 

[Leeea]

TW Warhammer 3 mortal empires campaign mode at 1440p is "barely playable" with 12 GB of memory, much less then eight:

Spoiler: screen shot of it using just under 12 GB

vram usage is shown on the upper right

note the barely playable average 73 fps with 11.5 GB of memory being used
and the unplayable 56 fps low


( I have no idea if this is good or bad performance for this game )

This game would be unplayable on a 8gb or 10gb GPU.

note: this post may not be entirely serious
note: unlimited video memory check box? I have no idea what your referring to.

 

[maddogmcgee]

56 FPS lows on the campaign map is very far from unplayable.

 

[Mopetar]

What's it like in the battles? I don't think a dip below 60 FPS on the campaign map is a deal breaker.

 

[Harry_Wild]

For general purpose use 8GB of VRAM; absolutely more than enough!

 

[Ranulf]

This game would be unplayable on a 8gb or 10gb GPU.

Its playable on my 2060S at 1080p. 50-70 odd fps if I remember right in the campaign over map. I forget what it is in battles but very playable. The battles run far better than the campaign map. End of turn phase drops the fps to 6-12fps on average. The game has some weird graphic issues with the campaign map.

 

[Leeea]

What's it like in the battles? I don't think a dip below 60 FPS on the campaign map is a deal breaker.

FPS climbs up quite a bit in the battles, and uses only about 9.5 GB of vram.

Feels like they optimized the battles and just let the campaign map chug.

 

[maddogmcgee]

In that case it is fine. I could deal with 30 fps or reduced textures on the campaign map.

 

[Mopetar]

FPS climbs up quite a bit in the battles, and uses only about 9.5 GB of vram.

Feels like they optimized the battles and just let the campaign map chug.

I think it's just a case of the campaign map being massive now. They've basically taken the campaign maps of three different games and stitched them together into something staggeringly large.

I'm not surprised that there are VRAM issues in such a situation. I can accept lower FPS if it isn't too jerky where you get big lag spikes just from scrolling around.

 

[Leeea]

I'm not surprised that there are VRAM issues in such a situation.

It should be mentioned the vram consumption is likely occurring because of the "unlimited v-ram" checkbox being checked.

I put that in the small print but I think most people missed it.



( I thought the small print would make it stand out, because of the different text size. The classic devil in the details small print contract trick. )

 

[BFG10K]

And we have another game, Portal RTX.

Portal with RTX Review - Amazing Raytracing

Valve has teamed up with NVIDIA to remaster their smash-hit Portal with ray tracing. Unlike most other titles out there, which combine rasterization and ray tracing, Portal with RTX is fully path traced, which enables astonishing realism, but also comes with a huge performance hit.

www.techpowerup.com

Spoiler

With no DLSS the 3060 is faster than the 2080TI, 3070 and the 3080. Even with "balanced DLSS" (nVidia marketeering for upscaling) the 3060 is still faster than the 3070.

What an absolute joke ray tracing still is. Even the $2000 furnace-slab 4090 barely breaks 60 FPS at <1440p upscaled 4K balanced DLSS. But don't worry, nVidia's "aye eye" will come to rescue and add TV interpolated frames.

As an aside, I remember certain forum members telling us the 2060 is "RTX ready" back in the day. Power to the people with a glorious 6GB VRAM! Heh.

 

[Golgatha]

And we have another game, Portal RTX.

Portal with RTX Review - Amazing Raytracing

Valve has teamed up with NVIDIA to remaster their smash-hit Portal with ray tracing. Unlike most other titles out there, which combine rasterization and ray tracing, Portal with RTX is fully path traced, which enables astonishing realism, but also comes with a huge performance hit.

www.techpowerup.com

Spoiler

With no DLSS the 3060 is faster than the 2080TI, 3070 and the 3080. Even with "balanced DLSS" (nVidia marketeering for upscaling) the 3060 is still faster than the 3070.

What an absolute joke ray tracing still is. Even the $2000 furnace-slab 4090 barely breaks 60 FPS at <1440p upscaled 4K balanced DLSS. But don't worry, nVidia's "aye eye" will come to rescue and add TV interpolated frames.

As an aside, I remember certain forum members telling us the 2060 is "RTX ready" back in the day. Power to the people with a glorious 6GB VRAM! Heh.

1 FPS 3080 versus 3 FPS 3060....The 3060 is 300% faster!!!

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

TW Warhammer 3 mortal empires campaign mode at 1440p is "barely playable" with 12 GB of memory, much less then eight:

Spoiler: screen shot of it using just under 12 GB

vram usage is shown on the upper right

note the barely playable average 73 fps with 11.5 GB of memory being used
and the unplayable 56 fps low

View attachment 69018
( I have no idea if this is good or bad performance for this game )

This game would be unplayable on a 8gb or 10gb GPU.

note: this post may not be entirely serious
note: unlimited video memory check box? I have no idea what your referring to.

From when is 73FPS barely playable? I am happy even with 30FPS in this game on my old GTX 1650M 4GB. But I am playing only campaign and auto-resolve battles.
4GB is not enough for High settings, I had very bad artefacts or actually missing textures in battlefield benchmark.
Here are my screenshots of benchmark summaries.

Campaign map. Default High settings, Full HD. When I set It to medium, then FPS is ~44.

Battlefield map. Default Medium settings, Full HD


This game is more than playable, but you just have to reduce settings, not like I see much of a difference between Ultra and High settings.

 

[fleshconsumed]

And we have another game, Portal RTX.

Eh, while 8GB ram is definitely becoming limiting, Portal RTX is a poor example to highlight RAM limitations. Portal RTX is a tech demo that Nvidia specifically designed to sell 40 series by handicapping everything below 4090.

 

[kondziowy]

Spells.... smells danger !