8GB VRAM not enough (and 10 / 12)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
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.
pFJi8XrGZfYuvhvk4952je-970-80.png.webp
Resident Evil Village 3060TI/3070 tanks at 4K and is slower than the 3060/6700XT when ray tracing:
RE.jpg
Company Of Heroes 3060 has a higher minimum than the 3070TI:
CH.jpg

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:

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,797
5,899
136
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,639
1,481
126
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

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,509
5,159
136
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
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,110
3,028
136
www.teamjuchems.com
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

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
6,715
7,004
136
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

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
6,792
5,750
136
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

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,639
1,481
126
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

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
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

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,110
3,028
136
www.teamjuchems.com
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.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
TW Warhammer 3 mortal empires campaign mode at 1440p is "barely playable" with 12 GB of memory, much less then eight:
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

silly.jpg
( 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.
 
Last edited:

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,331
1,138
136
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
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.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
7,797
5,899
136
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
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

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,672
2,817
126
And we have another game, Portal RTX.


performance-3840-2160.png

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. o_O

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.
 
Last edited:

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,639
1,481
126
And we have another game, Portal RTX.


performance-3840-2160.png

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. o_O

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

Platinum Member
May 1, 2020
2,329
2,811
106
TW Warhammer 3 mortal empires campaign mode at 1440p is "barely playable" with 12 GB of memory, much less then eight:
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. :D 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.
Warhammer III.png
Battlefield map. Default Medium settings, Full HD
Warhammer III Antialiassing.png

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea