Gamers Need to Hear This - VRAM Panic
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- #shorts
Gamers Need to Hear This - VRAM Panic
Many reviewers such as Hardware Unboxed believe the RTX 4070 isn’t a great upgrade over the 3070, and I agree because its 20% more expensive for 30% more performance, but there's also a huge panic over the VRAM which in this case I just don’t think is warranted.
Sure 16GB would be better, but if you think 12GB is going to age as bad as 8GB did on the 3070 I think you’ll be surprised. Both the 3070 and 4070 released in the current console generation, and yeah they have 16GB, but they need to reserve 4GB for system tasks. Your GPU doesn’t.
So there may be some games that exceed 12GB on PC at max setting with raytracing, but it won’t be anywhere near as bad as 8GB, and 12GB should be a solid amount for the near future.
So if your OK with $600 and holding off because your worried about VRAM… don’t, because
Hardware Unboxed on 12GB VRAM: • How much VRAM do you a...
Thank you to Vip-cdkdeals.com for sponsoring this video!
▬ Windows 10 pro (15,9$):biitt.ly/SjaKX
30% Coupon code: GPC20
▬ Windows 11 pro(22$):biitt.ly/H2sdR
▬ Office 2021(43$):biitt.ly/Muliv
Music
www.davidcutte...
Outro: Everyone by Monplaisir
#shorts
Gamers Need to Hear This - VRAM Panic
Many reviewers such as Hardware Unboxed believe the RTX 4070 isn’t a great upgrade over the 3070, and I agree because its 20% more expensive for 30% more performance, but there's also a huge panic over the VRAM which in this case I just don’t think is warranted.
Sure 16GB would be better, but if you think 12GB is going to age as bad as 8GB did on the 3070 I think you’ll be surprised. Both the 3070 and 4070 released in the current console generation, and yeah they have 16GB, but they need to reserve 4GB for system tasks. Your GPU doesn’t.
So there may be some games that exceed 12GB on PC at max setting with raytracing, but it won’t be anywhere near as bad as 8GB, and 12GB should be a solid amount for the near future.
So if your OK with $600 and holding off because your worried about VRAM… don’t, because
I don't see any "panic", opinions don't mean panic. It's not just about being able to play games, but investing in a product that is worth and lasts, specially considering the money. No, 12 GB is not enough for new cards, makes no sense, and again, it is not about games or settings, is more complex than that, it's about the overall product and price.
The reason 12 GB isn't enough isn't because 12 GB isn't enough to run the current games, or that 12 GB isn't going to be enough in the near future, but rather because intel and amd have shown that it's possible to get 16 GB of VRAM on a gpu for less than $600. Intel shows up both by providing 16 GB at $350.
Incorrect, the PS5/xbox have another consideration, they have a far superior direct m.2 access than any pc can, even with the new directaccess features for pc. On top of this, consoles aren't running ultra settings which PC gamers want, nor are they running 4k, they're using FSR in most titles to run 4k. In addition to that, the consoles are hyper optimized for in a way a wider PC ecosystem can't be, this has always been the case, so PC even to run equal settings must have a performance advantage as far as hardware is concerned.
Bad info. 12gb is going to last, but not at the resolution people spending that much money want to be able to play at. 16gb is the new minimum for anything $400+, and neither company want to give you that in reality. It’s not that you can’t turn textures down to low and get the games to run, it’s that for that much money you shouldn’t have to turn textures down to get it to run. Period. This is nvidia and even AMD to some extents, using inflation as an excuse to cut back their products, bump the lower silicone up the naming scheme and charge more than it’s worth. A 4090 costs no more than $500 for nvidia to get to you. And it’s $1,600. Why ? Because their server and compute cards cost $600-$700 to get to a consumer and they sell for around $5,000-$10,000. AI is the new etherium and once again, nvidia doesn’t give a fuck about you.
@@What_In_This_World Inflation is very real, in addition to inflation shipping costs are far higher. The 7600 at 270$ is actually closer to 180$ in 2017 money, and that's not even accounting for how much more expensive shipping is. Your money is worth about 30% less than it was 4 years ago, the official inflation number is not the real inflation number, the formula was changed last time we had a big inflation spike to look less bad thus "fixing" inflation, and this time it was so bad we beat the numbers that were bad enough to warrant covering it up last time.
I have a 3070 and I can't even turn up the settings in Far Cry 6 all the way, not even on 1080, because it needs 11-12 GB. I will never again buy a GPU with less than 16 GB VRAM.
Sell it and get rx6800
@@med3099 might as well. RX 6800 is what I wanted at the time, but availability was pretty much zero at the end of 2020 and early 2021.
For Nvidia i recommended only RTX 4090 because the rest seem like cash grab only. While the alternative i gotta say Rx 6800 or Rx 7800, with recent VRAM problem i hope AMD learn and make Rx 7700 Xt with 16GB of Vram but still dont expect high.
Is rtx 3060 ok???
@@RadioCheeseits so good bro
Me with 4gb vram playing Elden Ring at 50fps🍷🗿
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB Gang? 🍷🗿
@@sentientbeing8738I meant to say 4gb that was a typo. I have the rx 580 4gb
@@hyxlo_ Disgusting! Trade that thing for a worse card this instant!
@@sentientbeing8738 lol
Still use 2GB GTX680 in my PC.
Nvidia keeps on promoting and pricing their cards because of their ray tracing performance. Yet they fail to provide customers with adequate VRAM and bus width for that task specifically.
You see this in Hogwarts, and jedi survivor. That's not optimization, that's texture packages that increase visuals, in addition to ray tracing.
It's definitely going to age like the 3070 or worse because of the narrow bus width.
Cant agree more
Nah this is a bad take. At $600 there's zero reason to be stuck with 12gb of vram, which is really driving Steve's point. At the price point 12gb is unacceptable, and these cards won't age nearly as well as $600 cards from previous generations did.
True. Buying a GPU this generation for anything other than 1080p is absurd. CPU'S are so cheap. Just play 1080p with a high frame rate. If you play 1440p you will be forced to upgrade the GPU in a year or two.
Yeah but everything's getting expensive these days
People don't exclusively spend money on PC components.
Exactly way less than 12 is perfectly usable. But at these high prices the performance and Vram are unacceptable in my opinion.
Nah - as a 3070 Ti owner, I won't make the same mistake again. Got a 4090; 24GB.
When a game that's running at 1440p maxxed @ 90FPS suddenly crashes over and over again because it overallocated VRAM, that sealed the deal for me. Nothing feels worse than realizing you have to turn textures in RE4 down to _mud_ simply because your card lacks $10 of GDDR.
Many devs are saying it will only get worse.
The 4090 is overkill and I got it because I could justify it as a gaming content creator who does a lot of Blender Eevee animations lately, but I still can't recommend anyone get a card with less than 16GB in 2023. Sadly, for Nvidia that means the 4080, which is a terrible value card.
last year i went from a 1070 to a 3060ti and i learned very fast that yes the gpu was faster but that same old 8GB of memory was still a HUGE set back , now i own a 7900XT 20GB and i couldnt be happier with it
@@drandy180 I don't if you can answer this, I'm looking to buy 3060 12GB but my processor is just ryzen 5 3400g with integrated graphics. Will it work? Or does it depend on the motherboard? I only have b450m mobo. Do I need to upgrade anything? my power supply is expensive tho.
@@CasualGamerist it will work but ur CPU will hold your system back slightly , something like a ryzen 5 5600x would match the 3060 perfectly and you wouldnt need to upgrade your motherboard because its still an AM4 CPU i hope this helps
@@drandy180 It really helped man! Thanks man. Long live. I'll upgrade again once I have the budget haha
@@CasualGamerist glad it worked out brother need anymore help u know where i am
Steve @HUB thinks that GPU's in 2023 over $500 should come with 16GB of VRAM and I agree with that and I think you do also! In the $300+ category minimum should be 12GB these days and 8GB should only be seen in the sub $250 range. It is true that 12GB is sufficient today but it is worrying that it already at the start of the gate 12GB is the minimum for certain games and settings. Historically the 70 class products from Nvidia offered last gens top performance at sub $500 and enabled you to play top settings or near top settings for at least 4 years. But this time around 12GB might already be obsolete for that level of gaming already in 2 years time and that is way too short of time for a card on this price level. It is this planned obsolescence from Nvidia that is Steve's main concern and complaint for these cards.
I think 12GB is fine for $500. $600 is pushing it a bit. $800 is just too much.
Completely agree. If you spend more than $500, it needs to have 16GB.
@@GraphicallyChallenged No, 500+ is 16gb no questions asked. If you go all the way back to 2008, every single generation the gpu with more vram aged better, period. Even those of us who upgrade every gen or every other gen tend to use the old gpu in a secondary pc or in a family members pc, so expecting 4+ years of service isn't unreasonable, 3070 is already basically useless outside of 1080p, the 690 only lasted about a year and a half, most of the 9 series cards had big vram issues the list goes on. Anything outside of a budget card, and welcome to the future, sub 500$ is budget now, needs to be able to compete.
@@GraphicallyChallengedI think 16GB is fine for 350. Which is what the competition is able to offer. Aging? The performance impacts of 12GB vs 16GB are already here this moment.
@@martinkrauser4029 its because Nvidia looked at the price of their current GPUs and said fuck it we offer a 3080 right now with only 10gb of vram and that thing is still selling at 800 to 900$ surely they will be excited to see a 4070 for 600$ and 12gb of vram with less power draw and often times matching the 3080 or beating it. the problem resides in that the pricing of the old cards and what they are currently selling for is way too high.
The VRAM panic was created by these GPU manufacturers
yeah no one should be panicking if only they moved on from 8gb, imagine a 4060 with decent specs and 12gb vram with 192bit and a pcie4×16
Ive got a 4060 ti with 8gb vram, does it really matter? I paid $450 for it@@curie1420
Well, there is a number of games like ratched&clank and cyberprank, in which modern gpus are fast enough but if you have less than 12gb you are screwed, the same thing will happen a few years from now when it will be 16
I don't see any "panic", opinions don't mean panic. It's not just about being able to play games, but investing in a product that is worth and lasts, specially considering the money. No, 12 GB is not enough for new cards, makes no sense, and again, it is not about games or settings, is more complex than that, it's about the overall product and price.
The 4070 ti is a couple hundred dollars more for 25% more performance over the 4070. If you ask me, the 4070 is pretty much just a rip-off if you're on 1440p and seeking longevity
Ratchet and Clank already uses 11GB of VRAM on my RX 6750XT maxed out with RT enabled at 1080p. So this will be the trend.
Cyberpunk in Overdrive uses 11 as well (2K res with dlss) but just look at it - pinaccle of lightning execution. it completely overhauls how the game looks. So i dont really understand why 12 is not enough for some games. i heard RE4 eats a lot more vram - for what? RT implementaion is below average. For unique textures? hmm, i think devs need to optimise more.
I that requested vram or used vram?
Garbage optimization by mediocre lazy developers, the trend definitely continued.
@@mikedergalevits just developers not optimizing their game properly and people not holding them accountable.
@@vegitohaze2081 Not necessarily, Ray Tracing BVH structure does use a lot of VRAM, specially on AMD hardware as it's a mechanism to minimize latency as compared to nVidia that has a more shallow BVH handle but with far more branches spread apart.
16GB is must on 1440p and up. 12gb is okay for 1080p.
💀
Nah bud💀
Bro was drink
If consoles use 12GB VRAM then youll be stuck with console textures/settings with a 4070(ti) which is a bad deal. Consoles don't have the horsepower to raytrace either, so yea 12GB is fine for 1440p medium or low settings with RT using DLSS or FSR. Not good enough for a $600-800 card
4070(Ti) actually outperforms current gen consoles in terms of visuals. For example, it can run RE4 Remake at the same res as consoles, but with significantly higher texture quality and/or higher quality effects. And it is also offering higher framerate and much better RT performance. Plus, you get DLSS and frame generation support. So this card outperforms consoles in every single aspect, although it does not really make 4070(Ti) a good value at $600($800). But at least you are paying more and getting more as well.
The Xbox series x actually has 16gb of vram I am pretty sure
Not necessarily. You also have system memory.
@@Swe3pe nope it's shared vram...just like PS5
@@Swe3pe It uses about 11-12gb of fast vram and 4-5gb of slower vram.
I say if you're the type to upgrade with each gen, yeah you should be fine. You'll also be fine if you never intent to use 4K and stick to 1440p, though I kinda question the need for such an overpowered GPU for 1440p.
Still I do think 12GB will be a problem in the near future, not much today but remember that we still have cross gen and UE5 is still coming. Both of these will mean a VRAM demand bump and we still don't fully know how bad it will be. I do think 12GB is now basically entry level and you should at least aim for 16GBs for a slight buffer.
12GB is not entry level lmao, both UE5 and Unity engines (so far) will have DLSS 3 built into the engine for developers to utilize. Maybe for 4K 12GB is entry level.
@@davekrebo7180 I haven't seen any evidence that DLSS 3 reduces VRAM load at all. Last time I saw Hardware Unboxed showed normal DLSS didn't either. Not to mention DLSS 3 excentuates stutters as DF showed in their early demos.
And sure for 1440p it may last 2 more years, but the modern consoles are 4K. Are we really buying a part to a computer worth more than a whole consoles for lower quality? Plus if you think 4K is still luxury, you can get 4K displays for dirt cheap now. I just bought a 4K TV for $300 and the 120hz monitors are down to less than $500: that's where 1440p was only 3 years ago. Sure there's people out there that don't fully care about quality, but then why would they need the newest GPU either? Resolution and texture quality are the most impactful features on image quality.
4070 is designed for solely for 1440p
@@Skylancer727 4K isn’t worth it imo for PC gaming the hardware costs are just too high right now, I’d rather game at 1440p UW high refresh 90+ FPS which is what I game on. Check out neural texture compression which they’re also working on to reduce vram demands, most of these cases are niche scenarios or the game is just not well optimized, the large majority of games don’t actually utilize near 12GB VRAM. A card having x amount of VRAM doesn’t future proof it or make it better by itself the card can still become too slow obviously. It’s all marketing imo, TLoU has already had tons of patches, a couple being bigger than full games, Forspoken is honestly a joke to use as any indicator, Hogwarts Legacy isn’t well optimized and generally favors AMD to begin with.
@@davekrebo7180 I think you're far underselling how powerful the hardware is. I used to game at 4K on a GTX 1080 and a 4070 is powerful enough to run everything maxed at over 80fps. If it weren't for the VRAM 4K would be a joke for it.
And neural compression is a pipe dream right now, we don't even know if the current hardware can even utilize it and it needs to be implemented into game engines. For reference, Direct Storage had been out since the launch of Windows 11, yet there's still only one game that supports it. And yes Windows 10 also supports it too. It takes time to add these features so that likely won't help out for another like 5 years, as of right now Nvidia just showed it off last month for the first time ever: it's a long ways off.
And the "unoptimized" argument is frankly over used. How come nearly every game to come out this year has had this issue? Not to mention games like Spiderman remastered even has issues not loading in textured with 12GB of VRAM. There's many cases not having enough VRAM may result in lower quality textures even without lowering the settings. I know games are really bad about not utilizing multicore like Hogwarts Legacy, but I don't think there's much you can do about compressing memory when the games have so many more assets on screen now. Even with great CPU utilization Spiderman Remaster was rough on the CPU power. That's just the state we're in as the consoles are so close to higher end systems so PCs just aren't getting as big a performance gap. Yes GPUs are incredibly strong on PC, but the CPUs are only marginally better and programming for more cores is hard. If your GPU isn't at over 90% your CPU is holding the game back. And the reason AMD has been better at many of these games is a mix of the more VRAM and lower CPU draw. The bloatware that comes with GeForce Experience like shadowplay, ansel, freestyle, and Nvidia's telemetry do take CPU power even when in the background. But I highly doubt Nvidia will ever fix that, it's been a known problem for at least 3 years now.
Nah man 8gb was standard when I was looking into getting a pc back in the 1080 days. Finally got a 3070ti back in November, and the fact that it has 8gb still is infuriating. Not to mention it has less vram than the 3060! I’m really hoping the battlemage cards are good, I’d love to jump ship.
That's why i got the 6700XT instead of the 3070
Same here and I've noticed games using a lot of VRAM with this card, can't imagine having less now.
This doesn't factor in that consoles have unified memory in the first place. Data in consoles is not duplicated as often as PC.
So that 12gb on console is simply not equal to 12gb on PC. That invalidates the argument alone, but there's more.
Consoles can access their ssds faster than PC can with less latency, again allowing them to use less VRAM. Remember the consoles were purposely designed to be as efficient as possible in this area, and PC just cannot match this over the physical distance and bus the data must travel.
PCs do not have these same tricks to pull. Direct Storage is neat, but still doesn't match the consoles.
More work has to be put into optimization, and publishers have already proven they simply don't want to do that. That's another issue, too. VRAM makes up for lazy studios.
Console has 16GB total. PC with a 4070 has 12GB VRAM plus potentially 64GB of RAM, so you should actually have waaaay more resources. It just comes down to optimization.
@@GraphicallyChallenged Game development doesn't work like that.......and while I agree games should be optimized, the reality is that studios won't do that for 2 systems, they go for consoles and also, it is normal that some games are not optimized. You just can't go with a tight fit, you need some room, specially for something new and expensive you are paying for that should last long and support mods.
@@GraphicallyChallenged That's the thing.
You just suggested using 64gb of RAM to match what a console with a quarter of that can do. PCs have to brute force these things. This doesn't just apply to RAM, but also VRAM.
And optimization is a huge problem. Publishers see PC as a distant secondary market for most games. Optimization requires time and money to do, and they frankly do not see this as a concern. They are willing to sacrifice PC sales to hit their console deadlines.
Consider that the PS5 SSD is like a giant pool of DDR2. Maybe not the fastest in the world, but it has super low latency that no PC can match. That includes Direct Storage. The PS5 can also call this straight into VRAM.
It is because of this design that the PS5 does not need to use as much VRAM as a PC. In the PS4 generation, games were designed with the idea of having 30 seconds worth of data in VRAM. But the new games on PS5 are designed with only 1 second of data in VRAM. Just think about that for a moment, they are targeting 1/30 the amount of time, yet they still expanded VRAM in the consoles to what they did. This is all because of how fast the data can be moved in and out of VRAM. It is not simply about pure VRAM numbers.
So it is only natural that a PC requires more data to replicate the results.
I strongly encourage you to watch the most recent developer interview that Moore's Law is Dead Tom had with a fellow from Infinity Ward.
ruclips.net/video/tmfHxJT1I3I/видео.html
They spend well over 30 minutes just talking about VRAM and how consoles are custom built to move data in ways that PC simply cannot match. They both agreed that VRAM requirements are going to keep going up.
They also discussed optimizations, and while the dev was trying to be as kind as he could about explaining it, you can tell he was saying that PC is a secondary concern for the publisher who calls the shots.
There are other dev interviews as well, like the ones where I got the 30 seconds of data in PS4 from.
I never suggested 64GB. I just pointed at that PC and console total ram is vastly different and it comes down to optimization, but I’d try to at least match console.
@@GraphicallyChallenged You wrote "potentially 64gb of RAM"?
At any rate, I'm not trying to be combative, just pointing out that it is premature to say 12gb is going to be alright.
Optimization is a growing problem that just keeps getting worse, not better. The PS5 is not Windows. It has sold more than twice as many units as Xbox. So publishers are targeting the PS5 first. We are seeing numerous ports where the Series X is performing worse than PS5, even though it shouldn't be. If they can't even bother optimizing for Xbox, what hope does PC have when PC ports get less resources than Xbox?
PC gamers just cannot trust the publishers to do that. They have to have better hardware to overcome poor optimization.
And games really have to be optimized for PC, because unlike previous generations, the PC platform is not on the same spec as the console when it comes to moving data in and out of memory. PC is behind. The PS4 was basically like a PC of its era, it didn't have special tricks. But the PS5 is not like a PC of this era. It is a different beast.
We will just have to see in a couple years. But as a gamer, I really hate it if I know my GPU can play a game, but lacks VRAM to play it as well as it should. I went through that with my old GTX 670 2gb back in the day, wishing I had got the 4gb model as the generation wore on.
Hopefully devs start programming in the future for direct storage which can fix some of the VRAM problems
Nope. 12GB is absolutely going to age like milk. Give it 3 years and 12GB is not going to be enough anymore.
If you are like me and run your hardware for as long as possible, which typically means 5-8 years, then 16GB is the bare minimum.
After 3 years, anything will begin to show its age and sacrifices in quality settings will need to be made
With the rate GPUs and software is increasing, upgrading will become a more often thing if you want to compete with the products out in the future, soon enough a brand GPU purchased will become obsolete in just 6 months but of course it depends on how much you care about that extra fps
Yeh if developers keep rushing out games without optimising them first.
at 1440p i dont see a 4070 struggling during its lifetime. At 4k maybe but if you are a serious 4k gamer you would have a 4k card, a 4080
3 years is exactly the lifespan where a graphic card have to lower settings because it can’t keep up
So, a 7900XT is likely to age better than a 4070Ti given that a 7900XT is cheaper than the 4070Ti in some markets.
@oyunbazincelemedeare you sure you didn't mix up the prices of 4070 vs 4070Ti. On Amazon US, The 4070Ti is on par with (in price) or higher than the 7900XT (which has gone up recently for some reason).
Whilst I do fully agree that 12gb is enough for the majority of games at 1440p at the moment, we do have to remember that many console games run under that resolution using DRS in order to achieve 60fps and often opt not to include raytracing or maximum settings in their console versions. If you are planning on running ultra settings and don't want to always rely on DLSS/FSR, 12gb really isn't enough going into the future. I would feel much safer getting a 6950xt over the 4070 for slightly more rasterization performance as well as increased VRAM. The 4070ti is definitely a pass for me when you can get a 7900xt for less money which even allows you to dabble in 4k.
12gb is fine up to 1440p. Maybe not for 4k. Same with the bus width. 192 is fine for 1440p, but not great for 4k. You cant base needs on a couple of poorly optimised games like Cyberpunk. Most of the latest games i play dont go past using 8gb (have a 4070). I cant imagine too many games being harder on the GPU than cyberpunk coming out any time soon. Some responsibility has to be on the game developers.
I agree
As someone who keeps their Gpu for about 5 years before upgrading, I have a strong opinion about this one...
2015 - gtx980 4gb -> "trust me bro youll never need more
Runs into vram issues when playing minecraft
2019 - 5700xt 8gb -> "trust me bro youll never need more"
Runs into vram issues at 1080p
2024 - xxx 12gb "trust me bro youll never need more"
Ive seen that one to many times next Gpu i buy has 16++GB!!!
No, 16gb should be the minimum now. Especially with the pricing.
Exactly. Spenidng 600$ on a gpu shouldn't make you think you can max out every game especially with ray tracing. When you're spending 800$+ like the 4070 ti is it makes it a horrible choice due to its vram.
I remember exactly when i started worrying about VRAM was when Gmod came out for half life 2 you could spawn as many npcs you wanted granted you had the VRAM. I had 500mb at the time, look how far weve come.
i ran resident evil 3 last night with rtx on, got it up to 19gb vram needed for all the bells and whistles. Looks great, but its a 4090, cost a heck of alot to get it here.
Allocated =\= used.
@@GraphicallyChallenged Bro, it doesn't matter, the game does require more, it was the worst performing game tested by Chris. Everyone has opinions, right? Consumers just had too much already and want to protect their wallets, that's all. IF you expend money, keeping some room is the best. I bought a RX 570 in 2019, chose the 8gb model and glad I did. There are so many things that require vram and will keep going up. I'm not saying buy 24gb cards, but for mid range? 16 is my recommendation. We might have different opinions because of different needs or ways to expend our money bro.
@@gamingtemplar9893 It does matter...especially if you are playig the game at 4k (which I would think you are having a 4090 and such). No way anyone who owns a 4070 will be playing that game at 4k with ray tracing. In fact, if they chose to use Ray tracing then i'm willing to bet it's likely they would use DLSS / FSR also. 12GB should be fine for 1440p in this scenario. Yes, more VRAM is ideal but it also isn't 100% required...at least not with todays games. Maybe once the new consoles drop it'll be an issue but the PS6 isn't supposed to come out till 2027.
Dude games will use more vram if they have it available even in some older games they will try to use as much as they can if it's available
@@pdmerritt dude 4070 is clearly marketed for 1440p gaming not 4k only the 4080 and 4090 are 4k cards duh
12GB is being surpassed now and you think itll hold up in 2 years? 4 years?
You cant compare console. PCs need more VRAM. Consoles use compressed assets and can access assets more efficiently.
You need more powerful PCs for a comparable experience. If you are spending $400 or more dont buy anyrhing with less than 16GB.
Lol 16 gb is so bad, and 24 is only a bit better. Only 48 gb of vram is worth
Delete this comment
$300-$500 12gb vram
$500-$800 16gb vram
anything above that 20-24-32gb vram
8gb can look amazing already. Just poor ports making it seem like games are vram hungry.
Look at rx 580 it’s not doing any better than 1060 6gb
So, if 12Gb is perfectly fine, why are the rumours starting about nVidia increasing the amount of VRAM on their cards starting. Surely this seems to say that even they think they need more VRAM on their cards?
No that's just bc people aren't buying because of it
6700xts and 6800xts should be flying off shelves.
its not because too many nvidiots buying into nvidias bullshit lol
Facts
mfg still dont't get it.. there were supposed to be price cuts for the rtx 4070.. instead they pushed out free content bundled with the cards! I guess it's going to take a $$$$$$$ MAJOR LO$$ $$$$$$$$ to make these companies see that they are on the losing side of this pricing power game
I keep seeing this stuff and honestly I think 12 GB is more than enough. All these testers will check and the games only get up to 8GB max from what I’ve seen. A lot of which only get up to about 4-6 and only adds about 1 GB if you go from 1080p to 1440p. Then the testers who see 2-6GB of vram usage are like “whatttt guys I expected way more this is crazy, oh but as you can see it’s not enough”
Its not the point of 12 Gb is "enough" its the fact that at the high prices of these cards one should expect at least 16Gb as a minimum in 2023. Not sure what reviews you have seen??? Every GPU reviewer is saying the same thing and if you did any research into the matter instead of calling BS every new AAA title which are mostly console ports use over 8Gb of vram at lower resolutions at even 1080p, because of the ever growing texture sizes as games get more and more realistic and not to mention ray tracing memory costs on top of that. The games are designed around 16Gb of shared ram, so when ported to PC obviously 8Gb is not enough.
Let's speak honestly: I won't need more than 1080p and 60fps for normal games, but I have a PCVR headset, will a 4070 Ti be enough? Keep in mind that I'm using a 2060 6GB since 2021 and still managed to decently play games like AC Valhalla, RDR2, Cyberpunk and Hogwarts Legacy (obviously with few optimizations and hybrid 1080p medium/high settings)
Anyone that says VRAM isn’t an issue to be worried about needs to quite literally throw the towel in and find a new career.
My 1080 Ti was $700 and has 11gb. A card that price nowadays should have a lot more than that. Disappointing....
Graphics cards will continue need more vram as games get better, soon the 12gb will become the new 8gb
"Better" I think you mean "less optimized" and "bloated"
Nvidia shills doing damage control as usual, claims getting bolder and dumber every generation
If you are on a 4k120 display, go for a 16GB 4070 ti super class card for future proofing. This is really for the edge case comming out , not today, the RTX Ray reconstruction with DLSS at 4K will run up against a 13 GB wall
Well when 1080 ti have 11GB 6 years ago you have have a problem here.
Waiting for the future when 1TB of VRAM is considered too little
I don't want to see that future.
@@Lynnfield3440 oh it will
@@gumi_twylit2605 no, I don't want to grow old. I honestly don't even want to see the day my 15 year old cpu stops going strong.
Settling for 20GB on the 7900xt
Just get a AMD card for half the price and the same performance with double the Vram if Nvidia won't play ball why should we?
12gb for 1080p, 16gb for 1440p, and 24gb for 4k. Thats the hard truth.
It costs next to nothing to add more ram they scamming. Not upgrading until a decently priced card with 16 gb comes out from nvidia. If nothing comes the next gen amd or maybe intel card is what i’ll be getting
Boycott until RTX4090 is $599
i got a 4070, and since i dont see myself dedicating most of the time to games in the near future i dont see this as a prob, i would have gotten a 7900xt but ive heard driver issues with the amd cards and idt i will be able to solve it since im switching from mac(3 years) to windows
Their driver issues are a thing of the past. And gpus are definitely the move if you need vram. My only problem is that and cards are geared more towards gaming while Nvidia is all around. I still do a bit of video editing and recording here and there. If the vram limitations get too bad I’m not buying another Nvidia card. They’d had to give me sloppy before I buy another card
I'm happy with my 16GB RX 7600 XT, I saw a huge difference when upgrading from my 8GB RTX 2060 Super (Aero ITX).
Sorry, I have a 4070 Ti and the 12GB is really annoying the F out of me. I'm right at the edge in a lot of cases. I need 16GB at minimum.
just buy the 6950xt, same price, far better performance and 16 gb of vram
Double the power consumption and no frame generation that boosts around 40fps, I hate Nvidia but what I said is true
@@Axairu undervolt 6950xt and if you are using frame gen then most likely you are also using ray tracing , and dlss at the same time all the stuff nvidia put into gpu is so that you can do ray tracing , which is not the priority for me atleast , 60fps at 1440p ultra is and 16gb ram keeps my mind at ease , not buying a 60 series card marketed as 70 series card at 80 series prices.
4070 should still have more vram bro you on nvidia s side?
Yeah I went for the 4070 after using a 3060 ti for a while and I haven't looked back tbh
I bought a 4070 ti just because the seller didn’t offer a 4070 at the momment (their offers are good in terms of price)
But wasnt their point future proofing beyond “near-future”?
Isn't 8GB vram good for 1080p if you don't play at max settings with is gine
what makes no sense is that they are going to make a special 4060ti with 16gb for 500$ but no word on them releasing another version of the 4070 or 4070ti with more vram.
I run a 3070 on both a G9 Neo 2x4k and vr headsets. People get caught up in stats instead of just enjoying.
And here i am with 6gb on my 2060
If you run large language models which get loaded onto GPU depends how much is there, if it's less than what's required to run it most automatically switch to CPU which eats RAM as well. Rather upgrading two components for no improvement i would prefer better GPU in this case. Production AI GPU starts with 24gb so for end user 16gb is what come into affordable range instead worst performance you will get at 8gb most of times or forced to run trimmed out version of your models in smaller size leading to accuracy loss.
Awful analysis of the current situation
Silly not to go with AMD. Screw ray tracing..
Everyone here is debating this using 4k and 1440p. Stating 4070 won’t be used for 4k but only 1440p anyways but this short clip here shows that hogwarts at 1080p is already using 13gb of vram. So regardless of the 4k 1440p arguement the 4070 at 1080p is already failing at 1 title that released before the 4070. So anyone in the comment defending the 4070 is really going to say it’s fine when it clearly shows that it ain’t in this same video?? Let’s be honest games are becoming way worse when it comes to optimization meaning reckless use of vram. 4070 is not even worth it at 1080p with its vram unless you play 2+ year old titles at that point stick with your 4070.
Hogwarts is really badly optimised. It may improve with patches later im thinking. It plays fine at 1440p on my 4070 though. Who cares if it uses all the ram if im getting 60+ frames at max settings? You dont need 100+ fps on a single player game.
@@dennisbradley5620 all games releasing are badly optimized. And it does matter to some, if anything it matters to most pc gamers because we build pc with the intentions of 120fps minimum at our desired resolution. If hogwarts is at 60fps for you can you imagine what next years games are going to do to that card? My hypothesis alongside many professional gpu reviewers are projecting mid to low 30fps. Remember it’s not what you can run now it’s what it can possibly run in the future
Hogwarts is one game. U can’t make assumptions based off of one outlier
i actually have a 4070. It slays cyberpunk and hogwarts at 1440p, smooth as butter. I dont see any games being more resource hungry than these 2 badly optimised titles that are also very detailed environments. Not during the life of the 4070 anyway. My next card will be either a 7070 or an intel card if they catch up by then.
@@louiloui4707 I can when most story based games realizing after with this amount of graphics and design is giving the same issue.
Gotta disagree dude. Last gen games didn't need as much ram at 1440P but next gen games, especially with the new Unreal 5 engine need a lot more ram. People will start hitting those 10-12gb limits. It's already happening with some newer games. AMD already started giving 16GB on the 6800XT last gen so.only giving 12GB on $800 Nvidia card is pathetic at this point.
If the developers can't get the games to run in 12GB or so then consoles wont be able to play the games either. They don't have 16GB of usable VRAM.
@@pdmerritt Console versions are defaulted to settings that such as dynamic resolutions and lower texture qualities. Yes these settings can be turned down on PC versions but why should you have to? If AMD can supply 16GB on average then there is no excuse for Nvidia, except to force obsolescence so people are forced to replaced their cards faster.
That is always their master plan. Shorting vram when the costs do not inflate the cards price as much as it use to is now a blatant cop out.
What people also forget is that AMD uses more vram than nvidia. So 10gb on AMD is like 8gb on nvidia. Its probably how drivers work.
The game uses the vram it needs , it has nothing to do with the brand of the graphic card.Amd is less greedy about the vram, that's it.
@@Hk-uw8my It's actually true that Nvidia cards uses Vram slightly more effective than AMD cards, but he greatly overastimated the difference. I's a couple of hundred Megabytes at worst, so it's more like 16GB RadeonVram equals 15,5GB Geforce Vram.
they are cutting the ram so you think you need DLSS and if you think you need DLSS then you won't be buying AMD cards
12gb in 1080p will be for 1080p only in maybe less then 2 years. 12gb can be gotten away with today in 1440p but many games are starting creap up on that. Some games already use 14gb of vram in 1440p. So in 2 years time 12gb will be for 1080p only. The 7800xt and 7900gre will age significantly better just like the 6800 aged significantly better then the 3070
Some games I've been playing have already come close to that 12gb limit though. Sure these are in 4k, but they were also released not long ago. Doesn't give me much confidence going forwards, especially with the prices you're paying for them...
I don't agree with the console argument. Give developers 16gig VRAM, they'll find a way to use it. And then there are PC games that are not on console and mods that will go beyond console as well. And then there will be new consoles, and who is to say you won't still be using the same graphic card then?
Laughs in 24gb XTX
Um RE2remake came out awhile ago at 21:9 1440p uses ~14Gb VRAM
I really believe that the rtx 5000 series’s will have a great vram upgrade so I’m going wait for those
They may have a vram balancing back to the Hiearchy the 30 series had with 2gb vrams at the helm. For instance
80 tier: 20gb vram or same vram as the tier below
60ti and 70 tier: 14-16-18gb of vram
60 tier: 12gb vram
50 tier: 8-12gb vram
Do you think they will have 3gb vrams of 4gb vrams for the 50 series or is this more realistic.
5 years ago, 6 was considered enough. Then 8. Now we are saying just a single generation later 8 gb is seeing major problems with new games but dont worry, 12 is enough. Im going to say no, 12 is not enough since we've already seen problems with some new games.
this didnt aged well
can't put a setting up higher because of lack of ram.
3060 can probably do that setting. lower specs. something pool i think. there is 3 settings that require lots of ram for doom eternal.
What is the better card for doom enteral now?
HUB's emphasis is that for good graphics _on any card_ you need good textures and for that you just need vram. A card will therefore age better if it has a good amount of vram.... So is 12GB enough? perhaps not.
Bro i am so confused between 6650xt 8gb and 3060 12gb, both come at exactly same price here, any tips?
Them: thinking 12 gb is low…
Me: having a 2gb GTX 760
what? there is plenty of games (especialy moded) that use more than 12GB of vram, and some that need more than 16GB.
Still just get the 6950xt if you don't care about ray tracing or power efficiency
You can undervolt the 6950xt though if you do care a bit about efficiency but still don't want a 4070 over a 6950xt
How much did nvidia give you
Ram going forward will be needed a lot more. So less ram will age badly. Imho. Do what you will. Standard on consoles is 12
7900xtx 24gVram
It’s partially game makers faults for making games sloppily that demand so much resources, but it’s mostly the GPU makers fault for making cards that have limited memory at every price range and over price the cards anyway! I could be less mad if it was a cost saving measure but memory in general is super cheap in 2023, unacceptable.
12gb is enough unless you are a ultra AAA interactive movie player. if you are an actual gamer you dont need more.
Nvidia forces poor gamers to buy 8GB shitty cards with software tweaks. Even Hogwarts Legacy had to optimise for Nvidia 8 GB. How many games in future would do that? Nvidia doesn't care about mid and low budget gamers.
These gamers don't care about themselves if they have no problem playing unoptimized games and blame it on the hardware so they can waste money to change it regularly. Is it normal for you to use more than 8gb for 1080p?
@@Hk-uw8my PlayStation is making 10 GB as standard. So all games may cross 8 GB in future. Secondly the games and updates to games are released without optimisation. If games didn't use more than 8 GB then 16 GB cards were useless for 1080 p. But this was never the case in past also.
@@akashc8550 16gb is actually useless for 1080p. There is hardware and there is its usage. Its just like 128gb of ram for computer,even though it exists but it is not useful as your logic would want so.
Unlike pcs, there is no playstation for 1080p , an another one for 1440 and one for 4k. A single console has to be able to effectively run games at playable framrates for all of these resolutions. So the 10-16gb actually make sense here.
But it doesn't for pc gamers who play on 1080p with a mid tier build. The lack of optimization is real , but why giving up about it and wasting money on pricy hardware , rather than having the intelligence to stop buying these unoptimized games ?
12gb will end up being good enough for half the amount of time that 8 gb has been due to the exponentially accelerating technology curve. In 2-3 years you will be forced into low settings with it.
20% more expensive 30% better performance, thats a good deal. Better price to performance
@@jordan-mn6yy the 3070 had a big problem with low vram which the 4070 fixed and you cant argue with better fps per doller. the superior option in my opoinun is rx 7900gre if you want a new gen card or a rx 6800xt used if you want to save money
This is a super bad take. Being a tech tuber you are outright going to influence purchases for GPU's here and going to set quite a few people up for failure. They don't get review samples or have other peoples money to spend when they hit that inevitable VRAM wall that DEVS INDUSTRY WIDE have made clear is coming soon.
Me with 1 gb vram 🍷🗿
Nobody is talking about how frame generation can use 2gb vram, so that 12gb is now a 10gb when it's turned on.
what about my 3080 10GB 😣
Bro just angered every amd user
I have 24GB of VRAM... how well will that age?
lol what just buy a 6800Xt over a 4070 makes zero sense
I got a 4080 super at first was wishing I had at least 20 but making out 1440p on any game some with ray tracing I’ve never even used more then 10 allocated 8-9 actual use games are optimized for consol next gen will probably have 16 so 16 is the sweet spot if u want at least 3-4 years out of gpu without dropping settings
12 GB VRAM is pushing it with max settings for a few games already I think this opinion is wrong.
As consumers, we should be expecting more from the likes of AMD, nVidia and Intel when it comes to ensuring we have enough VRAM to push higher resolutions.
Especially when the likes of 1440p, 4k and Ultrawide displays are becoming increasingly common in the PC gaming space.
AMD hit the nail on the head when it came to VRAM capacities with the 7000 series GPUs, but their lack of competitive pricing upon launch hamstrung them.
It’s crazy to me that we are still only on 12 as standard
When will we be getting 64 or more lol
This is bad advice. I trust what game developers are saying over this horse shit.
The new consoles are a huge improvement over the previous gen, and we are now starting to get games which are designed specifically to take advantage of the hardware on these modern consoles. These modern consoles have extremely fast SSDs which offer much faster loading speeds and latency than what can be achieved with a PC, and 16GB of GDDR6 RAM. The speed of these SSDs is similar to that of DDR3 RAM, allowing games to use the SSDs in ways that you would normally only use RAM for. They are able to take more load off of the GPU by leveraging these capabilities, so games are being developed to use Vram for a wider range of things than before, meaning that reducing texture quality can only help so much when trying to get a game to run well on A PC.
12GB will be manageable for a long time, but it will be less than ideal in an increasing number of games over the next three years. It would be fine for a card that's under 400, but the 4070 is a 600 dollar card.
The first mainstream 8GB cards were released NINE years ago, and the cheaper of those two (the RX 390) was only 330 USD at the time, which is equivalent to 425 USD today if you adjust for inflation. 12GB was already used on lower-mid-range cards from LAST generation. Vram costs AMD and Nvidia less than 4 dollars per GB. 12GB is no longer acceptable for a 600 dollar graphics card. Stop trying to make excuses for Nvidia.
I say the same thing and if you have $600 for a gpu, you better pick a 6950xt for $550