You're right it should be able to handle medium settings nothing being needed to turn down anymore since that's usually the price range for a 70 class card which is the medium class 80 class card should be able to handle high and then 90 class card handle enthusiast supreme ultra whatever you name it
There are $500+ cards that can't even turn on the Path Traced settings in Indiana Jones. Cards people paid $800-$1000 for in the last year or two that can't use it at all. They can't tweak settings to get it running well. The option is greyed out.
Realease 50 series with neural rendering, lock it for only 50 cards, realease a 5070 with 12gb vram and implement neural rendering in Indiana Jones to sell the 50 series, nice one Nvidia! I see what you doing, pay the devs to make the bad texture compression and then have the solution!
I think it will be amazing tech!! It will decrease the VRAM cost in the future and will allow devs to add more details. However, that doesn’t mean they should cheap out on VRAMs.
6800XT is a 16GB card so it has room to spread its wings, while 3080ti is struggling. If 3080ti would have 16GB VRAM we would get around 10 - 15 FPS more than this showing of 6800XT.
Spread what wings if 12gb aren't enough 2025 then 16gb won't be enough 2026 it is just like that It is just poor optimization 12gb is plenty Manufacturing VRAM is more complex and way more expensive than ddr ram with this stupid optimization we will need 24gb on avg consumer GPUS for future proof
And you'd lose 15 to 20 FPS on the RX 6800xt when you tried to use it with RT enabled. The game he was testing where it runs out of VRAM, are the ones with RT enabled. So you can take the 3080ti and run out of VRAM with RT enabled, and get lower FPS some of the time, or buy the 6800xt and ALWAYS get lower FPS with RT enabled.
And yet they are planning to release a 12GB VRAM card (RTX 5070) to the market in Q1~Q2 2025... If they really going to do that... Well, it's nothing more but planned obsolescence at it's finest.
Neural rendering will use less vram. How is no one getting this? They're doing that on purpose because vram is more expensive than letting AI take care of it. But for the end user what does it matter as long as what the eye sees is pleasing?
@@chrisking6695 Stop this nonsense! Nvidia already showed how stupid people are by buying their overpriced cards! The truth is Nvidia is screwing their customers right in front of them. They did this with the 3060 having 12GB but not the 3070. Then they did it again with the 4060 Ti with 16GB but not the 4070. Please stop defending the indefensible. At the price they're charging with, you know they should have 16GB now for their 70 class gpu's.
Great video! You did a wonderful job in showing VRAM limitations in these games. Indi is really crazy in terms of VRAM demands. It is definitely the most VRAM hungry game for now. I wanted share some thoughs, maybe it will be interesting for you. According to my experience, Nvidia improves memory management in their newer drivers. For example, back in summer 2023 I tried to test Ratchet & Clank game at 1440p, max settings (incl. all RT options) and my 12GB card did run out of VRAM (which really tanks framerate and frametime stability in this game). So I had to decrease some settings, to play it properly. But a couple of months later, when I installed a new GPU driver, I tried to test this game again and to my surprise it run perfectly fine at the same settings/resolution. I was really impressed. Enabling DLSS-FG though still did make my GPU run out of VRAM back then. But during my 3rd benchmark of this game in early 2024 I found out that now I can run this game at 1440p, max settings (w/ RT), DLSS-FG and get stable and high framerate w/o any significant issues. It was after I installed newer GPU driver again. These were not necessary the drivers released one right after the other. It was like a couple of version later, since usually I do not install every new GPU driver. But anyway, for me it is obvious, that newer NV drivers are more efficient in terms of VRAM usage. Same thing happened with another game - Horizon FW. Running through Fleet's End settlement at 4K, max settings was not possible before, as my card did run out of VRAM (and the result was pretty much the same as in your case with HZDR - lower framerate and stutters), but later, when I tested some newer driver, I realized that now it is possible to run this game at 4K and max settings. I wonder, if all this is connected to some new Nvidia feature, made to improve texture compression or is it something else. But it is really interesting to compare different things and come to conclusion that software can not only improve performance, but also decrease memory usage.
Thanks. Yea Ratchet and Clank was one of the first games I ran into VRAM issues with on my 3080Ti when it launched. I thought of adding it to the video but I haven't really looked at it recently.
@@CurtOntheRadio I was using version 1.922.0.0 - the latest one for that time. They only thing they added later was FSR 3.1 support and newer XESS version (no other major changes).
I spent a bit more time in Indiana Jones because it was one of the more interesting cases of running into VRAM limitations but I also wanted to show my process of elimination and how to tune a game if you encounter such issues. The VRAM topic is an interesting one though and I feel it makes for an interesting conversation to have but also put things to the test.
VRAM was so tight with my 4070 Ti for Full RT at 1440p that every time I loaded it, I did a clean system reboot, closed down everything in the system tray, closed down Steam, Epic Launcher, etc., to save a few hundred MB of VRAM. It made all the difference. I used DRS set to 60 FPS mostly. The texture pool is the main thing - I left everything else maxed out except the vegetation animation quality, and set texture pool size to medium. I think it's cool to have a "supreme" setting to have a massive texture pool that allows those with 24GB to 32GB of VRMA take advantage of it at 4K. Setting the pool size to medium doesn't make a big difference.
@@Rapunzel879 Between 12GB and 13GB. If drop Texture Pool Size to Very Ultra or Ultra 12GB should be enough for native 4K everything else maxed out (except for Full RT) like I show in the video. Other settings that effect VRAM slightly is also Shadow Quality or Hair Quality.
@@mosesdavid5536 it's basic ego. Spend hundreds of dollars on a very strong card, only to find out that card is not as almighty as you thought. So instead of swallowing your pride or playing something more optimized they decide to jump the ship onto the next one.
shouldn't a current and very expensive gpu be able to fully run current games on the resolution that gpu is marketed for? are we really gonna blame the consumers and tell them just lower your settings and not nvidia for not putting enough vram for the cards to work properly and as advertised?
@@metalface_villain Nobody is advertising you you will be able to max out settings with entry level. People who buy 4060 should blame themselves because amd gpus exist.
I've noticed over the years that some graphical settings give no real noticeable difference visually unless you squint, yet cost's aloooot performance. I dunno if thats bad optimization or it just truely requires that much power to render, but it just doesn't seem worth it for the visual differenc. Doing your own tweaking ingame definitely helps regardless of what hardware you're running
Yeah there is time. Presumably devs will also cut back a bit since they develop for consoles as a baseline and it seems the current consoles are here to stay for a little while longer.
Even so, the fact remains Nvidia is screwing with their customers by not putting the right amount of VRAM for their overpriced cards. The sad thing is that people are allowing it themselves. Look at the 3060 with 12GB but they didn't do that for the 3070. Then they did it again with the 4060 Ti with 16GB but not the 4070. When will people learn that unless they put a stop to this nonsense, Nvidia will just keep doing it.
Very good video. I hadnt had the time to test 30 series in Indiana Jones with path tracing and it's actually doing very well here! The PS games are quite VRAM heavy. On the 4070 Super I was able to run out of VRAM in Spider-Man Remastered when using RT + FG, Horizon Forbidden West, as well as Ratchet and Clank with RT, all at 1440p.
Very true the PS games have been quite VRAM hungry in general haven't they? You than have a game like Plague Tale Requiem which looks fantastic and doesn't use that much VRAM. Same with UE5 games.
Huh interesting. In my case, Ratchet and Clank with max RT is the only game that has VRAM spillover issue (using RTX 4070 at 1440p res). Never had issue with Horizon Forbidden West and Spider-Man Remastered.
@@ashralph9903Try it on Burning shores, that area is very vram hungry, even at 1080p i had to lower textures down to medium to avoid fps dropping on my 8gb gpu, other PS games that is also vram hungry is FF16 using medium textures at 1080p to avoid tanking performance.
@@tomthomas3499 they aren vram hungry, it`s just 8GB vram is such a silly, terribly small amount in year 2025... I had 8 GB vram on gtx 1070 back in 2016...
I've never heard anyone ever say vram makes cards faster, though I have heard people say they were dangerously close to running out of vram, which is a terrible issue.
I agree. I've been trying to show more content like that than just max everything out on a 4090 or 7900XTX. Some PC games have settings targeting future hardware too so they are scalable. It's one of the things many love about PC gaming. I show Indiana Jones here running at native 4K on a 4 year old 12GB card and it looks fantastic.
For 3080, which is an older gen i don't think lowering or tweaking settings would be an issue, the story is different if it's new gen card, if you already have to tweak some settings now at your targeted resolution, then it won't bode well for the card longevity.
Yeah, I had a 6900XT with 16 GB and had no issues with the games. In 2023, people already started crying about Last of Us. If you had enough VRAM, you had no issues at all. I didn’t want to go back to less than 16 GB, of course, so the 4080 was the only viable option as I finally wanted ray tracing power.
@@TheBottleneckedGamer I think 16GB VRAM will be fine minimum until next gen consoles. Then it may become a problem, but at that point, i will need to turn down the settings one way or another 😀
@@TheBottleneckedGamer the PC gaming VRAM issyue depends on consoles. Deverleopes make a game for consoles first, then port it to PC, even if they are to release the same day. If the next gen Playstation is 32 GB VRAM, then every multiplatform games will be designed FOR 32GB VRAM
It is interesting to see where the limit is, for these games using the 3080 ti. There are many details and I am sure the comment section is full of people pointing them out. I found Indiana Jones very interesting. But I think it would be interesting if you had spend more time investigating how the games looks at different settings. What are the compromises. What settings would play the game at? What looks better maxing texture quality settings out and what looks better maxing path tracing out?
To play without RT ? To play with blurry mess of TAA and ghosting horrible FSR ? You get what you pay for i guess. You can "play" games all right, never on highest settings in their full beauty
RT is useless land a waste of money I can’t tell any difference. Also TAA isn’t gpu specific it’s implemented within the game, you get it anyway no matter the card
@@professormean22 If you cant tell any difference with RT, no offense but you need to see an ophthalmologist bro. Same goes for DLAA/DLSS-Q moping the floor with TAA/FSR garbage 😁
I got stable ~100fps in CyberPunk with everything on ultra, maxed path tracing, dlss balanced and frame-gen on, on 5070Ti. What's so different in those new games? In cyberpunk frame-gen literally doubled FPS (as advertised), so why it doesn't work in the games you present?
I can tell you that is not the truth, unless you played on a low resolution. I played Cyberpunk maxed out and in Dogtown with full Path Tracing, and you hit the 16 GB VRAM. And you probably mean the 4070 Ti, which has only 12 GB. So even with Cyberpunk, VRAM is an issue, as it’s just simply how it is with path tracing.
Majority of gamers especially in 3rd world country are still using gtx 1060 or 1650 !!! Rtx 4070 4080 4090 are too expensive All games are fine with gtx 1060 except indiana jones Indiana jones is the gtx 1080 ti killer hahaha
I don't think I would go again below Ultra with the texture pool. I played Indiana Jones early on after release and had to tweak a lot to avoid running into VRAM issues with the 16 GB. I ended up with everything set to max and DLSS Performance with full ray tracing maxed out as well. Texture Pool, though, I had to set to only High, and especially in Sukothai, that led to quite some pop-in issues, which were very noticeable. On Texture Pool Ultra, after they patched it a bit, I didn't have that anymore and could run the game still on max in 4K. Frame generation you can forget, though. And if I go above DLSS Performance to Quality, for example, the FPS break down if not immediately, then after a short while. So it's really a shame that Nvidia with the 5080 again will only support 16 GB for now. We can speculate if they will add a super refresh with 24 GB when 3 GB GDDR is available, but you never know.
concidering that almost every next gen of nvidia graphics cards and that UE5 is adding new stuff, its understandable that the vram issue is getting worse if you try to keep using max graphics and want to stay like 1440 p. also the biggest problems comes with more tax heavy shaders which has been comfirmed multiple times. Also nvidia announced a new ai tech for blackwell gpus and real time raytracing for new games which is exciting but also pretty much worrying news since i know that all those new features will add more vram cost. even the new ai neural rendering will use more vram. not only that bad optimization leads to many people upgrading from 16 to 32 ram since most games use more vram and ram alltogether for more tax heavy scenarion. for example returnal, horizon forbidden west and indiana jones are unplayable with my 8gb vram and 16gb of system memory. but i cant deny that all those games even though i cant run them look gorgeus at max settings.
I understand your concern and I'd go as far as saying that the 8GB cards are having the worst time as far as VRAM if targeting 1440P. I can see that being a challenge to go around in a few of these VRAM hungry games.
Back till the 2020 years at least, the "recommended specs" were for running the games at the highest visual settings at 1080p, even higher at 1440p. From then on, the "recommended specs" have the bar lowered to medium settings only and at 1080p, non-native, with DLSS on.
Also yeah Plague Tale Requiem still not having FSR, just like Control. People made such a stink with Starfield not having DLSS, yet some games still don't even have FSR lol. Digital Foundry kinda lambasted AMD for it too, but they're colloquially known as Nvidia Foundry for a reason.
I want share my thoughts. I have rtx 3060ti g6x for 2y, it is only 8gb vram in 1440p, I have so much problem with vram in the games, Stalker 2 needs minimum 12gb vram to play, FG takes some vram, global illumination on high/epic takes more than 1gb+, and vram's more consuming in settlements, I can play Stalker 2 when I am outside any settlements, when I back and talk to npc, used stash etc suddenly I got 7fps due to vram. Some players with 12gb vram reported the same problem when they play at max with FG, it takes while but it is possible. I'm waiting for CES, I'm planning go for 16gb vram now, probably Radeon due to there is only 4070S in my budget but "only" 12gb vram, I want card for more years, and change when card can't. RT/PT and FG must have some free vram, Hardware Unboxed made video about how much vram we need 6months ago, We have more room with 12gb vram probably for next 2 years in 1440p but without mods, with using dlss/fsr depends on card we have, I didn't play Indiana, I don't want have problems, I wait for a new card. Good video. Greetings and sorry for my Eng, it is not my native.
Thanks for the comment. I agree must be tough with 3060Ti, 8GB cards do face a challenge at 1440P with some of the more recent games. It's true FG does need some additional ram and Stalker 2 in particular did have a memory leak issue I think. Not sure if it's been fixed. I was hoping to see a vram bump with the upcoming 5000 series cards, 12GB for 60class, 16GB for 70, and 20/24 for 80 class. They're also using GDDR7 which is new and expensive so not sure what the strategy is.
Stalker 2?I never saw more than 8.2gb usage and I play 1440p,some settings epic and some high,DLSS quality.FPS are 80-120 and in some rare situations does drop to 70 but yeah,didn't saw more than 8.2gb of usage.Its actually more often than not lover than 8gb. Your 7fps I was getting when game was released but back then I had 10700k and 3070ti,now its 9800x3d and 3080ti so I don't know why Im not getting 7 fps,because game was fixed or because of hardware and I tried FG for fun but game crashed and I don't need it so I don't know vram with FG on but it cant be 12gb
@@TerraWare Yep, but leaks show only 60Ti has 16gb, and 70Ti + 80 16gb, 70 "only" 12gb. As you said in video 16gb vram doesn't make faster card, but rather more stability, can sustain fps, can use some feature like FG, better textures and play at higher resolution if power is not so limited. RTX 3080ti you have is good card, even for next 2 years I think, only miss some feature like better RT/PT and FG and some new coming features from rtx 5000. I chose RTX 3060ti instead rx 6700/xt when I was buying my card, and 8gb vram make some game stuttering etc, but my friend with rx 6700xt can play in similar fps(these cards are very similar) but can use better textures, use FG without drops fps etc, it is example that 12gb vram make card lives longer, of course fps will down after next months in new games or not so much, but for 1080p, 1440p with FSR(which is so much bad vs DLSS) but should still play and waiting for new cards without worry as I am worry due to my limited 8gb vram.
@@BladeRunner031 I play Stalker 2 until v1.1.3, at 1.1.3 still dropping to about 7fps(I uninstalled a game in this situation, waiting for new gpu, but I know this game need much better cpu I have). I have Ryzen 5600x, b450, 32gb ram 3600mhz cl18 and KFA2 rtx 3060ti gddr6x. This drop occurred only in settlements, outside I can play more than 1-2-3h without problems but only back to settlements I got 7fps, sometimes not, but this it still possible even on newest version of game. I have only discord(without hardware acceleration), hwinfo, msi afterburner in background and of course steam. This 7fps was during using FG probably in this game I cannot use FG. If you look at game settings there is a info about allocation vram in the game, this show me only 6.9GB, I got drop 7fps when was 7.3GB... so rest of vram are allocated in somewhere. I got the same problem in Cyberpunk, used RT medium(lightning medium, ultra was killing my fps), dlss balance/quality mix settings high/ultra, I didn't know then is cause by vram, I sent email to CDP(I am Polish) and Stalker 2 is 2nd game when I got this too much, too often and stuttering is killing my experience in the game. I didn't play Horizon FW and other games from PS5, I have PS5 so I played without problem on my console, I played only 2 games from Sony, Days Gone and Death Stranding- on gtx 1660ti few years ago, it was when I had PS4 slim, so game on PC was better. This is screenshot from Rostock in Stalker 2 on newest version. You see power 78W, temp 49C gpu, 62C hotspot, 0.9v= is uv, 7260mb vram, CPU looks ok- deafult/auto in bios. i.imgur.com/UKL2Hqh.jpeg This is outside near Rostock, settings is mix from low-high DLSS balance, shadows and global illumination medium it must be medium on 8gb vram, and using FG FSR in game. I said I can play normally outside, for my setup I like it what I have but inside settlements in game suddenly pop up vram to higher and causing stutter and drop fps- not often but more chance after couple of minutes, 30min or 1-2h+ i.imgur.com/KfGD65n.jpeg I found old screenshot from older version, outside, more than 7.4gb vram but playable, there wasn't problem with drop, but only go to settlements, selling some trash, talking to npc, put some items to stash, spending too much time in settlements I got 7fps, and I must restart the game, sometimes fixed by change dlss, or resolution. i.imgur.com/Vjh9Cpe.jpeg edit: like before sorry for any mistakes in my english, but I am sure you can understand.
Got 12 Gigs of VRAM since 2021 and could play just perfectly fine in 1440p Ultra RT off...but my next GPU in around a year should have at least 16 Gigs for sure
Obviously not enough 12gb, for everything set to max in 1440p or 4k u need at least 16gb, im playing indiana jones in 2k all maxed settings and go over 15 gb vram... i ise Fg, and dlss to quality. I will avoid 12 gb cards if play in 2k
I appreciate the video. I don't think most people that complain about low vram are saying 12gb isn't enough in 2024, they're saying it should be the bare minimum. Can you really justify a 5060 with 8gb of vram when just about every game you've shown was trying to use at least 8gb of vram? If a 5060 has the horsepower of a 4070 but is kneecapped by low vram that's kind of lame. Then you have a 5070 with 12gb which should be able to run current games at 4k max settings path tracing adequately, but you've already demonstrated a few games that use more than 12gb at those settings... so what's that say for games coming out in 2025 and 2026? Then you have a possibly $1500 5080 releasing with only 16gb? 16gb will be fine for the next couple of years, probably, but a $1500 card should last at least 5 years. It will have the power, but full path tracing games @4k 4 years from now are almost certainly going to exceed 16gb of vram if they're starting to get to the 15gb range today. It's just frustrating that in all of these will run into circumstances where you have a card that can push way more performance but due to vram limits you'll need to turn down settings. But the problems aren't going to happen at launch, they'll happen a couple years later, well after all of the good launch reviews and right about when nvidia is about to launch their next series of GPUs. Just feels like planned obsolescence, especially being due for another generation of consoles not too far from now that have the potential to push vram usage up a tier across the board.
Yep, 8GB is not adequate anymore. I think he did a good job of showing that 12GB is on the margin, but still adequate for a great gaming experience if you tweak down a couple of settings. Not saying you should have to do that, but that if you do, there is very little difference (if any) in the enjoyment you get. As for the 5080 with only 16GB of VRAM, again it will be on the margins... great for maxing out 1440p with path tracing, but with 4K path tracing you might be looking at DLSS balanced or performance (or just high textures) to free up VRAM in some games - however you might still need the upscaling anyway to get sufficient FPS, so it might often be a moot point. Personally, I will be getting a 5080 and like with my 4070 ti I am going in with my eyes wide open about the borderline nature of the VRAM buffer. The 4070 ti experience was exactly what I expected and I only had to compromise in a couple of games in 2 years. I know I will occasionally need to tweak down with 5080 also, but knowing it won't affect my enjoyment. I'm at a stage of life where I can afford to upgrade each generation, so I'll probably get a 6080 with 20GB or whatever in 2 years time.
Oh I'm not defending cards releasing with less vram than they should. I'd like to see 12Gb 60 class, 16GB 70 class and 20G minimum 80 class. 8GB is fine for 50 class maybe. The point was simply to actually put things to the test.
It's insane to think that we got 8GB on GTX 1070/1080 in 2016. Which was very affordable cards. They aged really well. And today you have to pay premium price just to get 12GB on a Nvidia card. Almost 9 years after the GTX 1070/1080s was released. And from the looks of it they are doing the same with the RTX 5000 series. Insane. I have 3 computers using RX 6700 XT, 7700 XT and a 7800 XT. All 3 I got for sensible prices.
"I don't think most people that complain about low vram are saying 12gb isn't enough in 2024, they're saying it should be the bare minimum." Then they can pay for it. It's not complicated, is it? And if they can't or won't pay.....then they can't have it. That's not complicated either, is it?
@@TerraWare "Should"? That's just silly. Price/budget is the determining factor - that's why there is a range of prices, right? People make choices based on their budget, mostly? Obviously NV could provide more VRAM - at a higher price. They already do. So what is the use of saying "should"? How does that even factor? NV make the choice of various specs at different price points. That's the offer. You can wish it were different but you can't say it "should" be. Why such entitlement? At whose cost?
last month I had a choice between a used 3090 or a 4070 they cost the same and perform the same, glad I went with the 3090 wow I cant believe even 12GB is close to max out now.
When it comes to using DLSS and resolutions. I would argue people should be running at there monitors resolution. And then use DLSS and FSR settings to increase FPS, by having the game render at a lower resolution. I get why it is interesting from a performance standpoint. But I think a lot of people are confused. If you have a 4k monitor I don't think you should be running games at 1440p if DLSS, FSR or some other upscaler is available.
@TerraWare yeah pg32ucdp. I figured since I can't upgrade my system anytime soon (summer earliest) I'll at least have a monitor for when I do finally get my hands on a 5090 🤣 Also I have an Xbox series x so
Honestly I can't be bothered with Indiana Jones until it at least gets Ray Reconstruction I really don't think all the vram demands are necessary, even tho i'm worried about 16GB at 4K I don't think it should be going over 16GB just yet I don't mind texture pools being bigger for 24GB GPUs at all as an extra setting, but it just feels like it's been all chucked together when you gotta go down so many notches and then can't even use FG on top Hopefully this is a one off game No VRAM usage bar bottom right and the vram can actually go up after a while when playing
Honestly I was waiting on Ray Reconstruction as well to keep playing. It's most definitely one of the most VRAM hungry games I have played, interesting to see what Doom Dark Ages is like. Lowering Texture Pool Size to Very Ultra or Ultra isn't enough? It's quite the pickle isn't it. PT can cost more VRAM and Nvidia can be stingy with VRAM, especially in the low end and they don't have competition when it comes to PT.
@@TerraWare Yeah agree with all of that Nvidia GPUs are really fast, the 3080Ti does really well but obviously would have been better if the extra vram for ppl who want to run the higher settings All comes down to what expectations you have of course Indiana was just quite frustrating for me at the start, because it kept resetting my overclock also which no other game does when trying out settings, some games just change your settings like you've said which would be better It's ok now I know what settings are ok on the 4080 Super but defo waiting until RR is on the game lol
Very good video Terra👍 I guess it really once again depends on the User For someone like me 12GB is nowhere near enough, if you don't mind having to knockdown settings etc of course you can make 12GB enough & really it's all subjective For me at 4K I just actually decided to go DLSS performance when I need too, rather than turn down detail settings and then I keep everything else maxed out At 4K the only difference I see usually is a few little more shimmers here and then but if i'm not looking for it and being very picky it's like 1-2% worse overall with DLSS when comparing to DLSS Quality In some games i'm actually struggling to see any difference also For me the Pros of using DLSS performance far outweigh the negatives & that actually uses less vram using DLSS performance Ultra performance actually is horrible however 🤣I can never recommend that
Yeah, 4K DLSS performance is usually very good, very crisp. That's what I have it set to in Silent Hill 2 and it looks great. I can max out everything at 4K with my 4070 Ti and 12GB VRAM is plenty. Indiana Jones is a different story, though, but still got a decent Full RT experience at 1440p.
@@larkinc Yeah on Silent Hill 2 as hard as I tried, I couldn't tell a difference between DLSS Quality or DLSS performance So really you may as well just get the extra frames & I think on all the versions of DLSS 3.5 & above it's even harder to notice any difference between all 3 modes Quality-performance DLSS is what I liked most about Nvidia after testing for months Tbh Black Myth actually uses 3.1 DLSS and that looked good also between balanced and performance I did update the files on that to 3.7, but Wukong seems to have some visual bugs when updating the DLSS file... so I wouldn't recommend doing that, just leave it at 3.1 and it's good enough anyway The visual bugs were the grass wasn't loading properly and looked very bad in the desert parts with 3.7 lol, that's why it's best when Devs implement DLSS usually
Sure it depends on the user. Point of the video was primarily to see what is possible with 12GB and even at 4K it will do the overwhelming majority of the titles out there just fine and the limiting factor will be the silicon itself. I'll make sure to test the new stuff and point out any issues as they arise and go over them. It's also to raise some awareness and people to be better informed with actual proof of testing the games. I hear narratives that 16Gb card is a 1440P card and that is simply a provable lie. Even my 6800XT can do 4K just fine. I made a 1 hour long video a few months ago testing 23 AAA games at 4K. There will always be outlier games, be it high vram usage, high CPU usage etc. Games that would cripple a 4090, 7900XTX or a 5090. You will have to make some sort of adjustment depending on how far devs want to push things especially when they add features with future hardware in mind. On PC it's always been this way due to the nature of the platform being as open as it is. When I see people framing devs pushing the medium forward on PC with graphics and technologies as a bad thing because you can't max everything out it's just a weird theory to sell to people, at least imo. Now this conversation tends to lead to people jumping into the brand wars nonsense, which I have zero interest to engage in but to entertain it for a minute do I think a 5070 having 12GB VRAM to be a good thing? No of course not. I'd like to see 12GB on 60 class, 16 on 70 and 20 or 24GB on 80 class. What better way to show people though by putting things to the test and let them decide. That's my logic behind it.
@@TerraWare Yeah I totally understand the message of the video I understand you give balanced views as always & think the video was very good For me my mind still won't change that I think for a 4K GPU going fwd... the vram should be 20GB - 24GB 16GB is probably still enough for majority of games but imho a 5080 deserves more vram especially for the price it's going to be The 3000 series was a lot worse for longevity however so least the vram is a bit better below the 90 class I mean if the 5090 gets 32GB I think it's not right that the 80 series only gets 16GB, which is why I won't likely be buying one & reckon I'll wait for a Super version to see if it gets a bump up in vram Maybe if I sold my 4080 super and made a profit, I could do that since only got it for £500 but really I know i'd prefer the Super Anyway not everyone thinks like me Lastly yup 8GB GPUs should be forgotten, for me 12GB is the new entry level
@@TerraWare Also I don't mind Devs pushing tech, but for me when I'm seeing native fps get worse then I start to question some of them. Bringing a 4090 to its knees below 60fps at native It needs to be done correctly & as I say I'm not a fan of the Indiana Jones settings myself Supreme, very Ultra or Ultra doesn't make much sense to me. All you need is Supreme for say 24GB and then Ultra for 16GB or below, High for 12GB or below, Very Ultra is stupid I think Surely it just needs to allocate vram better & then if it overspills the engine should just change the settings that's too much, then it's logical. Also the FG needs to also have enough headroom to run without breaking into further vram issues in each pool size That's another major issue that massively annoyed me, I remember just thinking it's a headache idk lol Yes I like the options for PC in general but it's also about it being a more User friendly experience Some PC gamers are more uneducated about this and actually lots just refunded the game because of the settings stuff I saw Hopefully Machine games improve that side of it Square Enix actually said on Forspoken patch notes ages ago after release, highest texture size was for 16GB or more with their pools, that's the way to do it then ppl know where they stand, I remember when I had my 3070 I had issues with that game But at least I didn't waste lots of time at launch and knew which setting was the issue first off Another thing, Actually UE5 is a great engine but lots of these Devs don't know how to fully optimise it I'm told I keep being told this Guess all we can hope is they get better at it, because you want games that run better especially, if it's running worse on the high end GPUs then it only gets worse on the lower end
I recently played Last of us Part 1 again at 2160p with DLSS Quality. I feel texturing quality is actually better than Indiana Jones (IJ) and it uses less VRAM, although lighting is better in (IJ). If I play IJ on my 4070ti at 1440p DLAA I am using all of my VRAM. So I feel the developers can definitely optimise the VRAM usage like naughty dog did for last of us Part 1. We all remember that game when it came out. The fact is I can't use DLSS frame generation at 1440p DLSS quality(max settings, no path tracing) on this card in the IJ game is really annoying as I already get the itch to upgrade...
I did the same with my 7800XT and everything went well but because my 7800XT does no path tracing in Indiana Jones it's not available so it;s hard to judge my 4070 ti against it even though the 7800XT has 16 GB of Vram that being said i cranked up the settings in 4K and most of the time got 60fps so good.
Even if PT settings were available the performance on the 7800XT would be so bad don't think it would be worth it. I've tested PT in pretty much all games that have it on my 7900XTX and I always came to the conclusion that its just not worth it because its so taxing on Radeon you have to use extreme upscaling that degrades the image so much the game looks much worse than it would if you just didn't use PT and play to the cards strengths. IMO anyway.
12GB of VRAM with 16GB of DRAM will have problems. Note that DRAM usage is very high in several games. Another thing when using RT+DLSS with FG in the case of RTX 4000, VRAM usage increases a lot.
Yes very true. I did mention that in Indiana Jones but my 3080Ti cant use DLSS FG so. But if that did put you over the threshold than you'd have to either not use it or make other setting sacrifices. I have a 4090 too, I rarely use FG personally but yeah it is a factor.
The biggest problem with VRAM is expecting to run pc exclusive features on cards closer to the bottom than top. 8GB doesn't have future in AAA, but if somebody aims console graphics, 12GB should last him for a while. Aiming stuff for highend cards like ray tracing and frame generation is aiming for the biggest VRAM hogs meant to sell these cards. And long gone are the times when cheap 1060 on it's launch used to max out games thanks to being not that much slower than previous highend and awful graphical stagnation of 2010's which ray tracing ended.
I have a 3070 ti with 8 Gb RAM, and can still play any game on 1440p . All you have to do is not play on ultra settings . Even the new Path of exile 2 game doesn't use 8 GB will everything on max .. Ok sure , Ray tracing is a different story....but tbh I never turn that on since it doesn't enhance my enjoyment of a game
I have a 3060 12gb and for the performance of that card i think 12gb is a good match there are games that i can get above 8gb and have decent performance. So faster cards should have at least 12gb or more in my opinion. I do think 12gb give enough options to tune a game without very visible sacrificies.
When testing wukong you say using DLSS lower then 80 will degrade image. I have 4k screen and Im often using DLSS balanced or even performance and image still looks really good in many games, I barely can tell difference compared to native to be honest. I`m playing silent hill 2 and I much prefer dlss performance plus full RT versus DLSS quality without full RT... Depends on the game I suppose, I didn't test wukong but it`s more of an action game in comparison so I might prefer higher fps.
I didn't say going lower than 80 DLSS would degrade image quality, although I suppose that is technically true. I said it was higher than DLSS Quality which is 67%. DLSS Q, even B works pretty good in Wukong.
I have the same sistem as you and I will not burn my money for any gpu that have less than 20gb for the future and even that GPU will need to be priced something normal
It's hard to predict the future but I think it will be fine, you may run into a game or two like Indiana Jones for example that runs into vram bottleneck at 4K max settings path tracing and FG on at the same time, which can easily be remedied btw by lowering texture pool size. As for UE5 games I think 16Gb is plenty for 4K, even 12GB actually which I show in this video with two recent examples. That said though I do think 16GB vram is a bit stingy for next gen 80 class card. I need to see more or ideally test the card myself before passing judgement on buss width and mem speed, we don't know how much L2 cache is in these cards which makes a pretty big difference. I don't like to assume in general which is why I don't pay much attention to leaks lol or discuss them.
You ask about "most games", so for that I think the answer is yes rather than a blunt no. Even where you run out, 16GB will still get you a great 4K experience by dialling back a couple of settings a notch - or max out 1440p (which still looks great on my large screen OLED TV from a few feet away, by the way). The console generations dictate some of the VRAM requirements. The PS6, next XBOX is at least 2 or 3 years away, so I don't see a major increase in VRAM requirements in that timeframe. The bandwidth will definitely be enough, close to 4090 levels. It will be similar to how well 12GB did in the last 2 years at 1440p - it was almost always fine except for a small number of games where you had to dial back settings a small bit. 20GB would have been the sweet spot, but for me 16GB isn't a deal breaker. Not saying I like it, just that you'll still have a great experience if you just forget how much you paid for it (assuming you can afford it)!!!
But the costs are higher than just the physical parts and the design implications can cascade through the entire offering. Anyway, folks already complain about the price and you want to add even more to it. Price matters, especially at the budget /entry level.
its not a vram bottleneck on Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered when using frame gen its an optimization problem frame gen is just not optimized well here as you can clearly see his allocated vram is 10.7 gigs and utilized vram is at 9.5 gigs at max settings with 4k DLSS set to Quality as rtx 3080 ti has 12 gigs of vram.
Nvidia does not want us to play 4K with 4070 TI. Although the card's power is capable of doing this, it limits the VRAM card by playing. NVIDIA is really hostile to the user in this regard. I hope it finds its end.
Interesting. I tried to play HZD Remastered briefly on my 4070 Ti at 4K/Maxed out + DLSS Quality + FSR-FG. I was getting 90-100 fps w/o any stutters, while running through Meridian city (which is the most VRAM hungry location in the game) for a few minutes. With DLSS-FG though my card do run out of VRAM, which is not surprising, taking into account the fact that DLSS-FG uses quite a bit more VRAM than FSR-FG. Looks like you did not relaunched the game after enabling FSR-FG. Maybe this is the reason why 3080 Ti runs out of VRAM? Or maybe this card is simply a bit less efficient in terms of VRAM usage than 4070 Ti?
You need to play for more than few minutes Thats the problem. Watch hardware unboxed how they test for vram limits. Too fully saturate vram u need to swap location bam ur stuttering like crazy..
@@gaav87 Yeah, traveling and also swapping DLSS Settings, turning FG off and on. OP's right though as far as after dialing your settings it's best to restart and see how it works out.
@@gaav87 It depends on a certain game. HZD, in particular, fills VRAM immidiately and then dynamically changes allocated memory capacity, depending on where the protagonist is. Meridian is the most VRAM hungry location in this game in my experience, so if a card does not run out of VRAM here, it will be fine in any other part of the game. I was surprised that DLSS-FG consumes a lot more VRAM in this game, than FSR-FG. Usually the difference is about 300-500 MB, but here it is more like 1GB. But since FSR-FG provides significantly higher framerate in this case, I do not see any reason to use DLSS-FG.
@@stangamer1151 Interesting. I didn't know DLSS FG consumed that much more vram than FSR FG in this game. I agree though FSR FG is pretty good. I feel AMD knocked it out of the park with that one. You could get even more FPS on a Radeon card, which you can see the 6800XT in my video catch up by quite a bit to the 3080Ti when both using FSR FG
@@TerraWare I have a feeling, that DLSS-FG does not work correctly in some recent games. I remember back when this tech was released it was increasing framerate by 50-80%, in games like Cyberpunk, Alan Wake 2, Witcher 3, A Plague Tale 2, etc. But later framerate boost, provided by DLSS-FG, decerased down to just +20-35%. I remember Jensen was talking about "doubling your framerate" back in 2022. And now we barely get 1/4 more frames. Digital Foudry were confirming that FG should almost double framerates, since it basically interpolates a new frame between two existing ones. This process takes a small portion of time, but it is insignificant. So, for example, 70 fps should turn into ~120 fps. But nowadays 70 fps turn into just ~85 fps and input lag significantly increases, since the game itself renders at roughly half the framerate (~43 fps). Meaning using FG does not make sence at all in these conditions.
i'm on a 4080 super, in 4k there are quite a few games that go well over 12GB. 4k should be standard by now. AMD knew this and stacked their mid teir and up video cards accordingly. while nvidia has put that heavily price premium on 4k gaming. in 2020 4k was well on it's way to being standard . streaming services were still offering 4k at no extra charge , video cards taht cost 400-600 could hit 4k easily. onlyt eh consoles were behind ... then 4k blu ray player amnufactures started discontinuing players and some stopped production all together , right before the covid shut downs happened .. it was such odd timing since every one started hitting streaming and befroe covid was over streaming sevices made 4k a seperate teir in payment. and 400-600 dollar video cards started not being enough for 4k gaming. also i hate the fact that there are games in today's world than can bring a 1000-2000 dollar video card to it's knees still. seriously just screw you game devs.
for me just one stick of 32 gigs of ram and a decent to close to high end aka mid tiered gpu and cpu cna get you very far in modern gmaes in 2025 give or take
16 gigs is solid enough to buy another 4 years. Forbidden west on pc is VERY hungry for vram, I’ve seen it crack 13-14 gigs on my 6900xt. Stalker 2 is hungry also meanwhile we were told UE5 would solve that issue LOL. Ok.
Guys i maybe stupid but why the new games vram usage is going up if we are using the same resolution 😅 I am playing monster hunter world on 4k highest setting and its only using around 7GB vram
at windows: 6gb light 1080p - 12gb heavy 1080p gaming, 10gb light 1440p - 18gb heavy 1440p gaming, 12gb light 4k -22gb heavy 4k gaming. at Linux: 3gb light 1080p - 6gb heavy 1080p gaming, 5gb light 1440p - 7,2gb heavy 1440p gaming, (sorry at linux i had never a 1440p game who needs more then 7,2gb vram and i play cp2077+pl at ultra+rt-ultra and play modded with more effects then normal i cant max out the game anymore i know i can with PT full but my amd 6000series card cant use it) 8gb light 4k - 16gb heavy 4k gaming. (i think, sorry i have not all games but at i never reached over 7,9gb vram) linux uses PC resources better then windows btw. i use a gaming optimized distro of arch linux (it gives my hardware a pretty good boost) sorry windows i know you have not anything like this...thats why i go befor 1,5years to linux 😜. at first: i have my pc for light gaming till mid gaming (mid gaming is for me games like cp2077 starfield and all ps5 and ps5pro games) and hard rendering at programms so its not for gaming only. (at 90% of pc times i work with it or make my songs/videos for my yt channel and 10% of it gaming). i used rt only for the testings normal i play without rt it gives no benefit in games for me (i dont think it looks better, mosttime it looks more ugly because without pt its only in my eyes a fail and it gives enought games with good graphics without RT and PT)
Nvidia just had one job putting 16gb on the 5070 but they wont but 16gb on the 5080 is outrageous especially because this cards will be more expensive.
Not even 16GB is enough for some games at 4k. We need 24GB to play everything on pc to date, on max settings in this generation of games. I don't know what NVidia is playing at with their 16gb.
As a big fan of gaming laptops, RIP to people who get mobile RTX 50 series cards. 5070 mobile has 8GB in 2025 😂. Got a Radeon RX 7900M with 16GB so should be ok for a while.
Ok, im not excuskng Nvidia for holding back the vram....when has a 60 series card ever had enough ram to run the newest AAA games on highest settings in 1440p or 4k?
That doesn't sound right. I never saw actual use go beyond 10GB playing at 4K on my 4090. Maybe there's later levels that are more taxing but for VRAM use to change that drastically in a game that 16GB runs into issues at 1440P I've never seen that before.
5 years later the 5070 12gb will be Ewaste, nvidia is artifically making gamers buy newer gpus more often, for this reason and their astronomical prices i am switching to amd
Wasn't even enough in 2023. My 3080 shit the bed because of Residenf Evil 4 so I have to get a 4080, and now the 4080 shit the bed because of Indiana Jones. This is FUCKING REDICULOUS.
Your more than good brother. I have a 7900 XTX and a 5950x and it optimized my settings to 4k Ultra setting going over 60FPS easily so yeah brother you are good.
You are fine for all 4K gaming..... except Path Tracing. That's a deal breaker for me, personally. The thought of some advanced settings being more or less unavailable to me would just have me regretting my purchase, because I value PT/Full RT so highly. Everyone's priorities are different, though. 2 of my favourite games of the last couple of years were Indiana Jones and Alan Wake 2 and the Full RT made those experiences more immersive for me. But I do envy the 24GB of VRAM - it does mean I have to make some (minor) compromises you don't.
Worth noting that often the highest texture settings have no positive impact on image quality, and can actually damage performance (obviously) or image quality (low resolution textures because a lot of the VRAM is eaten up by raw textures, for instance)
I could but 16GB is plenty for 1440P and 4K. Wouldn't make for an interesting video, it would be basically just a GPU benchmark. I also only have a 6800XT as a 16GB card. Only game I know that can run into VRAM issues with 16GB is Indiana Jones at 4K with max path tracing and frame generation, which can be remedied by just knocking Texture Pool Size down to Very Ultra or Ultra from Supreme. If you have a 16GB card you are fine. You'll be limited by your GPU silicon way before VRAM
@@Joshda039 If you're interested I did a pretty beefy video testing 23 AAA games on the 6800XT at 4K a few months ago. It's more or less what you're asking for. Here's link ruclips.net/video/TrSZblz8tQ0/видео.htmlsi=VrqPEo142R_rieEm
Resident evil all Ratchet and clank. Tlou I Jedi survivor Forza horizon 4, 5. Doom eternal. Wolfenstein Avatar Alan wake 2 Dragons dogma 2 God of war 18 и Ragnarok Hitman 3 Cyberpunk, dls. Halo infinite
Years ago.. My favourite game to play was Far Cry 5 single player arcade with user created maps at 4k with all settings turned up. On some maps, my 3080 10gb fps would drop like a rock when it ran out of vram. I then got a 3090 which isn't a lot faster, maybe 15% on average and the fps would stay constant because of the 24gb of vram. Side note: The 4090 I now have can play those same single player 4k maps and stay at a locked 120fps while even gpu mining. (It mines a lot less while playing games.) That shows what improved architecture while having lots of vram does.
@TerraWare I played it recently on my XTX / 13700 and the stutter was still bad. Refunded it. Shame as its a great game and the ps5 performance mode looks primitive in comparison.
We shouldnt be turning down textures on GPUs that cost more than $500...
You're right it should be able to handle medium settings nothing being needed to turn down anymore since that's usually the price range for a 70 class card which is the medium class 80 class card should be able to handle high and then 90 class card handle enthusiast supreme ultra whatever you name it
$500 gpu's handle mid settings
Expecting anything else is false
Path tracing and raytracing are vram taxing. That's why
There are $500+ cards that can't even turn on the Path Traced settings in Indiana Jones. Cards people paid $800-$1000 for in the last year or two that can't use it at all. They can't tweak settings to get it running well. The option is greyed out.
@@Sp3cialk304peoples own GOD DAMN FAULT for buying that junk
Realease 50 series with neural rendering, lock it for only 50 cards, realease a 5070 with 12gb vram and implement neural rendering in Indiana Jones to sell the 50 series, nice one Nvidia! I see what you doing, pay the devs to make the bad texture compression and then have the solution!
Imagine that
Inventing new tech, just because you are too stingy with vram 😂
I think it will be amazing tech!! It will decrease the VRAM cost in the future and will allow devs to add more details. However, that doesn’t mean they should cheap out on VRAMs.
@@pixelverdicts Yeah a 5070 will be as fast as a 4070 Super at least. Which is faster than a 6900xt. Yet only 12gbs of vram on a 192bit bus.
@@ZackSNetwork wow a 2025 midrange gpu faster than a 2020 flagship so impressive
6800XT is a 16GB card so it has room to spread its wings, while 3080ti is struggling. If 3080ti would have 16GB VRAM we would get around 10 - 15 FPS more than this showing of 6800XT.
Spread what wings if 12gb aren't enough 2025 then 16gb won't be enough 2026 it is just like that
It is just poor optimization 12gb is plenty
Manufacturing VRAM is more complex and way more expensive than ddr ram with this stupid optimization we will need 24gb on avg consumer GPUS for future proof
And you'd lose 15 to 20 FPS on the RX 6800xt when you tried to use it with RT enabled. The game he was testing where it runs out of VRAM, are the ones with RT enabled. So you can take the 3080ti and run out of VRAM with RT enabled, and get lower FPS some of the time, or buy the 6800xt and ALWAYS get lower FPS with RT enabled.
And yet they are planning to release a 12GB VRAM card (RTX 5070) to the market in Q1~Q2 2025... If they really going to do that... Well,
it's nothing more but planned obsolescence at it's finest.
Yeah it is pretty stingy imo. 16GB is what I would like to see and 5080 20 or 24GB if the 5090 is to be 32GB. According to leaks anyway.
Neural rendering will use less vram. How is no one getting this? They're doing that on purpose because vram is more expensive than letting AI take care of it. But for the end user what does it matter as long as what the eye sees is pleasing?
@@chrisking6695 extgra vram costs LITERALLY a couple bucks lol
hahah don't forget the 5060 8gb. realistically i don't see issue at all but for the right price
@@chrisking6695 Stop this nonsense! Nvidia already showed how stupid people are by buying their overpriced cards! The truth is Nvidia is screwing their customers right in front of them. They did this with the 3060 having 12GB but not the 3070. Then they did it again with the 4060 Ti with 16GB but not the 4070. Please stop defending the indefensible. At the price they're charging with, you know they should have 16GB now for their 70 class gpu's.
Great video! You did a wonderful job in showing VRAM limitations in these games. Indi is really crazy in terms of VRAM demands. It is definitely the most VRAM hungry game for now.
I wanted share some thoughs, maybe it will be interesting for you. According to my experience, Nvidia improves memory management in their newer drivers. For example, back in summer 2023 I tried to test Ratchet & Clank game at 1440p, max settings (incl. all RT options) and my 12GB card did run out of VRAM (which really tanks framerate and frametime stability in this game). So I had to decrease some settings, to play it properly. But a couple of months later, when I installed a new GPU driver, I tried to test this game again and to my surprise it run perfectly fine at the same settings/resolution. I was really impressed. Enabling DLSS-FG though still did make my GPU run out of VRAM back then. But during my 3rd benchmark of this game in early 2024 I found out that now I can run this game at 1440p, max settings (w/ RT), DLSS-FG and get stable and high framerate w/o any significant issues. It was after I installed newer GPU driver again.
These were not necessary the drivers released one right after the other. It was like a couple of version later, since usually I do not install every new GPU driver. But anyway, for me it is obvious, that newer NV drivers are more efficient in terms of VRAM usage.
Same thing happened with another game - Horizon FW. Running through Fleet's End settlement at 4K, max settings was not possible before, as my card did run out of VRAM (and the result was pretty much the same as in your case with HZDR - lower framerate and stutters), but later, when I tested some newer driver, I realized that now it is possible to run this game at 4K and max settings.
I wonder, if all this is connected to some new Nvidia feature, made to improve texture compression or is it something else. But it is really interesting to compare different things and come to conclusion that software can not only improve performance, but also decrease memory usage.
Thanks. Yea Ratchet and Clank was one of the first games I ran into VRAM issues with on my 3080Ti when it launched. I thought of adding it to the video but I haven't really looked at it recently.
Game titles get patched too. R+C has had a few.
@@CurtOntheRadio I was using version 1.922.0.0 - the latest one for that time. They only thing they added later was FSR 3.1 support and newer XESS version (no other major changes).
@@starstreamgamer3704 NV drivers then, I guess.
Another reason not to buy new releases....
I spent a bit more time in Indiana Jones because it was one of the more interesting cases of running into VRAM limitations but I also wanted to show my process of elimination and how to tune a game if you encounter such issues. The VRAM topic is an interesting one though and I feel it makes for an interesting conversation to have but also put things to the test.
Indiana turned my 4080 from 4k to 1440p.
It could only do 4k ultra with PT and not supreme 😢..😂😂😂
@@Spratty-wb3is Yup. It's right on the margin.
VRAM was so tight with my 4070 Ti for Full RT at 1440p that every time I loaded it, I did a clean system reboot, closed down everything in the system tray, closed down Steam, Epic Launcher, etc., to save a few hundred MB of VRAM. It made all the difference. I used DRS set to 60 FPS mostly. The texture pool is the main thing - I left everything else maxed out except the vegetation animation quality, and set texture pool size to medium. I think it's cool to have a "supreme" setting to have a massive texture pool that allows those with 24GB to 32GB of VRMA take advantage of it at 4K. Setting the pool size to medium doesn't make a big difference.
@@larkinc How much VRAM does Indiand Jones require for 4K Ultra/RT off?
@@Rapunzel879 Between 12GB and 13GB. If drop Texture Pool Size to Very Ultra or Ultra 12GB should be enough for native 4K everything else maxed out (except for Full RT) like I show in the video. Other settings that effect VRAM slightly is also Shadow Quality or Hair Quality.
Online gaming communities are afraid of tweaking settings. Its either max or upgrade ur gpu
@@mosesdavid5536 it's basic ego. Spend hundreds of dollars on a very strong card, only to find out that card is not as almighty as you thought. So instead of swallowing your pride or playing something more optimized they decide to jump the ship onto the next one.
shouldn't a current and very expensive gpu be able to fully run current games on the resolution that gpu is marketed for? are we really gonna blame the consumers and tell them just lower your settings and not nvidia for not putting enough vram for the cards to work properly and as advertised?
the point is that you are guaranteed to have issues with yet unreleased 50 series that will cost an arm and a leg
@@metalface_villain Nobody is advertising you you will be able to max out settings with entry level. People who buy 4060 should blame themselves because amd gpus exist.
@@Aquve Dont buy it 🤔
man you hit the topics i really like to binge on watching it
I've noticed over the years that some graphical settings give no real noticeable difference visually unless you squint, yet cost's aloooot performance. I dunno if thats bad optimization or it just truely requires that much power to render, but it just doesn't seem worth it for the visual differenc. Doing your own tweaking ingame definitely helps regardless of what hardware you're running
Only 4090 users can max everything
Cuz their gpu is built different
I agree. Sometimes there can be diminishing returns
this is literally the remedy video for a guy who has 12gb vram high end card and thinks he is outdated with that 12gb
Yeah there is time. Presumably devs will also cut back a bit since they develop for consoles as a baseline and it seems the current consoles are here to stay for a little while longer.
@@ClamChowder95 consoles can use about 12.5GB.
@@RazoRaptor93 No, consoles have 16GB, and PS5 Pro, now added 2GB DDR5, to be used by the system, and now the whole 16GB can be used by games.
You are with shit like Indiana Jones eating over 16GB VRAM, there's nothing left for you in 2025 and beyond.
Even so, the fact remains Nvidia is screwing with their customers by not putting the right amount of VRAM for their overpriced cards. The sad thing is that people are allowing it themselves. Look at the 3060 with 12GB but they didn't do that for the 3070. Then they did it again with the 4060 Ti with 16GB but not the 4070. When will people learn that unless they put a stop to this nonsense, Nvidia will just keep doing it.
Very good video. I hadnt had the time to test 30 series in Indiana Jones with path tracing and it's actually doing very well here! The PS games are quite VRAM heavy. On the 4070 Super I was able to run out of VRAM in Spider-Man Remastered when using RT + FG, Horizon Forbidden West, as well as Ratchet and Clank with RT, all at 1440p.
Very true the PS games have been quite VRAM hungry in general haven't they? You than have a game like Plague Tale Requiem which looks fantastic and doesn't use that much VRAM. Same with UE5 games.
Huh interesting. In my case, Ratchet and Clank with max RT is the only game that has VRAM spillover issue (using RTX 4070 at 1440p res). Never had issue with Horizon Forbidden West and Spider-Man Remastered.
@@ashralph9903Try it on Burning shores, that area is very vram hungry, even at 1080p i had to lower textures down to medium to avoid fps dropping on my 8gb gpu, other PS games that is also vram hungry is FF16 using medium textures at 1080p to avoid tanking performance.
@@tomthomas3499 I'd need to make it there but I'd love to check it out. I've heard its more demanding than the original game.
@@tomthomas3499 they aren vram hungry, it`s just 8GB vram is such a silly, terribly small amount in year 2025... I had 8 GB vram on gtx 1070 back in 2016...
I've never heard anyone ever say vram makes cards faster, though I have heard people say they were dangerously close to running out of vram, which is a terrible issue.
tweaking things is the best thing about pc gaming,i always make my gpu run below 100% to lower temps and noises
I agree. I've been trying to show more content like that than just max everything out on a 4090 or 7900XTX. Some PC games have settings targeting future hardware too so they are scalable. It's one of the things many love about PC gaming.
I show Indiana Jones here running at native 4K on a 4 year old 12GB card and it looks fantastic.
"Human eye don't see textures more than 8 gigs of vram." - Jensen Huang
But it does see X4 more frames
For 3080, which is an older gen i don't think lowering or tweaking settings would be an issue, the story is different if it's new gen card, if you already have to tweak some settings now at your targeted resolution, then it won't bode well for the card longevity.
I think that's nonsense. When have folks not had to turn stuff down? It's been a feature since day one of extra options. Obviously.
Well, i had seen it coming, 12GB VRAM was already at its edge in some previous games, thats why i got 4080 Super, i hope i am good for next 5 years.
Yeah, I had a 6900XT with 16 GB and had no issues with the games. In 2023, people already started crying about Last of Us. If you had enough VRAM, you had no issues at all. I didn’t want to go back to less than 16 GB, of course, so the 4080 was the only viable option as I finally wanted ray tracing power.
4080 has about a year left in it before the vram becomes an issue again
@@TheBottleneckedGamer I think 16GB VRAM will be fine minimum until next gen consoles. Then it may become a problem, but at that point, i will need to turn down the settings one way or another 😀
@@TheBottleneckedGamer the PC gaming VRAM issyue depends on consoles. Deverleopes make a game for consoles first, then port it to PC, even if they are to release the same day. If the next gen Playstation is 32 GB VRAM, then every multiplatform games will be designed FOR 32GB VRAM
It is interesting to see where the limit is, for these games using the 3080 ti. There are many details and I am sure the comment section is full of people pointing them out.
I found Indiana Jones very interesting.
But I think it would be interesting if you had spend more time investigating how the games looks at different settings. What are the compromises. What settings would play the game at? What looks better maxing texture quality settings out and what looks better maxing path tracing out?
this is why i did buy a 6800xt in 2021
To play without RT ? To play with blurry mess of TAA and ghosting horrible FSR ? You get what you pay for i guess. You can "play" games all right, never on highest settings in their full beauty
RT is useless land a waste of money I can’t tell any difference. Also TAA isn’t gpu specific it’s implemented within the game, you get it anyway no matter the card
@@professormean22 If you cant tell any difference with RT, no offense but you need to see an ophthalmologist bro. Same goes for DLAA/DLSS-Q moping the floor with TAA/FSR garbage 😁
@ like I said, dlss and taa is software implementation that’s independent from hardware , which shouldn’t be brought into the question
Why I bought a 6800 in year 2024
I got stable ~100fps in CyberPunk with everything on ultra, maxed path tracing, dlss balanced and frame-gen on, on 5070Ti. What's so different in those new games?
In cyberpunk frame-gen literally doubled FPS (as advertised), so why it doesn't work in the games you present?
*4070ti
Frame gen doesn't always double your FPS. It depends on the game.
I can tell you that is not the truth, unless you played on a low resolution. I played Cyberpunk maxed out and in Dogtown with full Path Tracing, and you hit the 16 GB VRAM. And you probably mean the 4070 Ti, which has only 12 GB. So even with Cyberpunk, VRAM is an issue, as it’s just simply how it is with path tracing.
happy new year my friend wish you the best!!as always nice video!!
Thanks man. I hope you have a great new year ahead of you and your family. Appreciate it.
Majority of gamers especially in 3rd world country are still using gtx 1060 or 1650 !!!
Rtx 4070 4080 4090 are too expensive
All games are fine with gtx 1060 except indiana jones
Indiana jones is the gtx 1080 ti killer hahaha
On PC you can change settings so the amount of VRAM you have is NOT the limiting factor that you think it is.
I don't think I would go again below Ultra with the texture pool. I played Indiana Jones early on after release and had to tweak a lot to avoid running into VRAM issues with the 16 GB. I ended up with everything set to max and DLSS Performance with full ray tracing maxed out as well. Texture Pool, though, I had to set to only High, and especially in Sukothai, that led to quite some pop-in issues, which were very noticeable. On Texture Pool Ultra, after they patched it a bit, I didn't have that anymore and could run the game still on max in 4K. Frame generation you can forget, though. And if I go above DLSS Performance to Quality, for example, the FPS break down if not immediately, then after a short while. So it's really a shame that Nvidia with the 5080 again will only support 16 GB for now. We can speculate if they will add a super refresh with 24 GB when 3 GB GDDR is available, but you never know.
concidering that almost every next gen of nvidia graphics cards and that UE5 is adding new stuff, its understandable that the vram issue is getting worse if you try to keep using max graphics and want to stay like 1440 p. also the biggest problems comes with more tax heavy shaders which has been comfirmed multiple times.
Also nvidia announced a new ai tech for blackwell gpus and real time raytracing for new games which is exciting but also pretty much worrying news since i know that all those new features will add more vram cost. even the new ai neural rendering will use more vram.
not only that bad optimization leads to many people upgrading from 16 to 32 ram since most games use more vram and ram alltogether for more tax heavy scenarion.
for example returnal, horizon forbidden west and indiana jones are unplayable with my 8gb vram and 16gb of system memory. but i cant deny that all those games even though i cant run them look gorgeus at max settings.
I understand your concern and I'd go as far as saying that the 8GB cards are having the worst time as far as VRAM if targeting 1440P. I can see that being a challenge to go around in a few of these VRAM hungry games.
Back till the 2020 years at least, the "recommended specs" were for running the games at the highest visual settings at 1080p, even higher at 1440p. From then on, the "recommended specs" have the bar lowered to medium settings only and at 1080p, non-native, with DLSS on.
@@artmanrom I have not heard this perspective yet on the issue. I think you make a fair point!
Also yeah Plague Tale Requiem still not having FSR, just like Control. People made such a stink with Starfield not having DLSS, yet some games still don't even have FSR lol. Digital Foundry kinda lambasted AMD for it too, but they're colloquially known as Nvidia Foundry for a reason.
This video is trivial, elementary school, stuff that a kid can do: play with some in-game settings and see what it does to FPS
My 4060ti 16gb runing great In every game. Very happy
Great video brother!
I want share my thoughts. I have rtx 3060ti g6x for 2y, it is only 8gb vram in 1440p, I have so much problem with vram in the games, Stalker 2 needs minimum 12gb vram to play, FG takes some vram, global illumination on high/epic takes more than 1gb+, and vram's more consuming in settlements, I can play Stalker 2 when I am outside any settlements, when I back and talk to npc, used stash etc suddenly I got 7fps due to vram. Some players with 12gb vram reported the same problem when they play at max with FG, it takes while but it is possible.
I'm waiting for CES, I'm planning go for 16gb vram now, probably Radeon due to there is only 4070S in my budget but "only" 12gb vram, I want card for more years, and change when card can't.
RT/PT and FG must have some free vram, Hardware Unboxed made video about how much vram we need 6months ago, We have more room with 12gb vram probably for next 2 years in 1440p but without mods, with using dlss/fsr depends on card we have, I didn't play Indiana, I don't want have problems, I wait for a new card. Good video. Greetings and sorry for my Eng, it is not my native.
Thanks for the comment. I agree must be tough with 3060Ti, 8GB cards do face a challenge at 1440P with some of the more recent games. It's true FG does need some additional ram and Stalker 2 in particular did have a memory leak issue I think. Not sure if it's been fixed.
I was hoping to see a vram bump with the upcoming 5000 series cards, 12GB for 60class, 16GB for 70, and 20/24 for 80 class. They're also using GDDR7 which is new and expensive so not sure what the strategy is.
Stalker 2?I never saw more than 8.2gb usage and I play 1440p,some settings epic and some high,DLSS quality.FPS are 80-120 and in some rare situations does drop to 70 but yeah,didn't saw more than 8.2gb of usage.Its actually more often than not lover than 8gb.
Your 7fps I was getting when game was released but back then I had 10700k and 3070ti,now its 9800x3d and 3080ti so I don't know why Im not getting 7 fps,because game was fixed or because of hardware and I tried FG for fun but game crashed and I don't need it so I don't know vram with FG on but it cant be 12gb
@@TerraWare Yep, but leaks show only 60Ti has 16gb, and 70Ti + 80 16gb, 70 "only" 12gb. As you said in video 16gb vram doesn't make faster card, but rather more stability, can sustain fps, can use some feature like FG, better textures and play at higher resolution if power is not so limited. RTX 3080ti you have is good card, even for next 2 years I think, only miss some feature like better RT/PT and FG and some new coming features from rtx 5000. I chose RTX 3060ti instead rx 6700/xt when I was buying my card, and 8gb vram make some game stuttering etc, but my friend with rx 6700xt can play in similar fps(these cards are very similar) but can use better textures, use FG without drops fps etc, it is example that 12gb vram make card lives longer, of course fps will down after next months in new games or not so much, but for 1080p, 1440p with FSR(which is so much bad vs DLSS) but should still play and waiting for new cards without worry as I am worry due to my limited 8gb vram.
@@BladeRunner031 I play Stalker 2 until v1.1.3, at 1.1.3 still dropping to about 7fps(I uninstalled a game in this situation, waiting for new gpu, but I know this game need much better cpu I have). I have Ryzen 5600x, b450, 32gb ram 3600mhz cl18 and KFA2 rtx 3060ti gddr6x. This drop occurred only in settlements, outside I can play more than 1-2-3h without problems but only back to settlements I got 7fps, sometimes not, but this it still possible even on newest version of game. I have only discord(without hardware acceleration), hwinfo, msi afterburner in background and of course steam. This 7fps was during using FG probably in this game I cannot use FG. If you look at game settings there is a info about allocation vram in the game, this show me only 6.9GB, I got drop 7fps when was 7.3GB... so rest of vram are allocated in somewhere. I got the same problem in Cyberpunk, used RT medium(lightning medium, ultra was killing my fps), dlss balance/quality mix settings high/ultra, I didn't know then is cause by vram, I sent email to CDP(I am Polish) and Stalker 2 is 2nd game when I got this too much, too often and stuttering is killing my experience in the game. I didn't play Horizon FW and other games from PS5, I have PS5 so I played without problem on my console, I played only 2 games from Sony, Days Gone and Death Stranding- on gtx 1660ti few years ago, it was when I had PS4 slim, so game on PC was better.
This is screenshot from Rostock in Stalker 2 on newest version. You see power 78W, temp 49C gpu, 62C hotspot, 0.9v= is uv, 7260mb vram, CPU looks ok- deafult/auto in bios.
i.imgur.com/UKL2Hqh.jpeg
This is outside near Rostock, settings is mix from low-high DLSS balance, shadows and global illumination medium it must be medium on 8gb vram, and using FG FSR in game. I said I can play normally outside, for my setup I like it what I have but inside settlements in game suddenly pop up vram to higher and causing stutter and drop fps- not often but more chance after couple of minutes, 30min or 1-2h+
i.imgur.com/KfGD65n.jpeg
I found old screenshot from older version, outside, more than 7.4gb vram but playable, there wasn't problem with drop, but only go to settlements, selling some trash, talking to npc, put some items to stash, spending too much time in settlements I got 7fps, and I must restart the game, sometimes fixed by change dlss, or resolution.
i.imgur.com/Vjh9Cpe.jpeg
edit: like before sorry for any mistakes in my english, but I am sure you can understand.
Turn the settings down? It isn't complicated, is it?
Got 12 Gigs of VRAM since 2021 and could play just perfectly fine in 1440p Ultra RT off...but my next GPU in around a year should have at least 16 Gigs for sure
Obviously not enough 12gb, for everything set to max in 1440p or 4k u need at least 16gb, im playing indiana jones in 2k all maxed settings and go over 15 gb vram... i ise Fg, and dlss to quality. I will avoid 12 gb cards if play in 2k
Jedi survivor is extremely vram hungry aswell, you should check it out, good vid
I'm really hoping the RTX 5070 will feature 16GB of VRAM, which would be ideal for stable diffusion and LLMs.
@@starbez It won't. It will have 12. 5070 Ti and 5080 will have 16 GB.
@@Ignisan_66 Damn, probably saving VRAM modules for enterprise.
That is what I'd like to see but rumors suggest 12GB again. I normally don't take leaks too seriously but yea.
Fr, that's the amount a 6800xt has
@@matuzaato The absence of CUDA support prevents me from switching to AMD.
and my poor ass is sat here with an 8gb 3070ti 💀 time to upgrade already
😢
1080ti here but 11gb vram saved my ass a few times so far
@@saiyaman9000 nvidia are crazy.. feels like they just pick and choose random vram for every GPU 😂
You should do this test again with the 3080 10gb, a lot of people got shafted with that one lol.
I appreciate the video. I don't think most people that complain about low vram are saying 12gb isn't enough in 2024, they're saying it should be the bare minimum. Can you really justify a 5060 with 8gb of vram when just about every game you've shown was trying to use at least 8gb of vram? If a 5060 has the horsepower of a 4070 but is kneecapped by low vram that's kind of lame. Then you have a 5070 with 12gb which should be able to run current games at 4k max settings path tracing adequately, but you've already demonstrated a few games that use more than 12gb at those settings... so what's that say for games coming out in 2025 and 2026? Then you have a possibly $1500 5080 releasing with only 16gb? 16gb will be fine for the next couple of years, probably, but a $1500 card should last at least 5 years. It will have the power, but full path tracing games @4k 4 years from now are almost certainly going to exceed 16gb of vram if they're starting to get to the 15gb range today. It's just frustrating that in all of these will run into circumstances where you have a card that can push way more performance but due to vram limits you'll need to turn down settings. But the problems aren't going to happen at launch, they'll happen a couple years later, well after all of the good launch reviews and right about when nvidia is about to launch their next series of GPUs. Just feels like planned obsolescence, especially being due for another generation of consoles not too far from now that have the potential to push vram usage up a tier across the board.
Yep, 8GB is not adequate anymore. I think he did a good job of showing that 12GB is on the margin, but still adequate for a great gaming experience if you tweak down a couple of settings. Not saying you should have to do that, but that if you do, there is very little difference (if any) in the enjoyment you get. As for the 5080 with only 16GB of VRAM, again it will be on the margins... great for maxing out 1440p with path tracing, but with 4K path tracing you might be looking at DLSS balanced or performance (or just high textures) to free up VRAM in some games - however you might still need the upscaling anyway to get sufficient FPS, so it might often be a moot point. Personally, I will be getting a 5080 and like with my 4070 ti I am going in with my eyes wide open about the borderline nature of the VRAM buffer. The 4070 ti experience was exactly what I expected and I only had to compromise in a couple of games in 2 years. I know I will occasionally need to tweak down with 5080 also, but knowing it won't affect my enjoyment. I'm at a stage of life where I can afford to upgrade each generation, so I'll probably get a 6080 with 20GB or whatever in 2 years time.
Oh I'm not defending cards releasing with less vram than they should. I'd like to see 12Gb 60 class, 16GB 70 class and 20G minimum 80 class. 8GB is fine for 50 class maybe. The point was simply to actually put things to the test.
It's insane to think that we got 8GB on GTX 1070/1080 in 2016. Which was very affordable cards. They aged really well. And today you have to pay premium price just to get 12GB on a Nvidia card. Almost 9 years after the GTX 1070/1080s was released. And from the looks of it they are doing the same with the RTX 5000 series. Insane. I have 3 computers using RX 6700 XT, 7700 XT and a 7800 XT. All 3 I got for sensible prices.
"I don't think most people that complain about low vram are saying 12gb isn't enough in 2024, they're saying it should be the bare minimum."
Then they can pay for it. It's not complicated, is it?
And if they can't or won't pay.....then they can't have it. That's not complicated either, is it?
@@TerraWare "Should"? That's just silly. Price/budget is the determining factor - that's why there is a range of prices, right? People make choices based on their budget, mostly? Obviously NV could provide more VRAM - at a higher price. They already do.
So what is the use of saying "should"? How does that even factor? NV make the choice of various specs at different price points. That's the offer. You can wish it were different but you can't say it "should" be. Why such entitlement? At whose cost?
last month I had a choice between a used 3090 or a 4070 they cost the same and perform the same, glad I went with the 3090 wow I cant believe even 12GB is close to max out now.
When it comes to using DLSS and resolutions. I would argue people should be running at there monitors resolution. And then use DLSS and FSR settings to increase FPS, by having the game render at a lower resolution. I get why it is interesting from a performance standpoint. But I think a lot of people are confused.
If you have a 4k monitor I don't think you should be running games at 1440p if DLSS, FSR or some other upscaler is available.
This is why I have a 4K monitor that also has a native 1080P mode.
New oled one?
@TerraWare yeah pg32ucdp. I figured since I can't upgrade my system anytime soon (summer earliest) I'll at least have a monitor for when I do finally get my hands on a 5090 🤣 Also I have an Xbox series x so
chipmunk wukon got me cracking up
Happy Hogmanay, Dude!
Thanks bud you too.
Honestly I can't be bothered with Indiana Jones until it at least gets Ray Reconstruction
I really don't think all the vram demands are necessary, even tho i'm worried about 16GB at 4K I don't think it should be going over 16GB just yet
I don't mind texture pools being bigger for 24GB GPUs at all as an extra setting, but it just feels like it's been all chucked together when you gotta go down so many notches and then
can't even use FG on top
Hopefully this is a one off game
No VRAM usage bar bottom right and the vram can actually go up after a while when playing
Honestly I was waiting on Ray Reconstruction as well to keep playing. It's most definitely one of the most VRAM hungry games I have played, interesting to see what Doom Dark Ages is like. Lowering Texture Pool Size to Very Ultra or Ultra isn't enough? It's quite the pickle isn't it. PT can cost more VRAM and Nvidia can be stingy with VRAM, especially in the low end and they don't have competition when it comes to PT.
@@TerraWare Yeah agree with all of that
Nvidia GPUs are really fast, the 3080Ti does really well but obviously would have been better if the extra vram for ppl who want to run the higher settings
All comes down to what expectations you have of course
Indiana was just quite frustrating for me at the start, because it kept resetting my overclock also which no other game does when trying out settings, some games just change your settings like you've said which would be better
It's ok now I know what settings are ok on the 4080 Super but defo waiting until RR is on the game lol
I think you can totally run BM:W at 4K with path tracing on a 3080Ti if you lock it to 40 fps 🤷♂ with motion blur it looks very nice and smooth. 🤷♂
Very good video Terra👍
I guess it really once again depends on the User
For someone like me 12GB is nowhere near enough, if you don't mind having to knockdown settings etc of course you can make 12GB enough & really it's all subjective
For me at 4K I just actually decided to go DLSS performance when I need too, rather than turn down detail settings and then I keep everything else maxed out
At 4K the only difference I see usually is a few little more shimmers here and then but if i'm not looking for it and being very picky it's like 1-2% worse overall with DLSS when comparing to DLSS Quality
In some games i'm actually struggling to see any difference also
For me the Pros of using DLSS performance far outweigh the negatives & that actually uses less vram using DLSS performance
Ultra performance actually is horrible however
🤣I can never recommend that
Yeah, 4K DLSS performance is usually very good, very crisp. That's what I have it set to in Silent Hill 2 and it looks great. I can max out everything at 4K with my 4070 Ti and 12GB VRAM is plenty. Indiana Jones is a different story, though, but still got a decent Full RT experience at 1440p.
@@larkinc Yeah on Silent Hill 2 as hard as I tried, I couldn't tell a difference between DLSS Quality or DLSS performance
So really you may as well just get the extra frames & I think on all the versions of DLSS 3.5 & above it's even harder to notice any difference between all 3 modes Quality-performance
DLSS is what I liked most about Nvidia after testing for months
Tbh Black Myth actually uses 3.1 DLSS and that looked good also between balanced and performance
I did update the files on that to 3.7, but Wukong seems to have some visual bugs when updating the DLSS file... so I wouldn't recommend doing that, just leave it at 3.1 and it's good enough anyway
The visual bugs were the grass wasn't loading properly and looked very bad in the desert parts with 3.7 lol, that's why it's best when Devs implement DLSS usually
Sure it depends on the user. Point of the video was primarily to see what is possible with 12GB and even at 4K it will do the overwhelming majority of the titles out there just fine and the limiting factor will be the silicon itself. I'll make sure to test the new stuff and point out any issues as they arise and go over them. It's also to raise some awareness and people to be better informed with actual proof of testing the games. I hear narratives that 16Gb card is a 1440P card and that is simply a provable lie. Even my 6800XT can do 4K just fine. I made a 1 hour long video a few months ago testing 23 AAA games at 4K.
There will always be outlier games, be it high vram usage, high CPU usage etc. Games that would cripple a 4090, 7900XTX or a 5090. You will have to make some sort of adjustment depending on how far devs want to push things especially when they add features with future hardware in mind. On PC it's always been this way due to the nature of the platform being as open as it is.
When I see people framing devs pushing the medium forward on PC with graphics and technologies as a bad thing because you can't max everything out it's just a weird theory to sell to people, at least imo.
Now this conversation tends to lead to people jumping into the brand wars nonsense, which I have zero interest to engage in but to entertain it for a minute do I think a 5070 having 12GB VRAM to be a good thing? No of course not. I'd like to see 12GB on 60 class, 16 on 70 and 20 or 24GB on 80 class. What better way to show people though by putting things to the test and let them decide. That's my logic behind it.
@@TerraWare Yeah I totally understand the message of the video
I understand you give balanced views as always & think the video was very good
For me my mind still won't change that I think for a 4K GPU going fwd... the vram should be 20GB - 24GB
16GB is probably still enough for majority of games but imho a 5080 deserves more vram especially for the price it's going to be
The 3000 series was a lot worse for longevity however so least the vram is a bit better below the 90 class
I mean if the 5090 gets 32GB I think it's not right that the 80 series only gets 16GB, which is why I won't likely be buying one & reckon I'll wait for a Super version to see if it gets a bump up in vram
Maybe if I sold my 4080 super and made a profit, I could do that since only got it for £500 but really I know i'd prefer the Super
Anyway not everyone thinks like me
Lastly yup 8GB GPUs should be forgotten, for me 12GB is the new entry level
@@TerraWare Also I don't mind Devs pushing tech, but for me when I'm seeing native fps get worse then I start to question some of them.
Bringing a 4090 to its knees below 60fps at native
It needs to be done correctly & as I say I'm not a fan of the Indiana Jones settings myself
Supreme, very Ultra or Ultra doesn't make much sense to me. All you need is Supreme for say 24GB and then Ultra for 16GB or below, High for 12GB or below,
Very Ultra is stupid I think
Surely it just needs to allocate vram better & then if it overspills the engine should just change the settings that's too much, then it's logical. Also the FG needs to also have enough headroom to run without breaking into further vram issues in each pool size
That's another major issue that massively annoyed me, I remember just thinking it's a headache idk lol
Yes I like the options for PC in general but it's also about it being a more User friendly experience
Some PC gamers are more uneducated about this and actually lots just refunded the game because of the settings stuff I saw
Hopefully Machine games improve that side of it
Square Enix actually said on Forspoken patch notes ages ago after release, highest texture size was for 16GB or more with their pools, that's the way to do it then ppl know where they stand, I remember when I had my 3070 I had issues with that game
But at least I didn't waste lots of time at launch and knew which setting was the issue first off
Another thing, Actually UE5 is a great engine but lots of these Devs don't know how to fully optimise it I'm told
I keep being told this
Guess all we can hope is they get better at it, because you want games that run better especially, if it's running worse on the high end GPUs then it only gets worse on the lower end
I recently played Last of us Part 1 again at 2160p with DLSS Quality. I feel texturing quality is actually better than Indiana Jones (IJ) and it uses less VRAM, although lighting is better in (IJ). If I play IJ on my 4070ti at 1440p DLAA I am using all of my VRAM. So I feel the developers can definitely optimise the VRAM usage like naughty dog did for last of us Part 1. We all remember that game when it came out.
The fact is I can't use DLSS frame generation at 1440p DLSS quality(max settings, no path tracing) on this card in the IJ game is really annoying as I already get the itch to upgrade...
I did the same with my 7800XT and everything went well but because my 7800XT does no path tracing in Indiana Jones it's not available so it;s hard to judge my 4070 ti against it even though the 7800XT has 16 GB of Vram that being said i cranked up the settings in 4K and most of the time got 60fps so good.
Even if PT settings were available the performance on the 7800XT would be so bad don't think it would be worth it. I've tested PT in pretty much all games that have it on my 7900XTX and I always came to the conclusion that its just not worth it because its so taxing on Radeon you have to use extreme upscaling that degrades the image so much the game looks much worse than it would if you just didn't use PT and play to the cards strengths. IMO anyway.
The new unreal 5.5 should solve some of these issues.:. But things never pan out the way the marketing always make it seem like it will.
12GB of VRAM with 16GB of DRAM will have problems. Note that DRAM usage is very high in several games. Another thing when using RT+DLSS with FG in the case of RTX 4000, VRAM usage increases a lot.
Yes very true. I did mention that in Indiana Jones but my 3080Ti cant use DLSS FG so. But if that did put you over the threshold than you'd have to either not use it or make other setting sacrifices. I have a 4090 too, I rarely use FG personally but yeah it is a factor.
The biggest problem with VRAM is expecting to run pc exclusive features on cards closer to the bottom than top. 8GB doesn't have future in AAA, but if somebody aims console graphics, 12GB should last him for a while. Aiming stuff for highend cards like ray tracing and frame generation is aiming for the biggest VRAM hogs meant to sell these cards. And long gone are the times when cheap 1060 on it's launch used to max out games thanks to being not that much slower than previous highend and awful graphical stagnation of 2010's which ray tracing ended.
yep. People's expectations are misplaced. Really they are just complaining that a 4060 isn't specced as a 4090. It's ridiculous.
I have a 3070 ti with 8 Gb RAM, and can still play any game on 1440p . All you have to do is not play on ultra settings . Even the new Path of exile 2 game doesn't use 8 GB will everything on max ..
Ok sure , Ray tracing is a different story....but tbh I never turn that on since it doesn't enhance my enjoyment of a game
I have a 3060 12gb and for the performance of that card i think 12gb is a good match there are games that i can get above 8gb and have decent performance. So faster cards should have at least 12gb or more in my opinion. I do think 12gb give enough options to tune a game without very visible sacrificies.
When testing wukong you say using DLSS lower then 80 will degrade image. I have 4k screen and Im often using DLSS balanced or even performance and image still looks really good in many games, I barely can tell difference compared to native to be honest. I`m playing silent hill 2 and I much prefer dlss performance plus full RT versus DLSS quality without full RT... Depends on the game I suppose, I didn't test wukong but it`s more of an action game in comparison so I might prefer higher fps.
I didn't say going lower than 80 DLSS would degrade image quality, although I suppose that is technically true. I said it was higher than DLSS Quality which is 67%. DLSS Q, even B works pretty good in Wukong.
If only it was possible to use system memory when required, but then they wouldn't sell as many graphics cards
Do the same test but at 1080p please
I have the same sistem as you and I will not burn my money for any gpu that have less than 20gb for the future and even that GPU will need to be priced something normal
Do you think that 16 gig vram from the 5080 and the 973,8 bandwitdh wil be enough for the most games in 4k for the coming 2 years?
It's hard to predict the future but I think it will be fine, you may run into a game or two like Indiana Jones for example that runs into vram bottleneck at 4K max settings path tracing and FG on at the same time, which can easily be remedied btw by lowering texture pool size. As for UE5 games I think 16Gb is plenty for 4K, even 12GB actually which I show in this video with two recent examples.
That said though I do think 16GB vram is a bit stingy for next gen 80 class card. I need to see more or ideally test the card myself before passing judgement on buss width and mem speed, we don't know how much L2 cache is in these cards which makes a pretty big difference.
I don't like to assume in general which is why I don't pay much attention to leaks lol or discuss them.
No , 16gb already is not enough for 4k + all features on in some games. In 2 years will be worse for sure.
No
@puffyips so we all.need to buy the RTX 5090
You ask about "most games", so for that I think the answer is yes rather than a blunt no. Even where you run out, 16GB will still get you a great 4K experience by dialling back a couple of settings a notch - or max out 1440p (which still looks great on my large screen OLED TV from a few feet away, by the way). The console generations dictate some of the VRAM requirements. The PS6, next XBOX is at least 2 or 3 years away, so I don't see a major increase in VRAM requirements in that timeframe. The bandwidth will definitely be enough, close to 4090 levels. It will be similar to how well 12GB did in the last 2 years at 1440p - it was almost always fine except for a small number of games where you had to dial back settings a small bit. 20GB would have been the sweet spot, but for me 16GB isn't a deal breaker. Not saying I like it, just that you'll still have a great experience if you just forget how much you paid for it (assuming you can afford it)!!!
An extra 4GB of VRAM wouldn't cost Nvidia more than $30, FFS!
But the costs are higher than just the physical parts and the design implications can cascade through the entire offering. Anyway, folks already complain about the price and you want to add even more to it. Price matters, especially at the budget /entry level.
its not a vram bottleneck on Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered when using frame gen its an optimization problem frame gen is just not optimized well here as you can clearly see his allocated vram is 10.7 gigs and utilized vram is at 9.5 gigs at max settings with 4k DLSS set to Quality as rtx 3080 ti has 12 gigs of vram.
2025 has just begun bro.
Wrong video title.
People usually release these kind of videos at the end of the year.
Nvidia does not want us to play 4K with 4070 TI. Although the card's power is capable of doing this, it limits the VRAM card by playing. NVIDIA is really hostile to the user in this regard. I hope it finds its end.
My rtx3060 laptop only got 6gb vram😢
Interesting. I tried to play HZD Remastered briefly on my 4070 Ti at 4K/Maxed out + DLSS Quality + FSR-FG. I was getting 90-100 fps w/o any stutters, while running through Meridian city (which is the most VRAM hungry location in the game) for a few minutes. With DLSS-FG though my card do run out of VRAM, which is not surprising, taking into account the fact that DLSS-FG uses quite a bit more VRAM than FSR-FG.
Looks like you did not relaunched the game after enabling FSR-FG. Maybe this is the reason why 3080 Ti runs out of VRAM? Or maybe this card is simply a bit less efficient in terms of VRAM usage than 4070 Ti?
You need to play for more than few minutes Thats the problem. Watch hardware unboxed how they test for vram limits. Too fully saturate vram u need to swap location bam ur stuttering like crazy..
@@gaav87 Yeah, traveling and also swapping DLSS Settings, turning FG off and on. OP's right though as far as after dialing your settings it's best to restart and see how it works out.
@@gaav87 It depends on a certain game. HZD, in particular, fills VRAM immidiately and then dynamically changes allocated memory capacity, depending on where the protagonist is. Meridian is the most VRAM hungry location in this game in my experience, so if a card does not run out of VRAM here, it will be fine in any other part of the game.
I was surprised that DLSS-FG consumes a lot more VRAM in this game, than FSR-FG. Usually the difference is about 300-500 MB, but here it is more like 1GB. But since FSR-FG provides significantly higher framerate in this case, I do not see any reason to use DLSS-FG.
@@stangamer1151 Interesting. I didn't know DLSS FG consumed that much more vram than FSR FG in this game. I agree though FSR FG is pretty good. I feel AMD knocked it out of the park with that one. You could get even more FPS on a Radeon card, which you can see the 6800XT in my video catch up by quite a bit to the 3080Ti when both using FSR FG
@@TerraWare I have a feeling, that DLSS-FG does not work correctly in some recent games. I remember back when this tech was released it was increasing framerate by 50-80%, in games like Cyberpunk, Alan Wake 2, Witcher 3, A Plague Tale 2, etc. But later framerate boost, provided by DLSS-FG, decerased down to just +20-35%.
I remember Jensen was talking about "doubling your framerate" back in 2022. And now we barely get 1/4 more frames.
Digital Foudry were confirming that FG should almost double framerates, since it basically interpolates a new frame between two existing ones. This process takes a small portion of time, but it is insignificant. So, for example, 70 fps should turn into ~120 fps. But nowadays 70 fps turn into just ~85 fps and input lag significantly increases, since the game itself renders at roughly half the framerate (~43 fps). Meaning using FG does not make sence at all in these conditions.
i'm on a 4080 super, in 4k there are quite a few games that go well over 12GB. 4k should be standard by now. AMD knew this and stacked their mid teir and up video cards accordingly. while nvidia has put that heavily price premium on 4k gaming. in 2020 4k was well on it's way to being standard . streaming services were still offering 4k at no extra charge , video cards taht cost 400-600 could hit 4k easily. onlyt eh consoles were behind ... then 4k blu ray player amnufactures started discontinuing players and some stopped production all together , right before the covid shut downs happened .. it was such odd timing since every one started hitting streaming and befroe covid was over streaming sevices made 4k a seperate teir in payment. and 400-600 dollar video cards started not being enough for 4k gaming.
also i hate the fact that there are games in today's world than can bring a 1000-2000 dollar video card to it's knees still. seriously just screw you game devs.
for me just one stick of 32 gigs of ram and a decent to close to high end aka mid tiered gpu and cpu cna get you very far in modern gmaes in 2025 give or take
16 gigs is solid enough to buy another 4 years. Forbidden west on pc is VERY hungry for vram, I’ve seen it crack 13-14 gigs on my 6900xt. Stalker 2 is hungry also meanwhile we were told UE5 would solve that issue LOL. Ok.
@@BrianSkinny-n5f Stalker had a memory leak issue at launch. Thought that was fixed.
Guys i maybe stupid but why the new games vram usage is going up if we are using the same resolution 😅
I am playing monster hunter world on 4k highest setting and its only using around 7GB vram
I am running out of VRAM with my godly RX 7600 8GB.
at windows:
6gb light 1080p - 12gb heavy 1080p gaming,
10gb light 1440p - 18gb heavy 1440p gaming,
12gb light 4k -22gb heavy 4k gaming.
at Linux:
3gb light 1080p - 6gb heavy 1080p gaming,
5gb light 1440p - 7,2gb heavy 1440p gaming, (sorry at linux i had never a 1440p game who needs more then 7,2gb vram and i play cp2077+pl at ultra+rt-ultra and play modded with more effects then normal i cant max out the game anymore i know i can with PT full but my amd 6000series card cant use it)
8gb light 4k - 16gb heavy 4k gaming. (i think, sorry i have not all games but at i never reached over 7,9gb vram)
linux uses PC resources better then windows btw. i use a gaming optimized distro of arch linux (it gives my hardware a pretty good boost) sorry windows i know you have not anything like this...thats why i go befor 1,5years to linux 😜.
at first: i have my pc for light gaming till mid gaming (mid gaming is for me games like cp2077 starfield and all ps5 and ps5pro games) and hard rendering at programms so its not for gaming only. (at 90% of pc times i work with it or make my songs/videos for my yt channel and 10% of it gaming).
i used rt only for the testings normal i play without rt it gives no benefit in games for me
(i dont think it looks better, mosttime it looks more ugly because without pt its only in my eyes a fail and it gives enought games with good graphics without RT and PT)
No ffxvi?
Nvidia just had one job putting 16gb on the 5070 but they wont but 16gb on the 5080 is outrageous especially because this cards will be more expensive.
Whatever happened to GPUs the likes of 1080Ti? High VRAM with prices that aren't sky high.
Seems NVDIA has forgotten its roots.
Not even 16GB is enough for some games at 4k. We need 24GB to play everything on pc to date, on max settings in this generation of games. I don't know what NVidia is playing at with their 16gb.
As a big fan of gaming laptops, RIP to people who get mobile RTX 50 series cards. 5070 mobile has 8GB in 2025 😂. Got a Radeon RX 7900M with 16GB so should be ok for a while.
jUsT lOwEr tHe sEtTiNgS bRo
Ok, im not excuskng Nvidia for holding back the vram....when has a 60 series card ever had enough ram to run the newest AAA games on highest settings in 1440p or 4k?
Great vídeo
Thanks, hope it was informative in some way.
space marine 2 also with 4k texture is a problem at 1440P, My 4080S is running out to vram lol
That doesn't sound right. I never saw actual use go beyond 10GB playing at 4K on my 4090. Maybe there's later levels that are more taxing but for VRAM use to change that drastically in a game that 16GB runs into issues at 1440P I've never seen that before.
@ did you install the 4k textures pack ?
try DLSS, on 4k with 4070ti super i got minimum of 80 fps with DLSS on best quality settings, couldnt see any difference either
@@Zdravdrat fps isn't the problem 130+fps natively
wich software to show fps ?
MSI Afterburner with its Riva Tuner tool. It requires some configuration, but once it's set up it's way better than any other application.
Watching this from 6 feet beneath the surface with my RTX 3050 4GB laptop GPU ( ﾟーﾟ)
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Oh boys, GPUs are NOT just for gaming, also for AI computing.
5 years later the 5070 12gb will be Ewaste, nvidia is artifically making gamers buy newer gpus more often, for this reason and their astronomical prices i am switching to amd
Wasn't even enough in 2023. My 3080 shit the bed because of Residenf Evil 4 so I have to get a 4080, and now the 4080 shit the bed because of Indiana Jones. This is FUCKING REDICULOUS.
I got 7900xtx 24gb. Im good i think
Yes you're fine.
Your more than good brother. I have a 7900 XTX and a 5950x and it optimized my settings to 4k Ultra setting going over 60FPS easily so yeah brother you are good.
@MrMakaveli2012 4k 60 native without upscaling?
@bostjanbeks4849 Yes, without upscaling.
You are fine for all 4K gaming..... except Path Tracing. That's a deal breaker for me, personally. The thought of some advanced settings being more or less unavailable to me would just have me regretting my purchase, because I value PT/Full RT so highly. Everyone's priorities are different, though. 2 of my favourite games of the last couple of years were Indiana Jones and Alan Wake 2 and the Full RT made those experiences more immersive for me. But I do envy the 24GB of VRAM - it does mean I have to make some (minor) compromises you don't.
Looks like I will be ok with my 4070ti for another year.
Another year XD? This gpu is crazy good and will be fine for years
@ 😂😂😂 I know bro. Jk around.
Worth noting that often the highest texture settings have no positive impact on image quality, and can actually damage performance (obviously) or image quality (low resolution textures because a lot of the VRAM is eaten up by raw textures, for instance)
Can you do a video on 16gb vram pls
I could but 16GB is plenty for 1440P and 4K. Wouldn't make for an interesting video, it would be basically just a GPU benchmark. I also only have a 6800XT as a 16GB card. Only game I know that can run into VRAM issues with 16GB is Indiana Jones at 4K with max path tracing and frame generation, which can be remedied by just knocking Texture Pool Size down to Very Ultra or Ultra from Supreme.
If you have a 16GB card you are fine. You'll be limited by your GPU silicon way before VRAM
@TerraWare Okay thanks
@@Joshda039 If you're interested I did a pretty beefy video testing 23 AAA games on the 6800XT at 4K a few months ago. It's more or less what you're asking for. Here's link ruclips.net/video/TrSZblz8tQ0/видео.htmlsi=VrqPEo142R_rieEm
@TerraWare I will watch this now, thank you
Resident evil all
Ratchet and clank.
Tlou I
Jedi survivor
Forza horizon 4, 5.
Doom eternal.
Wolfenstein
Avatar
Alan wake 2
Dragons dogma 2
God of war 18 и Ragnarok
Hitman 3
Cyberpunk, dls.
Halo infinite
I still use my Gtx1080ti which is 11gb but let's be honest guys 16Gb is the ideal Vram any less is just not good enough for most modern games
Years ago.. My favourite game to play was Far Cry 5 single player arcade with user created maps at 4k with all settings turned up. On some maps, my 3080 10gb fps would drop like a rock when it ran out of vram. I then got a 3090 which isn't a lot faster, maybe 15% on average and the fps would stay constant because of the 24gb of vram.
Side note: The 4090 I now have can play those same single player 4k maps and stay at a locked 120fps while even gpu mining.
(It mines a lot less while playing games.) That shows what improved architecture while having lots of vram does.
12 is kinda the lower limit for acceptable aaa gaming imo
He just showed 12gb running aaa games well
Except for path tracing
Me playing on 4. So it s more than enough.
Careful Nvidia low latency mode will create a CPU bottleneck in Indiana Jones, no matter how powerful your GPU is. Turn it off for now.
Nice video u need more than 16GB ram because the graka have only 12GB vram what If u have less than 32GB Ram
16gb not enuff my 4070ti super its almost 16 alot.
Loved the dead space remake but can't stand the stutters. Opted for ps5 instead.
It was quite bad at launch but they did improve it over time. Running the game for this video it was much better than I remember.
@TerraWare I played it recently on my XTX / 13700 and the stutter was still bad. Refunded it. Shame as its a great game and the ps5 performance mode looks primitive in comparison.
I think plague tale was made on their own engine, at least this is not ue5
True. It's a modified version of the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 game engine
Well I play Idiana Jones ATGC at 2560x1440p and that game uses 18.7gbs VRAM lol
It will allocate that yeah but actual use at least on my 4090 at 3440X1440 same settings is around 16
4K with DLSS is not 4K, same goes to 1440p.