16GB of RAM is not enough anymore?

[Kibōchen]

Are we getting to the point where RAM of more than 16 gigabytes is required for having the best graphics in PC games?

[Illusion of Progress]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Often when its not a resolution issues, its a software or coding issue. Then it is not because of your hardware, then it is because of the developer. That is why we ask.

What? No. Resolution doesn't necessarily have as drastic an effect on VRAM use that people think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hivbU8xjG0A

It's more the settings themselves that determine VRAM use. High settings at 1080p can still use a lot of VRAM too.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

The vast majority of games are perfectly fine and will be, the most popular steam games, will run on even older hardware.

Yes, the majority is fine. I agreed with that. I'm only disputing the notion that it is always fine at 1080p, or that it should be an acceptable amount today on the grounds that it can work with most things.

I'm not sure what the latter part has to do with anything. The more popular titles might be fine on less but I'm not sure why that's the ultimatum that determines this. If you have a library of 100 titles and 50% need 10% of what you have, but a couple need more than what you have, do you reason that you don't an upgrade? I mean, I wouldn't.

The most popular games aren't the entire market. The more demanding games are the minority, yes, but they are still a not insignificant, and growing, amount of the market. And if you want to play them, and if you're in the buying market these days, then ensuring you have enough VRAM is definitely something that warrants attention in a market of products that at this time largely being stingy on that particular thing.

[AdahnGorion]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Often when its not a resolution issues, its a software or coding issue. Then it is not because of your hardware, then it is because of the developer. That is why we ask.

What? No. Resolution doesn't necessarily have as drastic an effect on VRAM use that people think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hivbU8xjG0A

It's more the settings themselves that determine VRAM use. High settings at 1080p can still use a lot of VRAM too.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

The vast majority of games are perfectly fine and will be, the most popular steam games, will run on even older hardware.

Yes, the majority is fine. I agreed with that. I'm only disputing the notion that it is always fine at 1080p, or that it should be an acceptable amount today on the grounds that it can work with most things.

I'm not sure what the latter part has to do with anything. The more popular titles might be fine on less but I'm not sure why that's the ultimatum that determines this. If you have a library of 100 titles and 50% need 10% of what you have, but a couple need more than what you have, do you reason that you don't an upgrade? I mean, I wouldn't.

The most popular games aren't the entire market. The more demanding games are the minority, yes, but they are still a not insignificant, and growing, amount of the market. And if you want to play them, and if you're in the buying market these days, then ensuring you have enough VRAM is definitely something that warrants attention in a market of products that at this time largely being stingy on that particular thing.

Resolution play a role. That is my claim, I am yet to find anyone that wanna challange that.
Are there other things? yes.

Will everybody here be able to run the top5 most played games on steam, also in 4 years with 8gb vram? yes.. that is my claim, will it run well? yes.. if the GPU is not ancient, like a 3060ti will do just fine, even in 4 years, if we talk Dota2 or GTA4, Lost Ark, CSGO, etc.

Obviously if you want the best graphics and play the best games, you don´t buy low tier GPUs you buy high mid tier or high tier.

Even midtier cards have 12-16gb vram now.

[Illusion of Progress]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Resolution play a role. That is my claim, I am yet to find anyone that wanna challange that.
Are there other things? yes.

This is sort of moving the goal post now.

Your original claim was that 8 GB wouldn't be a problem if you played on 1080p, and if you turned down the settings.

I responded to that to say that 1080p isn't excluded from 8 GB not being enough (because it's not, because resolution doesn't often make a huge difference to VRAM use, but instead settings do), and that having to turn down the settings is precisely because the 8 GB isn't enough.

That was your original point and my response to it.

Bringing up how the popular games need less is neither here nor there in that discussion, so I'm not sure why it would be brought up if not to deflect.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Obviously if you want the best graphics and play the best games, you don´t buy low tier GPUs you buy high mid tier or high tier.

Even midtier cards have 12-16gb vram now.

You can't be serious with this reasoning?

So the RTX 3060 Ti through RTX 3080 are all low tier? (the latter doesn't have 8 GB specifically so ignore that mention if you wish.)

They aren't still being sold?

nVidia isn't about to do this again with the RTX 4060/4060 Ti? (though I guess you can sort of get around this one by calling them entry level, which I wouldn't even disagree with you on, but only BECAUSE of their VRAM).

Minecraft with shaders is some gargantuan game that should need high end stuff? So we should need x80s and x90s if going with nVidia's offerings to play this game? Come on now.

I'm not sure why you're trying and reason it away by saying "just play at 1080p" or "just lower the settings". The former may or may not save you (if it does, it will still be on the edge and games are getting heavier), and products that SHOULDN'T have to do the latter are having to do so ONLY because of VRAM.

[76561198285398721]

fun fact

the xbox360 only has 512 mb of ram

i was amazed its like way less than most bottom end old-ass laptops considering the games it can play

suddenly one starts to notice all the low detail stuff that isnt really so far away and i kinda wish i hadnt found out lol

[AdahnGorion]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Resolution play a role. That is my claim, I am yet to find anyone that wanna challange that.
Are there other things? yes.

This is sort of moving the goal post now.

Your original claim was that 8 GB wouldn't be a problem if you played on 1080p, and if you turned down the settings.

I responded to that to say that 1080p isn't excluded from 8 GB not being enough (because it's not, because resolution doesn't often make a huge difference to VRAM use, but instead settings do), and that having to turn down the settings is precisely because the 8 GB isn't enough.

That was your original point and my response to it.

Bringing up how the popular games need less is neither here nor there in that discussion, so I'm not sure why it would be brought up if not to deflect.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Obviously if you want the best graphics and play the best games, you don´t buy low tier GPUs you buy high mid tier or high tier.

Even midtier cards have 12-16gb vram now.

You can't be serious with this reasoning?

So the RTX 3060 Ti through RTX 3080 are all low tier? (the latter doesn't have 8 GB specifically so ignore that mention if you wish.)

They aren't still being sold?

nVidia isn't about to do this again with the RTX 4060/4060 Ti? (though I guess you can sort of get around this one by calling them entry level, which I wouldn't even disagree with you on, but only BECAUSE of their VRAM).

Minecraft with shaders is some gargantuan game that should need high end stuff? So we should need x80s and x90s if going with nVidia's offerings to play this game? Come on now.

I'm not sure why you're trying and reason it away by saying "just play at 1080p" or "just lower the settings". The former may or may not save you (if it does, it will still be on the edge and games are getting heavier), and products that SHOULDN'T have to do the latter are having to do so ONLY because of VRAM.

I said in most cases, people that own a PC build around a 8gb vram GPU now, will have no issues playing at 1080p with the vast majority of games, even newer releases.
If we look at the most popular games on steam, they will be in no trouble.

Obviously.. if you wanna play a new AAA title with demanding graphics on 1440p or 4k with higher settings, then I am never going to suggest you a 8gb vram card, not even now, nor if building a new setup.

But the above is not the majority of users.


A 3060 and 3060ti is indeed a entry and low tier GPU.


With that said, the 30th generation, had like the 10th and 7th, and 2nd, generation card, a big larger leap in performance (this ofc plays in)
But overall if we look at when they release, then their tiers are entry level.

Basically (this has shifted a bit and still do with some generations)

x30 <-- Would not even call this a gaming card, might as well use integrated.
x50 and x50ti <--- Budget cards
x60 x60ti <-- Entry level and avarage cards (what the avarage gamer have)
x70 x70ti <-- Good (above avarage) gaming cards
x80 <-- Superb gaming card
x80ti x90 <-- Coup de grace card (enthusiast level)


That is pretty rougly ofc.
The twist here is, that some generations, will have a bad performance or introduce new tech/software/etc.. Take the 20th generation, but then again the RT was better (not nearly enough however)

A 1080 is still better (no RT) than a 3050 card ie. Like a lot better.


Would a kid (preteen) that plays roblox and regular minecraft need anything past a 3050? no.. that would be perfectly acceptable and run well.

Would a teen playing dota, fortnight, csgo, etc. need to upgrade their 1060. Maybe, but I reckon they will survive if they could not, they would still be able to play their games, would a PC build around a 3060ti be more than enough for those games on 1080p ?? YES! also in 3 years from now.

My point here is, that the vast majority of people don´t need high tier or even mid tier cards, when building a new machine, most will do perfectly fine with avarage and entry level cards, some even budget cards.


Note.

The 3060ti actually has a 12gb vram version. So most of these entry and low tier cards, actually do have 10-12gb vram now a days. (granted first 3060ti did have 8gb)

My point here is, that newer generation of cards, do have more vram and the next ones also will, but 8gb is enough for avarage gaming.
I am myself planning on building a new machine (I play my time abit due to prices and because I have a few brands I want to become more avaliable)

Am I going to buy a extry, low tier card for 1440p gaming? with the games I want to run? no.. ofc not.. I will at the very least get a 4070ti (might be smarter, and then sell and upgrade in the next generation) might go 4080 if its cheap enough.

My point here is. You buy into the tier you need and you upgrade when needed.
vram is not an issue for the vast vast majority of people and wont be the coming years, those that buy new machines today, will get atleast 10gb with most gpus even entry level some even 12gb.

4060 and 4060ti will both be 12 gb.

[76561198343548661]

@Darkie, i can agree with you to a certain extent but RTX 4060(ti) are likely to have 8GB VRAM .

i think if anyone is in the market to buy a new PC it must have 16GB system memory and 8GB VRAM at least for both

[AdahnGorion]

smallcat님이 먼저 게시:

@Darkie, i can agree with you to a certain extent but RTX 4060(ti) are likely to have 8GB VRAM .

I reckon they will have two versions. Like with the 30th.
Both things have been reported, so we will have to see.

Anyway, my point is still there. entry level 8 gb vram is enough, if you buy a 4070 right now you already get the 12 gb vram.


Another fun fact here.
Nvidia shifted to GDDR6X vram on a lot of their GPU´s.


But lets tinker with the idea that 4060 goes with 8gb.. What should consumers do then? well buy the most likely same priced 3060ti with 12 gb.

Problem solved

[Illusion of Progress]

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

I said in most cases, people that own a PC build around a 8gb vram GPU now, will have no issues playing at 1080p with the vast majority of games, even newer releases.
If we look at the most popular games on steam, they will be in no trouble.

Obviously.. if you wanna play a new AAA title with demanding graphics on 1440p or 4k with higher settings, then I am never going to suggest you a 8gb vram card, not even now, nor if building a new setup.

But the above is not the majority of users.

Yeah, I don't have any disagreements here. Like I said, I agree that despite the common buzz around 8 GB VRAM lately, it's not some doomed amount across the board. Far from it.

The thing is you're spring-boarding to something else now, or moving the goal posts as I said.

The reason I commented was because you seemed like you were downplaying the potential issue with 8 GB by saying "just play at lower resolution" which as I said doesn't necessarily work, and if does, it's more skirting the issue short term, or to "lower the settings" which is precisely the reason it's become a topic lately. You only have to lower them because of the limited VRAM. Ergo, that's admitting its a problem.

Trying to "appeal to the masses" by going "well it works for the majority" is neither here nor there. That wasn't the original discussion at all.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Note.

The 3060ti actually has a 12gb vram version. So most of these entry and low tier cards, actually do have 10-12gb vram now a days. (granted first 3060ti did have 8gb)

Huh? As far as I'm aware, there's not. Can you source this?

As far as I'm aware, there is the RTX 3060 with either 12 GB or 8 GB, and RTX 3060 Ti only comes with 8 GB.

I honestly think you are mistaken here.

The RTX 3060 (not Ti) is the only "low tier/entry level" product with above single digit GB VRAM right now. And while I personally agree with you that's borderline entry level in some ways, it's probably more mid-range if you ask most others. And one is certainly not "most".

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

4060 and 4060ti will both be 12 gb.

Unless you're insinuating you're privy to information that nobody else has, and that goes against all of the information coming through all the channels for months... prepare to be surprised? They are going to have 8 GB.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/european-retailers-list-rtx-4060-ti-with-8gb-vram

https://www.techspot.com/news/98503-nvidia-rtx-4060-ti-specs-confirmed-die-shot.html

https://hothardware.com/news/rtx-4060-ti-and-non-ti-vram-specs-break-in-msi-desktop-listings

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2023/04/29/nvidia-rtx-4060-and-4060-ti-to-have-8gb-of-memory-leaked-specs-reveal/?sh=1e70c6ce4ffc

Or just search the web for "RTX 4060 Ti" and you can find this.

With those specifications, it can't have 12 GB. It has to be 8 GB or 16 GB due to the 128-bit bus. Unless it instead has a 96-bit bus or a 192-bit bus (either are unlikely), it won't be able to have 12 GB. It's impossible. It's going to be 8 GB because I surely don't see it being 16 GB.

Possibly prepare to be surprised again if the RTX 4050 releases with 6 GB on a 96-bit bus (if not, it will also be 128-bit with 8 GB).

[AdahnGorion]

Illusion of Progress님이 먼저 게시:

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

I said in most cases, people that own a PC build around a 8gb vram GPU now, will have no issues playing at 1080p with the vast majority of games, even newer releases.
If we look at the most popular games on steam, they will be in no trouble.

Obviously.. if you wanna play a new AAA title with demanding graphics on 1440p or 4k with higher settings, then I am never going to suggest you a 8gb vram card, not even now, nor if building a new setup.

But the above is not the majority of users.

Yeah, I don't have any disagreements here. Like I said, I agree that despite the common buzz around 8 GB VRAM lately, it's not some doomed amount across the board. Far from it.

The thing is you're spring-boarding to something else now, or moving the goal posts as I said.

The reason I commented was because you seemed like you were downplaying the potential issue with 8 GB by saying "just play at lower resolution" which as I said doesn't necessarily work, and if does, it's more skirting the issue short term, or to "lower the settings" which is precisely the reason it's become a topic lately. You only have to lower them because of the limited VRAM. Ergo, that's admitting its a problem.

Trying to "appeal to the masses" by going "well it works for the majority" is neither here nor there. That wasn't the original discussion at all.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

Note.

The 3060ti actually has a 12gb vram version. So most of these entry and low tier cards, actually do have 10-12gb vram now a days. (granted first 3060ti did have 8gb)

Huh? As far as I'm aware, there's not. Can you source this?

As far as I'm aware, there is the RTX 3060 with either 12 GB or 8 GB, and RTX 3060 Ti only comes with 8 GB.

I honestly think you are mistaken here.

The RTX 3060 (not Ti) is the only "low tier/entry level" product with above single digit GB VRAM right now. And while I personally agree with you that's borderline entry level in some ways, it's probably more mid-range if you ask most others. And one is certainly not "most".

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

4060 and 4060ti will both be 12 gb.

Unless you're insinuating you're privy to information that nobody else has, and that goes against all of the information coming through all the channels for months... prepare to be surprised? They are going to have 8 GB.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/european-retailers-list-rtx-4060-ti-with-8gb-vram

https://www.techspot.com/news/98503-nvidia-rtx-4060-ti-specs-confirmed-die-shot.html

https://hothardware.com/news/rtx-4060-ti-and-non-ti-vram-specs-break-in-msi-desktop-listings

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2023/04/29/nvidia-rtx-4060-and-4060-ti-to-have-8gb-of-memory-leaked-specs-reveal/?sh=1e70c6ce4ffc

Or just search the web for "RTX 4060 Ti" and you can find this.

With those specifications, it can't have 12 GB. It has to be 8 GB or 16 GB due to the 128-bit bus. Unless it instead has a 96-bit bus or a 192-bit bus (either are unlikely), it won't be able to have 12 GB. It's impossible. It's going to be 8 GB because I surely don't see it being 16 GB.

Possibly prepare to be surprised again if the RTX 4050 releases with 6 GB on a 96-bit bus (if not, it will also be 128-bit with 8 GB).

https://www.nvidia.com/geforce/graphics-cards/30-series/

GeForce RTX 3060
12 GB
GDDR6 (it is not x)

There is a 12 gb version for the 3060ti as well, but its not listed here.

https://www.nvidia.com/da-dk/geforce/graphics-cards/40-series/

We only have the + x70 tier and they are all minimum 12gb.


As I said, I assume that like with the 30th series, there will be two models of the 4060 and 4060ti, one with 8 and one with 12. But as I also said, if you play on playing beyond 1080p and games that are much more demanding than avarage games, then you will never go below that x70 anyway (meaning less than 12 gb vram)


As I said earlier, resolution is not the only factor, but for most peopl, 1080p makes it less of an issue, since you will be using your CPU more. But that is another talk for another day, overall we agree with everything, so the debate is pretty pointless.


My point is, that most new mid tier graphic cards and also some of the entry level ones have 12 gb vram (like the 3060)

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Yes but 3060 was originally an 8GB GPU. The 12GB came out later.
And 12GB does not help the older 3060 anyways, it's not really all that good of a GPU in terms of raw performance.

Now the modded 16GB 3070 actually proved it could see a performance boost with it. Why NVIDIA made 3070 have 8GB and 3080 have 10GB is fairly stupid.

I really would love to have talks with them. It was funny to see AMD just call out NVIDIA as "dumb". It's like what are they even doing. People just going to stop buying NVIDIA if this continues. They aren't doing themselves any favors.

[AdahnGorion]

Bad 💀 Motha님이 먼저 게시:

Yes but 3060 was originally an 8GB GPU. The 12GB came out later.
And 12GB does not help the older 3060 anyways, it's not really all that good of a GPU in terms of raw performance.

Now the modded 16GB 3070 actually proved it could see a performance boost with it. Why NVIDIA made 3070 have 8GB and 3080 have 10GB is fairly stupid.

I really would love to have talks with them. It was funny to see AMD just call out NVIDIA as "dumb". It's like what are they even doing. People just going to stop buying NVIDIA if this continues. They aren't doing themselves any favors.

Well obvious.

And yes its an entry level GPU, it is not a GPU you buy if you want to play on higher settings and run good FPS or play on 1440p or above.
It is a GPU you buy if you want to play Dota2, CSGO, Roblox, Fortnight, etc


AMD have so many other issues, that it is not worth it. I am talking huge issues.. just make a search, its always been like this.
If I just wanted to use blender etc, I would buy AMD every time however, but not for gaming.

[CedLeVrai]

I have a gtx1050 wiht 2gigas, but 20 gigas of memory for the computer.
A new youth. But I dont't think it is enough for the most biggest games.
It"s enough for Pong, though.
Warf warf warf.

[Illusion of Progress]

I'm not sure if there's a communication barrier here or something but I guess this discussion is over because you are just avoiding the topic entirely and trying to shift to another. Severely moving the goal posts at this point.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

There is a 12 gb version for the 3060ti as well, but its not listed here.

Where is it then? What world are you living in where an RTX 3060 Ti with 12 GB existed? You are confusing it with the RTX 3060 non-Ti and that's pretty clear.

IF an RTX 3060 Ti with 12 GB were to exist, it would also need to be configured differently because you can only double or halve VRAM without making other changes to the configuration (like bus width), meaning at that point it's ACTUALLY a different GPU (regardless of what number it's labeled as).

This can be seen with the RTX 3060 non-Ti. It was originally only configured with 12 GB and had a 192-bit bus. In order to give it 8 GB, they had to cut off 1/3 of the bus width with that 1/3 of VRAM, and that cut its performance.

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-with-8gb-memory-has-been-tested-17-performance-difference-vs-12gb-model

https://www.techspot.com/review/2581-nvidia-rtx-3060-8gb/

Yet pricing was the same. It was a deliberate downgrade that should have been called the RTX 3060 LE, as it was a different GPU. For all intents and purposes, it's irrelevant and the RTX 3060 is a 12 GB GPU and the RTX 3060 Ti is only an 8 GB GPU.

The RTX 3060 Ti never got a configuration change or an offering with 12 GB. If it did, there would numerous articles about this, as well as performance reviews. Yet, they seemingly don't exist. I certainly can't find them. Your own sources aren't confirming this (one is an error page...). It's almost like the RTX 3060 Ti was only ever available in 8 GB or something.

Darkie님이 먼저 게시:

As I said, I assume that like with the 30th series, there will be two models of the 4060 and 4060ti, one with 8 and one with 12.

Who knows what nVidia will do in the future. It's at the point that I wouldn't be surprised if they bring the SUPER back as the "fixes" for some of these lacking SKUs, like this RTX 4060 which isn't even yet released and will be flawed on arrival.

But right now, now, it's going to be an 8 GB product. IF a 12 GB product comes later, it will also have to entail configuration changes as well (namely, either raising bus width to 192-bit, or lowering it to 96-bit), meaning it will actually be a different GPU even if nVidia calls it an RTX 4060 still. But right now that's irrelevant. Unless nVidia shifts course last minute in light of bad feedback, ala the RTX 4080 12 GB situation, then the RTX 4060 that is coming will be 8 GB. You can't just offer the same GPU in 8 GB and 12 GB without changing it to actually be different GPUs with different performance.

[Skkooomer Lord]

32GB RAM and 6900 XT user, no care or problems here.

Vram heaven.