Why Nvidia is giving not enough VRAM? - rant.

[C1REX]

New GPUs were announced.

16GB for $1000+ just to match PS5 VRAM.
12GB for $550+ just to match the incoming Switch 2.

If the 5060 will have 8GB, it will match the PS4.

I understand and agree that many devs are doing a very bad job recently, but this tiny amount of memory for ridiculous money only makes it worse. Sure, games can be optimized for VRAM better, but it often comes at the cost of worse looking textures, stutters, or increased CPU demand for data streaming and decompression.

Nvidia tries to condition us into believing that VRAM is made of gold and ultra expensive. Same as what Apple does. Nintendo is super stingy, and they understand that VRAM gives more than computing power for less money. It would be cheaper for us to have games optimized for more memory but weaker GPUs. Nintendo gives 12GB to a GPU similar to the RTX 2050.

BTW: Something odd is happening on the forum. My previous topic was closed for being too old when it was made just before Christmas. Other topics commenting on Nvidia were also closed.

[Monk]

Postat inițial de C1REX:

Postat inițial de r.linder:

That's called optimisation, more VRAM isn't going to solve your problems, it's only going to create more problems and turn gaming into more of a luxury, make it harder for the people who don't have a lot of money to be able to partake and enjoy it.

So do you consider optional 4K textures released after premiere as a bad move that only alienates people? Same for optional settings that only high end hardware can utilise (path tracing)?

They are optional, and not for low or mid range systems really, they usually even give said warning.

As gir you wanting options, you have them, it's just not free.

Anyway, I'll have DD2 downloaded shortly and I'll boot it up to check how it does on 4k, I mean, it'll run like poop, but not because of textures.

Edit, I mean, there us also the question of why are people trying to run new demanding games at 4k native on low / mid tier hardware to begin with?

I mean, frankly, you have to be a bit daft to try and play at 4k maxed out on an old or mid range card, so it's not really on nvidia now is it?

[xSOSxHawkens]

Postat inițial de Omega:

Postat inițial de Monk:

Probably because nvidia understands how much memory is actually needed for stuff rather than how much a fame can hog down.

I have 2 systems, a htpc with an 8GB 3050 and one with a 4090, at the same settings the 3050 can run happily at, the 4090 will show more than 8GB of usage while the 3950 might only be using 6.

People get far too hung up on vram capacity.

It is best to have more spare VRAM overheard, or the card will quickly become obsolete when higher VRAM cards become the norm, even if compute-wise the card is still fine.

We've seen this since at least the GTX 900 series and every generation after, the low-mid -range Nvidia stuff becomes unable to play games, meanwhile the less powerful cards from the competition can run these games just fine.

It goes farther back than that even.

Take the 600 series. There are 2GB GTX 680's that were "flagships" for their time that struggle to play anything now due to VRAM.

There was a 4GB GTX-670 that today is still roughly equivalent to a power hungry 1050ti and still serviceable to basic game use because it has twice the VRAM on a weaker core...

NV has used VRAM as a paywall for decades now, and it always ends the exact same. Anyone who goes for the lower VRAM cards looses long term. Anyone who opts for either the higher VRAM NV versions, or the higher VRAM AMD versions, even when the card has comparable or slightly weaker compute, gets a longer serviceable life out of the card both for games and non-game use (read things other than 2d, ie video rendering, Ai of GP-GPU compute loads, mining, SETI, etc).

[xSOSxHawkens]

Postat inițial de C1REX:

https://youtu.be/TWzqqMVqjKo?si=pHk7mtPIdfCrGfwG

Unrelated to the rest of the convo, but dude didnt know what interlacing was and seems confused that progressive scan would render lower fps lolz

Also, wtf is with a dev of a game making an interlaced option in 2024? There are literally no more displays that work that way in frequent use...

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

Postat inițial de Monk:

Very few games and we're talking one or 2 NEED more than 8GB vram, let alone 16 and that's only with stupidly high res optional texture packs on any released game I've played and I've been running a 3090 and 4090, plus a 3050 on my htpc I tend to install stuff on just to see if stuff runs as badly as people say or if it's their system, surprise, surprise, without crazy high res texture packs, I've found nothing that won't run on 8GB of vram.

Just because a game shows it has allocated more memory does not mean it needs it.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. The way modern games work if they run out of VRAM 1 of 2 things happens: Either the FPS performance tanks to 1/2 or less of what it was before running out of VRAM or they dynamically reduce the resolution and quality of textures to make the game look awful. And in either one of the two scenarios when our cards get maxed out on VRAM it causes significant deviations in frame times visible as stalls or "lag spikes" at random. This is usually all a most undesirable effect when gaming. No one wants any of that. Everyone wants all games to be fast, smooth, and responsive at all times. To that end: Almost all AAA games made within the past 3 years and all new games releasing now WILL require at least more than 8GB of VRAM even at 1080p. Typically most AAA games today will want around 10~12 GB For 1080p gaming.

Of course the other option is to turn down the graphics settings to medium-low but that just makes the games look awful too and is a constant reminder that we can't afford a better video card, which is just depressing as heck and makes playing the games not even worth it.

It's part of why I made a terrible choice with my RTX 3070 Ti last time. At only 8GB of VRAM there are quite a few (about 15) games I would love to be playing right now but I just can't play them because of the VRAM requirements.

[C1REX]

Postat inițial de r.linder:

But if they keep throwing more memory into the mix then it's inevitably going to push the minimum requirements higher at a potentially faster rate than anticipated, which will leave society's poorest demographics in the dust for those games.

That's exactly the opposite. Because PC is starving for memory we need to brute force with more computing power. We need the newest CPUs to keep decompressing data because nothing can be kept in 8GB of VRAM for too long. Every second game have traversal stutters because VRAM on PC is made of gold and nobody can afford more.

Meanwhile Nintendo will give 12GB combined with just rtx2050 level of GPU performance in their new Switch2 because Nintendo knows VRAM is the cheaper way to make games look better.

[Monk]

Postat inițial de Ontrix_Kitsune:

Postat inițial de Monk:

Very few games and we're talking one or 2 NEED more than 8GB vram, let alone 16 and that's only with stupidly high res optional texture packs on any released game I've played and I've been running a 3090 and 4090, plus a 3050 on my htpc I tend to install stuff on just to see if stuff runs as badly as people say or if it's their system, surprise, surprise, without crazy high res texture packs, I've found nothing that won't run on 8GB of vram.

Just because a game shows it has allocated more memory does not mean it needs it.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. The way modern games work if they run out of VRAM 1 of 2 things happens: Either the FPS performance tanks to 1/2 or less of what it was before running out of VRAM or they dynamically reduce the resolution and quality of textures to make the game look awful. And in either one of the two scenarios when our cards get maxed out on VRAM it causes significant deviations in frame times visible as stalls or "lag spikes" at random. This is usually all a most undesirable effect when gaming. No one wants any of that. Everyone wants all games to be fast, smooth, and responsive at all times. To that end: Almost all AAA games made within the past 3 years and all new games releasing now WILL require at least more than 8GB of VRAM even at 1080p. Typically most AAA games today will want around 10~12 GB For 1080p gaming.

Of course the other option is to turn down the graphics settings to medium-low but that just makes the games look awful too and is a constant reminder that we can't afford a better video card, which is just depressing as heck and makes playing the games not even worth it.

It's part of why I made a terrible choice with my RTX 3070 Ti last time. At only 8GB of VRAM there are quite a few (about 15) games I would love to be playing right now but I just can't play them because of the VRAM requirements.

Again, I try games on both settings, sounds more like you are expecting top tier performance for mid tier money not thst you are running out of vram, again, share with me the games using 12GB at standard, not optional high res texture packs or mods and I'll go see myself if I have the games. It's not like I can do anything else, my main rig is in pieces awaiting a 5090 + water block and gir me to stop being lazy and delid the new 14900ks.

[¤☣wing☢zeяo☣¤™]

Postat inițial de Ontrix_Kitsune:

It's part of why I made a terrible choice with my RTX 3070 Ti last time. At only 8GB of VRAM there are quite a few (about 15) games I would love to be playing right now but I just can't play them because of the VRAM requirements.

8GB cards are actually a pain, memory compression algorithms are pushed to the limits, without them we would need GPU's with huge amounts of VRAM.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

Postat inițial de Monk:

Again, I try games on both settings, sounds more like you are expecting top tier performance for mid tier money not thst you are running out of vram, again, share with me the games using 12GB at standard, not optional high res texture packs or mods and I'll go see myself if I have the games. It's not like I can do anything else, my main rig is in pieces awaiting a 5090 + water block and gir me to stop being lazy and delid the new 14900ks.

That's an odd way of commenting about things. While yes the RTX 3070 Ti is "technically" a "mid-range" card in the RTX 30 series lineup, it's still a little more than twice the performance of the "high end" GTX 1080 Ti that it replaced. The way video cards work we can't really compare mid-range or high-end like that. Wait a couple generations and the mid-range cards of a new family will be faster than the high-end cards from a couple years ago. Just because a card is a mid-range card today does not mean that it is in any way slow.

Also someone already linked a video in this thread that shows about 10+ games that all require at least 10GB (or more) VRAM @ 1080p. I think you didn't read the previous comments in this thread before jumping in to comment so I'll re-link the video for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx4En-2PzOU

[r.linder]

10+ GB at 1080p for higher or ultra settings**

8GB is still enough for medium settings but for powerful cards like the 3070 series, it was definitely wasted potential because those cards should've had at least 10GB

[Monk]

Hub is a blitgerung baffoon so I won't watch it.

As for dragon's dogma 2, I just got done testing, no raytracing, but 4k native max everything else was sitting at 7.9GB usage, dropping to 1080p dropped that to 7GB. This was in the market outskirts of the desert city looking / running around.

And frankly at settings that 8GB cards will struggle with more than the vram limit.

The 3070ti is not a replacement for a 1080ti., there's 5 years and 2 1/2 generations between them and in the performance stack, a 1080ti is decidedly low end now.
I could test it as well, but I really cannot be bothered to put it in my htpc.

And the 3070 is very much a mid range card at release, in the overall performance stack now, id put it more towards lower end of mid range tbh.

Fact is, memory isn't cheap and if you set your settings within reason for your hardware, 8GB is plenty of vram.
If someone wants to run settings really intended gir the current high end cards on the low or mid tier stuff native at 4k instead of 1080p, 140p medium with some high, that is on them, maybe they should buy a console if they cannot figure out sensible settings to r in n stuff at.

[Carlsberg]

I see no mention of direct storage and its possible affect on Vram use. Not that I fully understand the tech behind it but a very fast Nvme drive will still be slow alongside ddr7 ram, (happy to see that as minimum for 5000 series though, it really should be minimum across the board in todays world).

Anyway, my thought is that some form of Gpu cache would be required no? otherwise the Gpu will always be waiting. If we need 6-8Gb for game software, some for Data cache from Nvme DS then 12Gb is going to be absolute minimum needed I think.

[Midnight Aurais]

it is simple people want 16 gb vram lets put that on the more expensive card to force people that want 16 gb to spend more money then they are willing makes the whole go broke or go home a real thing

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

Postat inițial de Monk:

Hub is a blitgerung baffoon so I won't watch it.

Then you probably shouldn't be arguing about a subject when you refuse to see information on the subject that you're arguing about.

[Monk]

Postat inițial de Ontrix_Kitsune:

Postat inițial de Monk:

Hub is a blitgerung baffoon so I won't watch it.

Then you probably shouldn't be arguing about a subject when you refuse to see information on the subject that you're arguing about.

So because I don't watch 1 video by a guy who thought a windows update got him 34% better performance, I cannot speak on a subject of vram usage, despite me just saying how I test this stuff myself and JUST got finished testing DD2 as asked, where I gave my results....... From an 8GB card.

Yes, I clearly should not speak on a subject that I actually tested myself, I should rely and parrot information from a YouTube who is often wrong about performance, my bad.

[C1REX]

Postat inițial de Monk:

JUST got finished testing DD2 as asked, where I gave my results....... From an 8GB card.

Yes, I clearly should not speak on a subject that I actually tested myself, I should rely and parrot information from a YouTube who is often wrong about performance, my bad.

You can’t test properly for VRAM without enough VRAM. You won’t be able to tell if the game could run faster with more or if the game would load better quality textures.
It’s often not even easy to tell if you are at the limit as data comes in chunks and you can use only 7,5GB and already be limited.