So RTX 5080 is slower than 4090...

[Vegasskill]

...and about 20% faster in Vulkan, 6% faster in OpenCL, and 9% faster in Blender than RTX 4080.
In my opinion it's effectively the same generation as RTX 40xx, which is why they are leaning so heavily on DLSS 4. Without DLSS 4 RTX 50xx series is nothing.

I can bet that DLSS 4 could work on 40xx series but NVIDIA will block this new multi frame generation option in drivers.

Link: https://www.techpowerup.com/331599/new-leak-reveals-nvidia-rtx-5080-is-slower-than-rtx-4090


So guys. Those of you who have RTX 4070, 4080 and 4090 cards, will you buy 5080?

[C1REX]

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

So a fairly short list and most can run easily on 8GB if you don't use max settings which includes ridiculously overkill 4k textures for most games.

Still, it's a very small list.

I honestly don't get the complaint, most of those games will also run badly on any 8GB card at max settings, once again, it's about realistic expectations.

Of those you list that I own I can run each of them just fine on an 8GB 3050 with sensible settings let alone on more powerful cards.

It is true that the list if fairly short and represents less than 0.001% of steam games. Often lowering textures quality alone solves VRAM problems.
It is not true that I complain about it - I simply notice it, share and discuss. I also clearly disagree about the importance of memory.

While we on the subject what do you think about:

- Are the 3050 8GB, 3070Ti 8GB, 4060Ti 8GB, and rumored 5060Ti 8GB all have an adequate memory to performance ratio?
- The 3070Ti is over 2x faster than the 3050. Should they have the same amount of VRAM?
- Doesn't the 3050 have too much memory if only 0.01% of games need more than 4GB? - Does a 3060 12GB have too much memory and is it too expensive for no good reason when it could have 6GB?
- Is the 3060 12GB a stupid GPU for having more memory than a 3080?

[Guydodge]

Vegasskill님이 먼저 게시:

...and about 20% faster in Vulkan, 6% faster in OpenCL, and 9% faster in Blender than RTX 4080.
In my opinion it's effectively the same generation as RTX 40xx, which is why they are leaning so heavily on DLSS 4. Without DLSS 4 RTX 50xx series is nothing.

I can bet that DLSS 4 could work on 40xx series but NVIDIA will block this new multi frame generation option in drivers.

Link: https://www.techpowerup.com/331599/new-leak-reveals-nvidia-rtx-5080-is-slower-than-rtx-4090


So guys. Those of you who have RTX 4070, 4080 and 4090 cards, will you buy 5080?

the 4090 is faster and has more vram making if far superior to the 5080 that would be a fools buy and you want to make it even worse do this.the vram kills the 5080 games are already exceeding 16gb.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3416317583

[Monk]

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

So a fairly short list and most can run easily on 8GB if you don't use max settings which includes ridiculously overkill 4k textures for most games.

Still, it's a very small list.

I honestly don't get the complaint, most of those games will also run badly on any 8GB card at max settings, once again, it's about realistic expectations.

Of those you list that I own I can run each of them just fine on an 8GB 3050 with sensible settings let alone on more powerful cards.

It is true that the list if fairly short and represents less than 0.001% of steam games. Often lowering textures quality alone solves VRAM problems.
It is not true that I complain about it - I simply notice it, share and discuss. I also clearly disagree about the importance of memory.

While we on the subject what do you think about:

- Are the 3050 8GB, 3070Ti 8GB, 4060Ti 8GB, and rumored 5060Ti 8GB all have an adequate memory to performance ratio?
- The 3070Ti is over 2x faster than the 3050. Should they have the same amount of VRAM?
- Doesn't the 3050 have too much memory if only 0.01% of games need more than 4GB? - Does a 3060 12GB have too much memory and is it too expensive for no good reason when it could have 6GB?
- Is the 3060 12GB a stupid GPU for having more memory than a 3080?

It doesn't matter what I think, I never argued that more is not better, just that 8GB is plenty and the whining about it for years online is largely by those with unrealistic expectations of hardware or wanting to push ridiculous settings without paying fir the hardware to do it.

No one forces anyone to buy an 8GB card, everyone who complains about it could of bought a card with more memory, either by going second hand or to AMD.

8GB covers just about any game at settings that 'make sense' for the cards with it.

Yes the 3060 is daft for having more memory it, especially at the time, had no need for it.

The 3050 can be bought with 6GB or 8GB, 8GB covers pretty much everything, 6 could be limiting, so, again, 8 makes sense.

The 3070ti is much higher performance, but in 99.999% of cases it still only needs 8GB of vram unless you go using 4k texture packs etc, it also uses the faster gddr6x not gddr6 of the 3060, people tend to overlook that part.

[D. Flame]

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

It is true that the list if fairly short and represents less than 0.001% of steam games. Often lowering textures quality alone solves VRAM problems.
It is not true that I complain about it - I simply notice it, share and discuss. I also clearly disagree about the importance of memory.

While we on the subject what do you think about:

- Are the 3050 8GB, 3070Ti 8GB, 4060Ti 8GB, and rumored 5060Ti 8GB all have an adequate memory to performance ratio?
- The 3070Ti is over 2x faster than the 3050. Should they have the same amount of VRAM?
- Doesn't the 3050 have too much memory if only 0.01% of games need more than 4GB? - Does a 3060 12GB have too much memory and is it too expensive for no good reason when it could have 6GB?
- Is the 3060 12GB a stupid GPU for having more memory than a 3080?

It doesn't matter what I think, I never argued that more is not better, just that 8GB is plenty and the whining about it for years online is largely by those with unrealistic expectations of hardware or wanting to push ridiculous settings without paying fir the hardware to do it.

No one forces anyone to buy an 8GB card, everyone who complains about it could of bought a card with more memory, either by going second hand or to AMD.

8GB covers just about any game at settings that 'make sense' for the cards with it.

Yes the 3060 is daft for having more memory it, especially at the time, had no need for it.

The 3050 can be bought with 6GB or 8GB, 8GB covers pretty much everything, 6 could be limiting, so, again, 8 makes sense.

The 3070ti is much higher performance, but in 99.999% of cases it still only needs 8GB of vram unless you go using 4k texture packs etc, it also uses the faster gddr6x not gddr6 of the 3060, people tend to overlook that part.

More and more games are demanding more than 8GB. I had a 3060 with 12GB, and now I have a 4060Ti work 16GB.

[90054321564584560]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

It doesn't matter what I think, I never argued that more is not better, just that 8GB is plenty and the whining about it for years online is largely by those with unrealistic expectations of hardware or wanting to push ridiculous settings without paying fir the hardware to do it.

No one forces anyone to buy an 8GB card, everyone who complains about it could of bought a card with more memory, either by going second hand or to AMD.

8GB covers just about any game at settings that 'make sense' for the cards with it.

Yes the 3060 is daft for having more memory it, especially at the time, had no need for it.

The 3050 can be bought with 6GB or 8GB, 8GB covers pretty much everything, 6 could be limiting, so, again, 8 makes sense.

The 3070ti is much higher performance, but in 99.999% of cases it still only needs 8GB of vram unless you go using 4k texture packs etc, it also uses the faster gddr6x not gddr6 of the 3060, people tend to overlook that part.

More and more games are demanding more than 8GB. I had a 3060 with 12GB, and now I have a 4060Ti work 16GB.

do you think 16gb will last a decade?

[D. Flame]

90054321564584560님이 먼저 게시:

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

More and more games are demanding more than 8GB. I had a 3060 with 12GB, and now I have a 4060Ti work 16GB.

do you think 16gb will last a decade?

Yes. Most games are only now hitting 11 or 12 GB of vRAM used. Game devs are wanting more, but gpu manufacturers are pushing back.

[Monk]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

It doesn't matter what I think, I never argued that more is not better, just that 8GB is plenty and the whining about it for years online is largely by those with unrealistic expectations of hardware or wanting to push ridiculous settings without paying fir the hardware to do it.

No one forces anyone to buy an 8GB card, everyone who complains about it could of bought a card with more memory, either by going second hand or to AMD.

8GB covers just about any game at settings that 'make sense' for the cards with it.

Yes the 3060 is daft for having more memory it, especially at the time, had no need for it.

The 3050 can be bought with 6GB or 8GB, 8GB covers pretty much everything, 6 could be limiting, so, again, 8 makes sense.

The 3070ti is much higher performance, but in 99.999% of cases it still only needs 8GB of vram unless you go using 4k texture packs etc, it also uses the faster gddr6x not gddr6 of the 3060, people tend to overlook that part.

More and more games are demanding more than 8GB. I had a 3060 with 12GB, and now I have a 4060Ti work 16GB.

Very, very few demand more.

Those that can use more are nearly all ridiculously high res optional texture packs.

[Monk]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

90054321564584560님이 먼저 게시:

do you think 16gb will last a decade?

Yes. Most games are only now hitting 11 or 12 GB of vRAM used. Game devs are wanting more, but gpu manufacturers are pushing back.

It's irrelevant, in 10 years I feel 16GB won't be enough, but, no current cards will run anything well either, not the 4090 with 24GB or the 5090 with 32GB, the way tech is going they simply won't have the raw processing power.

Now, I should state I mean won't run stuff well at what 'most' would consider a good standard, so 60fps medium settings and by then, likely atleast 1440p.

[C1REX]

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

More and more games are demanding more than 8GB. I had a 3060 with 12GB, and now I have a 4060Ti work 16GB.

Very, very few demand more.

Those that can use more are nearly all ridiculously high res optional texture packs.

You can’t have this argument while defending 3050 8GB having more than a stronger 2060 6GB.
By this logic somebody can argue that very few games need more than 4GB. That one of the most popular GPU in the world 1650 4GB is plenty for almost any game on steam.

99.999% of steam games will work on 4GB. That more memory is only used for ridiculously high resolution textures than nobody needs.
You can’t say that 6GB can be a limiting factor on a 3050 6GB but 8GB on a 3x faster 3070Ti is plenty.

I think I start to understand where you are coming from with this exactly 8GB argument now.

[D. Flame]

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

More and more games are demanding more than 8GB. I had a 3060 with 12GB, and now I have a 4060Ti work 16GB.

Very, very few demand more.

Those that can use more are nearly all ridiculously high res optional texture packs.

Nah, turn on something like after burner or mango hud. You will regularly see games using more than 8 GB of vRAM at 1080p on even just high settings.

If your card has 8GB or less, then the rest just comes from your system RAM, and you take a performance hit.

[C1REX]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

Very, very few demand more.

Those that can use more are nearly all ridiculously high res optional texture packs.

Nah, turn on something like after burner or mango hud. You will regularly see games using more than 8 GB of vRAM at 1080p on even just high settings.

I just want to add that this method doesn’t work on 8GB GPU when already memory limited. Due to how much Windows is using for itself + apps and how data comes in chunks people can be VRAM limited while showing only 7GB utilisation in MSI afterburner.

[Monk]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Monk님이 먼저 게시:

Very, very few demand more.

Those that can use more are nearly all ridiculously high res optional texture packs.

Nah, turn on something like after burner or mango hud. You will regularly see games using more than 8 GB of vRAM at 1080p on even just high settings.

If your card has 8GB or less, then the rest just comes from your system RAM, and you take a performance hit.

Given I run a 3050 8gb system and a 4090 on the same screen using a switch and kbm, I have tried and looked at usage on the same settings in the same areas with frame time graphs on screen, they'll both behave the same, though, like with all memory, games will use more memory than they need if it is available, though not having it does not negatively affect performance in most cases because it is using but not actually needing the extra memory.

[D. Flame]

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

Nah, turn on something like after burner or mango hud. You will regularly see games using more than 8 GB of vRAM at 1080p on even just high settings.

I just want to add that this method doesn’t work on 8GB GPU when already memory limited. Due to how much Windows is using for itself + apps and how data comes in chunks people can be VRAM limited while showing only 7GB utilisation in MSI afterburner.

Yeah, if you test an 8GB card vs a 16 GB card, the 8GB card will not always show the full 8 being used, but the system ram usage will be noticeably higher.

[C1REX]

D. Flame님이 먼저 게시:

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

I just want to add that this method doesn’t work on 8GB GPU when already memory limited. Due to how much Windows is using for itself + apps and how data comes in chunks people can be VRAM limited while showing only 7GB utilisation in MSI afterburner.

Yeah, if you test an 8GB card vs a 16 GB card, the 8GB card will not always show the full 8 being used, but the system ram usage will be noticeably higher.

I know but it makes it more complicated to show people if they are vram limited when they only use 7 - 7.5GB. Similar to explaining how they can be CPU limited while showing 50% CPU utilisation.

VRAM benchmarks don’t tell the full story either. VRAM utilisation keeps rising and peaks at about 30min gameplay when most benchmarkers don’t have so much time for testing. Many players mistaken this with memory leak. Also a fast CPU + fast RAM that benchmarkers usually use can hide VRAM problems if the rest of the system can brute force and shuffle data fast enough.

[Preacher]

People are gonna buy the 5000 series? lol