Wow RTX 5090 TI (64GB/512-bit) and RTX 5090 (32GB/512-bit)

[Max86z]

https://www.techpowerup.com/323495/possible-specs-of-nvidia-geforce-blackwell-gpu-lineup-leaked

[_I_]

lots of vram on high end gpu, nothing new
more ram bandwidth is needed for more vram

gtx 285 and r9 390x also had 512bit buss width to their vram

[vinny]

Some really cool stuff, I'm still going to stick with my 4090 for a while though. We all know how the launch of that went...

[A&A]

The Radeon VII has 4096-bit HBM2 memory.
1TB/s memory bandwidth... Incredible

[Zygfryd]

Probably gonna come at an even higher premium to capitalize on people doing AI in a non-enterprise setting. Gonna be surprised if it's less than (edit) $2499 for the 64GB.

[TechManMax]

64GB VRAM is entirely unnecessary lol. Most developers build around current gen consoles (16gb). Current 90 series 24gb probably never get close to the vRAM limit (I'm guessing...never owned a 90 series). I'm more worried about the lower series being gimped on vRAM tbh. Rumours are Nvidia will still be releasing 8gb GPUs...

[r.linder]

Originally posted by TechManMax:

64GB VRAM is entirely unnecessary lol. Most developers build around current gen consoles (16gb). Current 90 series 24gb probably never get close to the vRAM limit (I'm guessing...never owned a 90 series). I'm more worried about the lower series being gimped on vRAM tbh. Rumours are Nvidia will still be releasing 8gb GPUs...

Both AMD and NVIDIA will still be making 8GB Radeon and GeForce GPUs, at the very least at the bottom of the stack, which is perfectly fine as long as the price isn't ridiculous. Not everyone needs 10+ GB, and they're well within their rights to produce something that isn't going to cannibalise sales of higher end GPUs just as we're within our rights to just not buy cards that we don't like.

I have no reason to upgrade from 3080 10GB anytime soon, it comes down to the individual user, some people need 12+ GB because of the games and settings they want to run, 8GB can be perfectly fine for others.

[TechManMax]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by TechManMax:

64GB VRAM is entirely unnecessary lol. Most developers build around current gen consoles (16gb). Current 90 series 24gb probably never get close to the vRAM limit (I'm guessing...never owned a 90 series). I'm more worried about the lower series being gimped on vRAM tbh. Rumours are Nvidia will still be releasing 8gb GPUs...

Both AMD and NVIDIA will still be making 8GB Radeon and GeForce GPUs, at the very least at the bottom of the stack, which is perfectly fine as long as the price isn't ridiculous. Not everyone needs 10+ GB, and they're well within their rights to produce something that isn't going to cannibalise sales of higher end GPUs just as we're within our rights to just not buy cards that we don't like.

I have no reason to upgrade from 3080 10GB anytime soon, it comes down to the individual user, some people need 12+ GB because of the games and settings they want to run, 8GB can be perfectly fine for others.

I mean...I guess it depends on what series...5050 could get away with 8GB. But 60 series? No. 60 series is a high end 1080p card. 1080p all ultra settings in some games can exceed 8GB pushing closer to 10GB. Here's my feelings on how it "should" be:

RTX 5050 series: 8GB+ (HD ready bus)
RTX 5060 series: 12GB+ (FULL HD bus)
RTX 5070 series: 16GB+ (Quad HD bus)*
RTX 5080 series: 16GB+ (4K native bus)
RTX 5090 series: 24GB+ (8K ready bus)

*Fast enough for native 1440p but also 4K ready with DLSS. Absolute minimum 256 bit bus not this 192 bit crap. 4070 Ti super is only 70 class card worthy of the 70 class. The others are gimped with bus and vRAM.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by TechManMax:

Originally posted by r.linder:

Both AMD and NVIDIA will still be making 8GB Radeon and GeForce GPUs, at the very least at the bottom of the stack, which is perfectly fine as long as the price isn't ridiculous. Not everyone needs 10+ GB, and they're well within their rights to produce something that isn't going to cannibalise sales of higher end GPUs just as we're within our rights to just not buy cards that we don't like.

I have no reason to upgrade from 3080 10GB anytime soon, it comes down to the individual user, some people need 12+ GB because of the games and settings they want to run, 8GB can be perfectly fine for others.

I mean...I guess it depends on what series...5050 could get away with 8GB. But 60 series? No. 60 series is a high end 1080p card. 1080p all ultra settings in some games can exceed 8GB pushing closer to 10GB. Here's my feelings on how it "should" be:

RTX 5050 series: 8GB+ (HD ready bus)
RTX 5060 series: 12GB+ (FULL HD bus)
RTX 5070 series: 16GB+ (Quad HD bus)*
RTX 5080 series: 16GB+ (4K native bus)
RTX 5090 series: 24GB+ (8K ready bus)

*Fast enough for native 1440p but also 4K ready with DLSS. Absolute minimum 256 bit bus not this 192 bit crap. 4070 Ti super is only 70 class card worthy of the 70 class. The others are gimped with bus and vRAM.

x50 is entry level
x60 is low end
x70 is mid range
x80 is high end
and flagships differ by generation, sometimes x80 Ti (i.e. Pascal, Turing), or x90 (Lovelace), or x90 Ti (Ampere), etc.

Can't tier it by resolution because even a 4070 can struggle running some really demanding games at 1440p with high performance and plus there are people running 1080p 240+ Hz where a 4070 is more necessary to take advantage of that

[Shaggin'Wagon]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Both AMD and NVIDIA will still be making 8GB Radeon and GeForce GPUs, at the very least at the bottom of the stack, which is perfectly fine as long as the price isn't ridiculous. Not everyone needs 10+ GB, and they're well within their rights to produce something that isn't going to cannibalise sales of higher end GPUs just as we're within our rights to just not buy cards that we don't like.

I have no reason to upgrade from 3080 10GB anytime soon, it comes down to the individual user, some people need 12+ GB because of the games and settings they want to run, 8GB can be perfectly fine for others.

I have an 8GB RTX 3070 Ti and there is a short list of about 15 games I can't play at all due to those games maxing out the VRAM on my card and running really slow like 40-50 FPS, even at 1080p, even at low or the lowest graphics settings.

8GB VRAM is definitely *NOT* enough for modern games being released this year or next year. No one should actually spend money on any card with less than 16GB VRAM in 2024 fall or 2025. The big part about the announcement above is not the 5090 with 64GB, it's that all cards shown will have an option for either a 16GB version or 24GB version. Hopefully (praying hopefully) we may finally have affordable 16GB cards for < $800.

[A&A]

Yes, Pascal and Turing had a Titan tier.
The RTX3050 can run most games at 1080p 60FPS, but then you have to forget about ray tracing, as in Hitman 3 you will get about 30FPS with it. Perhaps in some of the newer games you have to compromise by lowering the game settings.

[r.linder]

There are 16GB cards that costs less than 300, the 16GB A770 which now performs quite well in many cases and capable of coming close to the 3060 Ti's performance, the 7600-XT at around 300, the 6800 at 370, the 16GB 4060 Ti at 440, and the 7800-XT at 480...

There are literally tons of affordable 16GB cards below 800, they're just not NVIDIA cards, it's really just an issue with NVIDIA holding back on VRAM.

There wouldn't be such an issue with VRAM capacity on GPUs if game developers would actually do their job properly and optimise video memory usage, higher usage didn't even start trending until after Ampere and RDNA2 launched in 2020 when things started to get competitive, one of AMD's angles has always been to add more of something that isn't immediately necessary and doesn't prove to be useful until much later in the product's life, like how FX has ultimately stood up to time unlike older i5s, and AMD's older 8GB cards like the RX 580 still being more useful than the 1060 these days.

[Shaggin'Wagon]

Originally posted by r.linder:

There are 16GB cards that costs less than 300, the 16GB A770 which now performs quite well in many cases and capable of coming close to the 3060 Ti's performance, the 7600-XT at around 300, the 6800 at 370, the 16GB 4060 Ti at 440, and the 7800-XT at 480...

There are literally tons of affordable 16GB cards below 800, they're just not NVIDIA cards, it's really just an issue with NVIDIA holding back on VRAM.

Unfortunately we can't consider Intel's options. All Intel cards are slower than existing options from AMD and Nvidia at their respective price points and Intel only has a list of supported games with their drivers. We can't just grab any random game (or any old game) that we want to play with Intel video cards. We can only play their list of approved games that they allow us to play on their cards.

Intel (unfortunately) is not an option at this time for anyone. I hope that changes in the future, they have A LOT of catching up to do.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Shaggin'Wagon:

Originally posted by r.linder:

There are 16GB cards that costs less than 300, the 16GB A770 which now performs quite well in many cases and capable of coming close to the 3060 Ti's performance, the 7600-XT at around 300, the 6800 at 370, the 16GB 4060 Ti at 440, and the 7800-XT at 480...

There are literally tons of affordable 16GB cards below 800, they're just not NVIDIA cards, it's really just an issue with NVIDIA holding back on VRAM.

Unfortunately we can't consider Intel's options. All Intel cards are slower than existing options from AMD and Nvidia at their respective price points and Intel only has a list of supported games with their drivers. We can't just grab any random game (or any old game) that we want to play with Intel video cards. We can only play their list of approved games that they allow us to play on their cards.

Intel (unfortunately) is not an option at this time for anyone. I hope that changes in the future, they have A LOT of catching up to do.

Not only do they have catch up to do, their last reported market share for GPUs was effectively 0%, there hasn't been any interest in Arc at all outside of reviews and news articles, and the only angle they really have for the first few generations is to stay as affordable as possible to build their GPU reputation

[Shaggin'Wagon]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Not only do they have catch up to do, their last reported market share for GPUs was effectively 0%, there hasn't been any interest in Arc at all outside of reviews and news articles, and the only angle they really have for the first few generations is to stay as affordable as possible to build their GPU reputation

I actually bought an ARC card a couple months ago, an A770 16GB actually. I installed it in a older computer with an I7-6900K (8c/16t broadwell) processor and 32GB ram running Windows 11 just to see what it could do. Like I said above: I tried a lot of older games and some random games. Most of the games I tried to run on it would just try to start up then crash to desktop. The only games I was actually able to get to run on it were newer games that were on the supported games list published with their drivers.

Compare this to any video card released within the past 20 years from AMD and Nvidia that can just start up and run all DirectX and Vulkan games that were ever released.

I ended up returning the ARC card for a full refund claiming technical problems prevented me from using it (which is true). So yeah: ARC leaves much to be desired.

[r.linder]

They improve with driver updates but there's definitely still a lot of work to do