Would you buy a 4 GB graphics card in 2022?

[Guwapo77]

I voted - Depends. I understand that not everyone can or be willing to slap $2,000 on a graphics card in today's market. Not everyone wants to power multiple screens. Not everyone wants to play their games on ultra settings at 90fps or higher on a 1440p or higher screen. If my financial situation was different and I'm just getting into the computer gaming world, you bet your ass I would be buying a 4GB graphics card. I got a cousin who wants to relive Cities: Skylines. This card is right up his alley. So yeah, different strokes for different folks. I just hope this can be kept sub $300.

 

[AusWolf]

I voted yes because (almost) every product is a good product for the right price. A 4 GB DirectX 12 graphics card is by far not at unusable levels, yet. Lowering texture resolution can do wonders.

I played Cyberpunk 2077 on a GTX 1650 at 1080p medium-high, and it was alright.

By the way, I happen to have a GTX 1050 Ti 4 GB in one of my drawers. If anyone wants me to fire it up and test it, give me a shout.

 

[Athlonite]

All depends on the usage for it. A brand new email facebook game video watching machine then yeah sure but if I could get an 8GB card for less secondhand that would perform the same function then probably not

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

My answer is HELL NO.

My current TV PC is a slim desktop with a 560x in it. That card, from 2017, has 4GB of VRAM, and it is a limitation in cities skylines, doom, doom eternal, and halo infinite right off the top of my head. That GPU is much slower then a 6500. I see no reason to believe that game devs will continue optimising games to fit into 4GB RAM allotments with current gen consoles, last generation the 2GB GPUs died a very gruesome death.

4GB, as AMD stated in 2020, should be dead and buried on anything past display adapter level.

My answer is yes, but at sub 75W with proper decoding/encoding support (and good price ofcourse ...).

IMHO the amount of RAM is a irrelevant factor if the card is properly balanced. Example: you can currently buy a 4 GB GT 730 GPU (Kepler!) which is massacred by the 2 GB RX 550 and 2 GB GT 1030.

If you run into memory problems, just turn down the texture quality and you are good to go. Most of the times the difference between High and Ultra quality is indistinguishable, even more so if you are playing at 1080p which is the target resolution for this GPU.

That only works if a game can scale that low. With modern game consoles having 12+ GB of RAM, we are seeing an increasing number of games that cannot scale that low. Sure they run, but your frametimes go in the toilet unless you go down to 768p, and who buys a $200 GPU to play at 768p in 2022?

 

[Beer4Myself]

well, all of my cards have 4gb atm and i wanted to upgrade my card to a 5700xt for 360€. was broke at the time and just when i got fluid enough miningboom came along. r9 290 wasnt even that bad for 1440p but its memory got corrupted + no support anymore. memory speed is more important than memory capacity

 

[chrcoluk]

AMD has just announced the Radeon RX 6500 XT 4 GB, and NVIDIA is rumored to have a GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB in addition to the 8 GB variant that was announced.

What do you think, is 4 GB enough for 1080p gaming and would you spend your money for such a graphics card?

Absolutely bonkers, if these were extremely cheap at around £100, £200 maximum maybe, but not at what they likely to be priced at.

I am fighting to get FF7 remake to work well on a 10 gig card, 4 gig seems bonkers in 2022 when we are getting games ported from consoles that have oodles of VRAM.

The PC market needs more VRAM not less.

Bear in mind with a browser, discord and other GPU accelerated apps open the desktop can use 2 gig before you even fire up a game. The emphasis is shifting from system ram to VRAM.

So ok if you specifically know you only playing old games with low quality textures and the card is at 2015 xx50 level pricing, otherwise no.

Its just unacceptable to be releasing these in my opinion, we all know they going to cost a lot anyway, in the pascal generation I was able to get 2 gigs of VRAM for £30 on a GPU.

On this subject and I hope you read this wizzard, I think reviews need updating to reflect that texture streaming is popular now, so large amounts of the game to be explored in a session, analysis of texture quality (as texture quality can drop in low VRAM situations, but might not be noticeable by players rushing around on a FPS e.g.).

 

[maxfly]

Voted no.
For me personally, 4gb isn't enough anymore and hasn't been for several years. For a clients rig, it may be but unlikely. I would generally go with a quality 6gb card(minimum) for longevity or opt for an AMD igpu.
Tbh I can't say i trust anything low-end from either camp under the current state of affairs.

 

[xBruce88x]

I voted yes. This is because I'm already on my backup card lol. Well I have an old gtx 260 but it doesn't even have 1gb vram. And my power supply can't power it. My best systems have come and gone and now I'm using a sort of compromise build. Having 2 kids and a 3rd on the way makes it very hard to justify a high end gpu over the needs of the kids. My current gpu I got lucky a year or so ago and found it on ebay for $35. Radeon R7 450 2GB. If a 4gb version of the 3050ti (or maybe it'll just be a non-TI 3050 and the 3050ti will stay 8gb) or 6500xt prove to remain around the $250 mark then I'd be ok buying one along with some system ram. I can give my current card to my wife's system which is also the "media" pc.

I honestly don't mind gaming at 1280x720 if I have to, though 1080p would be ideal if course. (ok let's be honest we'd all love 4k 165hz lol)

System in specs is system I'm currently using. Ideally I'd like a 6gb card as I think that's a good sweet spot vram amount for modern games at 1080p, but 4gb will do. The current "human malware" situation hasn't helped, wife can't work as daycare is pretty much not viable anymore. Not to mention possibility of schools going virtual. Someone will have to stay home for that, leaving me to work 6 days a week to keep the house let alone an overpriced GPU. Hell... A good GPU costs more than my current 2000 Toyota Corolla!

 

[Dr. Dro]

I voted yes. This is because I'm already on my backup card lol. Well I have an old gtx 260 but it doesn't even have 1gb vram. And my power supply can't power it. My best systems have come and gone and now I'm using a sort of compromise build. Having 2 kids and a 3rd on the way makes it very hard to justify a high end gpu over the needs of the kids. My current gpu I got lucky a year or so ago and found it on ebay for $35. Radeon R7 450 2GB. If a 4gb version of the 3050ti (or maybe it'll just be a non-TI 3050 and the 3050ti will stay 8gb) or 6500xt prove to remain around the $250 mark then I'd be ok buying one along with some system ram. I can give my current card to my wife's system which is also the "media" pc.

I honestly don't mind gaming at 1280x720 if I have to, though 1080p would be ideal if course. (ok let's be honest we'd all love 4k 165hz lol)

System in specs is system I'm currently using. Ideally I'd like a 6gb card as I think that's a good sweet spot vram amount for modern games at 1080p, but 4gb will do. The current "human malware" situation hasn't helped, wife can't work as daycare is pretty much not viable anymore. Not to mention possibility of schools going virtual. Someone will have to stay home for that, leaving me to work 6 days a week to keep the house let alone an overpriced GPU. Hell... A good GPU costs more than my current 2000 Toyota Corolla!

If it serves you as motivation, you have a problem I wish I had!

Good wife, two kids, expecting another one... cherish them, you have magic moments ahead of you, my friend. Moments worth more than anything a GPU could ever give you. Besides, what's important is that low or high end GPU, or even with an Xbox Series S, you will get to experience video games in the little time you will have to spare for it ahead. Cheers!

 

[xBruce88x]

That's why I'm not too worried. Our "media pc" is some gateway with an i5 4430 and 8gb ram. The workstation build in my specs is enough for her games she plays. I have a smaller room set up as an office with 2 monitors and a printer that she's able to use anytime. The most demanding game she plays is basically a Jurassic Park theme park sim.

I've got a steam deck coming eventually... So I'm fine with 720p since that's what the deck will have lol. Not too worried about upgrading the system I have now.

For the steam deck i just add a few bucks to my Steam wallet every week, reserved the 512gb model so I've got time lol. If I buy any other hardware it'll be to replace something that failed or some retro related stuff.

 

[r9]

VRAM = EPEEN that's it.
You shouldn't base your pick based on amount of VRAM.
Example 3060ti 8GB vs 3060 12GB. No matter how you slice it 3060ti will ALWAYS be faster.
6700XT also doesn't need 16GB VRAM. If AMD would release 8GB version for $100-$150 cheaper I would by that one.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

for economic and marketing specific reasons yes;
if i put together PCs for families and don't have graphics cards that cost clearly under 700€, we often have problems in the POS. because not every young person gets a computer for over 1500€ placed on the desk.

On this, I built two no GPU first Gaming PC'S for two youths this Christmas (both under 12 (£500 build including monitor keyboard ,mouse and headset) and both are happy with essentially R5 3400G performance in the games they play, they couldn't afford a GPU but no complaints on 1080 low settings.
Had they got this somehow ( too expensive for them at 100£ tbf never mind £200) they would have been ecstatic.

I wouldn't buy one for me, I wouldn't be happy paying this price for you.

But, in this market, it's not that bad a price and card IMHO.

 

[Watermelon5]

Personally, I am still running a GTX 980 Superclocked and plan to for a while. Its 4gb fill up extremely fast, being 100% or 99% in almost every game I play. I am still able to max out Rise of the Tomb Raider and get 40-60 FPS, it is OK but I see no point in buying a new 4 gig card now as games won't get any less VRAM heavy.

 

[dirtyferret]

I'm hoping to team up a GTX 1650 4GB card with an Intel i9-12900k for the ultimate balanced 2022 build...hopefully my 1500w PSU won't bottleneck me from playing CSO

 

[renz496]

No. Sure i have 3060ti now but if i can't get my card i will not going to buy another 4GB card in 2022. My 970 is already considered as 4GB card. And the new card with such memory config (even on the upcoming 6500XT) are not significantly faster. At worse they need to be at the level of 1080/2060 for me to considered an upgrade over 970. Maybe AMD should try releasing 6700XT or 6800XT with 4GB VRAM and called as 6700XT/6800XT Gamer Edition and see how well those card will play with only 4GB. should be not an issue since AMD GPU still scale very well at 1080p.

 

[chrcoluk]

VRAM = EPEEN that's it.
You shouldn't base your pick based on amount of VRAM.
Example 3060ti 8GB vs 3060 12GB. No matter how you slice it 3060ti will ALWAYS be faster.
6700XT also doesn't need 16GB VRAM. If AMD would release 8GB version for $100-$150 cheaper I would by that one.

Kind of the point I was making, lots of people dont seem to care about quality, and just want high FPS for their shooters.

I think it really depends on the type of games you play.

e.g. ff7 remake can probably run 1440p on a 3060 (60fps) and I expect the 12 gig 3060 will perform better than a 3080 (less stutters) because it has more VRAM for the game. The 3080 has "excess" rendering capability for the game but not enough VRAM, so its not always a rendering performance wins.

Dev's are currently running hacks in games to make low VRAM work, hacks such as unloading textures behind you so they can fit in new ones in front of you. Depending on the game if there is low VRAM you may not see the highest quality textures as hey dont fit in the VRAM, its not epeen, but we have a problem right now where messages are been spread that VRAM doesnt matter. PC gaming seems to be dominated by competitive gaming where image quality is not as important as high framerate. I have even seen people playing their games on low VRAM cards with stutter, and have said dont you notice the stutter, it is like what stutter. There is people on reddit as another example who deliberately make their games look like minecraft via LOD tweaking so they get a competitive advantage.

This probably what we should be seeing.

6 gig low end xx50 tier cards.
8-10 gig mid range xx60 and xx70 tier cards.
12-16 gig upper range xx80 cards
16+ gig enthusiast range xx90 cards.

Nvidia seemed to have realised they under provisioned, we are seeing refresh models coming out with corrected VRAM capacities. So this new 4 gig news just seemed crazy to me.

 

[KLiKzg]

4GB should be awfully cheap, once the mining pass that memory limit...so only 8GB card will be available to mine.

 

[chrcoluk]

4GB should be awfully cheap, once the mining pass that memory limit...so only 8GB card will be available to mine.

Well if it is super cheap I will change my opinion, if its priced as a stop gap, and marketed correctly informing buyers its for legacy games, then fair enough.

 

[AusWolf]

Kind of the point I was making, lots of people dont seem to care about quality, and just want high FPS for their shooters.

I think it really depends on the type of games you play.

e.g. ff7 remake can probably run 1440p on a 3060 (60fps) and I expect the 12 gig 3060 will perform better than a 3080 (less stutters) because it has more VRAM for the game. The 3080 has "excess" rendering capability for the game but not enough VRAM, so its not always a rendering performance wins.

Dev's are currently running hacks in games to make low VRAM work, hacks such as unloading textures behind you so they can fit in new ones in front of you. Depending on the game if there is low VRAM you may not see the highest quality textures as hey dont fit in the VRAM, its not epeen, but we have a problem right now where messages are been spread that VRAM doesnt matter. PC gaming seems to be dominated by competitive gaming where image quality is not as important as high framerate. I have even seen people playing their games on low VRAM cards with stutter, and have said dont you notice the stutter, it is like what stutter. There is people on reddit as another example who deliberately make their games look like minecraft via LOD tweaking so they get a competitive advantage.

This probably what we should be seeing.

6 gig low end xx50 tier cards.
8-10 gig mid range xx60 and xx70 tier cards.
12-16 gig upper range xx80 cards
16+ gig enthusiast range xx90 cards.

Nvidia seemed to have realised they under provisioned, we are seeing refresh models coming out with corrected VRAM capacities. So this new 4 gig news just seemed crazy to me.

No one said that VRAM doesn't matter. It's only that GPU compute power matters a lot more once you have at least a certain amount. And that amount is not 8 or 10 GB. More like 4, in my opinion.

Also, I don't think nvidia's "corrected" models are really "corrected". More like slightly, but unnecessarily upgraded so that nvidia can grab more cash. Profiteering on artificially generated needs, that's what I call it.

 

[r9]

Kind of the point I was making, lots of people dont seem to care about quality, and just want high FPS for their shooters.

I think it really depends on the type of games you play.

e.g. ff7 remake can probably run 1440p on a 3060 (60fps) and I expect the 12 gig 3060 will perform better than a 3080 (less stutters) because it has more VRAM for the game. The 3080 has "excess" rendering capability for the game but not enough VRAM, so its not always a rendering performance wins.

Dev's are currently running hacks in games to make low VRAM work, hacks such as unloading textures behind you so they can fit in new ones in front of you. Depending on the game if there is low VRAM you may not see the highest quality textures as hey dont fit in the VRAM, its not epeen, but we have a problem right now where messages are been spread that VRAM doesnt matter. PC gaming seems to be dominated by competitive gaming where image quality is not as important as high framerate. I have even seen people playing their games on low VRAM cards with stutter, and have said dont you notice the stutter, it is like what stutter. There is people on reddit as another example who deliberately make their games look like minecraft via LOD tweaking so they get a competitive advantage.

This probably what we should be seeing.

6 gig low end xx50 tier cards.
8-10 gig mid range xx60 and xx70 tier cards.
12-16 gig upper range xx80 cards
16+ gig enthusiast range xx90 cards.

Nvidia seemed to have realised they under provisioned, we are seeing refresh models coming out with corrected VRAM capacities. So this new 4 gig news just seemed crazy to me.

It's not just making the textures fit in the VRAM and automagically everything runs smooth. There are two other factors like if the memory bus is not fast enough to transfer the textures to the GPU when needed and acts as a bottleneck and the other thing is if the GPU is capable of processing textures twice the size even with fast enough bus.
That's why I say it's epeen as graphics cards are usually designed for balanced amount of VRAM, bus width and processing power.
If you upgrade one need to upgrade all three to make sense.
Good move on AMD side to the VRAM "enthusiasts" to equip 6700xt with 16GB as if the released 8GB version would have been obvious that 16GB is overkill and waste of money.

 

[Caring1]

I would buy a 4GB GPU depending on the memory type, clearly DDR3 wouldn't be adequate today, it would have to have GDDR5 or later with a wide memory bus to perform at a reasonable level.

 

[Mussels]

4GB should be awfully cheap, once the mining pass that memory limit...so only 8GB card will be available to mine.

That happened a while back, you cant mine eth on less than 5GB now (and that 1060 5GB was a rare chinese exclusive, so that tends to mean 6GB or 8GB cards)

 

[N3utro]

I won't buy any GPU until the shortage is over. Even if takes year. I'm playing small games with a GTX 670 and very happy with it.

 

[chrcoluk]

It's not just making the textures fit in the VRAM and automagically everything runs smooth. There are two other factors like if the memory bus is not fast enough to transfer the textures to the GPU when needed and acts as a bottleneck and the other thing is if the GPU is capable of processing textures twice the size even with fast enough bus.
That's why I say it's epeen as graphics cards are usually designed for balanced amount of VRAM, bus width and processing power.
If you upgrade one need to upgrade all three to make sense.
Good move on AMD side to the VRAM "enthusiasts" to equip 6700xt with 16GB as if the released 8GB version would have been obvious that 16GB is overkill and waste of money.

I guess where we disagree is if these older 3000 series cards are balanced, to me they not, I think the 3080 e.g. will be come obsolete from lack of vram long before lack of processing power or memory bandwidth.

The primary concern for the chip companies is profit not making a well balanced card (in my view).

So what do we all guestimate for the prices of these 4 gig cards, in GBP I guess £400 minimum.

 

[lexluthermiester]

My answer was no. I would be patient and wait for a better card. However, I am very aware that some people don't have that luxury and need a card...