24 Gb video RAM is worth for gaming nowadays?

[TechHalp]

Absolutely not. 16 gb is nice to have, 24 gb is for workstations. If you aren't doing ML or rendering, don't bother

24 GB is about the right size to target ultra quality 4K with raytracing and the general requirements of applications on high resolution monitors. If it wasn't needed, these GPUs wouldn't have it.

Crazy logic leap here, like gamers are the only ones who use GPU's and like the 90 series was ever targeted towards gaming and not rendering like it always has been.

Does the 3060 need 12 gb? Of course not, the bandwidth doesn't even benefit from that kind of memory.

Do games actually use as much VRAM as they allocate?

Of course not, you have to look at the actual FPS

 

[jallenlabs]

You most likely only need it for 8k or pro applications, not gaming. I game at 3440x1440p and have never seen mine go above 11-12GB with settings maxed. I do use pro apps though and that 24GB is really nice, especially for long renders.

 

[evernessince]

or in a special case, the Cache memory in the 5800X3D and the future 3D V-cache products from AMD

Desktop PCs do not use a unified architecture where the GPU can access the CPU cache. You only typically see this in mobile solutions where the GPU and CPU are on the same chip. Otherwise the latency penalty is far too great to be worth using as valuable resource as CPU cache for the GPU. Maybe if AMD release a chip containing CPU and GPU with a ton of unified cache on it the CPU and GPU can use. After all, the Apple M1 gets most of it's performance from it's cache.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Absolutely not. 16 gb is nice to have, 24 gb is for workstations. If you aren't doing ML or rendering, don't bother


Crazy logic leap here, like gamers are the only ones who use GPU's and like the 90 series was ever targeted towards gaming and not rendering like it always has been.

Does the 3060 need 12 gb? Of course not, the bandwidth doesn't even benefit from that kind of memory.

Do games actually use as much VRAM as they allocate?

Of course not, you have to look at the actual FPS

They are GeForce RTX cards. Gaming GPUs, maybe gaming GPUs for eccentric folks, but gaming GPUs nonetheless. The whole thing that a 24 GB GPU is some far-fetched enterprise thing may have stuck two generations ago when Titan RTX was launched, but it doesn't anymore. If you look at my latest post, AMD is also shipping these, and the 7900 XTX is not some crazy pro viz card.

The reason that the 3060 has 12 GB has been well noted over the past two years it's been available. It's simply down to bus width mechanics - with 192-bit you either have 6 or 12 GB, does the 6700 XT need 12 GB? The answer is equally negative, but both of them do need more than 6 GB for optimal operation. You also failed to account for the rising memory requirements from future games, especially those who will use DirectStorage.

 

[TechHalp]

They are GeForce RTX cards. Gaming GPUs, maybe gaming GPUs for eccentric folks, but gaming GPUs nonetheless. The whole thing that a 24 GB GPU is some far-fetched enterprise thing may have stuck two generations ago when Titan RTX was launched, but it doesn't anymore. If you look at my latest post, AMD is also shipping these, and the 7900 XTX is not some crazy pro viz card.

The reason that the 3060 has 12 GB has been well noted over the past two years it's been available. It's simply down to bus width mechanics - with 192-bit you either have 6 or 12 GB, does the 6700 XT need 12 GB? The answer is equally negative, but both of them do need more than 6 GB for optimal operation. You also failed to account for the rising memory requirements from future games, especially those who will use DirectStorage.

Funny how not a single AMD 6000 card has 24 gigs of memory, not a single 80 series card or below has 24 gigs of memory from any manufacturer from this generation, and yet it's 'needed'.

The second you turn on upscaling it isn't needed, if anything we can get away with less vram at lower internal resolutions. The 3 worst optimized games from the past several years aren't an argument or evidence, they're terrible optimized fringe cases that will always exist. Name some games that need more than 16 gigs of VRAM and actually use that much in 4k ultra. Now name how many of those need that memory with DLSS or FSR....

You fail to account that by the time most games need 24 gb of vram, you'll have an extremely slow outdated card and will have bought another one already. Your argument is that literally every single gpu on the market below 90 series will be completely obscelete and yet you'll still be using the same card 3-4 generations from now.

Still haven't addressed that memory allocated isn't the same as memory being actually used btw. Kind of an important point. Or that anything designed for console for the next 6 years is insanely unlikely to use that much vram.

The objective answer is no, it's not worth it for gaming. If you want a 4090 for the speed, that's worth it. If you buy a 3090 over a 3080 because of the VRAM you'll never use? That's not worth it. Neither is playing on ultra settings, playing with raytracing in most games, or playing in native resolution. It is the epitome of diminished returns.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Funny how not a single AMD 6000 card has 24 gigs of memory, not a single 80 series card or below has 24 gigs of memory from any manufacturer from this generation, and yet it's 'needed'.

The second you turn on upscaling it isn't needed, if anything we can get away with less vram at lower internal resolutions. The 3 worst optimized games from the past several years aren't an argument or evidence, they're terrible optimized fringe cases that will always exist. Name some games that need more than 16 gigs of VRAM and actually use that much in 4k ultra. Now name how many of those need that memory with DLSS or FSR....

You fail to account that by the time most games need 24 gb of vram, you'll have an extremely slow outdated card and will have bought another one already. Your argument is that literally every single gpu on the market below 90 series will be completely obscelete and yet you'll still be using the same card 3-4 generations from now.

Still haven't addressed that memory allocated isn't the same as memory being actually used btw. Kind of an important point. Or that anything designed for console for the next 6 years is insanely unlikely to use that much vram.

The objective answer is no, it's not worth it for gaming. If you want a 4090 for the speed, that's worth it. If you buy a 3090 over a 3080 because of the VRAM you'll never use? That's not worth it. Neither is playing on ultra settings or playing in native resolution.

Using the AMD RX 6000 series as an example is like shooting your own argument down. With them, it wasn't just the flagship SKU, all of the GPUs had a generous memory pool available to them. The RX 6800 and up having 16 GB was down to the 256-bit bus, which was enlarged to 384-bit on Navi 31. That's why it has 24 GB.

You're overlooking that the RTX 3090 was (officially, anyway, MSRP became a meme during this time frame) priced at almost $1000 above the 3080, and it had several extra compute units. People who buy this type of hardware are not concerned with it being "worth it", they do it because they can. If you care about performance per dollar, you buy a last-gen midranger, turn your settings down whenever needed and call it a day. But we're talking about today - and games that are yet to come, and must run on existing hardware, not about how things used to be two, four years ago.

DLSS and FSR will counter rising memory requirements, yeah. Just as it will also counter programmer incompetence, there's at least one developer out there that agrees with that point:

Atomic Heart Has Denuvo, Developer Claims DLSS Will Compensate for Potential Performance Problems (gamerant.com)

Name games? Why should I? You made your mind already. However, setting your foot down, calling every upcoming title (or the first few to make use of such resources) unoptimized and plugging your ears won't ever make it not worth it, people who need 24 GB of VRAM for games aren't playing at 1080p; 1440p or whatever, they're doing ultra 4K and beyond, all the while using texture mods (this is the PC, remember? you can do this), shader mods, lots of things that may or may not chomp memory, and when push comes to shove, having this memory available is immeasurably better than not having it. That is the entire point.

 

[TechHalp]

People who buy this type of hardware are not concerned with it being "worth it", they do it because they can.

Remind me again WHAT THE TITLE OF THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS. Dense.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Remind me again WHAT THE TITLE OF THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS. Dense.

I don't understand why are you angry. There's few perceptions more individual in nature than worth. To me, having a lot of memory is worth it. It's one of the insurance policies - games run well regardless, I can use as much eye candy as I want through mods and high settings and never worry about smoothness. At least 17 others agree with me in this thread and it is the direction both GPU companies took with their flagship gaming cards.

Do you think that you need it for what you do? If that is a negative, then no, it's not worth it. That alone sets your stance in stone.

 

[TechHalp]

Im angry because you literally comment 'well who cares if its worth it' on a post asking if it is worth it. You are so obtuse, purposely and maliciously

 

[Dr. Dro]

Im angry because you literally comment 'well who cares if its worth it' on a post asking if it is worth it. You are so obtuse, purposely and maliciously

Like I said, worth is an individual perception. The industry trend is for the memory capacity in GPUs to increase. We have been stalled here since the Pascal generation, which is now 6 years behind us, and one could argue there's been even a small regression there. That newer cards are getting more memory should not be a surprise. There's a large amount of factors on deciding a GPU's final memory capacity, such as market segmentation, software needs, cost, technical specifications, intended longevity.

Given what I can do with a 24 GB graphics card, I say it's worth it. And I also say it's worth it for lower segments to get as much memory as they can. Remember, the 6 GB on the original GTX Titan was also seen as a bizarrely large amount of memory "no gamer would ever need" when it came out ten years ago; it's been over half a decade that the most popular budget graphics card on Steam, the GTX 1060, has exactly that much memory. I think I've explained myself

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

16 gigs are plenty enough, 24 are marketing bs, they are selling workstation cards for gamer

 

[TumbleGeorge]

16 gigs are plenty enough, 24 are marketing bs, they are selling workstation cards for gamer

Indeed, you are right, as it is written. But remember, there was justification for a company's choice to supply a high-end video card with only 10GB of VRAM and promises of a leather jacket, for 3-4 years of relevance. The fourth year of this promise will not expire until ~18 months from now...

 

[dgianstefani]

Indeed, you are right, as it is written. But remember, there was justification for a company's choice to supply a high-end video card with only 10GB of VRAM and promises of a leather jacket, for 3-4 years of relevance. The fourth year of this promise will not expire until ~18 months from now...

Literally nothing will change re absurd VRAM requirements until next gen consoles are released.

Thinking otherwise lands you in "justifying my purchase" land.

Still waiting for my 11 GB to somehow not be enough because team red has more.

Things like Directstorage, RTX IO and rebar alleviate many of these *potential* future issues when properly implemented anyway.

 

[Lei]

Indeed, you are right, as it is written. But remember, there was justification for a company's choice to supply a high-end video card with only 10GB of VRAM and promises of a leather jacket, for 3-4 years of relevance. The fourth year of this promise will not expire until ~18 months from now...

The leather jacket doesn't only make cards for gamers. He's the godfather of AI.
More vram is crucial for training neural networks.
Indie game developers and AI scientists on a budget can't opt for Quadro-tier.

The 7-Osacr winner movie of 2023, was made with a team of 5 artists working with Adobe after effects. I wonder if they had professional GPU or were only using rtx3090

 

[TumbleGeorge]

He's the godfather of AI

I would like him to be my godfather. Then I wouldn't care about the rants about what the hardware prices are and are justified.
Ps. The translation is hmm, not very good but I hope useful.

 

[80251]

Who would ever need more than 640 K of memory?

Wild tangent aside, GPU VRAM amounts had stalled due to the old hardware generations. Games designed for the new consoles will drive system requirements up on PC as well.

Time to get acquainted with the idea to retire Windows 7, that first generation i7, get more than 16 GB of RAM and accept ray tracing is here to stay...

Please show me any games that use 12 GiB or more of system RAM because if they did how do they run on consoles that only have 16 GiB of SHARED RAM?

 

[mb194dc]

Thread is ?, it depends on your use case... If you're gaming on an 8k screen absolutely useful I'd think. 4k seems hard to use 16. Then again some applications might need it. Not so much at 1080p. Just depends.

What I'll say is that I doubt more than 24GB will be needed for years to come. 8k screens won't go mainstream for years and years. No content, diminishing returns even at 4k.

Secondarily, need B in thread title.

 

[ThrashZone]

The 7-Osacr winner movie of 2023, was made with a team of 5 artists working with Adobe after effects. I wonder if they had professional GPU or were only using rtx3090

Hi,
Pretty much why I don't watch the emmies or oscar's or pay to see movies any more that has to be one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen for free

 

[vigor]

Hmm, I have 7 year old GPU with 4GB of VRAM and play all games at 4k but of course for some games it is medium setting.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Please show me any games that use 12 GiB or more of system RAM because if they did how do they run on consoles that only have 16 GiB of SHARED RAM?

We've been over this. Consoles and PCs aren't the same, they don't run the same software and in many if not most cases, have tailored assets in addition to the purpose-built OS, which makes them significantly more resource-efficient than a PC. If you don't meet the specifications, just play on low settings, most games scale well to lower-spec PCs (although past some point can't guarantee that it will be a smooth experience) that fit your hardware or spend... the horrid, incredibly high, wowzas, super expensive(!), $60 on a 32GB DDR4 kit.

I'll be happy to oblige, though:

1. Forspoken

2. Hogwarts Legacy

3. The Last of Us Part I

4. Spider-Man Remastered

And that's just going by kosher, conservative developer estimates that don't wanna scare gamers too much, but if you notice the pattern, you'll find more and more game devs are completely unwilling to guarantee anything above 1080p 60 fps on 16GB systems for this wave of games. Aiming to reduce the image spam, i'll just add some more that will chug RAM in the real world once you actually begin to demand of their engines:

- Cyberpunk 2077
- Witcher 3 next-gen
- ARK: Survival Evolved
- Red Dead Redemption II
- DCS World
- Cities Skylines
- Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Fallout 4 with its high-resolution texture pack, and/or Skyrim Special Edition with mods
- Final Fantasy XV
- Very likely: Starfield
...and many more

Add all that to: Multitasking, background processes, Steam and/or Epic Games Store, Discord, your web browser (don't tell me you never looked up a wiki while gaming)... and yes, a new generation of games with high system requirements is coming.

Will you live on 16 GB? Sure! Especially if you're playing at 1080p and have a modest GPU. Games must scale because PC gamers won't upgrade their systems immediately. But you won't be running games at high settings on PCs with 16 GB of RAM anymore. no matter the indignation or PCMR pride that you may stake on it. Newer DDR5 modules coming at 24 and 48 GB will serve as a middle-ground to give PCs a little more oomph without having to go all the way on higher-capacity kits and their drawbacks, 12 GB sticks may appear in the future as well. Even if you don't need 32 GB, you may find that having 24 GB will be useful in more scenarios than most would like to admit.

 

[jesdals]

Yes
But not in all games

 

[Dr. Dro]

Yes
But not in all games

Arguably i'd say no games currently have 24 GB VRAM and/or 32 GB RAM as a hard requirement. But the presence of this component will greatly improve the player's experience by eliminating memory pressure, compression, strict priority lists, reducing if not eliminating paging/swap, etc.

SSDs are only now becoming a hard requirement for games to function well on the very latest games. As DirectStorage is implemented in more games, RAM demands will increase and SSDs will become mandatory for loading-free experiences.

 

[80251]

Arguably i'd say no games currently have 24 GB VRAM and/or 32 GB RAM as a hard requirement. But the presence of this component will greatly improve the player's experience by eliminating memory pressure, compression, strict priority lists, reducing if not eliminating paging/swap, etc.

SSDs are only now becoming a hard requirement for games to function well on the very latest games. As DirectStorage is implemented in more games, RAM demands will increase and SSDs will become mandatory for loading-free experiences.

LOL, yeah directstorage will be required if I have 32 GiB of RAM? WHY? Why would I want to load textures or map data off a slow NVME M.2 SSD when I have 32 GiB of system RAM?

On another note, if I have a video card with 24 GiB of RAM why would I need to store textures in system RAM? Why not just shove it all into VRAM?

 

[Dr. Dro]

LOL, yeah directstorage will be required if I have 32 GiB of RAM? WHY? Why would I want to load textures or map data off a slow NVME M.2 SSD when I have 32 GiB of system RAM?

On another note, if I have a video card with 24 GiB of RAM why would I need to store textures in system RAM? Why not just shove it all into VRAM?

No, DirectStorage's purpose is to enable loading-free experiences like you see on PS5. Forspoken is the first game to use it on PC and it's not a complete implementation. GPU deflate enable exceptionally high storage throughput for games.

DirectStorage 1.1 Now Available - DirectX Developer Blog

The DirectStorage team is pleased to share that GPU decompression with DirectStorage 1.1 is available now. This new version of DirectStorage contains everything a developer needs to get started with GPU decompression. For more information on this feature and how it benefits gamers, check out our...

devblogs.microsoft.com

Like I tried to explain on the other thread; this is due to scheduling and how the OS maps memory. Windows doesn't work with absolute values, but rather, a concept of memory pages instead. There are two allocation systems in use, the original IOMMU (contiguous addressing) used in WDDM 1.x, and the new GPUMMU model which is more efficient and supports virtual memory addressing. However, in most if not all cases, high VRAM usage will lead to high RAM usage simply due to the data flow between the host processor and the GPU. Refer to:

GPU Virtual Memory in WDDM 2.0 - Windows drivers

This section provides details about GPU virtual addressing starting in WDDM 2.0.

learn.microsoft.com

And really, let's be honest here. We're talking about a picture perfect world where every game engine is competently programmed. Account for games being buggy pieces of crap, which most are... you know it's justifiable. I rest my case, like I said earlier, this is a hill I am perfectly happy to die on.

Unless you're after high-performance DDR5, the cost of RAM is low enough I am very comfortable recommending a basic 32 GB kit to everyone's most basic bucket list even on a budget.

 

[mouacyk]

Gimme more CPU cache and better code to go with it. Any day now.