12Gb GPUs already obsolete, brand new game takes up to 18Gb Vram at 1440p

[Mahboi]

It'll get worse if the rumored PS5 Pro with more ram is true, if current gen consoles are so well speced for their price points that they inflate pc system requirements this high, then only time will tell how even worse it'll get with the release of enhanced version of ps5 and Series x

NXGamer had a talk with MLID on the subject, actually. (when I say MLID is interesting, I really mean his podcasts)
MLID pushed pretty hard about the viability/value of a PS5 Pro, and NXGamer was EXTREMELY certain that it wouldn't happen. While an XBOX DELUX may be a viable option for MS, who suffers from poor sales and a poor public vision, the PS5 is a pretty stellar success. Dividing their core buyers into PS5 and PS5 Pro buyers makes no sense, or so NXGamer vehemently assured anyway.

While I can't give anything but hearsay, I do believe that his logic is sound. The PS4 Pro did bring a heap of experimentations in acceleration (the reason we've got the instant load from SSD to RAM in the PS5 is probably not foreign to the PS4 Pro's extra system RAM), and the PS5 doesn't seem to be in such a need right now. If a PS5 Pro comes out, it'll bring nothing extraordinary in terms of value for Sony's image or the sales. Maybe if they want to experiment before the PS6 ofc, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I believe that the only thing to expect in consoles anytime soon is for Nintendo, in the same fashion a Saudi Prince enters an Apple Store, with 20 guards and servants and gold on every wrist and finger, to enter the Nvidia store, and to raise their Nintendo chin high, to check that their impeccable tie is impeccably straight on their impeccable suit 3 or 4 times, to walk around the store with Jensen watching from the sidelines, his arms crossed behind his back, crying his eyes out without showing a single facial emotion, and after 2 minutes of checking every product, for Nintendo to inevitably raise their finger, point to the smashed up, most broken plastic shit in the store, in a literal bargain bin that'll be the only non-glass container in the store, and say: "Yes, this. For the next 9 years.", and for Jensen to uncontrollably start shaking in his leather jacket.

 

[JustBenching]

Pfeww yep that does match up quite well. Until you scroll further down and the games mentioned there are actually running extremely well regardless of hardware. WoW, Riftbreaker and a bunch of others beyond the top 5 in the list.

You could easily draw any conclusion depending on the focus you have...

Not all amd sponsored games hog vram, but all non RT games that hog vram are amd sponsored.. ALL of them. Anything that has issues on 8gb cards with RT off is amd sponsored. Of course what conclusions are to be drawn by that is up to you, im just saying that - factually - 5 to 6 gb of vram are enough for the best looking game of this gen.. Anything that draws 3 times that is on amd's list and it looks mediocre to average so..

 

[Vya Domus]

Wait what? From your chart vram drops when dlss is enabled.

Yeah by less than 10%, hardly anything noteworthy, also notice how there is no difference between quality and performance.

 

[Vayra86]

Not all amd sponsored games hog vram, but all non RT games that hog vram are amd sponsored.. ALL of them. Anything that has issues on 8gb cards with RT off is amd sponsored. Of course what conclusions are to be drawn by that is up to you, im just saying that - factually - 5 to 6 gb of vram are enough for the best looking game of this gen.. Anything that draws 3 times that is on amd's list and it looks mediocre to average so..

Sure but again, AMD does not develop games nor engines. Studios nor publishers benefit in the slightest from not having their shit run on mainstream hardware either.

 

[outpt]

the last of us was using almost 13gb of vram until they patched it yesterday. now its around 11gb and this is at 1440 with ultra settings and no fsr.
hogwarts legacy will do a lirrle over 13gb. this is what i see as the max for me. the 2 games do not do this all the time its just certain areas of the games.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Sure but again, AMD does not develop games nor engines. Studios nor publishers benefit in the slightest from not having their shit run on mainstream hardware either.

Yeah, me pointing at AMD and blaming them for Nvidia being stingy with Vram is like me pointing at Call of Duty and saying all other developers are shit at developing games for AMD lol.


Imagine if all developers where this good at making games for AMD hardware all other developers are so lazy bad optimization trash...

 

[dirtyferret]

I look forward to people continueing to complain about hardware demands in every single game developped for current gen consoles (ps5)... "shit code, poor optimization, 4gb vram and 4 cpu cores should be enough!!!!111"...

I support people's right to complain. Now that doesn't mean their complainants are all realistic but just telling people to "just deal with it" is absurd as well as some of the complaints we read. Someone who spent $500+ on a mid tier GPU two years now see's it struggle in new games to offer decent performance has a legitimate complaint especially when some of these problems are caused by certain GPU brand trying to push consumers to constantly upgrade their cards every two years. People have a right to vote with their wallet and post their gripes.

 

[JustBenching]

Sure but again, AMD does not develop games nor engines. Studios nor publishers benefit in the slightest from not having their shit run on mainstream hardware either.

That's why I said - what conclusion you reach from that is up to you - cause after all they are just theories. Personally I see a clear pattern with amd games requiring more vram than the xx80 model has, was the exact same crap with godfall and farcry 6 last gen.


Of course it could just be lazy developing and bad optimization as well, but I assume noone in their right mind would argue that it makes sense for these games to require that amount of vram while looking the way they do. Forspokens ground textures for example are an absolute joke, some dirt road in that game look like they came straight from 2010.

With that said, 8gb in 2023 is silly for 500$ GPUs, that much is a given, so amd pulling dirty tricks isn't an excuse for nvidia to hamstring vram on their cards. 8gb belongs to the sub 200$ price point in my opinion

Yeah, me pointing at AMD and blaming them for Nvidia being stingy with Vram is like me pointing at Call of Duty and saying all other developers are shit at developing games for AMD lol.


Imagine if all developers where this good at making games for AMD hardware all other developers are so lazy bad optimization trash...


View attachment 293385

And your point would be valid if there weren't games that performed equally good on nvidia. There are. Therefore it's not about amd being much faster but bad optimization is holding it back, it's just some engines perform better on amd than nvidia and vice versa

 

[A Computer Guy]

AMD: "Nvidia only gives you 8 GB VRAM where we give you 12, and they only give you 12 where we give you 16."
EA: "Cool, but our game needs 18 GB."

Maybe someone one day will make a VRAM doubler.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I support people's right to complain. Now that doesn't mean their complainants are all realistic but just telling people to "just deal with it" is absurd as well as some of the complaints we read. Someone who spent $500+ on a mid tier GPU two years now see's it struggle in new games to offer decent performance has a legitimate complaint especially when some of these problems are caused by certain GPU brand trying to push consumers to constantly upgrade their cards every two years. People have a right to vote with their wallet and post their gripes.

The issues is their only real option is to ditch Nvidia for an equivalent tier amd card with more vram for most that isn't an option for various reasons regardless of how stupid those reasons are.

We are stuck in a world with 2 companies competing with each other even if a 7900XT on paper looks much better than a 4070ti for some the RT performance and FSR might be a deal breaker leaving them with Nvidia as the only option.

And your point would be valid if there weren't games that performed equally good on nvidia. There are. Therefore it's not about amd being much faster but bad optimization is holding it back, it's just some engines perform better on amd than nvidia and vice versa

I was pointing out how dumb that argument would be not that every game should perform on AMD hardware like COD does.

 

[Pumper]

nvidia's 8GB is like Intel's 4 cores pre-Zen era. It's as shame that AMD does not really try to compete at this point.

 

[dirtyferret]

The issues is their only real option is to ditch Nvidia for an equivalent tier amd card with more vram for most that isn't an option for various reasons regardless of how stupid those reasons are.

We are stuck in a world with 2 companies competing with each other even if a 7900XT on paper looks much better than a 4070ti for some the RT performance and FSR might be a deal breaker leaving them with Nvidia as the only option.

It's why it's so imperative for Intel to stick to their GPUs and stay in the sector. People can think what they want about Intel but they have a history of being ruthless and have cash to burn. If they can come out with more competitive cards they can force Nvidia off their "features' few people want and decrease the AMD market share they seem to be so content with.

competitive Intel GPUs are good for Nvidia fan boys
competitive Intel GPUs are good for AMD fan boys
competition is good for the consumer which is why corporations always fight it and try to pass laws to prevent it

*also, crap optimization and yielding to GPU brands in order to push new hardware sales should not be overlooked by these game developers. They are part of the problem as well.

 

[Dragam1337]

I support people's right to complain. Now that doesn't mean their complainants are all realistic but just telling people to "just deal with it" is absurd as well as some of the complaints we read. Someone who spent $500+ on a mid tier GPU two years now see's it struggle in new games to offer decent performance has a legitimate complaint especially when some of these problems are caused by certain GPU brand trying to push consumers to constantly upgrade their cards every two years. People have a right to vote with their wallet and post their gripes.

Well that's kinda my point - the issue isn't that the games are badly coded or optimized, but that the games are optimized for the new consoles, along with the fact that nvidia is being extremely stingy with vram - intentionally so as to force people to upgrade more often.

Games often take 3-5 years to develop, and considering that we had midrange gpus 7 years (!!!) Ago with 8gb vram, it's only reasonable that both consumers and game devs counted on midrange gpus having more than 8gb vram today... more like a 16gb min.

So rather than people being pissed at game devs, they should be pissed at nvidia holding back the gaming industry.

It's kinda ironic that a 3060 is going to fare much better longterm than a 3060 ti or 3070 precisly due to this reason, despite being a much weaker gpu.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

It's why it's so imperative for Intel to stick to their GPUs and stay in the sector. People can think what they want about Intel but they have a history of being ruthless and have cash to burn. If they can come out with more competitive cards they can force Nvidia off their "features' few people want and decrease the AMD market share they seem to be so content with.

competitive Intel GPUs are good for Nvidia fan boys
competitive Intel GPUs are good for AMD fan boys
competition is good for the consumer which is why corporations always fight it and try to pass laws to prevent it

*also, crap optimization and yielding to GPU brands in order to push new hardware sales should not be overlooked by these game developers. They are part of the problem as well.

While I would love intel to be competitive I just don't trust them to put in the effort. This is the Same company that only started giving a crap about it's mainstream cpu offerings when Ryzen started to make the endless i5 quad cores look really bad.

I'd love to be wrong just not holding my breath.

 

[dirtyferret]

This is the Same company that only started giving a crap about it's mainstream cpu offerings when Ryzen started to make the endless i5 quad cores look really bad.

Absolutely because AMD was showing little in performance competition and market share thanks to Intel's ruthlessness which is the kind of ruthlessness (minus the lawsuit) Intel needs to make inroads in the GPU sector. And like @Dragam1337 stated you are seeing similar "not giving a crap" performance attitude from Nvidia as Intel showed pre-Ryzen.

 

[JustBenching]

Well that's kinda my point - the issue isn't that the games are badly coded or optimized, but that the games are optimized for the new consoles, along with the fact that nvidia is being extremely stingy with vram - intentionally so as to force people to upgrade more often.

Games often take 3-5 years to develop, and considering that we had midrange gpus 7 years (!!!) Ago with 8gb vram, it's only reasonable that both consumers and game devs counted on midrange gpus having more than 8gb vram today... more like a 16gb min.

So rather than people being pissed at game devs, they should be pissed at nvidia holding back the gaming industry.

It's kinda ironic that a 3060 is going to fare much better longterm than a 3060 ti or 3070 precisly due to this reason, despite being a much weaker gpu.

That's not true though. GPUs have progressed much more in terms of ram than consoles have. The PS4 came out 10 years ago and it had 8 gb of vram, the PS5 has just double that.. 10 years ago the XX60 card was the 660 and the 660ti that had 2 gb of vram, the current 3060ti and the 4060 has 4 times as much. The 3060 has 6 times that. Consoles only doubled, GPUs quadrupled at the very minimum.

There is no excuse but bad optimization

 

[Dragam1337]

That's not true though. GPUs have progressed much more in terms of ram than consoles have. The PS4 came out 10 years ago and it had 8 gb of vram, the PS5 has just double that.. 10 years ago the XX60 card was the 660 and the 660ti that had 2 gb of vram, the current 3060ti and the 4060 has 4 times as much. The 3060 has 6 times that. Consoles only doubled, GPUs quadrupled at the very minimum.

The kepler cards were infamously stingy on vram, so bad example.

In 2016 the 1070 had 8gb vram. In 2022 the 3070 had 8gb vram. Amazing progress.

But yes, the 3060 (the original 12gb version anyways) was an oddity in the lineup, and its 12gb vram is what makes it the only viable midrange gpu from the 30 series going forward.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

The kepler cards were infamously stingy on vram, so bad example.

In 2016 the 1070 had 8gb vram. In 2022 the 3070 had 8gb vram. Amazing progress.

But yes, the 3060 (the original 12gb version anyways) was an oddity in the lineup, and its 12gb vram is what makes it the only viable midrange gpu from the 30 series going forward.

Also consoles have been about the same price over the last decade 399/499 when accounting for inflation.... Nvidia continues to raise the bar on pricing in the midrange while sticking with 8GB of vram for more than half a decade.

 

[BSim500]

I look forward to people continueing to complain about hardware demands in every single game developped for current gen consoles (ps5)... "shit code, poor optimization, 4gb vram and 4 cpu cores should be enough!!!!111"...

They're not mutually exclusive. Hardware requirements naturally go up over time and yet "optimised for console" often means developers took a game designed for console's single "flat" memory architecture and did little more than CTRL-C, CTRL-V when "porting" to PC (with separate RAM vs VRAM) with zero actual attempt at PC optimisation, then relied on PCMR types dumbing down the issue into AMD vs nVidia brand warfare. So yes, some PC ports objectively are poorly optimised for the PC platform. At the other end of the spectrum to "I demand the newest 4k games play on a 4GB GPU" are equally gullible saps willing to throw 4-digit sums as a substitute for growing a spine and saying "No. I won't be pre-ordering. We both know you can optimise better and I'll buy it only after you've done that". All it would take is to make one or two 'examples' of hyped to the hills AAA's flopping due to lack of optimization and developers would absolutely put more effort in than they have been. In fact I'll say some of the greatest leaps forward in PC gaming history came precisely because limitations forced efficient code, not "the more you give them the lazier they'll get" complacency.

 

[dirtyferret]

So rather than people being pissed at game devs, they should be pissed at nvidia holding back the gaming industry.

I think they should be pissed at both. There are some (not all) game devs who use studios known for cheap and piss poor PC port optimization and Nvidia is holding back the gaming industry. Each is independent of the other and both can be true at the same time.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I think they should be pissed at both. Their are some (not all) game devs who use studios known for cheap and piss poor PC port optimization and Nvidia is holding back the gaming industry. Each is independent of the other and both can be true at the same time.

I said this in a different thread as well but it baffles me that a company like Nvidia that seems to want to push technology forward when it comes to Pathtracing/AI/hybrid RT etc is so stingy with Vram don't get me wrong I know why they are doing it it just doesn't make any sense and they really are only harming the PC gaming industry in the long run.

 

[Gica]

What a tragedy! The Jedi Knights are in danger of not being appreciated by the masses.
Fortunately, my favorite games seem to be well optimized.
Playing a lot online, it's not the hardware that's the big problem with games, but the players' brains. Many are at the Pentium 1 stage.

 

[dirtyferret]

Pathtracing/AI/hybrid RT

differentiate yourself from the competition including a new company entering the market

so stingy with Vram

keep costs down

only harming the PC gaming industry in the long run.

as long as the stock price looks good today, who cares about tomorrow

BTW, I'm not picking on Nviidia I'm just calling them out for their BS (as are you). They are no different than Intel or even AMD once they started to climb back into the CPU race. This is why anyone who ever says "I support so and so corporation because they care about gamers" and I just laugh. Unless those gamers own a lot of stock in those corporations than they don't care one once about them. The "gamers" are the product, the goods and services are how they gather and deliver the product, and the customer is the stock holder.

 

[Dragam1337]

I said this in a different thread as well but it baffles me that a company like Nvidia that seems to want to push technology forward when it comes to Pathtracing/AI/hybrid RT etc is so stingy with Vram don't get me wrong I know why they are doing it it just doesn't make any sense and they really are only harming the PC gaming industry in the long run.

Companies like nvidia only think of short term profit... what it effects it has 5+ years in the future isn't of any concern - it's about pleasing the shareholders in the here and now.

differentiate yourself from the competition including a new company entering the market


keep costs down

as long as the stock price looks good today, who cares about tomorrow

BTW, I'm not picking on Nviidia I'm just calling them out for their BS (as are you). They are no different than Intel or even AMD once they started to climb back into the CPU race. This is why anyone who ever says "I support so and so corporation because they care about gamers" and I just laugh. Unless those gamers own a lot of stock in those corporations than they don't care one once about them. The "gamers" are the product, the goods and services are how they gather and deliver the product, and the customer is the stock holder.

In regards to vram it is way more about forcing more frequent upgrades than it is keeping costs down.

 

[dirtyferret]

In regards to vram it is way more about forcing more frequent upgrades than it is keeping costs down.

I would say it's both