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

[RJARRRPCGP]

WELP, RTX 4070 12gb just launched and a new game just rendered it useless as Star Wars Jedi Survivor reported to consume up to 18 gb vram at 1440p, jedi survivor is one of many upcoming games developed exclusively for current gen consoles which normally means very high vram requirements for their pc ports, thanks to consoles this time being equipped with generous 16gb ram, vram issues are continuing to get worse in light Nvidia shipping their midrange cards below 16gb vram, and it seemed like yesterday 12gb was considered to be the bare minimum, well maybe not anymore...

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/12zw867
- UPDATE : It appears that further testing shows the game eats up to 21Gb of Vram, PC ports of current gen games continues to render most GPUs today insufficient in light of gpu vendors giving you below minimum vram for anything but their top margin cards, is pc gaming dying?

View attachment 293490

Yikes! That makes nearly 98 percent of PCs look like a "potato"! Like the meme of emulating radically different hardware architectures on PCs!
With porting, it is more likely that the CPU gets hammered as well.

 

[AleXXX666]

Im really frustrated with how Backwards Nvida is going with their New GPUs with limited VRAM. I was looking forward to something more compatible for my CPU with the 4060ti coming out in may, but finding out they are releasing them with just 8GB of Vram! Heck the 3060s were released with 12Gb Vram, yet the new 4060 is pushed back to 8? I've been a fan of Nvidia but AMD seems to be taking the lead with more affordable GPUs with 16GB VRAM on the same tier GPU price wise. Because most of the modern games coming out the 8GB Vram card will be obsolete. Thanks Nvida. I'll pick the 16GB till you get your shyt together with the VRAM!!!

oh yeah, the 12 GB VRAM is the "POWER" factor of 3060, my ex 3060Ti with "just" 8 GB was like ~30% better @ 1440p just by "touch of magic".

I would absolutely get a used 3090 over a 4070 / ti - it's a no brainer in my book. As for dlss3, im really not a fan of it, and after having tested it in the different games, im not using it at all.



Are you unable to comprehend charts, or what?

It says ultra rt + no dlss = 11.6 gb vram consumption... ultra rt + dlss quality = 10.6 gb vram consumption.

Dlss does NOT increase vram consumption... it lowers the internal render res, so why on earth would it... -_-



Look at the OSD - it's not the gpu having issues, it's the cpu...

just don't forget to test properly the "used" 3090. Maybe, "Hynix-gate". maybe, "overheat-gate" or some other "surprise" will wait for you, naive boy...

 

[Chomiq]

That intro

 

[lemonadesoda]

Good design. Good housekeeping. If this game had been optimally coded for PC, rather than a poorly coded console port with inefficient translation/interpretation layers, it would probably run at double the FPS with just 5GB GDDR5

 

[Ivan Bliminse]

Until they sort this problem out buying/playing this game will be a total washout and won't happen for me.

 

[Mussels]

16gb of shared RAM.

That shared RAM is GDDR6, it's VRAM the OS can also use.

The OS shrinks down to almost using none of it when gaming, giving the game enough to use stutter free.

That's max settings, no one needs, or gets any benefit, from max settings. That could be a exercise done with every card in the past.
I would say there is no real purpose from benchmarking at max settings, but it does help sell more, make more e-waste, and a planed obsolescence agenda. I don't get it.

There is a purpose, in that its fair and repeatable.

A better phrase would be there is no purpose to ONLY benchmarking at maximum settings, and all decent websites also benchmark medium settings as well (or, with things like RT off)

 

[nguyen]

All 16GB GDDR6 amounts to nothing when the game is poorly made anyways

so in 2023 we are gonna measure GPU performance by VRAM now?

 

[Dirt Chip]

People's behavior around Vram always been quite dramatic, just as a system behave (read- preform) at a given Vram.
It is a binary process with dramatic 'step function' (non linear) behavior, contrary to many other graphic parameters effect that are gradual. You either have enough or not. No middle ground in between.
But broken games and misunderstanding memory allocation drove some out of their loop..

 

[Bomby569]

There is a purpose, in that its fair and repeatable.

A better phrase would be there is no purpose to ONLY benchmarking at maximum settings, and all decent websites also benchmark medium settings as well (or, with things like RT off)

it's a game review. Reviewing at max settings, low settings, medium settings, ultra settings, are all fair and repeatable, just select the option on the menu. What are you talking about?

 

[Vayra86]

it's a game review. Reviewing at max settings, low settings, medium settings, ultra settings, are all fair and repeatable, just select the option on the menu. What are you talking about?

Not true at all, something as simple as a patch for the game can make graphics presets act differently, whereas the 'highest setting' will always be the highest. This also means you can judge the worst case perf scenario, instead of best case, or 'somewhat decent' or whatever abstract thing you want to call it.

I think resolution on its own is a pretty good differentiator, and having three resolutions tested each on ultra gives you a great bandwidth of expected performance.

 

[dirtyferret]

That shared RAM is GDDR6, it's VRAM the OS can also use.

The OS shrinks down to almost using none of it when gaming, giving the game enough to use stutter free.

We talking consoles? I believe the OS has its own pool of 512MB DDR4 ram. The 16GB is shared between video and the game engine system RAM if I recall but I don't pay too much attention to the consoles so maybe it changed.

 

[Bomby569]

Not true at all, something as simple as a patch for the game can make graphics presets act differently, whereas the 'highest setting' will always be the highest. This also means you can judge the worst case perf scenario, instead of best case, or 'somewhat decent' or whatever abstract thing you want to call it.

I think resolution on its own is a pretty good differentiator, and having three resolutions tested each on ultra gives you a great bandwidth of expected performance.

You test a game on a specific time, a day later max settings can act differently with a patch, i don't see any difference there. As long as all the cards were tested with the same game version that is irrelevant.

 

[Mussels]

it's a game review. Reviewing at max settings, low settings, medium settings, ultra settings, are all fair and repeatable, just select the option on the menu. What are you talking about?

Multiple things, we're on page 12 here - try and keep up.


Running out of VRAM has less of a performance impact on a high end PC - because the CPU and RAM can feed new content to the GPU fast enough to not stutter.

Someone with DDR4 2133 or a SATA drive would have an entirely nasty experience when they run out of VRAM, vs w1zzards DDR5 9001 and NVME

 

[Vayra86]

You test a game on a specific time, a day later max settings can act differently with a patch, i don't see any difference there. As long as all the cards were tested with the same game version that is irrelevant.

What about all the checkboxes that arent directly linked to presets? What about games that havent got presets? Why then choose one over another graphics option? All these problems are gone if you simply use everything the game has.

 

[Bomby569]

Multiple things, we're on page 12 here - try and keep up.


Running out of VRAM has less of a performance impact on a high end PC - because the CPU and RAM can feed new content to the GPU fast enough to not stutter.

Someone with DDR4 2133 or a SATA drive would have an entirely nasty experience when they run out of VRAM, vs w1zzards DDR5 9001 and NVME

if you have a high end PC with DDR5 9001 you're probably not using a card with 8GB

 

[Vayra86]

if you have a high end PC with DDR5 9001 you're probably not using a card with 8GB

Ehhh exactly, you use it on the PC with slower memory and CPU and so you will meet stutter more readily on 8GB.

 

[Bomby569]

What about all the checkboxes that arent directly linked to presets? What about games that havent got presets? Why then choose one over another graphics option? All these problems are gone if you simply use everything the game has.

what if they add more options with an update. or change the options. it happens a lot.
what do check all the boxes mean, vsync? motion blur? usually the presets are linked to the relevant options. And whatever you choose for max settings that you find relevant you can choose for any other preset, i'm sure it's not just checking all the boxes you find, some are irrelevant, some make things worst.

what if's... max settings brings you no more security then any other option.

 

[Mussels]

if you have a high end PC with DDR5 9001 you're probably not using a card with 8GB

Totally missed the point there.
W1zzards results show little change to running out of VRAM, while home users with systems that have slower components might have serious issues.


The problem is that testing takes a lot of time, and games have dozens of settings leading to hundreds or thousands of combinations that are impossible to test all of them, especially when you add in external factors like driver settings and nvidia/AMD control panel settings (Hence w1zzard simply not installing them)

 

[biggermesh]

Multiple things, we're on page 12 here - try and keep up.


Running out of VRAM has less of a performance impact on a high end PC - because the CPU and RAM can feed new content to the GPU fast enough to not stutter.

Someone with DDR4 2133 or a SATA drive would have an entirely nasty experience when they run out of VRAM, vs w1zzards DDR5 9001 and NVME

Not really no, the limiting factor will be the PCIe link speed and latency. Which is one or more order of magnitude higher than vram. Which means no matter the system if you run out of vram the experience will be comparably terrible.

Also the initial article proved to be bollocks for the actual release.

Also measuring vram occupation in ultra on a 24GB card with an engine that adapts its use to the available vram is pointless to assess vram needs on lesser modes and cards.

Also consoles have 16GB unified memory, but about 4GB are reserved for the system, so that's 12GB ram + vram. And when you run out of it you hard crash. So Games will be much more memory constrained on consoles than what is usually believed. Situation is even worse on the series s which has about 8GB available memory.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Not really no, the limiting factor will be the PCIe link speed and latency

I expect this bottleneck to improve a little with the next generation of graphics cards, which finally will be PCIe 5.0, unlike today's generation, which unfortunately missed this.

 

[Bomby569]

Totally missed the point there.
W1zzards results show little change to running out of VRAM, while home users with systems that have slower components might have serious issues.


The problem is that testing takes a lot of time, and games have dozens of settings leading to hundreds or thousands of combinations that are impossible to test all of them, especially when you add in external factors like driver settings and nvidia/AMD control panel settings (Hence w1zzard simply not installing them)

there are A LOT of systems with 4090's/4080's combined with a cheaper cpu and motherboard, and ram,etc... or 60 class cards with even lower class cpu/ram/... it happens a lot, in fact that's the rule everyone used for decades to build their own PC's. High end mobos, ram and a cheap gt1030, that you don't find a lot.
People were using 3700k's with 2080tis and shit like that until very recently.
Those assumptions that the PC is one homogenous block is very wrong.

 

[biggermesh]

I expect this bottleneck to improve a little with the next generation of graphics cards, which finally will be PCIe 5.0, unlike today's generation, which unfortunately missed this.

Bandwidth is x2 and latency is not expected to be that different from what I can read so this will not change the situation dramatically. That was my point actually, pcie performance is so low compared to ddr and worse gddr that no matter the quality of your setup for the same amount of missing vram you'll basically have the same experience.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Not really no, the limiting factor will be the PCIe link speed and latency. Which is one or more order of magnitude higher than vram. Which means no matter the system if you run out of vram the experience will be comparably terrible.

Also the initial article proved to be bollocks for the actual release.

Also measuring vram occupation in ultra on a 24GB card with an engine that adapts its use to the available vram is pointless to assess vram needs on lesser modes and cards.

Also consoles have 16GB unified memory, but about 4GB are reserved for the system, so that's 12GB ram + vram. And when you run out of it you hard crash. So Games will be much more memory constrained on consoles than what is usually believed. Situation is even worse on the series s which has about 8GB available memory.

A console crashes when hitting a Vram issue?!?.
I smell something real bad.

Never seen that as a many year and present console user(ps5)..

The point your forgetting is a console IS VERY optimised.
A pc is not.

The 8GB YOU say a console has it uses in a very pre determined, optimised way to pass you med to high IQ ,, specifically chosen for a acceptable performance level.

Pc doesn't have that, it has at least 3 minimum ,present render paths to choose, many other API and a settings page which is far and away beyond what a console can do at all in some cases but in all cases that exceeds the console IQ.

A consoles hardware is known, little Johnny on his 3070Ti doesn't often Know what he has, very often miss configures his shit as evidenced daily here, and his hardware was randomly chosen usually on BOM cost.

And finally a console has tech a pc doesn't, it also doesn't have the RGB monitoring, driver update checking, total f£#@££ tat random software that a pc also runs concurrently .

 

[AsRock]

Its clear as day to me that we're moving on from 8GB. I saw it in person, I experienced it on an 8GB card. I've moved to a 20GB card now and again I see the major differences, and not just in FPS. 8GB is history as much as 3-4 GB were in 2021. 6GB right now is definitely exit as well... 1060~2060(S) is done.

Can you cope with 8GB, sure, but you're coping. If that's on an already owned card, all is well. If its on anything you buy today, you're a fucking idiot and in denial. That's the long and short of it. And beyond 8GB it still all depends on your future upgrade plans imho if, say, 12GB is sufficient. But the reality is, a 4070 or 4070ti with 12GB has way more core perf than you get in relative VRAM, and again... everybody is at liberty to think their thing of it, but it is what it is, the numbers just don't lie, and no matter how much magical (cache) sauce you sprinkle over games, lacking any kind of RAM capacity is a performance killer that will rear its head and force you to an upgrade because shit didn't just get slow, it got unplayable.

It is exactly like you say with CPU cores/threads. Have enough, you're good. Have more? Pointless. Have too little? You're screwed.

Well it's common sense that vram amount is going to go up over time, like OMG my 1st PC had 2MB up graded with 1/2MB ram chips.

How ever the starwars example used in this thread is a terrible one, like come on it don't even look all that great, just a pile of badly optimized crap.

And think it's around 12-16GB is were the sweet spot going to be, nVidia lost a sale with me due to it.

One thing for sure 6-8GB v cards should be avoided.

 

[biggermesh]

A console crashes when hitting a Vram issue?!?.
I smell something real bad.

Indeed it would be really bad if it happened on a consumer console, which is why developers avoid this at all costs. But the limit exists and is even more stringent than on PCs.

The 8GB YOU say a console has it uses in a very pre determined, optimised way to pass you med to high IQ ,, specifically chosen for a acceptable performance level.

Pc doesn't have that, it has at least 3 minimum ,present render paths to choose, many other API and a settings page which is far and away beyond what a console can do at all in some cases but in all cases that exceeds the console IQ.

A consoles hardware is known, little Johnny on his 3070Ti doesn't often Know what he has, very often miss configures his shit as evidenced daily here, and his hardware was randomly chosen usually on BOM cost.

And yes a console is a single hardware and software combination but this fact really doesn't do much for the vram usage : between a dx12 xbox and a PC, for identical graphics settings the needs also are basically the same. The main difference here is console are more efficient than mid range PCs at streaming data from the drive. The ps5 is more efficient than anything I know all things considered.

And finally a console has tech a pc doesn't, it also doesn't have the RGB monitoring, driver update checking, total f£#@££ tat random software that a pc also runs concurrently .

Yes that's true, people often forget other software can occupy your vram. That's particularly true for modern browsers that use a lot (up to several GB) of it and don't seem to back down when a game is launched that would need it. The infamous hardware unboxed video was an hilarious example of this: the first game tested (and one of the few where they bothered actually measuring the game's usage) showed 4-5GB of other software filling the 8GB of 3070 vram...