GDDR6 VRAM Prices Falling According to Spot Market Analysis - 8 GB Selling for $27

[dgianstefani]

I'm skeptical of this framing. How much die size is really taken up when going from a 128-bit bus to a 192-bit bus?

Well it only matters if the chip is bandwidth starved, so you also have to have a die large enough to need more memory bandwidth. Typically this only matters in certain types of games or at high resolutions.

The point is it's not as simple as just adding more memory to achieve higher performance, everything else has to scale too.

The 4060 Ti 16 GB will be a flop because the tier of card doesn't need that much memory, and the premium won't be worth it. Exactly the same as with RAM, more only matters if you are actually using it, otherwise it makes zero difference to performance.

 

[mechtech]

So Nvidia 16GB 4060ti $100 more than 8GB version..........so ~300% mark up on ram?!?!

So if 8GB is about $27............then 32GB would add roughly $100 to the price of a video card............

hmmmmmmm

 

[konga]

Well it only matters if the chip is bandwidth starved, so you also have to have a die large enough to need more memory bandwidth. Typically this only matters in certain types of games or at high resolutions.

The point is it's not as simple as just adding more memory to achieve higher performance, everything else has to scale too.

The 4060 Ti 16 GB will be a flop because the tier of card doesn't need that much memory, and the premium won't be worth it. Exactly the same as with RAM, more only matters if you are actually using it, otherwise it makes zero difference to performance.

I disagree with this assessment. I think the reviews and analysis we've seen since the 4060 Ti's launch has proven that 8GB and a 128-bit bus are not enough for some modern games, or at least they don't provide the kind of experience you'd expect at $400. 16GB may be too much, but 12GB on a 192-bit bus would have been a nice sweet spot. And I'm not sure I buy any arguments that it would've cost them too much to do.

 

[R0H1T]

So Nvidia 16GB 4060ti $100 more than 8GB version..........so ~300% mark up on ram?!?!

Not exactly but close, GDDR7 can't come soon enough! Wait for 64bit bus on the new xx30 tier 5060 card

 

[Totally]

you mean Intel, because AMD just shaves a couple of bucks but plays the same game

Ran out of time when I was making that comment. I actually came back to edit in that AMD happily plays along, but you already pointed it, and I don't blame AMD for the same reason stated in the video posted by R0H1T, despite having a better perf/$ value people are going to buy Nvidia anyway. I don't know if to frequented reddit around that time, the established groupthink was AMD was for poor people who couldn't afford Nvidia, and that's a stigma AMD wants as much distance from as they can. As for Intel, I doubt it Intel has never initiated a price war iirc.

 

[dgianstefani]

I disagree with this assessment. I think the reviews and analysis we've seen since the 4060 Ti's launch has proven that 8GB and a 128-bit bus are not enough for some modern games, or at least they don't provide the kind of experience you'd expect at $400. 16GB may be too much, but 12GB on a 192-bit bus would have been a nice sweet spot. And I'm not sure I buy any arguments that it would've cost them too much to do.

Which games did the memory cause performance issues? TPU review did not indicate this.

Again, you seem to imply belief that performance scales with memory size.

Core count, generation and frequency dictate performance. Memory systems dictate resolution.

If you were hoping for a 4060 series card that can comfortably play 4K, then I don't know what to tell you. Hope that AMD delivers something?

 

[konga]

Which games did the memory cause performance issues? TPU review did not indicate this.

Again, you seem to imply belief that performance scales with memory size.

Core count, generation and frequency dictate performance. Memory systems dictate resolution.

If you were hoping for a 4060 series card that can comfortably play 4K, then I don't know what to tell you. Hope that AMD delivers something?

I am not implying that performance scales with memory size, and I don't know why you're saying this. Low memory totals can cause stuttering when using high res textures or playing at high resolutions, though. Performance falls more sharply when increasing resolution on the 4060 Ti than it does on the 3060 Ti or 3070. Performance also takes a bigger hit when enabling ray tracing on the 4060 ti than it does on previous-generation cards. There are some bandwidth-heavy games where performance is surprisingly mediocre, such as Horizon Zero Dawn. In the Tom's Hardware review, they showed the 4060 Ti tying the 3060 Ti in that game at 1440p. They also showed the 3070 Ti getting a performance uplift over the 3070 that's well above average for that card, implying it's a game that responds well to increasing memory speed, even at this midrange level of performance.

There have also been games that really don't play well with 8GB of VRAM unless you turn the texture detail down until it looks like crap. You can easily blame the developers for that, and you'd be right, but it still feels like this wouldn't be such a headache if Nvidia hadn't decided to keep the same memory per dollar as they have been since 2016 with the 1070. More VRAM is beneficial, even on a card like the 4060 Ti, and only getting 8GB for $400 in 2023 just plain feels bad, man.

 

[64K]

Which games did the memory cause performance issues? TPU review did not indicate this.

Again, you seem to imply belief that performance scales with memory size.

Core count, generation and frequency dictate performance. Memory systems dictate resolution.

If you were hoping for a 4060 series card that can comfortably play 4K, then I don't know what to tell you. Hope that AMD delivers something?

I doubt anyone would consider the 4060 Ti a 4K GPU. It's a strong 1080p GPU but there is one thing you are overlooking. The TPU review applies to games that have been released. Most gamers only upgrade every other generation so maybe 4 to 5 years. Possibly 8 GB VRAM will be inadequate during the lifespan of their 4060 Ti and the trend lately is to hold onto a card for even longer with a lot of gamers due to high prices and concerns about the economy.

 

[dgianstefani]

I am not implying that performance scales with memory size, and I don't know why you're saying this.

8GB and a 128-bit bus are not enough for some modern games, or at least they don't provide the kind of experience you'd expect at $400. 16GB may be too much, but 12GB on a 192-bit bus would have been a nice sweet spot.

Low memory totals can cause stuttering when using high res textures or playing at high resolutions, though. Performance falls more sharply when increasing resolution on the 4060 Ti than it does on the 3060 Ti or 3070. Performance also takes a bigger hit when enabling ray tracing on the 4060 ti than it does on previous-generation cards. There are some bandwidth-heavy games where performance is surprisingly mediocre, such as Horizon Zero Dawn. In the Tom's Hardware review, they showed the 4060 Ti tying the 3060 Ti in that game at 1440p. They also showed the 3070 Ti getting a performance uplift over the 3070 that's well above average for that card, implying it's a game that responds well to increasing memory speed, even at this midrange level of performance.

There have also been games that really don't play well with 8GB of VRAM unless you turn the texture detail down until it looks like crap. You can easily blame the developers for that, and you'd be right, but it still feels like this wouldn't be such a headache if Nvidia hadn't decided to keep the same memory per dollar as they have been since 2016 with the 1070. More VRAM is beneficial, even on a card like the 4060 Ti, and only getting 8GB for $400 in 2023 just plain feels bad, man.

Seems to me that's exactly what you're doing.

• "All games are set to their highest quality setting unless indicated otherwise." ~4060 Ti TPU review.

With the exception of Horizon Zero Dawn (taking your word for it, as TPU didn't test it), another console port that launched in fairly bad technical condition (https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2021-horizon-zero-dawn-is-it-finally-fixed), none of the games tested seem to indicate any issues when tested at high quality settings, and the card, when used at the resolution it's designed for (1080p (the most popular gaming resolution)) is basically the equivalent of the 3070 (256 bit) or the 2080 Ti (352 bit).

I doubt anyone would consider the 4060 Ti a 4K GPU. It's a strong 1080p GPU but there is one thing you are overlooking. The TPU review applies to games that have been released. Most gamers only upgrade every other generation so maybe 4 to 5 years. Possibly 8 GB VRAM will be inadequate during the lifespan of their 4060 Ti and the trend lately is to hold onto a card for even longer with a lot of gamers due to high prices and concerns about the economy.

It is a strong 1080p/1440p card. It is possible that 8 GB VRAM could become inadequate, but this hasn't been the case for the last five years, unless you pretend that 4K Ultra gaming with ray tracing is anything other than a tiny % minority, or is relevant for this tier of GPU. I don't think memory requirements are going to scale much until higher resolution gaming becomes the norm. I would imagine that again, the real performance limitation -

Core count, generation and frequency

will be much more limiting than the VRAM size.

Reminder that the RX 7600 is also a 128 bit 8 GB card, and it's 25% slower (~30% cheaper so that's fine).

The Arc A770 is also a 16 GB, 256 bit card, yet it's consistently ~25% slower.

There have also been games that really don't play well with 8GB of VRAM unless you turn the texture detail down until it looks like crap.

I don't think lowering textures from "Ultra" to "High" has ever made textures look like crap either.

I'm skeptical of this framing. How much die size is really taken up when going from a 128-bit bus to a 192-bit bus?

https://locuza.substack.com/p/nvidias-ada-lineup-configurations You can take a look at the die shots.

 

[64K]

It is a strong 1080p/1440p card. It is possible that 8 GB VRAM could become inadequate, but this hasn't been the case for the last five years, unless you pretend that 4K Ultra gaming with ray tracing is anything other than a tiny % minority, or is relevant for this tier of GPU. I don't think memory requirements are going to scale much until higher resolution gaming becomes the norm. I would imagine that again, the real performance limitation -

I'm not sure why you are clinging to 4K gaming and the 4060 Ti. I've never seen any gamer make that connection. Also VRAM requirements aren't static. They are constantly increasing. What was enough 5 years ago or even today isn't a guarantee that it will be enough 5 years from now for 1080p gaming. I wouldn't recommend an 8 GB card to any potential buyer today unless they plan to upgrade every generation. The vast majority don't plan to upgrade every generation.

 

[dgianstefani]

I'm not sure why you are clinging to 4K gaming and the 4060 Ti. I've never seen any gamer make that connection. Also VRAM requirements aren't static. They are constantly increasing. What was enough 5 years ago or even today isn't a guarantee that it will be enough 5 years from now for 1080p gaming. I wouldn't recommend an 8 GB card to any potential buyer today unless they plan to upgrade every generation. The vast majority don't plan to upgrade every generation.

So what BNIB card would you buy instead for $300-400?

I'm mentioning 4K because that's the only resolution the card being complained about struggles at.

Would you say the 2060, a not quite 5 year old card struggles because of it's VRAM buffer? Or do you think it might instead be the

Core count, generation and frequency

?

 

[eidairaman1]

I stand corrected. Neverhteless, 390(X) was a refresh of 290(X).

Definitely a 290X

 

[Bomby569]

They have enough high density RAM these days to make 12-16GB standard ~ if they want to of course but why would they?

You moan & scream, throw lots of hissy fits & yet keep buying Nvidia

what should we do? save 50$ and go with the bad drivers company? like there is a really alternative.

 

[LabRat 891]

Gb not GB

It's okay, I'm pedantically aware (read: sensitive) too. (Especially, on such an oh-so-very common mix-up)

Adding to the ease-of-confusion, is that the chart referenced is titled "8Gb GDDR6 spot price" in its header/title.
One has to look at the chart and do some math to come to the article headline's 'numbers'.

I'm skeptical of this framing. How much die size is really taken up when going from a 128-bit bus to a 192-bit bus?

It's not just the die size. It's total board BOM costs.
Wider bus, means more traces, more terminations, more supporting-components, more opportunities for a bad card.

Without quoting... I saw mentions of the 290/390(X) and its 512-bit bus.
all I have to add to that:

I miss you Volcanic Islands. I'm sad I never got to have an 8GB 512-bit fren; I would've slathered you in baby oil, and made you scream
(It's okay though, I have a 16GB 2048-bit bus card now )

 

[The Von Matrices]

Gb not GB

GiB not GB nor Gb

 

[LabRat 891]

GiB not GB nor Gb

All (2 or 3) of us asked for it

 

[Minus Infinity]

Vote with your wallet, I did and never regretted it.

Indeed, Matrox rules!

 

[Pepamami]

Well it only matters if the chip is bandwidth starved, so you also have to have a die large enough to need more memory bandwidth. Typically this only matters in certain types of games or at high resolutions.

The point is it's not as simple as just adding more memory to achieve higher performance, everything else has to scale too.

The 4060 Ti 16 GB will be a flop because the tier of card doesn't need that much memory, and the premium won't be worth it. Exactly the same as with RAM, more only matters if you are actually using it, otherwise it makes zero difference to performance.

ye it went from one "flop" to another one, coz this card needs atleasts 12GB to be not outdated on arrival.

 

[Icon Charlie]

Vote with your wallet, I did and never regretted it.

As stated before I effing know that Computer tech companies were ripping people off. Which is why you have to vote with your wallet, which smart people actually do.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

As stated before I effing know that Computer tech companies were ripping people off. Which is why you have to vote with your wallet, which smart people actually do.

Yes in the moment only Intel A770 16GB is better option if look for price/GB. I still waiting for new review in TPU with latest drivers.

 

[evernessince]

They have enough high density RAM these days to make 12-16GB standard ~ if they want to of course but why would they?

You moan & scream, throw lots of hissy fits & yet keep buying Nvidia

To be fair to some people, Nvidia does have a stranglehold on some industries where buying AMD isn't even a choice. I remember when I used to work in the public sector, 90% the places I worked at had a contract to only buy Intel CPU based systems and now that I've changed jobs my company's software runs on CUDA.

AMD's pricing and anti-consumer practices don't help much either. Intel and Nvidia are terribly anti-consumer and for some reason AMD has been trying it's hardest to catch up in that regard. At this point you have to ask yourself what the market stands to gain by AMD taking the lead. They haven't demonstrated that they have the capacity to lead the GPU market and they clearly would end up pulling the same BS Nvidia does. At the end of the day you are just playing musical chairs and the customers are always the one's left standing. If AMD is going to want to gain GPU marketshare, it has to improve the performance of it's products, the price of it's products, and it's consumer facing practices. If there isn't a Zen 1 moment then I don't see any reason why the market would make a large shift away from Nvidia.

 

[Frick]

So what BNIB card would you buy instead for $300-400?

Well where I live all options are bad, but in a slighlty better timeline the 4060ti should have been a 12GB card. The thing we got now should have been at best a 4060.

FWIW I play Horizon Zero Dawn at 4K on my 3060ti and it's fine.

 

[Chrispy_]

This article is false; Nvidia said 8GB costs $100.
They wouldn't lie to you or scalp you, would they? They're kindhearted, generous, pro-consumer, and fair, right?

Well it only matters if the chip is bandwidth starved, so you also have to have a die large enough to need more memory bandwidth. Typically this only matters in certain types of games or at high resolutions.

The point is it's not as simple as just adding more memory to achieve higher performance, everything else has to scale too.

The 4060 Ti 16 GB will be a flop because the tier of card doesn't need that much memory, and the premium won't be worth it. Exactly the same as with RAM, more only matters if you are actually using it, otherwise it makes zero difference to performance.

I'd buy a 16GB 4060Ti if it only cost $29 more than the 8GB variant.
It's still not a great deal, but I'd buy it as a midrange card that has a future, instead of a midrange card that doesn't.

 

[kawice]

So Nvidia 16GB 4060ti $100 more than 8GB version..........so ~300% mark up on ram?!?!

So if 8GB is about $27............then 32GB would add roughly $100 to the price of a video card............

hmmmmmmm

It is current maket price. Nvidia probably contracted VRAM supply much sooner like a year ago, still it was 10$ - 12$ per 1GB.
That could affect MSRP price, but it doesn't change a fact that Nvidia will eventually earn lots of $$$ due to how low VRAM market price is.
And company this big with like 75% of desktop GPU market share can get a special offer below market prices simply because they buy those VRAM chips by tons.

Also VRAM is really important for AI server solutions, and we have a boom for that now (second mining craze).

Automotive and phones demand for VRAM kinda slowed down I think.

 

[scooze]

I disagree with this assessment. I think the reviews and analysis we've seen since the 4060 Ti's launch has proven that 8GB and a 128-bit bus are not enough for some modern games, or at least they don't provide the kind of experience you'd expect at $400.

If you are buying a 4060ti and not a 4090, then you are making a compromise.
If you compromise, you are ready to lower the settings.
If you lower the settings, you don't need much video memory.
If you do not need a lot of video memory, 8 GB can easily be enough.

16GB may be too much, but 12GB on a 192-bit bus would have been a nice sweet spot. And I'm not sure I buy any arguments that it would've cost them too much to do.

The 4060ti is a weak card and a terrible $400 purchase, with 16GB it remains the same crap, because same

Core count, generation and frequency

A 12 GB card on a 192-bit bus is already here - 4070, although it would be exactly 4060ti, because the presented 4060ti in its pure form is a simple 4060