Are game requirements and VRAM usage a joke today?

[AusWolf]

No, I had it day one. Why?

Is it still day one today? Point is: they've patched it, so move on, man. Crying about the past is not cool.

 

[Macro Device]

The RT-to-raster hardware ratio has stayed the same on Nvidia since Turing (1st gen RT), which shows in the performance degradation when you enable RT.

Not completely true.

Spoiler: Raster performance

Spoiler: RT performance

You should take into consideration the 4060 Ti has very low VRAM bandwidth which is critical when it comes to RT performance. This GPU falls very far behind 3070 at 4k with RT enabled. So RT became more speedy per se but it's nVidia who made anemic VRAM a thing in Ada which ultimately hindered all this progress.

4080 is ~16% faster than 3090 Ti in raster at 4K. ~19% faster in RT at 4K. This is a very small percentage but things got better over time. Speaking of 2080 Ti, it's 51% of 4080 at raw raster and 47% at RT.

What is a 20 hunnit GPU?

RTX 4090.

And what about native artifacts?

Not as prevalent as DLSS/FSR ones. But I agree, native becomes worse, especially relatively speaking.

 

[JustBenching]

Is it still day one today? Point is: they've patched it, so move on, man. Crying about the past is not cool.

I'm giving you an example of a game using 6gb of vram at 1080p LOW and looking WAY WAY WAY worse than a game using 5gb at 4k Ultra. The fact that they patched it is proving my point even further. It proves that the game didn't need to use that much vram for such a mediocre result but amdsponsored what can you do.

 

[Vayra86]

Besides cyberpunk and dying light, where RT / PT is just transforming the experience, RT in games helps a lot for the mere fact that reflections don't appear and disappear all around you as you move the camera. Traditional raster breaks immersion with that kind of crap

Lmao. If you look for it, sure. The real question is how did you even survive in gaming prior to RT. Keep believing, keep repeating that nonsense, so that it remains true to you. Ive seriously never considered the quality of a reflective surface an immersion breaker. Shaky mechanics, artifacts and bugs break it. A graphical setting? You're just looking for arguments here.

And transformative, PT is not. Only VERY situationally do scenes really look different; and ironically, precisely the scenes that are used for cinematic moments in questlines. Like the Delamain CPU core room. Lots of work went into that and it shows. Even in raster that room is lit much better.

 

[JustBenching]

Lmao. If you look for it, sure. The real question is how did you even survive in gaming prior to RT. Keep believing!

The same way I survived playing at a 17" 1024x768 monitor, playing ps1 games etc. It's called progress. What are you even suggesting? That because reflections were disappearing - because we didn't have the hardware to fix that - we should keep having disappearing reflections for ever? I really don't get what your point is.

 

[AusWolf]

I'm giving you an example of a game using 6gb of vram at 1080p LOW and looking WAY WAY WAY worse than a game using 5gb at 4k Ultra. The fact that they patched it is proving my point even further. It proves that the game didn't need to use that much vram for such a mediocre result but amdsponsored what can you do.

Yeah, AMD told the developers to use crap-looking textures in the day one version, and patch it later because it serves soooo much purpose! Are you wearing a tin foil hat by any chance?

The same way I survived playing at a 17" 1024x768 monitor, playing ps1 games etc. It's called progress. What are you even suggesting? That because reflections were disappearing - because we didn't have the hardware to fix that - we should keep having disappearing reflections for ever? I really don't get what your point is.

The point is, you said it's immersion breaking. Did it break your immersion before RT in gaming existed?

 

[JustBenching]

Yeah, AMD told the developers to use crap-looking textures in the day one version, and patch it later because it serves soooo much purpose! Are you wearing a tin foil hat by any chance?

There can be multiple explanations that do not involve a tin foil hat. In fact, the tin foil hat belongs to the people that find this normal.

AMD sponsored the game, so optimizing for vram was not a priority, and we got the results we have. The same way because nvidia cards have in general less VRAM, their sponsored games are very well optimized in terms of vram usage. If you find that crazy then I don't know what to tell you.

The point is, you said it's immersion breaking. Did it break your immersion before RT in gaming existed?

Of course, it didn't break it for you? Lots of things break my immersion, draw distances for example. Things appearing right in front of my eyes, which is a problem even modern games have, but it was much worse in the past.

 

[Vayra86]

I'm giving you an example of a game using 6gb of vram at 1080p LOW and looking WAY WAY WAY worse than a game using 5gb at 4k Ultra. The fact that they patched it is proving my point even further. It proves that the game didn't need to use that much vram for such a mediocre result but amdsponsored what can you do.

It proves the game patched out an issue. Nothing else.

The same way I survived playing at a 17" 1024x768 monitor, playing ps1 games etc. It's called progress. What are you even suggesting? That because reflections were disappearing - because we didn't have the hardware to fix that - we should keep having disappearing reflections for ever? I really don't get what your point is.

Thats clear. But the explanation is there. Read it again, its that same power of repetition you apply on yourself wrt RT effects.

AMD sponsored the game, so optimizing for vram was not a priority, and we got the results we have. The same way because nvidia cards have in general less VRAM, their sponsored games are very well optimized in terms of vram usage. If you find that crazy then I don't know what to tell you.

Nah, Nvidia just taps the dynamic scaling button more readily these days. Less detail is optimization too.

 

[JustBenching]

It proves the game patched out an issue. Nothing else.

An issue that is prevalent in a big juicy percentage of amd sponsored games. Come on now, at this point i don't think you are being genuine. This whole vram nonsense started with godfall, and before the game was even released. Back then the 3080 was just released, and the devs of the game started creating rumours that the game needs 12gb of vram. Coincidence I guess. After that all hell broke loose with games like TLOU, RESI 4, Jedi, FC6, Immorals, Calisto, Forspoken.

Point is, either amd is paying them to straight up grief the game on non amd cards due to vram (and that goes along with removing dlss etc.) or optimizing for vram is not a priority for amd sponsored games. Whichever way you look at it, there is a definite connection.

Nah, Nvidia just taps the dynamic scaling button more readily these days. Less detail is optimization too.

Does PT in 4k ultra have less details than TLOU at 1080p LOW? No, so your explanation doesn't hold any water. They both require 5-6 gb vram at those settings, and TLOU looks like a blob

 

[Vayra86]

The same way I survived playing at a 17" 1024x768 monitor, playing ps1 games etc. It's called progress. What are you even suggesting? That because reflections were disappearing - because we didn't have the hardware to fix that - we should keep having disappearing reflections for ever? I really don't get what your point is.

Just because there is progress does not mean everything that preceded it now suddenly breaks immersion to me. If it is to you... thats a you problem. Worth considering what it is you are really saying here for yourself.

 

[AusWolf]

AMD sponsored the game, so optimizing for vram was not a priority, and we got the results we have. The same way because nvidia cards have in general less VRAM, their sponsored games are very well optimized in terms of vram usage. If you find that crazy then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course AMD didn't let the developers optimise for VRAM usage! Screw those poor 6600 and 6650 XT owning peasants with only 8 GB! They're only the most popular modern AMD cards, so who cares?

Of course, it didn't break it for you?

Nope. I'm not saying the issue doesn't exist (of course it does), but:

As for arguing about a day-one game that has been patched since:

 

[JustBenching]

Just because there is progress does not mean everything that preceded it now suddenly breaks immersion to me. If it is to you... thats a you problem. Worth considering what it is you are really saying here for yourself.

Im saying having reflections not disappearing is much better than having reflections disappear. It's not that complicated.

Of course AMD didn't let the developers optimise for VRAM usage! Screw those poor 6600 and 6650 XT owning peasants with only 8 GB! They're only the most popular modern AMD cards, so who cares?

The users of 6600 and 6650 do not expect to play a game at ultra settings. A user of a 3070 or 3070ti or 3080 would. So the game hogging vram directly screws with the latter, not the former.

 

[AusWolf]

Im saying having reflections not disappearing is much better than having reflections disappear. It's not that complicated.

I think everybody agrees - as long as your 90 FPS game doesn't drop to 25.

The users of 6600 and 6650 do not expect to play a game at ultra settings. A user of a 3070 or 3070ti or 3080 would. So the game hogging vram directly screws with the latter, not the former.

You were arguing about "low" graphics in your previous posts.

 

[Vayra86]

Im saying having reflections not disappearing is much better than having reflections disappear. It's not that complicated.

No you said it breaks immersion. Those are two statements worlds apart. You keep lying to yourself

 

[JustBenching]

You were arguing about "low" graphics in your previous posts.

Yes? Because cards with 8gb vram have to drop to low or medium on TLOU, at least pre patch, and it looked horribly bad at both low / medium - while still using excessive amounts of vram.

Im just holding both companies to the same standard. The same way I think nvidia sponsored devs spend more time optimizing for vram cause nvidia cards don't have an abundance of it, the same way amd sponsored devs don't spend as much or any time doing the same. It's freakingly obvious when a game requires 5+ gb of vram and has textures straight out of a gameboy color.

I think everybody agrees - as long as your 90 FPS game doesn't drop to 25.

Sure, but it doesn't. RT reflections on their own aren't that taxing actually. Unless you are using an amd card I guess, but that's not an issue with RT.

No you said it breaks immersion. Those are two statements worlds apart. You keep lying to yourself

And that is somehow a contestable statement?

 

[Vayra86]

The users of 6600 and 6650 do not expect to play a game at ultra settings. A user of a 3070 or 3070ti or 3080 would. So the game hogging vram directly screws with the latter, not the former.

So the logical question here is why do high end cards carry sub midrange VRAM ? Its all about the rationale you start out with.

 

[JustBenching]

So the logical question here is why do high end cards carry sub midrange VRAM ?

But they don't - that's the whole point. They carry sub midrange VRAM if your standard of how much vram is required is an amd sponsored game. The only non amd sponsored that the 3080 or the 3070 has troubles with is Hogwarts at ultra AND full RT on top of that, but then the thing is even if it had more vram it wouldn't matter, cause the game would be running at sub 40 fps.

Both cards with the preset to high with RT on top are faster than their competitors (6800xt / 6700xt) at hogwarts - in fact the 3080 at high + RT matches the 6800xt at medium. So even in that vram hogging game the 3080 with it's 10gb of vram does better than the 6800xt with it's 16gb of vram.

You also have to realize that hogwarts is a 2023 game, the 3070 is a 2020 card. I personally wouldn't expect to play the latest games at ultra with RT on a 3 year old midrange card.

 

[Vayra86]

But they don't - that's the whole point. They carry sub midrange VRAM if your standard of how much vram is required is an amd sponsored game. The only non amd sponsored that the 3080 or the 3070 has troubles with is Hogwarts at ultra AND full RT on top of that, but then the thing is even if it had more vram it wouldn't matter, cause the game would be running at sub 40 fps.

Both cards with the preset to high with RT on top are faster than their competitors (6800xt / 6700xt) at hogwarts - in fact the 3080 at high + RT matches the 6800xt at medium. So even in that vram hogging game the 3080 with it's 10gb of vram does better than the 6800xt with it's 16gb of vram.

You also have to realize that hogwarts is a 2023 game, the 3070 is a 2020 card. I personally wouldn't expect to play the latest games at ultra with RT on a 3 year old midrange card.

3080 10GB is midrange VRAM on a high end core. Its bandwidth saves it a little.

3070 is simply on the same curve with 8GB, the same amount you got two gens back on x70.

4070 12GB is on a similar curve slightly better, too bad it has far less in bandwidth. The 4070ti is worse with more core and same memory

They are all strangled cards.

 

[JustBenching]

3080 10GB is midrange VRAM on a high end core. Its bandwidth saves it a little.

3070 is simply on the same curve with 8GB, the same amount you got two gens back on x70.

4070 12GB is on a similar curve slightly better, too bad it has far less in bandwidth. The 4070ti is worse with more core and same memory

They are all strangled cards.

If your plan is to play amd sponsored games then sure, Im not disagreeing with you, 8 or 12 gb aren't enough. If your plan is to play the best looking games, they are fine (PT requiem, Cyberpunk). But that's my whole point, the bold part.

 

[Klemc]

https://i.redd.it/a-complete-list-of-sponsored-games-their-supported-v0-wfyldxr9iyab1.png?s=57041e19937c931ac89f135bf7649d9d8f98983c

I have non of this AMD ones.

Oh, except Terminator.

 

[pavle]

All bickering aside, the problem is nvidia (as per usual) with their unwillingness to put the proper amount of components (not just VRAM, also shaders) on their game_cards in fear of loosing sales of their "professional" (read: overpriced) junk to them (gaming_cards).

 

[wolf]

They exist! But the vast majority isnt offering anything for its perf hit. Texture packs are similar yes; with a key difference: they barely cost core power so most of the time you can simply enable them at low or no perf hit. RT pushes on core and vram.

A majority? OK, if we count every single game that has RT, sure. I am fulym aware many have such insignificant effects, that it's not worth enabling. Again, big divide in games with RT and what's good or not, but when it's good, it can be really good, like the next point...

I have extensive experience with PT and RT 'doing well' and honestly? Sidegrades.

Same (experience wise in games) perhaps identical or even more so, and my takeaway is the opposite of side grades, I'd say transformative, realistic, immersive. Here the thing that works against the effects is realism, I've surely said it before, but some effects, like global illumination or sun shadows for example, appears so natural the untrained eye night not even notice how excellent the behind the scenes stuff is to enable it, as it just seems so normal.

Personal opinion appears to reign king. I can't convince you certain PT or even RT titles are amazing graphically, nor could you convince me they're not.

"extra" (unused /unallocated) vram helps, no doubt, more calculations and overhead needs memory.

 

[AusWolf]

Yes? Because cards with 8gb vram have to drop to low or medium on TLOU, at least pre patch, and it looked horribly bad at both low / medium - while still using excessive amounts of vram.

Im just holding both companies to the same standard. The same way I think nvidia sponsored devs spend more time optimizing for vram cause nvidia cards don't have an abundance of it, the same way amd sponsored devs don't spend as much or any time doing the same. It's freakingly obvious when a game requires 5+ gb of vram and has textures straight out of a gameboy color.

The game has been patched, ffs!

I really have no idea why you keep bringing up a day-one game when everybody knows the state of day-one games is abysmal these days. If you play a game on release day (any game, not just AMD sponsored ones) and expect it to be perfect, then you live in a dream world, unfortunately. Shall we talk about every stupid thing I did as a teenager and not accept the fact that I've grown better as excuse?

I equally have no idea how and why you attribute this to AMD other than the fact that you hate AMD and try to blame them for everything.

See the quotes I posted above. They still apply.

 

[Klemc]

AMD is ATI, ATI sucked !

 

[Vayra86]

If your plan is to play amd sponsored games then sure, Im not disagreeing with you, 8 or 12 gb aren't enough. If your plan is to play the best looking games, they are fine (PT requiem, Cyberpunk). But that's my whole point, the bold part.

Its bullshit. Have a nice day

A majority? OK, if we count every single game that has RT, sure. I am fulym aware many have such insignificant effects, that it's not worth enabling. Again, big divide in games with RT and what's good or not, but when it's good, it can be really good, like the next point...

Same (experience wise in games) perhaps identical or even more so, and my takeaway is the opposite of side grades, I'd say transformative, realistic, immersive. Here the thing that works against the effects is realism, I've surely said it before, but some effects, like global illumination or sun shadows for example, appears so natural the untrained eye night not even notice how excellent the behind the scenes stuff is to enable it, as it just seems so normal.

Personal opinion appears to reign king. I can't convince you certain PT or even RT titles are amazing graphically, nor could you convince me they're not.

"extra" (unused /unallocated) vram helps, no doubt, more calculations and overhead needs memory.

I'll give you two PT screenshots in Cyberpunk to illustrate my earlier example

This is a path traced image at max quality 3440x1440. It is virtually identical to the raster image, except for the reflective surfaces being more 'varied' and some lighting being, well, mostly just different, not better or more realistic - a little bit more gradient, and with a filmgrain effect (in a good way) and refined though. But: this is far from transformative, to me.

This one though is the example I was talking about. First the raster image at max quality. Nowhere here though would I judge the below image as 'not immersive', or lacking certain qualities needed to get the scene across.

However, this IS a transformation, I would agree, and it definitely has a bit more 'atmosphere' to it, a higher cinematic quality if you will. Things pop more. But if you look a bit longer... isn't it just mostly that the whole image has more contrast, and MUCH more black? Is the reflective quality truly that different, or just more muted than its raster sibling? Even here I would have a hard time accepting the performance hit taken for PT. Still, I get what you're saying if you would judge this kind of change as transformative. For the same graphical 'input', this is definitely a 'better' output. There is more definition. Volumetric clouds are more clearly visible, which is a positive too. The drone to the left casts a nice black shadow on an already darkened wall, an element the raster image lacks.