5060 Ti 8GB DOA

[Thimblewad]

Hey guys!

This is for everyone defending 8 GB cards in 2025. The cheapest model HU was able to get cost 400€. It's not even able to play some games in 1080p properly.
Here's the video:

And here are some screenshots from the video:

Can't wait for @W1zzard to get his hands on one

 

[SilentPeace]

Can't wait for @W1zzard to get his hands on one

Depends what games and settings he uses. His review of the 4060 Ti 16GB concluded it was no better than the 8GB in most games. If he uses the same games and settings, I expect he'll reach a similar conclusion about the 5060 Ti. We'll see.

I hope he also pays attention to the texture quality because that is another thing which can escape attention by just looking at the raw numbers. The framerate might be the same on the 8GB card but if the textures haven't loaded and look all blurry, it's not a fair comparison.

Another thing I saw, I think in a JayzTwoCents video, sometimes the framerate counter will say eg. 30 but the real gameplay has turned into a single figure slideshow. Sometimes the frame counting software doesn't seem to realise it's getting it wrong.

 

[Scattergrunt]

More VRAM is always good for 1% lows in some situations (which is what matters to me, anyway for the most part), so I don't see what's surprising in that regard.

Keep in mind, two of these tests are 1440p, and one is at 4k. Still fair enough though.. at least the 1440p tests I guess.

Next generation will probably show for a matter of fact that 8GB wont be enough @ max 1080p anymore for 60 fps, especially with RT now getting a foot in the door for its relevancy w/ Indy. And it checks off what I personally believe.. "next few years".

Now of course, this is fine, just drop some settings and you'll be okay. But its certainly a sign of the upcoming future. Lets hope we arent getting 8GB cards for mainstream cards by then (still wouldnt mind 8GB of VRAM for xx50 or equivalent cards.)

As for DOA status (atleast among us hobbyists, consumers will eat this shit up as per usual, not really worth getting mad about), regardless of what NVIDIA thought, it was gonna be DOA to us regardless because of its meh performance uplift. Once again, another example of this generations seemingly continually repeated addage of "40 series + ~10% performance". 5090 remains the only really nice looking performance bump, and the 5070Ti the only other compelling product because MSRP pricing that is fake anyway.

 

[Tatty_Two]

From what I can see, both cards are running at 99/100% GPU usage but the 16GB card is pulling more than 2 times the wattage of the 8GB (at 1440), something seems a bit off there? Maybe my old eyes are missing something significant.

In fact in all 3 comparisons the 16GB card is using significantly more watts.

 

[Scattergrunt]

From what I can see, both cards are running at 99/100% GPU usage but the 16GB card is pulling more than 2 times the wattage of the 8GB (at 1440), something seems a bit off there? Maybe my old eyes are missing something significant.

Good observation! I didn't even notice that.

 

[Thimblewad]

I hope he also pays attention to the texture quality because that is another thing which can escape attention by just looking at the raw numbers. The framerate might be the same on the 8GB card but if the textures haven't loaded and look all blurry, it's not a fair comparison.

This can clearly be seen in the Space Marine screenshot I posted. The game actually runs faster on the 8GB variant, but looks like shit because the textures aren't loading.

Another thing I saw, I think in a JayzTwoCents video, sometimes the framerate counter will say eg. 30 but the real gameplay has turned into a single figure slideshow. Sometimes the frame counting software doesn't seem to realise it's getting it wrong.

I believe HU is professional enough to point that out. It can also be seen in the benchmarks he's running. It's a slideshow, yet the framecounter is still displaying playable FPS. The 1% lows show the framerate drops though.

From what I can see, both cards are running at 99/100% GPU usage but the 16GB card is pulling more than 2 times the wattage of the 8GB (at 1440), something seems a bit off there? Maybe my old eyes are missing something significant.

Good observation! I didn't even notice that.

That's because the VRAM is completely saturated and the core has "no work", GPU is ofc still being utilized 100%.

 

[wNotyarD]

From what I can see, both cards are running at 99/100% GPU usage but the 16GB card is pulling more than 2 times the wattage of the 8GB (at 1440), something seems a bit off there? Maybe my old eyes are missing something significant.

Higher framerates somewhat imply higher consumption, no? Isn't the display engine consumption directly related to the refresh rate the screen is driven at?

 

[Thimblewad]

Keep in mind, two of these tests are 1440p, and one is at 4k. Still fair enough though.. at least the 1440p tests I guess.

Those are only some screenshots I posted. He tests all the games at 1440p and some at 1080p as well.

 

[GerKNG]

anything under 16GB of VRAM is just unacceptable and should not exist.

 

[_roman_]

Fast reading of post #1 revealed nonsense like Raytracing on a basic graphic accelerator card for desktop usage.
These cards were never meant for gaming station but for basic tasks like using monitors in windows 11.
Price is not a quality criteria for hardware. Build quality, software etc. are criteria

Some want to use a monitor with their computers and therefore needs a dedicated graphic card with several display outputs and dedicated memory with dedicated encoder and video decoders.

some dislike the following. Two fan design should costs 50€. Three fan design with proper build quality may costs 100€ in regards of future usuability of that particular hardware. It's summer 2025 and not Summer 1997 to ask such prices for such product

 

[Thimblewad]

Fast reading of post #1 revealed nonsense like Raytracing on a basic graphic accelerator card for desktop usage.
These cards were never meant for gaming station but for basic tasks like using monitors in windows 11.
Price is not a quality criteria for hardware. Build quality, software etc. are criteria

Some want to use a monitor with their computers and therefore needs a dedicated graphic card with several display outputs and dedicated memory with dedicated encoder and video decoders.

some dislike the following. Two fan design should costs 50€. Three fan design with proper build quality may costs 100€ in regards of future usuability of that particular hardware. It's summer 2025 and not Summer 1997 to ask such prices for such product

400€ for a "graphics accelerator" to watch some YT... Imagine paying that much money for a GPU in 2025 and not being able to max out a game at 1080p because the card lacks VRAM
RT is ofc out of the question completely.
This is a GTX 5050 at best.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Higher framerates somewhat imply higher consumption, no? Isn't the display engine consumption directly related to the refresh rate the screen is driven at?

Of course, however I thought it odd that in 2 of the illustrated tests the 8GB core clock was higher than the 16GB, I get the saturation point with the 8GB but it just felt the margins in the 1440P seem high between the two.

 

[dirtyferret]

This is for everyone defending 8 GB cards in 2025.

really have not seen people "defending 8 cards" outside of entry level cards. Virtually everyone thinks 8GB on a 5060ti card is silly now but the lack of RAM is not the only issue on those cards, the small bit bus doesn't help it.

Depends what games and settings he uses. His review of the 4060 Ti 16GB concluded it was no better than the 8GB in most games. If he uses the same games and settings, I expect he'll reach a similar conclusion about the 5060 Ti. We'll see.

Pretty much all the other sites with a robust game suite came to the same conclusion as W1zzard for the 4060ti 8/16 GB

 

[Tomgang]

Im not surprised. I tried a few modern games on my rtx 4060 8 gb. It was to say at least not a good experience.

Example stalker 2. I had to go as low as 1080P medium settings before i could call it anything playable. Not because of lag of gpu power. No the sinner was lag of vram. Anything above that was horrible. Lag spikes and game hanging and go in and out from menu was slow as hell do to lag of vram. It was a horrible experience unless you can settled with 1080P medium settings knowing the gpu could handle more of sufficient vram.

Do not buy a 8 gb vram cards or less less vram
for modern games. Specially if you like eye candy on as i do. You'll regret it.

Im happy i got a rtx 4090 to. All ready with a rtx 3080 10 gb i felt the lag of vram in some games even back then. That card only lastet a year until rtx 4090 came out. When it did, rtx 3080 10 gb was instantly thrown out and yes 4090 gives a much better experience not because it has plenty of gpu power, but also because with that i don't have to worry about vram all the time.

Im not trying to brag or something like that. Im just trying to say that insufficient vram is a Hassel, annoying and just ruining the gaming. Lag spikes, games hanging for a long time, games crashes and so on is typically signs of running out of vram and i freaking hate when that happens

 

[Thimblewad]

Of course, however I thought it odd that in 2 of the illustrated tests the 8GB core clock was higher than the 16GB, I get the saturation point with the 8GB but it just felt the margins in the 1440P seem high between the two.

This can be seen in the Space Marine test. The 8GB model is actually a few FPS faster than the 16GB model, but after taking a closer look, it can be seen that the 8GB model simply doesn't load the game textures.

 

[Ruru]

No wonder Nvidia didn't want reviewers to review this at launch. The 16GB version is already a joke, this is battling with GTX 1630 for the most pointless card's title.

 

[Scattergrunt]

Those are only some screenshots I posted. He tests all the games at 1440p and some at 1080p as well.

Yes yes, I will look at his video later. I don't particularly like HU sometimes but his content isn't bad, I just don't like some of his opinions (I don't disagree with all of them though.)

really have not seen people "defending 8 cards" outside of entry level cards. Virtually everyone thinks 8GB on a 5060ti card is silly now but the lack of RAM is not the only issue on those cards, the small bit bus doesn't help it.

the people 'defending 8gb cards' 99% of the time are usually just defending them in the current year. I think everyone can acknowledge that they will eventually be illrelevant for max 1080p. The most vocal I've seen around here acknowledge that 8GB will not good for the *FUTURE* but is fine *RIGHT NOW.* if you drop settings. Which is what I subscribe to as well, I just don't agree with recommending 8GB cards still that some do.

Again, that's just opinion though. Next gen, I'm sure we'll finally see 8GB cards reach their nexus point.

anything under 16GB of VRAM is just unacceptable and should not exist.

10GB and 12GB are fine for 1080p if the B570 and B580 show anything. 12GB for 1440p is niche, but atleast compared to the amount of edge cases 8GB @ 1080p was losing lets say around the 4060Ti's release? Way less. Will probably take awhile longer for 12GB to be 'bad' for 1440p.

I don't think its as feasible to say that 'anything under 16GB of VRAM shouldn't exist'. Hopefully you're just being hyperbolic.

Pretty much all the other sites with a robust game suite came to the same conclusion as W1zzard for the 4060ti 8/16 GB

Yea, pretty much. Back then most of the most noticeable examples were extreme edge cases. Now we have some real tangible examples, but they're still rare enough to not be super concerning nor surprising. But give it a few more years and a new gen, and 8GB will finally be overwhelmed me thinks.

 

[Thimblewad]

Yes yes, I will look at his video later. I don't particularly like HU sometimes but his content isn't bad, I just don't like some of his opinions (I don't disagree with all of them though.)

Yeah, I'm furiously refreshing GN right now

the people 'defending 8gb cards' 99% of the time are usually just defending them in the current year. I think everyone can acknowledge that they will eventually be illrelevant for max 1080p. The most vocal I've seen around here acknowledge that 8GB will not good for the *FUTURE* but is fine *RIGHT NOW.* if you drop settings. Which is what I subscribe to as well, I just don't agree with recommending 8GB cards still that some do.
Again, that's just opinion though. Next gen, I'm sure we'll finally see 8GB cards reach their nexus point.

That's exactly the thing. If you're already on a budget and you're paying 400€ for a "budget card", chances are you won't be upgrading for a few years. And in that case, this purchase sucks.

 

[Onasi]

the people 'defending 8gb cards' 99% of the time are usually just defending them in the current year. I think everyone can acknowledge that they will eventually be illrelevant for max 1080p. The most vocal I've seen around here acknowledge that 8GB will not good for the *FUTURE* but is fine *RIGHT NOW.* if you drop settings. Which is what I subscribe to as well, I just don't agree with recommending 8GB cards still that some do.

Again, that's just opinion though. Next gen, I'm sure we'll finally see 8GB cards reach their nexus point.

Usecase is also kind of important. The vast majority of PC gamers play ye ever popular live service games, PvP FPS, MOBAs and MMOs. Which kind of explains why the 8 gig wall hasn’t hit yet for most and there isn’t really an outrage - it’s not like the average Valorant/CS or WoW player is struggling for VRAM.

But give it a few more years and a new gen, and 8GB will finally be overwhelmed me thinks.

Way things are going with the state of modern AAA releases, in a few years anything below a flagship card won’t run shit at an acceptable performance level anyway, VRAM amount be damned. I wish I was kidding, but after witnessing the horrors of new UE5 titles or an absolute abomination that is the Monster Hunter Wilds PC version I don’t really feel like it is funny anymore.

 

[GerKNG]

10GB and 12GB are fine for 1080p if the B570 and B580 show anything. 12GB for 1440p is niche, but atleast compared to the amount of edge cases 8GB @ 1080p was losing lets say around the 4060Ti's release? Way less. Will probably take awhile longer for 12GB to be 'bad' for 1440p.

I don't think its as feasible to say that 'anything under 16GB of VRAM shouldn't exist'. Hopefully you're just being hyperbolic.

Just because you "can play games" with 12GB on a product that costs hundreds of dollars does not mean that you can justify to me that the manufacturer could make a slightly less fucked up low end mobile chip that's worth 50 bucks and sell the final product with 16GB for 425€ instead of 399€.
VRAM costs literally nothing these days... no matter what NVidia thinks, saving a couple bucks to turn a 400+€ product into a barely functional piece of crap is disgusting.
any GPU that is more than the absolute bottom of the barrel should have at least a 256bit memory interface to allow 8x2GB of whatever two dollar fifty GDDR6 chips they can find.

 

[dirtyferret]

it a few more years and a new gen, and 8GB will finally be overwhelmed me thinks.

people have been having this argument for decades; 256mb vs 512mb, 512mb vs 1GB, 2GB, vs 4GB, etc., etc.,

reality is when a card with the exact same GPU comes in two memory offerings it's often too slow to use the larger one to its full advantage. So regardless of the version of the GPU you get, you are often both lowering settings or like many other people moving on to better performing cards.

GTX 960 2GB vs. 4GB in 2019 – How Much VRAM Capacity Matters vs. GPU | GamersNexus

stub One of our most popular videos of yore talks about the GTX 960 4GB vs. GTX 960 2GB cards and the value of choosing one over the other. The discussion continues today, but is more focused on 3GB vs. 6GB comparisons, or 4GB vs. 8GB comparisons. Now, looking back at 2015’s GTX 960, we’re...

gamersnexus.net

As we stretch into scenarios of general unplayability on each device, e.g. 26FPS AVG vs. 30FPS AVG, we do start to see differences which are “significant” from a pure percentages standpoint. This makes sense, as the numbers are becoming smaller and so the delta looks wider, but the reality is that a player would likely be equally unhappy at 26FPS and 30FPS. For differences to really start showing large percent deltas between 2GB and 4GB cards (in our tested games), we have to push settings to a point where neither device would be particularly good to use, giving us an academic exercise rather than a practical comparison.

 

[Thimblewad]

people have been having this argument for decades; 256mb vs 512mb, 512mb vs 1GB, 2GB, vs 4GB, etc., etc.,

reality is when a card with the exact same GPU comes in two memory offerings it's often too slow to use the larger one to it's full advantage. So regardless of the version of the GPU you get, you are often both lowering settings or like many other people moving on to better performing cards.

As we stretch into scenarios of general unplayability on each device, e.g. 26FPS AVG vs. 30FPS AVG, we do start to see differences which are “significant” from a pure percentages standpoint. This makes sense, as the numbers are becoming smaller and so the delta looks wider, but the reality is that a player would likely be equally unhappy at 26FPS and 30FPS. For differences to really start showing large percent deltas between 2GB and 4GB cards (in our tested games), we have to push settings to a point where neither device would be particularly good to use, giving us an academic exercise rather than a practical comparison.

What you're saying is true. But this is not the case here.

The 16GB card can run basically anything you throw at it at a playable FPS and can make use of it's 16GB buffer, the 8GB card on the other hand, drops many games to a slideshow, because of a lack of VRAM.

 

[jaszy]

Should have been a 12GB with 3GB GDDR7.

Theres no logical reason why EE and logistics should cost more for 8 2GB chips sandwiched over a PCB. Pricing should have been $400 MSRP FLAT on the TI model.

 

[neatfeatguy]

The 5060Ti 8GB needs to be treated as the type of card it is, a low-end GPU ideally meant for 1080p gaming. This means you keep settings realistic that it can handle so it's not swapping textures in a saturated VRAM situation that tanks the performance. The screens you posted do not do this, they're simply trying to make the card work hard at something it clearly cannot support like the 16GB variant.

Browsing through the HWU video it would have been better to post images of the medium settings tested to show that the card is indeed capable of what it's designed for, low-end gaming by today's standards. Sadly, most of the games tested were always tested at high/max settings with and without RT that showed the card unable to perform; the exact way we'd expect it to fail with only 8GB.




These screen grabs show the card is capable of playing these games fairly well when set to acceptable setting levels and resolution. Anyone that gets this card or even the 16GB version and expect to max out settings and have everything playable at quality performance levels, you're sadly mistaken and need to rethink what you're doing.

I'm not supporting this 8GB card and saying it's a good value (it's clearly not and I'm not saying the 16GB version is a good value because I don't feel that it is), but what I am saying is that the card needs to be treated exactly as to what it is; a low-end, overpriced, gaming card not meant for maxing out settings over 1080p....and even then that's a bit of a stretch to do with some games.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

Walmart shows 5060 ti for 539.99$ shipped.

Hard pass for that money.