Are game requirements and VRAM usage a joke today?

[Gica]

What? Have you forgotten already, that I said this was at launch when the game was very different and I wasn't playing at ultra? I was just trying to find a good balance between visual quality and NOT CRASHING. At 1440p native medium detail the game would still crash, though less frequently, but back then medium looked like ass. Only dlss saved me from the vram crashes. 60 fps with it, 60 fps without it. Not a gpu limitation, a vram limitation. Still nothing to do with amd.

Are you sure you didn't "buy" it from torrents?
They worked a lot on optimization, especially on vRAM memory requirements. It seems a bit doubtful that you played it well when the game required 13GB for 1080p and you can't play it now when it requires less than 10GB.

An excess amount of VRAM has never been about present games. It's about future games. Just look at the 2 GB 960 or the 3 GB 1060 as examples. They both ran contemporary games just fine (that's why you see only an 11% difference in the database), but only after a year or two, they started to awfully struggle against their counterparts with double the amount of VRAM.

On the other hand, loading a 6500 XT with 16 GB of VRAM would be pointless, but that's not the performance class in question here.

I'm also not saying that the 8 GB 4060 Ti will turn out to be equally crap as the 2 GB 960 soon, but you never know. If you have more than enough VRAM, you know what you get performance-wise. Having just enough, or not enough is a gamble.

In future games, as history shows, the GPU limitation appears before the vRAM limitation. In other words, you will use more than 8GB for nothing if the GPU cannot render a decent framerate. Whether you like it or not, you are forced to reduce details, except for the cases where various "influencers" try to convince us how cool the memory is when you play at 25 fps.

Probably the TPU reviews (and not only) are wrong if they show us that the 6700XT was not helped by the 12GB of vRAM in the games tested in 2023. The distance to the 3070 is the same, with one exception, brought (coincidentally or not) and this topic. More than two years have passed since their launch, how long can we wait?

 

[AusWolf]

In future games, as history shows, the GPU limitation appears before the vRAM limitation.

Not always, as history also shows with the 2 GB 960 or the 3 GB 1060, as they both came out at a time that saw massive jumps in VRAM usage. The question is, are we ahead of another jump, or will future games still be OK with 8 GB? We don't know.

Having only the VRAM amount that you currently need is a gamble that may or may not pay off with future games. The fact that the 8 GB 4060 Ti or the 3070 still don't show major stutters doesn't mean they never will, or that having more VRAM has never been a good idea in history. Just because you won the bet once doesn't mean that you're playing a winning game. Similarly, having more VRAM is not a guaranteed way to preserve your graphics card's performance with future games. Personally, I look at it like insurance. You may never need it, but having it as as a safety net is better than not.

 

[gffermari]

You can compare a 3070 to a 2080Ti. It’s simpler.
There are a few games that crash on a 3070 because of the lack of vram. The question is…at what fps the 2080Ti runs them?
If I remember correctly, in most of the cases, if not all, the fps are 40-45 or lower.

 

[Frick]

You can compare a 3070 to a 2080Ti. It’s simpler.
There are a few games that crash on a 3070 because of the lack of vram. The question is…at what fps the 2080Ti runs them?
If I remember correctly, in most of the cases, if not all, the fps are 40-45 or lower.

Which games are those?

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

For the first part of the comment, this was the opinion of the reviewers when testing the two video cards. Double is the amount of vRAM, not the performance. The difference between their performance was then ~11%. It is surprising that the difference in cores is also 11%. Could it be a coincidence? If you insist, we look into the reviewers' conclusions.
View attachment 320444

For the second part (the one with the video) did you see how many frames are rendered per second? Seriously! Spending $400-$500 on a video card to play at 40, 30 or even 20 fps??? Priceless!!!!
I'm serious, but only if you have stains on your brain and are desperately trying to prove a ... stupidity.
If you want a personal opinion, whoever spent $100 extra for the 16GB, stays with the money spent.

why don't you just compare the the RTX 2060 super 8GB vs the RTX 2060 12GB the specs are all the same except for the amount of Vram.

 

[Gica]

You can compare a 3070 to a 2080Ti. It’s simpler.
There are a few games that crash on a 3070 because of the lack of vram. The question is…at what fps the 2080Ti runs them?
If I remember correctly, in most of the cases, if not all, the fps are 40-45 or lower.

What I try to explain and no one approves.
The 4060 Ti 16GB can clearly outperform the 4060 Ti 8GB right now, but the price paid is an unacceptable framerate for $500 spent. You can see their future just by looking at the 4K results. The 16GB are enough for this resolution ... if the average of 20-30 fps seems attractive to you.
This is the limit of the graphics processor and vRAM cannot help it.

 

[AusWolf]

What I try to explain and no one approves.
The 4060 Ti 16GB can clearly outperform the 4060 Ti 8GB right now, but the price paid is an unacceptable framerate for $500 spent. You can see their future just by looking at the 4K results. The 16GB are enough for this resolution ... if the average of 20-30 fps seems attractive to you.

Both 4060 Ti models are a waste of money for one reason or another, I think everyone agrees on that.

 

[iameatingjam]

What I try to explain and no one approves.
The 4060 Ti 16GB can clearly outperform the 4060 Ti 8GB right now, but the price paid is an unacceptable framerate for $500 spent. You can see their future just by looking at the 4K results. The 16GB are enough for this resolution ... if the average of 20-30 fps seems attractive to you.

Not that I like the 4060 ti 16gb, but fyi its now $450 in response to the 7700xt and 7800xt. Which I find a more reasonable premium for the extra vram. Unfortunately, the bandwidth is still abysmal.

 

[AusWolf]

Not that I like the 4060 ti 16gb, but fyi its now $450 in response to the 7700xt and 7800xt. Which I find a more reasonable premium for the extra vram. Unfortunately, the bandwidth is still abysmal.

That's actually not a bad price.

 

[iameatingjam]

They worked a lot on optimization, especially on vRAM memory requirements. It seems a bit doubtful that you played it well when the game required 13GB for 1080p and you can't play it now when it requires less than 10GB.

I'm sorry I don't really understand what you are saying here. Yes they worked a lot on optimization. But when it released it was different. And yes, even at high settings, with dlss on balanced, still the game told me I was over the vram cap, however, it reduced enough to not have it crash, perhaps the most vital data was now safe in the buffer I don't know, I just know it let me play the game.

And that seems irrelevant when your original argument was gpu limitation comes before vram limitation. Infact, it almost seems counter to it. The 3070 never had any trouble getting 60 fps average for me. The trouble was getting the vram low enough to not crash.

 

[Gica]

I'm sorry I don't really understand what you are saying here. Yes they worked a lot on optimization. But when it released it was different. And yes, even at high settings, with dlss on balanced, still the game told me I was over the vram cap, however, it reduced enough to not have it crash, perhaps the most vital data was now safe in the buffer I don't know, I just know it let me play the game.

And that seems irrelevant when your original argument was gpu limitation comes before vram limitation. Infact, it almost seems counter to it. The 3070 never had any trouble getting 60 fps average for me. The trouble was getting the vram low enough to not crash.

Allow me to be suspicious when you argue vRAM limitation with one of the few titles (perhaps even the only one) where this limitation actually exists... if you insist on playing at an excretable framerate. Don't tell me that you play this game above 60 fps, when I see in its review that the 3080 10GB barely outputs 52 fps in 1440p with maximum settings.
I'm suspicious for AC Origins reasons. In 2017, some fans (I won't say who) were desperately clinging to this game to demonstrate the superiority of a ryzen in gaming in front of some Intel processors that were demolishing.

Not that I like the 4060 ti 16gb, but fyi its now $450 in response to the 7700xt and 7800xt. Which I find a more reasonable premium for the extra vram. Unfortunately, the bandwidth is still abysmal.

With the addition that AMD offers bonus Avatar Frontiers, and nVidia offers Alan Wake 2 for 3070.
The 4060Ti 8GB version is more than 100 euros below the 7700XT, and the 16 GB version is 60 euros cheaper.
The prices are not high if we compare them to inflation. The 3060Ti 6GB has the same price as the 2060 Super at launch, but the power of money is much less now.

 

[iameatingjam]

Allow me to be suspicious when you argue vRAM limitation with one of the few titles (perhaps even the only one) where this limitation actually exists... if you insist on playing at an excretable framerate. Don't tell me that you play this game above 60 fps, when I see in its review that the 3080 10GB barely outputs 52 fps in 1440p with maximum settings.
I'm suspicious for AC Origins reasons. In 2017, some fans (I won't say who) were desperately clinging to this game to demonstrate the superiority of a ryzen in gaming in front of some Intel processors that were demolishing it in gaming.

I wasn't using maximum settings for like the 5th time. Do you think this conversation is constructive anymore? Because I don't. Now you're just calling me a liar and continue to try and bring AMD into the discussion at every possibly point for a reason I am not still not certain of.

Tlou is one of the more egregious examples of vram limitation but they are popping up more and more. Hogarts legacy and forsaken also used a lot of vram, but those games would simply not show textures so it doesn't show up in charts. Resident evil on release would crash without enough vram. I'm playing alan wake 2 right now, I may be using high settings but I am also using dlss balanced and RT is off and its still using 10GB+ of vram. I don't think getting a 8gb card in 2023 is a good idea, not if you want to play new games anyway.

With the addition that AMD offers bonus Avatar Frontiers, and nVidia offers Alan Wake 2 for 3070.
The 4060Ti 8GB version is more than 100 euros below the 7700XT, and the 16 GB version is 60 euros cheaper.
The prices are not high if we compare them to inflation. The 3060Ti 6GB has the same price as the 2060 Super at launch, but the power of money is much less now.

Okay?
Does everything have to boil down to amd vs nvidia for you or something?

 

[Gica]

I wasn't using maximum settings for like the 5th time. Do you think this conversation is constructive anymore? Because I don't. Now you're just calling me a liar and continue to try and bring AMD into the discussion at every possibly point for a reason I am not still not certain of.

Tlou is one of the more egregious examples of vram limitation but they are popping up more and more. Hogarts legacy and forsaken also used a lot of vram, but those games would simply not show textures so it doesn't show up in charts. Resident evil on release would crash without enough vram. I'm playing alan wake 2 right now, I may be using high settings but I am also using dlss balanced and RT is off and its still using 10GB+ of vram. I don't think getting a 8gb card in 2023 is a good idea, not if you want to play new games anyway.

The most played titles, according to Steam and Epic, are very well optimized. Maybe this is one of the secrets of their popularity. I mean, I'm sure because it's directly related to the hardware used by most players and it's not top-notch and it wasn't even at launch. Imposing a "critical damage optimized" title as an argument, a mess that overheats even top video cards, sounds like desperation.
The discussion about limitations is from when the world and the earth, but the Apocalypse did not come.
Until then, let's look at the reviews and there we see that the 6700XT still doesn't beat the 3070, as some fans announced. If it comes in 2025, let's be serious, you have no more claims from the GPU then, even if you are a fan of Photoshop Mode. They are already antiques.

 

[iameatingjam]

The most played titles, according to Steam and Epic, are very well optimized. Maybe this is one of the secrets of their popularity. I mean, I'm sure because it's directly related to the hardware used by most players and it's not top-notch and it wasn't even at launch. Forcing critical optimization damage on me, a mess that defeats even top-end video cards, sounds like desperation.
The discussion about limitations is from when the world and the earth, but the Apocalypse did not come.
Until then, let's look at the reviews and there we see that the 6700XT still doesn't beat the 3070, as some fans announced. If it comes in 2025, let's be serious, you have no more claims from the GPU then, even if you are a fan of Photoshop Mode. They are already antiques.

I agree that the most popular games are lower speced, to a cast a wider net or so to speak. But hey why don't we bring up the 6700xt again, you know, just for old times sake?

 

[Gica]

The Last of US Part 1 (Today)
We compare with the day of release (13GB for 1080p Ultra), with the TPU review (probably with path day 1) and with the present. As you can see, they worked intensively on vRAM optimization and I don't understand what problems you are citing. The game runs much more fluently now, and at 1440p you have a big frametime problem with a 3070 if you insist on Ultra. Even 16GB does not save it. I repeat, it is a game in which even 60 fps cannot be acceptable. Fortunately, with High settings and DLSS, I can play quietly at ~100 fps in this resolution with the 3070 Ti (100+ in 1080p), probably 80-90 fps with the 3070. What's the problem?
I can also give you an example of Forza Horizon 5, with 100 fps at launch for the 3070 Ti (1080p Extreme) and 134 fps now.
I could invoke the ice age for these performance increases. The ice age always starts with a global warming, it seems that before the disaster caused by the shortage of vRAM you have, at the beginning, a consistent increase in performance.
Or will it be the producers' efforts to optimize their games?

 

[AusWolf]

The most played titles, according to Steam and Epic, are very well optimized. Maybe this is one of the secrets of their popularity. I mean, I'm sure because it's directly related to the hardware used by most players and it's not top-notch and it wasn't even at launch. Imposing a "critical damage optimized" title as an argument, a mess that overheats even top video cards, sounds like desperation.
The discussion about limitations is from when the world and the earth, but the Apocalypse did not come.
Until then, let's look at the reviews and there we see that the 6700XT still doesn't beat the 3070, as some fans announced. If it comes in 2025, let's be serious, you have no more claims from the GPU then, even if you are a fan of Photoshop Mode. They are already antiques.

You cannot outrule games by saying they're not popular. If one wants to play it, one wants to play it, period. If it doesn't matter to you, great. But if it does, then more VRAM might be beneficial. Nobody plays with popularity charts.

 

[iameatingjam]

The Last of US Part 1 (Today)
We compare with the day of release (13GB for 1080p Ultra), with the TPU review (probably with path day 1) and with the present. As you can see, they worked intensively on vRAM optimization and I don't understand what problems you are citing. The game runs much more fluently now, and at 1440p you have a big frametime problem with a 3070 if you insist on Ultra. Even 16GB does not save it. I repeat, it is a game in which even 60 fps cannot be acceptable. Fortunately, with High settings and DLSS, I can play quietly at ~100 fps in this resolution with the 3070 Ti (100+ in 1080p), probably 80-90 fps with the 3070. What's the problem?

Seriously? Again? The problem was, the game was not stable at launch, due to heavy vram use. The game ran fine on cards with lots of vram, and not fine on cards with 8gb. Whether or not it was fixed is kind of irrelevant when your original argument was "gpu limitation comes before vram limitation" now it seems to be " it doesn't matter if it eventually gets fixed" and "it doesn't matter if its not popular" and " hey lets talk about the 6700xt.' We're going in circles here.

 

[Gica]

You cannot outrule games by saying they're not popular. If one wants to play it, one wants to play it, period. If it doesn't matter to you, great. But if it does, then more VRAM might be beneficial. Nobody plays with popularity charts.

There is no game that can't be played even with RTX 3050. Can't you play with 3070? What is the problem?
I'm just saying that if you force the details to cause problems for the video card with less vRAM, the framerate is also unacceptable for the rival video card with more vRAM. Reviews show that only a new game poses problems for the 3070 in front of the 6700XT, released in 2021. And this game can be played fluently on High without memory limitation and you have a framerate almost double what the 6700XT can do on Ultra. And this framerate is vital in this game as it is for Counter Strike.
When you only bring up a single game in the discussion, a game that can still be run perfectly by the 3070(Ti) at a decent framerate thanks to (and) DLSS, am I generalizing? Or are you generalizing? How many thousands of games are on the market? I have to wait... how long? ... for these games to be a problem for this video card? It is approaching three years since its launch. Three years ago, 2080 Ti was the undisputed king, playing in a different league. Now it is in the platoon, surpassed by video cards with 8GB. It is clear that vRAM does not help it.

Seriously? Again? The problem was, the game was not stable at launch, due to heavy vram use. The game ran fine on cards with lots of vram, and not fine on cards with 8gb. Whether or not it was fixed is kind of irrelevant when your original argument was "gpu limitation comes before vram limitation" now it seems to be " it doesn't matter if it eventually gets fixed" and "it doesn't matter if its not popular" and " hey lets talk about the 6700xt.' We're going in circles here.

I have an 8GB video card and I didn't have your problems. I abandoned the game towards the end for completely different reasons. I played it on high preset, dlss on.
But I have other fixations and this is probably where the difference comes from. I don't "buy" from torrents, I don't force the limits of the components, the antivirus is not missing and, periodically, I deal with the maintenance of the operating system.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

The most played titles, according to Steam and Epic, are very well optimized. Maybe this is one of the secrets of their popularity. I mean, I'm sure because it's directly related to the hardware used by most players and it's not top-notch and it wasn't even at launch. Imposing a "critical damage optimized" title as an argument, a mess that overheats even top video cards, sounds like desperation.
The discussion about limitations is from when the world and the earth, but the Apocalypse did not come.
Until then, let's look at the reviews and there we see that the 6700XT still doesn't beat the 3070, as some fans announced. If it comes in 2025, let's be serious, you have no more claims from the GPU then, even if you are a fan of Photoshop Mode. They are already antiques.

Tom On Moore's law is dead got details on how steams survey works. They only survey games that are rated above 40% on Steam & are currently on their most played list. I wouldn't call it a good way to survey games.

 

[Gica]

Tom On Moore's law is dead got details on how steams survey works. They only survey games that are rated above 40% on Steam & are currently on their most played list. I wouldn't call it a good way to survey games.

OK. I'm guided by the "more vRAM" fan polls: 99, 99% of players only use titles that can't even be initialized without 12GB of vRAM. It's good?

3070 Ti - 29 months ago
TPU
"Excellent 1440p performance"

Guru3D
"this card is aimed at the 2560x1440 domain, so up to that resolution, you'll be really loving the performance that this card reproduces for you. This card can run games at WQHD quite easily even with raytracing and a DLSS combo; it will serve you well at that resolution. The closest product from the competition would be the Radeon RX 6800 and 6800 XT. NVIDIA however offers faster raytracing performance and offers you the option to put that into 6th gear with DLSS. "

Tom's
"The RTX 3070 Ti does best as a 1440p gaming solution, which remains the sweet spot in terms of image quality and performance requirements."

Future? Which future? The conclusions of these reviews (I listed only three) tell you that you can be satisfied for 3-4 years with this video card if 1440p is your target. If you want excellent performance in 1440p for 5, 6...10 years, buy the video card that offers you excellent performance in 4K. That's the only way you have a reserve, especially for the power of the graphics processor. As for vRAM, the 6700XT cannot surpass the 3070 even in 1440p (the difference is unchanged since launch) and the 2080 Ti seems to lose even more ground in new games to the detriment of the 3070Ti. The impact of GPU power far exceeds that of vRAM. This is what I see from game reviews.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

My logic is as follows. If I'm going to pay more, I want to get more for my money. More memory, with faster modules and on a wider bus and a faster GPU. More than anything, actually physically recreated, what we call hardware, or intimately "iron". Just as I do not save or negotiate the price in the store, but accept it as it is on the sticker, so the corporation does not sell me empty talk and fake frames, but something I can touch. I don't want to reduce and reduce and reduce settings because something is missing.

 

[AusWolf]

I'm just saying that if you force the details to cause problems for the video card with less vRAM, the framerate is also unacceptable for the rival video card with more vRAM.

That's an interesting point. Do you have any sources on that?

I have a 2070 on the shelf to test, but no rival card with more VRAM. the closest I have is a 6750 XT that is also more powerful in the GPU.

My logic is as follows. If I'm going to pay more, I want to get more for my money. More memory, with faster modules and on a wider bus and a faster GPU. More than anything, actually physically recreated, what we call hardware, or intimately "iron". Just as I do not save or negotiate the price in the store, but accept it as it is on the sticker, so the corporation does not sell me empty talk and fake frames, but something I can touch. I don't want to reduce and reduce and reduce settings because something is missing.

I agree. DLSS/FSR is nothing more than a "but... but..." reaction from the seller upon not being able to answer why I'm not getting more for my money.

 

[iameatingjam]

I have an 8GB video card and I didn't have your problems. I abandoned the game towards the end for completely different reasons. I played it on high preset, dlss on.
But I have other fixations and this is probably where the difference comes from. I don't "buy" from torrents, I don't force the limits of the components, the antivirus is not missing and, periodically, I deal with the maintenance of the operating system.

The last of us was so unstable on 8gb cards that nvidia released a hotfix for it. That fix eventually got worked into the mainline driver. Sounds like you may have played after that happened. I played before. It was not okay at 1440 high settings native. You could even say it was a 'problem' hence why there were fixes. Both from nvidia, and the game devs.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/game-ready-drivers/13/516320/announcing-geforce-hotfix-driver-53158-released-44/

As for the rest of your arguments, I have already addressed/answered them in the past, just go back. And please don't insinuate things of me that you don't have evidence for.

 

[wolf]

I find it impressive that Alan Wake 2, easily one of the best looking games to release to date plays very well with.. 'modest' VRAM amounts. If only current gen cards from all camps were either more appealing or priced more sharply, I'd gladly buy into more GPU horsepower with the nice side effect of a larger framebuffer.

 

[phanbuey]

vram is pretty binary -- you either have enough or you don't, and when you don't (which is increasingly common at higher rez) the game just runs like trash or doesn't run at all.

That being said if you plan to flip the card for a newer model in the next 18 months then you're gonna be just fine.

If you're buying a 3070ti today for some 1440P gaming, I'm not sure you're going to be very happy with it.