-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Thaedolus
Member
Me, I had an 11GB(I think?) 1080ti for years and waited for the 4080 and its 16GBs seem to be fairing quite well
SportsFan581
Member
The ones that saved between $700 and $1000 by buying the cheaper card and invested it in Nvidia stock. (Have you seen how much it's gone up since 2020? Man, I wished I invested 10k in Nvidia even back in 2016)
If you're using a 3080 at max settings, you're likely running at a lower resolution with DLSS.
Bojji
Member
For this GPU 24GB is overkill but Nvidia likes to fuck consumers with "options" like that:
10GB -------------------(nothing)--------->24GB
3090 would be super fine with 16GB (with lower price).
Well there was the 12 GB 3080 Ti, but AFAIK there were no 1.5 GB GDDR6X memory modules, so there was no way to get to say, 16GB with a 384-bit bus.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
12GB is the minimum now if you want to use max setting in most games (not all of them) and sometimes you won't be able to use Nvidia frame gen if you target 4k output (even with dlss performance). 16GB is the sweet spot right now. 20GB and more is useless most of the time.
12GB cards were added later. 3080 would be ok if it was 12GB from the beginning.
Of course they designed this GPU with that 24GB target, if they wanted they could have made cards with different memory layout.
12 GB cards require a full GA102 die so will have worse yields. Increasing the bus size further would have increased the cost and complexity, and according to Microsoft, large bus sizes are difficult to implement on GDDR6 due to the higher speeds.
They could have used the 3090's clamshell design on the 3080 for 20GB, but anything less would have required reducing the size of the memory bus and therefore lowering bandwidth.
Edit: Actually the 3080 Ti still isn't a full GA102 die, but enabling the extra SMs still isn't "free".
Last edited:
MadchesterManc
Member
When using ultra textures on Steel Rising with my 3090 it'll use every KB of the 24GB available. Game will stutter too so probably wants to gobble up even more even if the quality isn't much, if at all, better than high textures.
Bojji
Member
3080 12GB only have slightly bigger core than 3080 10 and has bus that allows 12GB. 3080 12GB - 3080 Ti - 3090 all have buses for 12/24 config and all of them have different core config. 3090ti is full die.
They should have made 3080 with 20GB the same way that 4060ti exists with 8/16 options - 3070 should get the same treatment. But of course they don't want to make their (not top) GPUs too good for consumers.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Nankatsu
Gold Member
Won't be gaming at 4K at all. 1440p is the way.
Bojji
Member
For 1440p 12GB will be fine for next few years. But there are games that on absolute maximum settings do require more, Alan wake and cyberpunk for example.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Threads like this really show how out of touch NeoGAF is with the usual PC situation. According to the Steam hardware survey over 75% of users have 10GB or less.
Leonidas
AMD's Dogma: ARyzen (No Intel inside)
I had a 3070 and upgraded to a 4070. Didn't get screwed.
VRAM issues on 3070 never affected me.
proandrad
Member
I should have listened. Happened to me with the GTX 680 only having 2gb of vram and then I did it again with the 3080 10gb. Got the 680 for physx and the 3080 for ray tracing, I'm a sucker for those nvidia features.
Got fooled again...
delirium trigger
Member
Yea, because you got rid of it before next the next gen games even came out, lol.
delirium trigger
Member
I'm aware. What's even crazier is that 4k is something like less than 5%. Lots of steam users don't even have a dedicated gpu.
I think the vram panic is certainly a little but the fact remains - nvidia is basically the world's leader in tech and they should have a sold an 80 class card with enough vram to run their own damn features.
Madflavor
Gold Member
I got my 3080 10gb in 2020 and don’t regret it. I ran RE4R on high settings, and with a few small adjustments, it ran totally fine and hit 60+ fps. Cyberpunk 2077 also runs crisp on Ultra with Raytracing enabled.
Until I find myself going to Medium settings, I’m in no rush to upgrade.
Until I find myself going to Medium settings, I’m in no rush to upgrade.
Hugare
Member
Dude testing on 4K or 1440p is missing the point
8gb should be perfectly fine if you game on 1080p (specially with DLSS). When you add Lossless Scaling then, its even better.
I'm playing Cyberpunk with RT on Psycho at 60 FPS on my notebook equiped with a 3060. DLSS on Quality, 1080p, Lossless Scaling framegen.
Problem is, there are too many unoptimized games being released nowadays. Its more about the tech being used and less about the hardware.
8gb should be perfectly fine if you game on 1080p (specially with DLSS). When you add Lossless Scaling then, its even better.
I'm playing Cyberpunk with RT on Psycho at 60 FPS on my notebook equiped with a 3060. DLSS on Quality, 1080p, Lossless Scaling framegen.
Problem is, there are too many unoptimized games being released nowadays. Its more about the tech being used and less about the hardware.
Bojji
Member
GoT is perfectly playable with 4K DLSS performance on 16GB version and unplayable on 8GB one. Many games also start to show problems at 1440p, frame gen is also unusable in some of them.
3070 for example never was a 1080p card, it was 500$ mid-high end GPU in 2020 (3080 was HE and 3090 was Enthusiast level) designed mostly for 1440p gaming. 4060ti has about the same performance for 400$ in 2023, both GPUs share the same problems.
With more VRAM you have way more options. This video also focuses on 2024 games, there were many games where 8GB cards had missing textures and other problems in 2023.
You DON'T WANT 8GB card in 2024 and everyone buying GPU should know this.
Hugare
Member
"Many games also start to show problems at 1440p, frame gen is also unusable in some of them.", that was my point. But if you game at 1080p (specially with DLSS) you'll be fine most of the time.
And framegen is perfectly fine if your baseline is 30 FPS. As I said, I'm playing Cyberpunk at 60, and also Baldurs Gate 3. Wouldnt recomend it to online competitive games, but for most games should be more than fine.
Would I buy an 8GB card in 2024? Probably not.
Are 8GB cards totally unusable in 2024? Certainly not the case if you game at 1080p.
Last edited:
Bojji
Member
Yeah, but you will still need to mess with the settings in some games even at 1080p.
DF talking about 8GB of VRAM (timestamped):
cinnamonandgravy
Member
cant even open a jar with 8gb of vram
Come On Tars
Member
Googled how much vram my 1080ti has.
11. Those retards went backwards hahahahah
11. Those retards went backwards hahahahah
This.
Corporal.Hicks
Member
As others have said, it all depends on the settings. GPUs with 8GB or VRAM can no longer run every single game maxed out, but with a few tweaks I can still run almost every game without any problems (no VRAM related stuttering or slowdowns to a 10-20fps).
So far, the only game I have tried that is really unacceptable on my 8GB GPU is Forspoken (I have only tried demo version). I could only use the lowest texture settings in this game and the texture quality looked extremely bad, like in PS2 era. There was a similar problem with the TLOU1 at launch, but thanks to patches even this game runs fine at high texture settings on my GTX1080.
Upscaling like FSR2.0 also helps a lot with VRAM. In Ratchet and Clank I had stuttering in native TAA and high texture settings, but the FSR quality lowered the VRAM usage and now the game runs fine. What's great is that FSR2 looks better to me than native on the static image, and the game runs faster on my PC at 1440p FSRQ than at 1080p in standard TAA. I have only two issues with FSR. In some games the FSR image is not sharp enough (Alan Wake 2), or oversharpened (TLOU1), so I had to adjust FSR sharpening to make it look better than native on the static image (some games offer FSR sharpening, but if not I'm using reshade and lumasharpen + CAS sharpening). The second problem with FSR is a slight artifacting / shimering during motion, especially visible on grass. I wonder if DLSS has less artifacts in motion because if that's the case then native TAA would look worse in every way.
So IMO 8GB GPUs are still usable, but I'm planning on buying a new GPU soon and I'm not willing to buy anything with less than 16GB of VRAM. I learned from my mistake in the past that buying a new GPU with small amount of VRAM is not worth it. I bought a GTX680 2GB in 2012 and soon (PS4 launch) I had to compromise on texture settings because more and more games were stuttering badly because of insufficient VRAM. My GTX1080 and 1080Ti (I had both) have more than enough VRAM and that's one of the reasons why those GPUs lasted as long as they did. I feel like 12GB's VRAM is fine for modern games, but 16GB is definitely more future proof, because with maxed out settings some games already run badly on the 12GB GPUs (Ratchet and Clank can eat up to 15GB VRAM at 4K max settings and that's real VRAM usage, meaning 12GB GPUs have extreme slowdowns because of insufficient VRAM).
So far, the only game I have tried that is really unacceptable on my 8GB GPU is Forspoken (I have only tried demo version). I could only use the lowest texture settings in this game and the texture quality looked extremely bad, like in PS2 era. There was a similar problem with the TLOU1 at launch, but thanks to patches even this game runs fine at high texture settings on my GTX1080.
Upscaling like FSR2.0 also helps a lot with VRAM. In Ratchet and Clank I had stuttering in native TAA and high texture settings, but the FSR quality lowered the VRAM usage and now the game runs fine. What's great is that FSR2 looks better to me than native on the static image, and the game runs faster on my PC at 1440p FSRQ than at 1080p in standard TAA. I have only two issues with FSR. In some games the FSR image is not sharp enough (Alan Wake 2), or oversharpened (TLOU1), so I had to adjust FSR sharpening to make it look better than native on the static image (some games offer FSR sharpening, but if not I'm using reshade and lumasharpen + CAS sharpening). The second problem with FSR is a slight artifacting / shimering during motion, especially visible on grass. I wonder if DLSS has less artifacts in motion because if that's the case then native TAA would look worse in every way.
So IMO 8GB GPUs are still usable, but I'm planning on buying a new GPU soon and I'm not willing to buy anything with less than 16GB of VRAM. I learned from my mistake in the past that buying a new GPU with small amount of VRAM is not worth it. I bought a GTX680 2GB in 2012 and soon (PS4 launch) I had to compromise on texture settings because more and more games were stuttering badly because of insufficient VRAM. My GTX1080 and 1080Ti (I had both) have more than enough VRAM and that's one of the reasons why those GPUs lasted as long as they did. I feel like 12GB's VRAM is fine for modern games, but 16GB is definitely more future proof, because with maxed out settings some games already run badly on the 12GB GPUs (Ratchet and Clank can eat up to 15GB VRAM at 4K max settings and that's real VRAM usage, meaning 12GB GPUs have extreme slowdowns because of insufficient VRAM).
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
My 3080 10Gb is still serving me well and I'm not having problems running games at 1440p high or ultra settings in a lot of cases. In a lot of games ultra settings are a waste of resources and end up not being well optimised anyway. In some games there isn't even a visual difference for some settings moving from high to ultra.
I think 10Gb of VRAM is fine for anyone playing at 1440p at the moment and until I see a game I want to play that doesn't run as well as I want it to at 1440p (not because it poor optimisation) I won't be upgrading, especially at these retarded prices.
I think 10Gb of VRAM is fine for anyone playing at 1440p at the moment and until I see a game I want to play that doesn't run as well as I want it to at 1440p (not because it poor optimisation) I won't be upgrading, especially at these retarded prices.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Even my 10 GB 3080 has issues in several games. Especially when turning on RT at 4k 60 fps even with DLSS on. RE4 crashes. Gotham Knights would have framedrops down to 2 fps for like 30 seconds. TLOU had the same 2 fps issues until they added a streaming setting.
This is a card made for ray tracing and ive had to turn off RT in several games just to get consistent performance without major drops.
This is a card made for ray tracing and ive had to turn off RT in several games just to get consistent performance without major drops.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
12GB masterrace. /not really
nkarafo
Member
What pisses me off with Nvidia is that all their magic software tricks only benefit themselves as they allow them to nerf the hardware of their cards and sell them as if those nerfs never happened. So something like DLSS is used to balance things out and cover this performance loss. So you, as a gamer, think you get better performance from DLSS, but in reality you would get the same without DLSS if the hardware wasn't nerfed in the first place. Plus, it's worse in the end for you because software tricks like this don't work in all games and they can also cause other artifacts.
So watch as Nvidia releases the 128bit bus 5060 with 8GB of VRAM at 400$ because, hey, you can run the games at lower resolution and DLSS will cover the loss!
So watch as Nvidia releases the 128bit bus 5060 with 8GB of VRAM at 400$ because, hey, you can run the games at lower resolution and DLSS will cover the loss!
Last edited:
LordBritish
Member
4080 laptop with 12gb here, running like a champ
Bojji
Member
12GB is fine for now but it will be problematic few years from now. With PS6 launch in 2027 16GB GPUs will be the minimum probably (but cross gen will be long so maybe not?). I bet 6060 will have 128 bit bus and 8GB of VRAM.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
1080p laptop with 4070. Should be fine. Although I dont even play big games on PC. My old one was messing up so I decided to get it, while giving my old one away.
Bojji
Member
"8GB is fine for 1080p"
Not really (and actual allocation possible on 8GB GPUs is less than 7GB):
Turns out resolution doesn't change much in modern games when it comes to VRAM.
SoloCamo
Member
I should have listened. Happened to me with the GTX 680 only having 2gb of vram and then I did it again with the 3080 10gb. Got the 680 for physx and the 3080 for ray tracing, I'm a sucker for those nvidia features.
Got fooled again...
Funny how that works, same arguments I had when choosing a 7970Ghz edition over a 680 (3gb vram is more valuable than 2gb) and same with me choosing a 6900XT over a 3080 (16gb vs 10gb + RT). I learned this lesson back when I had a Geforce 4 ti4200 128mb back in the very early 2000's so it gets old warning people over and over to not undercut themselves on vram if they plan to use the card a bit - but alas here we are.
Nvidia will never make the mistake of releasing a card like the 1080ti again at the price they asked for. Card was a unicorn and Nvidia wouldn't dare want people to actually stick with their current card instead of buying the new and shiny next gen.
Last edited:
raduque
Member
I have an 8gb 2080, and it's starting to be a poor performer. I'm planning on buying a laptop some time later this year if I can save enough, and I was looking at 8gb 4060 machines. I can barely afford $1k for an 8 gig vram laptop, I'd never be able to afford $3000 for a laptop with 16gb vram.