How Much VRAM is Enough for PC Gaming?

dirtyferret said:

Picked up a RTX4060ti 8GB for $300 during the winter, I know the cards limitations but it plays all the games I want to play at 1440p ultra settings. If I need to dial down a setting I will. I also own the RTX3060 12GB and the 4060ti easily outperforms it. When the cards no longer give me the performance I want I will upgrade to a reasonably priced & better performing 12GB card but until that time I'm not going to waste a bunch of money just so I can run a benchmark faster.

Click to expand...

Yea techspot perpetuates the whole "8gb is not enough" thing alot. I guess it garners them clicks or something.

I feel like the bad performance of the 4060 ti 8gb is more to do with the 128-bit bus as opposed to just the amount of vram.

Every time I see a story like this, I instantly know who wrote it: Steve. He seems to just dislike Nvidia.

"While games tend to allocate more memory when more is available, we focused on memory usage."

So how do you get to sweet spot of just 12GB? Myself I game with 4090 in one system and 7900 XTX in the other, it's that tend to allocate more if you have it part, I seen the same thing you've found, the difference is, if you have more, it uses it, sure, it's not a min. require you must have it, but, to make recommendations as the sweet spot that really fall more into min. require before there can be impacts usage and how the game engines interact with the hardware resources you have.

It's interesting that even Intel with A770 being ho-hum performance part realized a value to 16gb, this isn't a nVidia v AMD thing, it's more of how little can we sell for the max amount of $$$ before you complain or notice lower than expected performance level(s). If it was about actually providing GPU with better gaming experience (today) we would see upper entry level cards with base of 16gb and more cards with 24gb or more.

I promise I'm not trying to be an ***, but to me, all those graphs are useless without FPS data. Just because a game will allocate the memory doesn't mean it's actually using it or actually needs it.

BryBry92 said:

Yea techspot perpetuates the whole "8gb is not enough" thing alot. I guess it garners them clicks or something.

I feel like the bad performance of the 4060 ti 8gb is more to do with the 128-bit bus as opposed to just the amount of vram.

Every time I see a story like this, I instantly know who wrote it: Steve. He seems to just dislike Nvidia.

Click to expand...

Did you see the video showing the textures disappearing on the 8GB GPU? Performance isn't just about framerate.

Vram is cheap these days, it would be nice if the low-end GPUs started with something like 10-12gb of vram.

Didn't you write this story a month ago?

I give my card a break, I'm running an old but nice looking 1280x1024 monitor so I run (in a window usually) at 720p (1280x720). GTX1650 with 4GB VRAM, that thing certainly hurts from the lack of VRAM in these, lets say, more bloated games. (Wanting like 8, 12, 16GB VRAM for 4K and on higher settings? Yeah. Wanting it at lower output resolutions on lower settings? Honestly that is just bloat.) Ahh well. So far most games run great, and the rest run "well enough".

Excellent test! I said it years ago, 16GB is the minimum. One reason I went with the AMD RX6800.

MasterAce said:

Seeing how they use compressed frame buffers etc. Is the vram allocation same for amd, nvidia, intel in same scenario?

Click to expand...

You make a good point. Steve needs to verify that his observations apply to the other vendors' cards. (Even if they, almost certainly, will end up about the same.)

I dont need Ray Tracing indeed . I tried it . Not tangible . Nothing to worry about unless you re using low preset which makes no sense . Also you dont necessarily need Ultra preset . I ve noticed in many games Ultra preset just eats the VRAM , no tangible difference in the graphics . I ve got plenty of games , playing at 1080p , I ve never needed more than 6.5GB VRAM . Even if I crank up the graphics , I see no difference but increase in VRAM usage .

Steve should have used a 8GB VRAM card alongside . I suspect that if a game finds a lot of VRAM it tries to benefit from it . So , 24GB VRAM card is not the best fit for the test . Here s for RX 6600

I think this review proves the point that the ideal GPU should have more than 8GB of VRAM. This is especially so when most games are focusing on offering higher texture quality.

What I do think is unrealistic is that most gamer who buy a mid or low end card will not expect to run most games at max/ ultra settings, regardless of resolution. If the game runs well at max settings, then its a bonus. For example, when I was using a mid tier GPU to run AAA game titles at 4K, I will naturally start off with medium settings, with DLSS/ FSR at Balance quality, to start off with. Some people may try and max things out initially, but will adjust downwards if the performance is not satisfactory. But again, it is good to know the limitations of 8GB VRAM.

Watzupken said:

I think this review proves the point that the ideal GPU should have more than 8GB of VRAM. This is especially so when most games are focusing on offering higher texture quality.

What I do think is unrealistic is that most gamer who buy a mid or low end card will not expect to run most games at max/ ultra settings, regardless of resolution. If the game runs well at max settings, then its a bonus. For example, when I was using a mid tier GPU to run AAA game titles at 4K, I will naturally start off with medium settings, with DLSS/ FSR at Balance quality, to start off with. Some people may try and max things out initially, but will adjust downwards if the performance is not satisfactory. But again, it is good to know the limitations of 8GB VRAM.

Click to expand...

most gamers don't mess with settings; also just because amout of VRAM shows allocated doesn't mean that much is necessary; most games run fine on 1080p medium to low with 4GB VRAM; even a 2015 980ti or 2016 Titan X with 6GB of VRAM does well @4k Medium to High; still impressed how many games my 780Ti and 290X can play as well.

I find odd that DLSS actually increases the memory requirements, I assumed that since the game is actually rendered at a lower resolution, memory use would decrease significantly.

I wonder why is that.

With the exception of entry-level options, you shouldn't be buying 8GB graphics cards anymore. 12GB is now the bare minimum, and 16GB is the ideal target.

Click to expand...

this is what I did 1 year ago: went with 4080 instead of 4070

BryBry92 said:

Every time I see a story like this, I instantly know who wrote it: Steve. He seems to just dislike Nvidia.

Click to expand...

Of course he does, because he is knows how bad NVIDIA is screwing over people that purchase their cards.

Skully said:

I promise I'm not trying to be an ***, but to me, all those graphs are useless without FPS data. Just because a game will allocate the memory doesn't mean it's actually using it or actually needs it.

Click to expand...

You must be new, because he has benchmarked all those games numerous times. Maybe try looking them up? Those benchmark articles are posted on this site too. LOL

BadThad said:

Excellent test! I said it years ago, 16GB is the minimum. One reason I went with the AMD RX6800.

Click to expand...

After Steve told me that I needed 16GB+ on my next graphic card I went with AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT, upgraded from my old work horse the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti.