skneogaf
Member
My choice of words were incorrect, I should have said overkill for games.
I say overkill bit I suppose if you're planning on going 8k then maybe, just maybe 24GB is needed.
I haven't checked out ram usage at 8k so I wouldn't know.
-
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.
Is 8gb-10gb Vram enough for next gen? Can we settle this once and for all?
- Thread starter Dr_Salt
- Start date
My choice of words were incorrect, I should have said overkill for games.
I say overkill bit I suppose if you're planning on going 8k then maybe, just maybe 24GB is needed.
I haven't checked out ram usage at 8k so I wouldn't know.
BlueXImpulse
Banned
8GB is definitely not enough for 4K gaming because both XSX and PS5 target 4K gaming and they will have 10GB available for that purpose.
wordslaughter
Banned
If the game as using as much VRAM/RAM as is available then the numbers would be 16 for VRAM and 32 for System RAM. But they aren't.
It's very understandable why a simulator like MSFS2020 would use so much RAM.
nemiroff
Gold Member
To discuss this we should as a bare minimum be able to demonstrate allocated vs actually used vs actually needed. Too much of this thread is a clusterfuck of randomly picked assumptions. It's a shame that we don't have more "high-ranked" developers/engineers roaming this forum to properly sort this out.
sncvsrtoip
Member
8gb is enough to match xss settings (read not enough)
T-Cake
Member
I'm in the camp now that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The 1070 in my PC is the last iteration of GPU for me and I'm giving up gaming on PC come November. PCs will never reach their full potential whilst the consoles are around. So XSX+PS5 for me and I'm going to be happy enough. The money I'll save on upgrading PC tech all the time will buy a spangly new Dolby Vision set.
Last edited:
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
same.
just gonna get a 3090 and forget about it. i'll have 24GB VRAM. don't need to worry about 10GB not being enough or buying a 3080 then having a 3080 Ti release with 12 or 20GB. if 10GB isn't enough then 12GB isn't going to make much difference. a 3080 Ti needs to come with 20GB.
"but a 3090 isn't worth it!" maybe...but they way i see it is i'll be able to buy a 3090 this month. who knows when the 3080 Ti will come out? 6 months from now? 12 months? and it's likely gonna cost ~£900-1100 so i'd rather pay that extra money, get that little extra bit of performance/VRAM, and play games this year.
Last edited:
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
theres no need 4K on comp unless u have somewhat 43"+ screen tho ..thats my opinion... 1080p 144hz is better than looking pixels
i agree that 4K is useless unless you're playing on a large screen. i had a 32" monitor and i didn't think it was worth it. if you have a 43-48" screen then yeah it'll be great.
1080p 144hz is fine but 1440p 144hz is better.
CuteFaceJay
Member
No idea all I know I'm still going to be playing at 2560 X 1080 on a 3080 LOL
Soodanim
Member
I've been following GPU chat for long enough to know that this discussion never goes away, and the popular answer based on outliers is by and large the wrong one. GPUs with 2GB survived well into the 4gb era, and that brand new 10GB GPU isn't going to become obsolete in a year because one game with beyond ultra settings over-does it and one game is an unoptimised mess.
Games perform to the market (unless they're Crysis level future-proofed), so how the fuck is the newest GPU going to be useless any time soon? If you really want to worry about it and think somehow the 3080 isn't going to cut it, get a console and wait for the 6080ti. If you're one of those "Ultra or nothing" weirdos, that's your problem and nothing can save you but yourself.
Games perform to the market (unless they're Crysis level future-proofed), so how the fuck is the newest GPU going to be useless any time soon? If you really want to worry about it and think somehow the 3080 isn't going to cut it, get a console and wait for the 6080ti. If you're one of those "Ultra or nothing" weirdos, that's your problem and nothing can save you but yourself.
Last edited:
LED Guy?
Banned
I don’t think Xbox Series S 8 GB RAM will be enough, Goddammit even a game like Call of Duty MW 2019 or RDR 2 or Detroit Become Human consume a lot of VRAM when you run them at Native 4K, and those are technically now, last generation games, what were Microsoft thinking with the Series S?
Also, we haven’t delved into how 4K & 8K assets/textures (8K textures were used on Unreal 5 demo for PS5) will be used in Xbox Series S, because its RAM amount is so low that it may not use it, and what will happen if it didn’t handle those 4K or 8K textures?
If it didn’t handle them, developers will make a “unified” downgraded assets/textures pack that will “scale” across all platforms, so that they don’t have to make 2 different assets/textures for the lower RAM console and for the 2 consoles with the much higher RAM, so it will result in a console that will downgrade the whole baseline for next-generation of games.
Also even if you ran a game at the console’s target resolution of 1440p, games will get bigger & more advanced anyways, thus needing for more VRAM, I know that SSD in the consoles will help a lot with the asset streaming and stuff, but still, 8 GB for next-gen isn’t enough.
Conclusion, Xbox Series S will, sadly, downgrade the whole baseline in the next-generation of games, I hope it fails for real, this is not a troll post, this is how I genuinely feel about Xbox Series S.
Also, we haven’t delved into how 4K & 8K assets/textures (8K textures were used on Unreal 5 demo for PS5) will be used in Xbox Series S, because its RAM amount is so low that it may not use it, and what will happen if it didn’t handle those 4K or 8K textures?
If it didn’t handle them, developers will make a “unified” downgraded assets/textures pack that will “scale” across all platforms, so that they don’t have to make 2 different assets/textures for the lower RAM console and for the 2 consoles with the much higher RAM, so it will result in a console that will downgrade the whole baseline for next-generation of games.
Also even if you ran a game at the console’s target resolution of 1440p, games will get bigger & more advanced anyways, thus needing for more VRAM, I know that SSD in the consoles will help a lot with the asset streaming and stuff, but still, 8 GB for next-gen isn’t enough.
Conclusion, Xbox Series S will, sadly, downgrade the whole baseline in the next-generation of games, I hope it fails for real, this is not a troll post, this is how I genuinely feel about Xbox Series S.
Last edited:
LED Guy?
Banned
My current PC has a GTX 1080 card.
This is id tech you are talking about. They will be ready. The issue is that some things just require the fast VRAM (like raytracing BVH) so they were unhappy about the 8GB at 224Gbs.
nkarafo
Member
Now that i think of it, this is why these new cards have such nice prices. So they can convince you to buy the extra VRAM versions at the "normal" prices they meant to all along.
That's an odd take. You mean the games on consoles reach their full potential? I thought playing games at 60+ fps at higher resolutions and details is the maximum potential. People ask for console exclusives to be available on PCs for that reason alone, to reach their full potential.
Last edited:
Arun1910
Member
I think the 3080 should be fine for a good few years at 1440p. GDDR6x has twice the bandwidth of GDDR6 memory, you can't just compare numbers.
10GB GDDR6x (3080) vs 16GB Unified GDDR6 (PS5).
This alone puts the 3080 in a way better position ^
4K in the long term though I would suspect you'd be better off with a 3080Ti, purely because of the pixel count push.
10GB GDDR6x (3080) vs 16GB Unified GDDR6 (PS5).
This alone puts the 3080 in a way better position ^
4K in the long term though I would suspect you'd be better off with a 3080Ti, purely because of the pixel count push.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
I have two 6GB GPUs, I can tweak settings to hell and back.
Mhmmm 2077
Member
Many games at 4K already take more than 8GB VRAM, so the answer is maybe. Depends if you plan to play at 4K or not.
nkarafo
Member
You can still only use 6GB in total though.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
2Gb was plenty not so long ago, I mean... you can only future proof to an extent.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
It really wasn't. Maybe during the 360/PS3 generation. But when the current generation started, VRAM requirements quickly made the 2GB limit obsolete. That's why i sold my 960 2GB and got a 6GB 1060 2 years ago. I mean, something like RE7 (a game that was released in early 2017) would completely obliterate those 2GBs. Assassin's Creed Origins (another 2017 game) also doesn't fit in 2GBs, even at lower settings.
Which is why i think 6/8GBs will be the new 2GBs. Good enough for last/cross gen titles but when the true next gen multi-platforms arrive, you will need more than that.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Yes.
A lot of people don't know this but a lot of the time games aren't actually actively using a huge chunk of the VRAM they have allocated on the card. So that VRAM is either sitting there reserved by the game so that other applications can't access it, or it's "being used" by the game, but as a cache. The reason for this misunderstanding seems to be the common GPU profiling tools themselves, which don't report VRAM usage correctly. Some 3rd-party specialty ones like Special K (I think that's the name?) do, but they are not commonly used for various reasons.
This happens to be the case with even GPU-intensive games; the reason a lot of that VRAM is reserved or occupied is due to cutting down need of frequent I/O accesses and needing to shadow-copy data from system RAM into GPU VRAM. Both are things Nvidia (and AMD) are looking to significantly reduce if not outright eliminate with stuff such as RTX I/O. If you dramatically improve I/O file system, speed, latency etc. accesses through stuff such as RTX I/O and (starting next year) DirectStorage, suddenly you don't need your game reserving huge portions of VRAM for "just in case" usage or as a cache for content to be generated well later on in the level.
So yes, 10 GB (even 8 GB) of VRAM is going to be very sufficient for PC gaming (and next-gen console gaming arguably moreso) once you consider it in context of everything else like shifting towards SSDs, restructuring file I/O systems, etc.
A lot of people don't know this but a lot of the time games aren't actually actively using a huge chunk of the VRAM they have allocated on the card. So that VRAM is either sitting there reserved by the game so that other applications can't access it, or it's "being used" by the game, but as a cache. The reason for this misunderstanding seems to be the common GPU profiling tools themselves, which don't report VRAM usage correctly. Some 3rd-party specialty ones like Special K (I think that's the name?) do, but they are not commonly used for various reasons.
This happens to be the case with even GPU-intensive games; the reason a lot of that VRAM is reserved or occupied is due to cutting down need of frequent I/O accesses and needing to shadow-copy data from system RAM into GPU VRAM. Both are things Nvidia (and AMD) are looking to significantly reduce if not outright eliminate with stuff such as RTX I/O. If you dramatically improve I/O file system, speed, latency etc. accesses through stuff such as RTX I/O and (starting next year) DirectStorage, suddenly you don't need your game reserving huge portions of VRAM for "just in case" usage or as a cache for content to be generated well later on in the level.
So yes, 10 GB (even 8 GB) of VRAM is going to be very sufficient for PC gaming (and next-gen console gaming arguably moreso) once you consider it in context of everything else like shifting towards SSDs, restructuring file I/O systems, etc.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
That's a lot of faith in developers actually using all those optimizations though. But we all know there are going to be plenty of games where brute forcing shitty code with extra hardware resources will be necessary.
T-Cake
Member
Not really. I mean we haven't seen games like Crysis where there was all sorts going on - trees splintering when you shoot them, etc. Games nowadays are designed for consoles first and then the extra power of the PC goes in to increasing the resolution and framerate. What would games be like if they were designed and optimized for the top end GPU at 1080p60 and you couldn't get 4K or 144fps until years into the future? Admittedly, such developer would probably go bankrupt but it's an interesting thought.
Chiggs
Member
What this guy said.
I can't wait to watch these "10GB is enough" comments age as poorly as the 10GB on a 3080.
Last edited:
prinz_valium
Member
It has to.
The consoles won't get more
The consoles won't get more
Manstructiclops
Banned
No fancy tricks will ever beat raw capacity. Stop falling for the bullshit. Time after time.
Fuck Nvidia, MS, Sony and AMD shareholders, as customers you should be demanding more.
Fuck Nvidia, MS, Sony and AMD shareholders, as customers you should be demanding more.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Aren't they going to get 16GB unified? Not sure how much is going to be used as system RAM though. Pretty sure it's going to be a lot less than half the amount, that means consoles will have more than 8GB for VRAM usage.
T-Cake
Member
Well MS has geared up 10GB for VRAM and 3.5GB for system RAM with the OS using the other 2.5GB. They've kind of gone backwards from unified memory because the GPU (IIRC) can only use that 10GB and isn't allowed any more if there's spare capacity in the 3.5GB because of the bandwidth differences. PS5 has fully 16GB available with a predicted 2GB for the OS. So in theory, they could use 13GB VRAM and 1GB system RAM if that's even plausible.
Last edited:
nkarafo
Member
Either way 8/10GB is going to be pretty tight on PCs. Let's not forget how these new GPUs are much more powerful so they will be capable to push even more detail at the same resolutions, thus more VRAM will be needed compared to consoles.
T-Cake
Member
Yup and the Xbox at least has got tricks like Sampler Feedback Streaming which makes more efficient use of the memory. So PCs could require 2x the amount of VRAM to achieve the same result.
Last edited:
The Hamburglar
Banned
No it’s not . We got 8gb in 2013. Only DF and the xboys will tell you differently.
prinz_valium
Member
ThatOneGrunt
Member
I feel like 8-10 gb isn’t enough for current gen.
I mean unless they all colluded to set prices they are offering you what they think you will buy with these GDDR6 prices at the moment.
SFS is a PC feature too. It's just PRT+ from an SSD.
Turing cards have it already and the new 30xx cards support directStorage.
Last edited:
T-Cake
Member
Sampler Feedback is a PC feature, the Xbox Series have Streaming which I think is unique to the console at this moment.
NVIDIA GeForce: DX12 Ultimate
The newest version of DirectX and new gold standard for the next-generation of games.
www.nvidia.com
Sampler feedback streaming isn't a magic bullet hardware feature. It's PRT+ and fast storage working in unison. SFS would only require a Turing/Ampere card with directStorage support and a fast SSD drive.
Last edited:
DeaconOfTheDank
Member
Personally, I think Nvidia is going to lean hard into DLSS to the point where native 4K (and the amount of VRAM space required by native 4K assets) will become somewhat of a novelty. With that in mind, I think we'll see a lot of PC titles zeroing in on 1440p as the standard for stable performance vs resolution and only offering DLSS for pushing resolution beyond that mark.
Last edited:
killatopak
Member
Not enough.
It’s like the people saying 3gb vram is enough in 2013.
It has to be at least on par with the amount of RAM strictly allocated to games in consoles. So 16gb minus the part reserved for OS. Anything lower will be obsolete sooner or later.
It’s like the people saying 3gb vram is enough in 2013.
It has to be at least on par with the amount of RAM strictly allocated to games in consoles. So 16gb minus the part reserved for OS. Anything lower will be obsolete sooner or later.
Mister Wolf
Gold Member
I don't think so. 3090 it is.
Kenpachii
Member
Its not hard really.
Consoles used 3gb of v-ram for games, PC used 4gb of v-ram for games with some games spiking above it towards the 6gb in the same generation.
Next consoles have 10gb of v-ram to spend on games. So with a 25% increase in v-ram because of higher settings and 100% increase for even more higher settings u will need double the v-ram amounts of what consoles offer as v-ram pool.
But that's not all, we are in a raytracing area which also consumes more v-ram, and we got SSD's that could impact more v-ram and ram usage on PC to compensate. Which will result in even more ram usage.
There is a reason why there 3090 doesn't have 12gb of v-ram because " it's enough" or 16gb of memory pool. But a whooping 24gb memory pool. Now u know why.
8gb and 10gb cards of the 3000 series are utterly and utterly bottlenecked for next gen. they are very much current gen cards just because of that. The 3090 is utterly expensive, a super heater and a energy burner that 99.99% of the population on PC will not give 2 shits about.
This basically means exactly what i said in the 3000 series thread.
Consoles used 3gb of v-ram for games, PC used 4gb of v-ram for games with some games spiking above it towards the 6gb in the same generation.
Next consoles have 10gb of v-ram to spend on games. So with a 25% increase in v-ram because of higher settings and 100% increase for even more higher settings u will need double the v-ram amounts of what consoles offer as v-ram pool.
But that's not all, we are in a raytracing area which also consumes more v-ram, and we got SSD's that could impact more v-ram and ram usage on PC to compensate. Which will result in even more ram usage.
There is a reason why there 3090 doesn't have 12gb of v-ram because " it's enough" or 16gb of memory pool. But a whooping 24gb memory pool. Now u know why.
8gb and 10gb cards of the 3000 series are utterly and utterly bottlenecked for next gen. they are very much current gen cards just because of that. The 3090 is utterly expensive, a super heater and a energy burner that 99.99% of the population on PC will not give 2 shits about.
This basically means exactly what i said in the 3000 series thread.
Last edited:
BlueXImpulse
Banned
For some games. Until it becomes standard it can't be relied upon.