Conclusion: The Scary Truth About Your 8GB (or less) Graphics Card

The Conclusion: Is 8GB VRAM or Video Memory enough? No, But... Lets talk about what games are most impacted, what you can do to mitigate the issue, what this means for the future and the theories behind why recent cards are showing issues 👉 SPONSOR 👈 Check out GPUs, Builds and Parts on JAWA! bit.ly/JawaTLApril23
👉👉👉👉👉 PRODUCTS USED 👈👈👈👈👈
(Links are Affiliate Links when possible)
As a retail affiliate, I am paid a percentage of qualifying purchases at the expense of the retailer.
💎 RTX 3070: amzn.to/3N98weK
💎 Nvidia's Best Value GPU Recently 💎 amzn.to/3IJAUl5
💎 AMD's Best Value GPU Recently 💎 amzn.to/3IJ2kaG
💎 Intel's Best Value GPU Recently 💎 amzn.to/3BY72xD
👉👉 VIDEO MENTIONS & RELATED CONTENT 👈👈
Here is where the additional content / references I mentioned in the video will be - as some other content I think you would enjoy!
🌟 VIDEO MENTION ❯ Nvidia vs AMD vs Intel - Why Buy One Over the Other? : • People Keep Getting TH...
⭐ RECOMMENDATION ❯ The GPU Value Playlist: • TL: GPU Value Playlist
⭐ RECOMMENDATION ❯ Best Budget GPUs: • Best Budget GPUs 2023!
⭐ RECOMMENDATION ❯ The "Cheap" 7900 XTX Battle: • The "Cheap" 7900 XTX B...
👉👉👉👉👉👉 LETS GET SOCIAL 👈👈👈👈👈👈
► KZbin ❯ TechLens: Behind The Lens: / @techlensrgb
► Business Email ❯ [e-mail]
► Discord ❯ / discord
► Instagram ❯TechLens.Official
► Facebook ❯ TechLens.Official
► Twitter ❯ @TechLens_Real
► TechLens Website ❯ www.TechLens.net/
#GPU #Nvidia #AMD
👉👉👉👉👉👉👉 CHAPTERS 👈👈👈👈👈👈👈
0:00 Intro
1:18 Sponsor: Jawa
2:05 Games People Play vs 8GB
4:01 Who's Fault is it Really?
6:17 Is it Going to Get Better or Worse?
8:35 Planned Obsolescence? How Much VRAM is Enough?

[@TechLens]

Watch THIS Next ⭐ kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHy7YWSVdsiSm9E Check out the GPUs on JAWA! ⭐ bit.ly/JawaTLApril23

[@adamtajhassam9188]

the issue is 1440p and 4k not 1080p.

[@VelcroSnake93]

To be fair, needing more than 8gb doesn't mean the game is poorly optimized, modern games that have high end graphics and new features may just need more resources to run than games from 5-10 years ago. If people want games with better graphics as time goes on, there is going to be a limit to how optimized the devs can make them before features need to be dropped. For instance, GTA5, MW2 and RDR2 are all older games, while Hogwarts is a new game. As some devs have said on Broken Silicon, as time goes on this will be more of an issue just because Debs want to keep pushing games, and the is a limit to optimization, so 8gb or less makes their lives difficult.

[@TechLens]

Exactly, mostly seen in poorly optimized ports and the most demanding games. But because devs will always want to make their game as best as they can, more resources will be required. So, if its a problem now, future games will make it even more of a problem... Ive been looking at minimum and recommended requirements of upcoming games lately and its kinda wild. - but its good to understand if it's an issue with what people play most, which is a no.

[@TropicChristmas]

​@TechLens I get the impression that porting certain titles from the consoles is difficult due to losing some of the architectural advantage, and that front-loading VRAM is the only choice that doesn't involve severe compromise. Maybe that whole Direct Storage thing that never materialized on PC

[@myname7021]

My thoughts exactly. If new AAA titles with optimization can barely fit their assets/textures on an 8GB card, that tells you that there is a technical limit to what can be optimized with the current level of graphics quality that people expect from a recent AAA title. And people will expect the games that will be released over the next years to look better, and so inevitably the 8GB will just not be enough. And the argument regarding optimization also misses the key point that it is insane that a gaming PC has less VRAM than a console, when the GPU alone almost cost as much as the console...

[@damazywlodarczyk]

@@TechLens Oh my god you know nothing. Do you really think devs will produce games that require more than 8gb vram when the newest card, a pretty powerful rtx 4060 has 8gb? They will not. You don't know shit pal. Just look at steam gpu charts and think a little. Also your "benchmark" sucks, you didn't even show the most hungry vram games. This is complete nonsense, and you are incompetent.

[@Sp3cialk304]

100 percent. If you want games to continue to improve visually you have to except higher requirements.

[@glez13gt]

The way I see it, it's simple. Regardless of GPU power, if you buy a 8gb VRAM card you should expect Series S textures. If you buy a 10 to 12 VRAM card you should expect SX/PS5 textures. So if you want to future proof to ensure equal/better than console textures you need 16+gb VRAM cards. So the only 8gb cards that are worth it right now are the low end ones around 3050/3060/7600 level performance that will give you a mix of console performance all around.

[@matheuswerly5320]

I remember GPUs with 8GB of VRAM from almost a decade ago, like R9 390X (2015, I think). The new consoles have up to 16GB of VRAM, it seems logical for PC users to have GPUs with similar or higher capacities. It is not fair to label developers as "evil" for wanting to work with increased resources. I think Nvidia and AMD's greed are to blame.

[@stangamer1151]

16 GB is the total amount of memory for consoles. 20% of this volume is used for system needs. So the real total amount, which is available for games is ~12,5 GB. While in case of PCs we have not only VRAM, but also RAM. So it will be at least 24 GB (8 + 16) of memory or even more. Developers must take advantage of RAM as well. But the problem is they are not keen to use specific PC features, which would let them make very beautiful games without needing 24+ GB of VRAM.

[@Vfl666]

The 290x from 2014 also had 8gb of vram while the 780 ti only had 3gb vram and that card aged like milk.

[@flushfire]

Not "evil" so much as lazy. Actually they aren't lazy as well, they just have different priorities. It's all a balancing act - give them more resources to work with and they'll use it, even if the end result would've been achievable with less. Look at COH 3, would you think that it's a demanding title?

[@Adri9570]

- Nvidia: why I'm greedy? The 4070 is a 12GB GPU with good price-perform... *gamer opens the 4070 and reveals the pair of empty slots of 2GB RAM modules that would have granted the 4070 16GB of VRAM* - Nvidia: ...about that... _there's an L3 cache level of explanation_

[@konstantinlozev2272]

I think not many people realise that every (!) operation on every (!) pixel every (!) frame requires GPU memory. It's not only about textures or vertex data that represents your scene. So, as the number of pixels on the screen goes up and as the number of complex effects on that pixel goes up too, the "shiny new big" L2 cache from Nvidia gets saturated and then you are left with a slow 128-bit bus and older memory speeds (no GDDR7 yet).

[@Mosi_O]

I'm completely agree with your perspective! well done ;)

[@djGLCKR]

One thing to consider, especially for that one side of the market that's heavily investing in the tech to justify generational uplift: Upscaling should only be considered as an option that's available should you want to activate it, not as _the_ only way to notice a difference. Main reason I waited for the full 4060 Ti review, and still waiting for the non-Ti benchmarks next month, because comparing apples to oranges the way Nvidia did it (DLSS 3 + Frame Gen vs DLSS 2), of course the newer card with the newer iteration of the tech will look better, especially if the other new tech that's not available for the older cards is also enabled. Personally I'll still value raw rasterization power over which upscaling tech offers the best result on a per-frame basis.

[@iseeu-fp9po]

This.

[@Yoksua1]

love the intro

[@KevinEF]

I think my rx 6600 having 8gb is a perfect amount. It's a good esports card for a low price. The 4060 ti and the 3070 having 8gb makes no sense since they shouldn't be competing with budget cards at 1080p. Those cards should be 1440p cards and the 8gb will hold it back for a decent amount of current titles and plenty of future ones. 1080p gaming should only be around $250 or less. Paying double the amount while being held back by the cheap ram is stupid.

[@harleyme3163]

it is... my f'in gigabyte windforce gtx 1600 6gb does 45 fps at 1080p all day on games like cs go and crap... dunoo why ppl think you need 400 sps whe the human eye can only see 45 to 60 :-\

[@FunnyCODAssasin]

​​@@harleyme3163 false i can clearly tell the difference between 144 and 60 fps. there's even a Linus video about it. and its more obvious in first person shooters than any other genre

[@igavinwood]

If the expected low end graphical performance is 1080p 60fps and medium quality settings on a AAA game, then I'd also expect the new gen of GPUs to be able to handle that on the games they know are out now and are about to launch. It becomes the baseline. It's the product spec (not the same as the product) that in the future that will become obsolete. The fact that all manufacturuers of GPUs are selling products, at the low end, that can't handle these game settings is disappointing, and I'm tired of being gaslighted into arguments about upscaling or turning down texture qualities to satisfy the manufacturers rather than the consumers. Add to this that memory for an additional 8GB is ~$30 and you can see that their argument doesn't hold water. They have simply provided poor options with nerfed cards at prices that are way too high; then when these do not sell they switch to satisfy their other goals, namely AI and server markets. It's crap and I hate it. It feels like market manipulation 101 to me.

[@harleyme3163]

me too, its not backwards, they make games on cards performance, not cards adapt to games performace... :-\ all they ever do is get better naturally. has nothing to do with gaming.... most use em for crypto mining LOL

[@jamesmetz5147]

Good video. Thanks.

[@jvv2420]

Dang youre amazing. That commenting in facebook reddit was above and beyond, awesome content

[@ronalcasid3844]

I upgraded to the 7900 XT with 20 GB VRAM from the RTX 3070 with 8 GB but I'm still seeing things pop in late in LoU and other games. VRAM isn't even close to being maxed out.

[@flushfire]

Yeah. I've read similar comments as well. It really needs to be investigated further but sadly 8gb VRAM is the train to ride now, so.

[@caffarellaailyze7609]

For now, it only appear in some demanding games and mostly ports, but who knows what futures could bring, as someone who plan to use gpu for long term instead of resale and upgrade parts, investing in 8gb gpu is pretty much not a good idea nowadays..

[@flushfire]

For a thinking consumer what's needed to be done is to find a good balance. Look at the examples in this video for example. He's running Hogwarts at settings that produce below 60 FPS just to show 8gb having trouble. What should've happened is use a preset that gives at least 60 FPS and see if there are issues in that preset. And really, Hogwarts is even playable on a 4gb gpu at 1080p. 8gb is fine as long as the price is right.

[@jorge86rodriguez]

Like you said there are work arounds to fix those issues when you know how to configure your games and depending on the game needs. I have never had issues with 8gb and even less before upgrading. The problem I think is average user doesn't care or understand how to configure a game, it can be overwhelming at first jajjaja, regular user only wants to press the play button on steam and expect things to work. The more I think the more I would like a pc/console like the steam deck but with more power (not handheld), that would be a game changer for regular users.

[@Asymmetrical-Saggin]

Anything over 1440p high settings is just unnecessary tbh. 4k and 8k are a waste of money in my opinion.

[@XX-_-XX420]

True, but at 1080p medium 8GB isn't even always enough. In most titles it will be. But a 1650 gave you 1080p ultra settings Smooth game play for 150 euros. Now a 4060ti at 500 is worse at 1080p solely due to the Vram. If you put texture down a bit you can usually go to 4k and have a smoother FPS than 1080p max textures. 1080p gaming is definitely the best and anything above is a waste. But some games look terrible on texture settings down 2-3 from the highest and yeah for any new card, anything at 150 euros or more should come with 10GB atleast.

[@kirankamat9311]

Brother, the current gen games are being optimized for the Consoles PS5/Xbox Series X (As we know the gaming industry as a whole works solely on the Console based) There specifications or VRAM in particular is some where above than 8 gigs due to which such kind of issue or problems are being coming up/faced in the current gen... Then older gen games will work fine as their VRAM (of older consoles where 8 or lower than that) due to which games are being run more easily... As we are moving to the next gen/current gen consoles where in future itself around 10 - 12 gigs are easily required or just to be future proof 16 gigs are required (for 1080p/1440p)

[@LukesGamePage]

Thank you man, this is the clearest, most concise video I’ve seen on the subject so far, lovely stuff. I have a 3070. Waiting for the 4060ti 8GB vs 16GB comparison videos to come out in the next few weeks to conclude for myself fully more VRAM makes. I assume the 16GB 3060ti will be comparable in performance to the 3070 at the very least, but if frames are 10-20 more I may consider moving to that if the price is right.

[@Sp3cialk304]

Dram requirements going up is perfectly fine. Going from 16 to 32gb of dram as the min for new games is fine. No one complains. But vram requirements going up is bad optimization. LoL. We had a generational leap, requirements went up. We've had 8gb cards since 2014...

[@flushfire]

Since when has 32gb RAM been the minimum for 1080p?

[@XX-_-XX420]

​​@@flushfireechnically not 32 but 16 GB won't be enough on win 10 or 11 installations due to all the malware spyware and bloatware Microsoft puts in it. So with 16GB you'll run into issues in AAA games like FH5( had this issue on a 16GB system). But if you use a debloted Installation 16GB will be plenty as idle ram useage will be 2GB Vs 9GB that windows 11 usually idles at). And the number is 32 because kits usually come in 8 or 16GB. You can also get 2 4GB sticks to make it 24GB.

[@konstantinlozev2272]

Any game that cannot run on my Intel 486 and S3 Trio 3D 4MB in not optimised!

[@ViperCannabis]

That's right! You don't NEED more than a single core cpu!

[@AndrewSmith-fv1kr]

i went with the 7900 xtx 24GB of VRAM, should be good for years.

[@theninjararar]

is direct storage and rtxIO going to solve this problem?

[@s2131]

When Pascal was Introduced 6 years ago there were no games requiring more than 4GB, pure math says in 3 years we will see games requiring 12Gigs of Vram, but that's for Ultra/Max settings. Provided High settings are usually not that visually different from Ultra, with 8Gig card it should bestill fine to play most if not all titles on FHD High or 1440p DLSS/FSR High for next 3yrs.

[@Vfl666]

What about Doom 2016 that gamee needs more than 4gb if you wanna play with max settings.

[@s2131]

@@Vfl666 True 👍, it was released same month as gtx 1070 and 1080

[@dianautavsauri111]

which recomended me for 2k gaming ?

[@spacechannelfiver]

It’s nuanced right, a lot of people aren’t going to dig this deep into it so 8GB isn’t enough is good general advice.

[@teardowndan5364]

8GB is just fine as long as you don't mind dialing some details down, which you often already need to do for performance reasons on RX7600 or worse GPUs anyway.

[@mariolp2999]

not good enough for 4k high resolution IMO..

[@CyberneticArgumentCreator]

@@mariolp2999 Why would you even say that? Of course a $300 or less card isn't going to run 4k high at high framerates, no one has ever expected that in history.

[@idkwhattohaveasausername5828]

⁠@@mariolp2999 a $300 gpu could have 100gb of vram and it still won’t run 4k max settings. At $300 the power just isn’t there.

[@mariolp2999]

@@idkwhattohaveasausername5828 Of course I know that, but still 300 dollars for an 8 gig card is too low, I rather buy the 6700xt with 12 GB's..

[@idkwhattohaveasausername5828]

@@mariolp2999 the 6700xt can’t do 4k either. It’s not powerful enough

[@roythunderplump]

Will Direct storage, faster GDRR7+ PCI Express 6, be important than having more than 8GB VRAM in high texture quality future games?

[@NKG416]

speed doesn't replace capacity

[@introvertplays6162]

THANK YOU! I know that I can be a negative Nancy a lot of the time, but back when DLSS released I already said that Devs will use this or completmentary upscaling technologies as a crutch, while a lot of people thought: "Wow...this is what it means to be a PC gamer...every game will get optimized for 60 FPS+ and then we can use upscaling to get 100+ FPS on every game. What a great time to be a gamer". And here we are now with Devs even writing in spec sheets when a game releaeses "1080p 60 or 30 with DLSS/FSR enabled". I bought a 3080 12 GB in August last year...and it kinda feels already obsolete when it comes to 3440x1440 60 FPS above medium settings in newer titles.

[@gokulegacy3673]

should have compared at 2k. At that tier 1080p was norm like 8yrs ago.

[@TheSnowwraith]

Perhaps the problem isn't about the amout of vram, but instead about how much data bandwidth is available? Consider the assumption that is being made that the 4060 is running on current gen motherboards with PCI-E 4. But what if the average gamer who is experiencing problems is running on an older gen 3 or earlier motherboard where the bandwidth would be half. In that scenario they will certainly get severe texture issues because the game, despite being adequately coded, can't move the textures around fast enough. My own system is an old PCI gen 2 running a 1080. It would be pointless for me to buy a new gen GPU because the bandwidth would be throttled due to my older tech. In my case I need an entire new system to take advantage of the newer GPUs.

[@Fadewatcher]

If the PS5 has 16GB, should we just pick 16GB as baseline and be super safe? As this will be the max of the console generation?

[@Vfl666]

I would say yes espacially if you wanna play in 4k.

[@XX-_-XX420]

Probably for 1440p and above. 12GB should be fine for 1080p I think and enough for 1440p for a bit(not sure how long, maybe it'll be enough for 4k too who knows).

[@xntumrfo9ivrnwf]

Tech "let me explain" Lens

[@alexguild]

Well said, argued, and defended.

[@Rayjockey]

My Msi Radeon rx580 as armor 8GB, is doing just fine! 👌 For just 40 bucks used one👊😅

[@Kevlord22]

Mine died 2 years ago after so many years of service. That was an amazing card even more so for the low price i paid back then for it.

[@CyberneticArgumentCreator]

Bro that thing struggles in Hunt Showdown at 1080p, I wouldn't say it's "doing fine".

[@VinzkieBolivar]

I'm glad that I'm only playing competitive games and my RX6650xt will be good for the next 2-3 years maybe.

[@juota]

Medium settings is not an embarassment This is the one reason many people forget because how easy it is to get GPU in USA compared to other 3rd world country

[@ziokalco]

At the end of the day, consoles stablish the standard for game development. If they can tipically provide more than 8gb of VRAM, then 8gb isn't enough for an up to spec PC GPU. Given that there are no price competitive alternatives on the PC, I wouldn't expect this to change

[@Rafael-oo8wh]

20 Terabytes is the only acceptable solution!

[@jarenpocopio6033]

I hate games making things hyper "realistic" graphics

[@Vfl666]

8 gb Vram are nothing special the first gpu with 8gb vram came out 9 years ago get used to it.

[@Emma-kz3zr]

In all of these analyses of 8gb Vs 16gb I can't help but notice no one is factoring in Nvidia's new compression format? Which will very likely have impact on future games and vram requirements.

[@XX-_-XX420]

Knowing Nvidia it'll make 48GB obsolete on Anything over 144p low settings.

[@ahah1785]

far cry 6 at 4k used over 10gb of vram for me today so yeah all who bought 8 gb cards are screwed.

[@XX-_-XX420]

Yeah they are FH5 can't even do max settings at 1080p on 8GB cards just due to the Vram. But lower textures/vram settings and you can sometimes even do 4k ultra/extreme on those same cards with just texture settings on 2-3 down from extreme. Same for my laptop 3060 I have all max settings the game runs terrible, I lower textures and it runs pretty good.

[@lukasmacht5858]

For now 12Gb, two years from now 16GB. Only option we have is to bite the bullet .... or buy a console.

[@ChancySanah]

Games are in fact poorly optimized, and 8gb video cards are bad (at a certain price point of oh say 400 bucks). The solution is that customers will wait for a couple months before buying games and won't buy certain gpu's because they don't have specs that seem good for the price point. Gaming companies and Graphics companies will not make their margins and things and they'll either make crappier products or no products at all.

[@redsnow846]

8gb of vram is not optimal anymore. But at the same time if ultra uses 12gb of vram for example and you set it to low and it uses 11gb the game is the problem.

[@thunderp1719]

That's your choice. There are maximum of 8gb users out there. If games keep creating such issues than there are many other games to play. Remember coins have two faces. This will harm them only

[@NurmYokai]

1) It's the responsibility of the developers. “Data expands to fill the space available for storage; buying more memory encourages the use of more memory-intensive techniques." Parkinson's Law of Data, a corollary of Parkinson's Law (1958). The developer CHOSES to create a program that uses up X video memory. The GPU manufacturer provides X memory. The developer CHOSES to create a program that takes up X TB. The drive companies manufacturer X TB devices. The developer CHOSES to create a program that requires X GB RAM. RAM companies only manufacture the RAM. The developer CHOSES to create a program requiring Y CPU. CPU manufactures only create the chip. 2) It's the responsibility of the consumer. Does the average (leaving out classic games) gamer want to go back to 480p green screen monitors? Probably NO. But those programs require, relative to today, fewer resources. Does the average gamer want to play at 1080p/1440p? Probably yes, And those programs have large minimum requirements. Does the high-end gamer want to play at 4K? Probably yes. And those programs need LOTS of resources. 3) "Which will bring us back to" 1.

[@Krashulka]

A lot of people these days have more than 1 monitor too, or an ultrawide screen. Using 2 screens or more kills the 8GB VRAM GPUs in most cases too, even at 1080p. Cheers

[@XX-_-XX420]

In most AAA games I'm pretty sure 8GB is a big bottleneck. I had the 8GB arc 770 the 5700XT and you can't max out texture settings at even 1080p in fh5. But if you only turn down textures a bit 4k with almost all other max you can do 4k at 60+ fps much smoother than 1080p max textures.

[@Krashulka]

@@XX-_-XX420 I agree with you, cheers.

[@freefall_910]

400 dollar 8GB cards and i have to lower setting nope both are to blame yes some games are poor optimized and have trash port but 8GB is stagnated for over a decade now we need more vram, so games can look better nothing going to change it future games don't run well on 8gb , 12g for 1080p 16gb for 1440p i will only buy cards with this

[@CallMeTeci]

It simply IS about optimization. If devs are able to push the performance a few weaks after release into stable and higher levels, then its simply a fact of optimization. If games similar or evenw orse then the games from 5 years ago and still need double the amount of VRAM, then its an optimization issue. If games run smooth on consoles but run like shit on PC, bc VRAM maxes out (or even has memory leaks *cough Diablo 4) then its an optimization issue. Should GPU-manufacturer start to sell at least 10GB-12GB cards these days? Yes, of course! Because corporate overlords wont stop setting deadlines as """efficient""" as possible. But ultimately its the fault of the developers or better said of the people they have to work for. btw. your argument for "being right doesnt matter" goes both ways. Of course you can say that the reality is that games wont stop coming out in terribly optimized states and therefore GPU manufacturers have to provide more VRAM. But you can also twist it and say: Its atm the reality that most PC players dont have more than 8GB of VRAM, even if they should and therefore the companies have to assure that their games run smooth at least shortly after release. (maximum 2 weeks)

[@Sp3cialk304]

It's funny that games that where not made to run on a PS4 are the ones that require more vram. It's like games made for the current gen consoles have higher requirements. Lol

[@justjoe5373]

The issue is that people mix fault and problem. It's the fault of devs not optimizing their games, and partly of GPU manufacturers for not putting more VRAM (Sreiously? 40""""60 Ti"""" with 8GB?). But it's our problem as gamers. Clearly neither of the trouble makers give a flying fuck about the issue, we have to deal with it by using frame generation which was supposed to prolong the life of cards, not make them usable in the first place. Compromise at 1080p with a 500 buck MSRP card (goes for more) in 2023 Year of Our Lord? Excuse me?

[@Sharki33]

8gb is not enough... Are you paid by Nvdia?

[@ahah1785]

i refuse to run lower than 4k in 2023. Period. 16 gb is minimum.

[@XX-_-XX420]

I dunno man imo anything over 1080p is a waste, requirements drop massively if you play at 1080p Vs 4k.

[@ScoopDogg]

Can't believe people fell for fps n dlss frame gen as a plus. Folding a 5 dollar note in half doesn't make a ten, n idea scammed gamers new to PC, PC gamers go on specs, dies, bus width, native. Now 1080p 60fps is a thing again upscale, I'm sticking with 1080ti win 10 native 130fps 1440 until I can get better than 50fps 4k then I'll use dlss up scaling n low settings.

[@Ruby_Mochii]

AMD knows the situation, they made the APU on the PS5 and Xbox. Nvidia, they want to cut cost but sell more for profit. Devs shouldn't be limited to a "standard" that people have made a couple of years ago, it may be true back then but isn't now, neither the future. Having just a bit more ie: ram, vram etc. doesn't hurt, you're just giving it a bit more room to breathe, in cases that you want the pc to work for you, you have to give it just a bit more, it shouldn't be the other way round. If you are a dev and you are limited by cores, ram, gpu etc. you are wasting more time trying to wait for it do do it's thing losing money and time instead of being able to feed it as much and not slow the production. People who have an older gpu should dial their settings down where their pc can do things smoothly rather than by brute force. It's better to have stable fps, rather than one that goes up and down as it breaks the immersion of the game, especially for vr games where consistency and lower frametimes are more important

[@christohees9150]

yes so make 8gb the new budget standard and drop the fucking gpu prices like 200 dollers ! and midrange should atleast have 12gb vram

[@konstantinlozev2272]

USD 600 for a 70s GPU? Of course! Why not USD 1200? After all: THE MORE YOU BUY THE MORE YOU SAVE ™

[@jalma9643]

Only gamer understand that joke

[@konstantinlozev2272]

@@jalma9643 /s

[@XX-_-XX420]

​@@jalma96434060ti at 450 euros, only gamers know that joke.

[@harleyme3163]

intel arc 750's going for $300 .... with its hashrate pays itself off in 100 days etchash ethereum... you welcome all... I'm buying 4 of em soon as I can 🙂

[@freefall_910]

eth pow is dead bro where they move to pos year ago

[@beri4138]

"Here's how much video memory you REALLY need: bla bla bla bla bla bla" - Never answers the original question

[@thunderp1719]

Or You never 👂 him correctly

[@thunderp1719]

😂 nice start

[@Asymmetrical-Saggin]

Jawa is nothing but heavily mined cards.

[@alias5152]

When you see mid range crap is priced 500-600 .. when you get that money you start to think.. ok i will wait more and get highest tier amd.. to be safe for the future.. than you are like.. ok now i have money for it.... if i manage to save this much.. i can save little bit more and buy best of the best ( 4090 ) and call the day..😆 It's hard man... decisions🤣😁

[@ahah1785]

i had games crash (swap file disabled) with 32 gb of system ram so ive ordered another 32 gb today. 16gb vram /64gb ram is norm today

[@XX-_-XX420]

64 GB is a bit much even with all the windows bloatware, spyware and malware Microsoft gives you in it. 32 will enough for any game with a lot of back ground tasks. 16GB will be enough if you use a debloted windows installation as you'll save 7GB of Ram used by removing all the trash Microsoft puts in the OS. And technically 24GB is enough for any game (but I'd usually say 32 because of the ram slots and ram kits).

[@notacopa]

8GB isn’t enough. That’s the sad truth.

[@Jkend199]

It is only a problem in poorly optimized games. Lets get real my dudes, what was the last major AAA game you bought that was well optimized... I'll give you a minute, think... OH THATS RIGHT THERE HASNT BEEN ONE, FOR YEARS.

[@jalma9643]

How about Elden Ring?

[@XX-_-XX420]

FH5 is fine. Just on 8GB cards you need to lower textures.

[@TrollYou-dz5jy]

1gb vram is enough for modern games

[@Vfl666]

15 years ago

[@XX-_-XX420]

​​@@Vfl666eah honestly 3GB is barely holding on at 720p.(7950 is still holding on tho, barely but still).

[@TrollYou-dz5jy]

Bruh, im using radeon r7 240 and it works just fine with 1gb vram.

[@charginginprogresss]

...my 3050m is fine...

[@27Zangle]

8gigs should be enough in a perfect world with companies spending the time and money to insure their ports are optimized. Since we do not live in a perfect world, I feel 12gigs is minimum right now with 16gigs being what should be the new mid-range. That is just me though.

[@Vfl666]

I hope you know that the next gen consoles have more than 8gb of vram it's like saying the new game should work with a dual core and 8gb of ram.

[@McDudes]

DLSS suck ass, fake frames with additional input latency. Who'd even want that and when would it even be desirable?

[@Griftercash]

🤣

[@aligatortatotatotaovic1890]

Modern games are trash, just a few are good.

[@lowriderbeats]

8GB will be enough for 1080P gaming. This comment will not age well BTW

[@thunderp1719]

That depends on your settings

[@cantonold7014]

Here is the truth: 8GB = e-machine 12GB = low 1080p 16GB = enough for 2K as long as you know that it will be garbage within a year of purchase. 20GB = the best possible; for now.

[@brugj03]

How do you come up with this nonsense. Tell me, what kind of fantasy world are you living in.

[@cantonold7014]

@@brugj03 Make an argument or blow away windbag.

[@GregoryShtevensh]

@@brugj03 Im guessing he bought the 7900xt lol

[@cantonold7014]

​@@GregoryShtevensh Me? No. I bought the 7900xtx fool.

[@GregoryShtevensh]

@@cantonold7014 you're calling me a fool? yet the 6950xt or RTX 4080 is gonna be trash in a year? I guess you've got to talk up your purchasing decision somehow. 1080p low with 12gb lol