Damn.. I was entirely wrong about Vram..

[-]

Affectionate-Memory4@reddit

6950XT for $400 is a solid deal. Nice find!

And yeah, VRAM is going to become a problem for a lot of cards. 3080 is going to age much faster than it should due to the 10GB model being by far the most common. I wonder how the rumored 8GB 5050, 5060, 5060ti, 9060, and 9060XT models are going to fare.

[-]

Sadly I searched for alternatives in my use case and there simply isn't any and people are just telling you to use your CPU instead but that's like 100x slower than using CUDA. I wanted to get an RX 9070 for my second PC just to be able to have an AMD GPU in my hands again but sadly they are 1250$ and the XT is unavailable.

[-]

Ok-Difficult@reddit

Undoubtedly 8 GB will be "fine" at 1080p for several years still, but I expect there will be an increasing number of games requiring medium or low textures to fit in 8 GB of VRAM.

20 gb is pretty insane

[-]

TheCheshireCody@reddit

at least 20gb of vram

Hahaha my buddy said the same thing when he bought his 3080Ti new... he still has the same 1080p monitors

[-]

ShadowsGuardian@reddit

Funny thing here too... got a 7900GRE and still haven't upgraded from 1080p yet...

I play at 4K with a 7900XT 20GB, ray tracing on full, and I'm definitely not using all my VRAM.

Though I do hover around 50 FPS (which is fine for me), but no stuttering either.

[-]

exosnake@reddit

I play mhwilds in 1440p with the high texture pack and my 5080 only uses 10gb vram with maxed out everything and dlaa.

[-]

Redericpontx@reddit

High or high res texture, max settings, rt, ai or native?

[-]

exosnake@reddit

Max settings, max RT, dlaa.

"So, to push the VRAM requirements to the limit, I ran the benchmark at 4K with DLAA, Frame Gen and Ray Tracing. This is the worst-case scenario when it comes to VRAM. And even at those settings, the VRAM usage was below 12GB on the NVIDIA RTX 5080."

I mean...I agree it's a problem and nvidia is the cause.

But is it a very big problem? It's mostly only a problem at 4k, you can still reduce textures and it's less preeminent if you turn of RT.

[-]

Jebble@reddit

It's also a minor problem in a very small amount of games and it'll become smaller once Neural Texture solutions become more mainstream.

[-]

FarSmoke1907@reddit

Hey no... don't destroy their number one reason to hate Nvidia. Gotta be angry with something and when it's not the prices it's vram which is so precious on cards that weren't made for 4K!

[-]

kawalerkw@reddit

The problem can arise even at 1440p when 5070 performs worse than 4070 ti in some games (and in Indiana Jones can have even 4x less frames).

[-]

GolemancerVekk@reddit

But if it's caused by badly optimized games... that puts game studios on a direct collision course with Nvidia. And if Nvidia doesn't give a shit and simply refuses to put more VRAM on consumer cards, eventually studios will take the hint.

How many people bought Indiana Jones? The estimates I've seen vary 120k-400k, and simultaneous Steam players peaked at 12k. Meanwhile there are games like Split Fiction selling millions of copies in two days and peaking at 250k players.

Maybe we shouldn't take single super-specific games as the bar for the entire industry, is all I'm saying.

[-]

kawalerkw@reddit

There's no way to count how many people played Indiana Jones, because it was on gamepass since day 1.

[-]

No - I am putting the problem in perspective. If you are CPU limited, there are very few things you can do, very few changes you can effect. Whereas with if you run out of VRAM you have options. Hence it's not what I would call "a very big problem".

[-]

perfect_for_maiming@reddit

It's one of those failures of human reasoning. "I don't have personal experience with it therefore it isn't a real issue."

Good on the OP for coming clean and admitting he was wrong though. Most people just seem to double down and act like a child about it these days.

[-]

step1makeart@reddit

Most people just seem to double down and act like a child ~~about it these days.~~ their whole life.

FTFY. There's hope for OP, maybe the kids aren't all bad after all :P

[-]

Baby steps are baby steps. No one walks in a single day.

[-]

That's something that I always found odd. We kind of went from 1080 to 4K for TVs with no real 1440p when 1440 is kind of ideal for Smaller TVs! Unless it's just a lack of TV content is in 1440?

[-]

marlontel@reddit

No one pays 600€ for a 4070 super and only plays 1080p Fortnite.

People that make up the Majority in the Steam Survey are on 60 Class Prebuilt and Laptops. No wonder they are on 1080p still.

That's one of the most redeeming qualities a person can have, humbling themselves and admitting they were wrong. After all we're all wrong now and then. I know I have been.

[-]

bubblesort33@reddit

This is the excuse people made for years when it comes to AMD drivers. I saw hundreds of posts every week of people complaining, and others making excuses that if it's not happening to them, it's not an AMD driver issue despite plenty of posts like it.

But it's entirely possible in both cases to be something else in the setup. Maybe trying to run the game with 16gb of RAM and 12gb of VRAM is a bad combo, because 12gb means maybe once in a while you'll swap to system RAM for 0.2 gb in a certain game area when you go over. So 32gb RAM systems are fine. But I haven't seen anyone else complain about this on 12gb GPUs. Something is odd with their setup.

[-]

Dr_Findro@reddit

Wouldn’t this logic apply similarly for thinking there is a problem due to niche gaming requirements not being met?

[-]

deadlybydsgn@reddit

Greatest comment of all time, applies nearly everything

[-]

This is what I have been saying. Also the majority of systems in the steam survey only have 8gb VRAM. If these developers don't like money they can go ahead and increase vram requirements but 4k and path tracing are completely unnecessary for me personally.

[-]

dcjt57@reddit

😂 those people who have a gpu with 8gb aren’t likely to spend $40-60 for a new game idk why developers would try to conform new games for them

[-]

kento10@reddit

Only game I know that need more vram is RE remake

[-]

deadlybydsgn@reddit

Yeah. Even when I was still running an 8GB 2080, the games that typically put my VRAM usage in the red were big PS5/console ports. If people play those, then maybe get more VRAM. Otherwise, it's pretty possible to not run into the limit.

But yes, 12GB in a new card in 2025 is kind of dumb. We'll see 18 & 24GB Supers next year with the new Samsung 3GB GDDR7 modules.

[-]

DA3SII1@reddit

i played that using the highest textures at 1440p using a 2060 super

[-]

cover-me-porkins@reddit

In everyone's defense, 30 series owners needed to get a 3090, which was a terrible value proposition at the time. It stretched it legs over the rest of the 30 series now, but at the time it was ~3-12% improvement for more than double the money.
40 series was better as the 4080 had 16, but it was also an insane markup over the 3080, which felt like the same old story as the 30 series.

[-]

involutes@reddit

that's kind of a ~~mute~~ point

What a respectful and dignified way to express disagreement with someone....

Anyways, look at these graphs, the 12gb 4070s is superior to the 16gb 7900GRE, 7800xt, 6950xt, and 9070, despite having less VRAM. This applies to raster, RT, 1080p, 1440p, and 4K

[-]

laffer1@reddit

Most reviews when the 5070 lost to the 9070xt were because of stuttering due to vram. Even more so when comparing dlss to fsr.

[-]

TaigaChanuwu@reddit

Yeah, its almost like VRAM size doesnt affect the gameplay unless you need more than your GPU has...

[-]

"That's only a problem in a small number of unoptimized games, who cares!"

[-]

dulun18@reddit

hardware unboxed talked about this almost two years ago..

16GB vs. 8GB VRAM: Radeon RX 6800 vs. GeForce RTX 3070, 2023 Revisit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh7kFgHe21k

even in 2023 some of the pc games (eg. last of us remake).. were already using more than 8GB of VRAM at 1080p high..

support for apis

This is how I ended up building my first PC. By late 2007 everything coming out needed DirectX 9.0C support to run at all.

[-]

ThatOnePerson@reddit

support for apis

Fun example of this is the 5700XT can do Indiana Jones at 1080p at mediumish 60FPS because the (Linux) drivers support Vulkan Ray Tracing in software.

While the GTX 1660 can do FF7 Rebirth because it has mesh shaders.

That works if you're willing to suffer increasingly bad performance and user experience. My experience with GPU's over the years:

9080 pro: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because performance was too low

gts 8800: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because performance was too low

hd 6950: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because perormance was too low.

980 4gb: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because performance was too low.

1070 8gb: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because performance was too low.

3060ti 8gb: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because performance was too low.

3080 10gb: never an issue with vram, had to upgrade because performance was too low.

4090 never an issue with vram yet, will have to upgrade eventually because performance is too low

(might be missing a few cards I don't remember but always needed to upgrade because of low performance, never because of low vram)

[-]

JonWood007@reddit

You also sound like an enthusiast who isn't happy just to run a game. You upgraded from a 980 to a 1070 because "performance was too low"? In 2016-2017? And then to a 3060 ti? And then a 3080 10 gb? And the. A 4090?

That's a you problem. Most many of those cards are still perfectly capable. You just seem to want "the best."

[-]

abrahamlincoln20@reddit

Yeah some of those upgrades were pretty minor, but the previous GPU always went to another person's computer that also saw a lot of use, so no waste there really.

It's just my preference for high FPS.

[-]

JonWood007@reddit

Yeah but that's largely not what I'm talking about with GPU longevity, I'm talking about running a game at all, or getting acceptable performance at all. Let's go over MY GPU history, now that im awake and able to have more complex thoughts.

2008- HD 3650 AGP, my first GPU. The one GPU that was legit "not powerful enough" (given the rest of my system its no wonder) and prompted an upgrade to a better computer in general.

2010- HD 5850. My first real GPU. Titles playable until around 2015. Ultimately killed by 1 GB VRAM and lack of driver support, although some games got long in the tooth by then like rainbow six siege and witcher 3 by then.

2012- GTX 580/760. I had a friend like you. Wanted to get rid of his 580 to get a 680. Gave me the 580. Otherwise I wouldve just kept using the 5850. Actually did have to go back to the 5850 a few times because it kept dying after a year and I had guest RMAs so I used them. Got bumped up to a 760. Used it until 2017 when it died out of warranty. It was getting long in the tooth by then anyway. Big issue was 2 GB VRAM. I know wolfenstein 2 wanted 4 and I ran it at like super low resolution just to play it. It was still playable but not intended to be played on a 2 GB card...

2017- GTX 1060. The GOAT. One of the most legendary cards ever made. I ran every title through 2022 on it, although by then I was running low with FSR on to get decent frames. I upgraded because I knew 2023 was gonna have a system requirements bump and because GPUs finally got cheap again and there were options in the sub $300 market for people like me. I'd say that 2023 requirements bump was the true end of this card. It was the power to some extent, but it was also the 6 GB VRAM, and also lacking RT support and mesh shaders. You might ask, what aged better, the 1060 or the 580, and the 1060 actually did, simply because AMD's driver support and lack of support for DX12 ultimate killed it in 2023 a little harder than the 1060. But yeah.

2022-present- RX 6650 XT. It's an acceptable card. 3 of your GPUs are all better than this. This is why im like lulwut when you say you want more power. Admittedly it is forced to run stuff on low without RT and sometimes FSR on to get good performance. And it only has 8 GB VRAM. But it runs games acceptably at 1080p and given how this is the market now, I aint upgrading any time soon, I cant see the 5050/5060 offering significant improvement, if any, nor the 9050/9060. So I'm probably gonna be stuck on this until 2027 at this rate. Simply because affordable upgrades dont exist.

The consoles generally have 10gb of the system ram set aside for VRAM, though it's more variable. The PS5 is using basically an RX 6700 (non-XT), which is a 10gb GPU, but the PS5's 16gb of RAM is shared between system and video either way.

[-]

GolemancerVekk@reddit

it's a very popular game

It's more like very hyped rather than actually popular.

RDNA3 has AI processing.

RDNA2 has DP4A, which does alright with XeSS and would probably handle FSR4 (at a heavier penalty than FSR3, but, handle.)

[-]

90% of gamers will never utilize 16gb of vram lol

had to go hyperbolic

"90% of gamers won't utilize 16 gb of vram in games they are playing right now"

would have been fine.

GigarandomNoodle@reddit

U r underplaying how massive the difference in rasterized performance is between these two cards lol

[-]

No shit you can, but at 4k high settings you can't. I never said flat out you can't, I said at my settings I want you can't.

[-]

SolidProtagonist@reddit

I read it, man. The fact that you were trying to run it at 4k high could have been clearer. Also, I don't think that 4070 super should crash if it runs out of vram. Should just kill performance. Not trying to hate here either

[-]

Impressive-Formal742@reddit (OP)

I agree, I wrote this at 2am half asleep lol. My ADHD is atrocious when I'm tired and I tend to ramble. And I promise you, it literally crashes with a Vram error lol. I dropped to 1440p same settings, high, dlss quality and path tracing.. 90 fps easy if not more. I'm going to mess around with it more tonight. I was just stating that I ran the same 4k high settings with FSR quality and same path tracing and got 60 to 80 fps on my 6800. I'll update this post more tonight with more testing. I didn't mean to stir a damn Nvidia Hornets nest lol. I also bought a 6950xt today, so I'm curious as to how far I can push it at 4k.

[-]

SolidProtagonist@reddit

Oh you're good man. And I believe you about the crashing, I'm just saying maybe it's a driver issue or something.

same, I usually go to optimisation guides for that very reason. So many games have ultra settings that cost a many times more performance what they deliver visually. Cyberpunk 2077 is notorious for this.

Only exception is ironically Black Myth Wukong, it has several 'cinematic' settings that actually look noticeably better while only costing perhaps 5% over very high. But then that game is a b!tch to run without potato settings to begin with.

[-]

Chahay@reddit

You can’t run that game without ray tracing. The ray tracing toggle is for path tracing which is incredibly resource intensive.

[-]

Impressive-Formal742@reddit (OP)

Interesting! Thank you for the information! I did not know that, it is still crazy to me that I can enable the setting on my Rx 6800, but the 4070 super crashes lol. And I'm not talking like 30 fps on the 6800, but with FSR it's more than playable. I just picked up a cheap 6950xt reference card today, so that should be even better!

[-]

ounehsadge@reddit

Thats why my 3080 10gb is already kinda done

[-]

WhoTheHeckKnowsWhy@reddit

Thats why my 3080 10gb is already kinda done

it's clinging on for 1440p some RTX for me. But yeah if I could have gone back 2.5 years ago during the crypto crash when I picked it up; I would have sprung the extra $400aud it was for a 3090.

genuinly

child left behind

[-]

AnEmpireofRubble@reddit

you maybe

[-]

al3ch316@reddit

Yep. My 4070ti runs this game fantastically even with path-tracing, and it's only got twelve gigs.

But I'm very aware it's not a card designed for that kind of thing plus 4k 🤣🤣

[-]

vkevlar@reddit

it always comes down to "I bought this, because I could afford it. Now it's good enough for everything, and I have to justify why."

It's not a new problem, I mean, example: I bought parts yesterday to build a new box, including a Ryzen 7 9800x3D. Today I'm seeing a review for the Ryzen 9 9950x3D, and my first impulse in watching the video is to dismiss the gains it has over the 9800, because I'm sad it's no longer king of the hill.

Reality is that every piece of hardware is purpose built and obsolete by the time you get it home; something built to a higher spec that's newer is more than likely to be better.

We just have trouble with the concept of "progressive" obsolescence. The hardware we have is always a set of compromises, usually based on money or the technology of the time (remember 1994's raytracing demos?).

[-]

birdman829@reddit

I've been playing the Great Circle on my 7900xt recently. 1440p very ultra settings with ray traced sun shadows and reflections ("high" ray tracing).

FSR quality and getting around 60fps which is perfectly fine for that game considering the gameplay and how fantastic it looks. Frame gen actually smooths it out nicely too. Sitting pegged at about 19.5GB of VRAM usage though.....and had been wondering how cards with better ray tracing performance but lower VRAM buffers were performing. Not well, I guess lol

[-]

RunalldayHI@reddit

Increase your page file size, done.

[-]

YB90@reddit

Indian Jones and the card that does not redeem

[-]

uxcantxseeme@reddit

7800xt FTW.

[-]

_NiceTry@reddit

I run Indy at high texture, medium ray tracing with frame gen on with no apparent issues. With 12gb vram you can go up to high texture resolution.

I7-13700kf, 4070 super and 32 gb ram.

[-]

bunkSauce@reddit

I mean. While true, IJ is basically cherry picking a worst case.

[-]

Gamebrogamingyt@reddit

I'd say 8gb for 1080p, 12 for 1440p, and 16 for 4k. Then again I'm not much of an expert, that's just an assumption.

[-]

withoutapaddle@reddit

For 12+ years, I've always just followed the rule that my GPU should have half as much RAM as my CPU, and it hasn't failed me.

My old "4GB" 970 was fine when I had 8GB of RAM.

Had an 8GB card for a long time when 16GB of RAM was recommended for high end gaming.

Now that 32GB of RAM is recommended for high end gaming, I have 16GB GPU.

Had an 11GB GPU in the middle for a couple years.

emptyzon@reddit

There's a reason why people making efforts to get the 4090/5090 cards.

[-]

FARAON_FACTORY@reddit

Went from a 3070 to a 3080ti because of stalker 2, playing in 1080p. The 3070 was at the limit with the vram with everything epic. Best balance is core speed/capability corelated with vram size for the resolution you are playing. I also went from 16GB ram to 64GB ram because the game uses 22 sometimes…you can imagine i had stutter of the century with 16gb….

[-]

CockroachCommon2077@reddit

Well no shit the 4070 super shat the bed for 4k. It has 12 gb of vram while the 6800xt has 16 gb of vram. Obviously the 6800xt will do better. I get it Nvidia bad, but jesus this is just sheer amounts of copium

[-]

ShadonicX7543@reddit

It's an edge case - if a game is that strict about vram usage I'm gonna blame the game a bit tbh. This is the only way the Nvidia card loses out really in this comparison.

[-]

Dark_ShadowMD@reddit

Good for you. I'm not changing my GPU fr a game that probably won't even fit my needs.

This subject is as subjective as people liking and not liking the game. Besides, nVidia doesn't seem to share your views about VRAM so... let's hope your post makes them reconsider their "8 GB is the new 16 GB" motto...

[-]

Rhoken@reddit

The 4070 Super is not a 4K card and indeed even DF suggest for 4K of have at least 16 GB if you want to crank up everything on that game.

But in 1440p can run extremely fine even with all crank up (except path tracing of course).

I can say so beacause i have a 4070 Super and i have played that game and even with all settings crank up to max and without DLSS, the real VRAM usage was 10800 MB in the worst case.

With DLSS the VRAM usage was lower meanwhile with FG enabled was over 11 GB of usage but lower than the limit.

Setting Very Ultra texture pool instead of Supreme have reduced drastically the VRAM consumption with totally zero difference in image quality.

RTGI was on high in every case, only Path tracing was disabled beacause without a 4090 is impossible to use it

[-]

KoolAidMan00@reddit

I use a 4070 Super in my HTPC outputting to a 77" OLED and it looks fantastic. Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth and Monster Hunter Wilds look spectacular on it.

There are edge cases like Indy and Cyberpunk that will have problems if you crank up the path tracing settings, but by no means do edge cases like those games make the 4070S not suitable for 4K. As it stands the 4070 Super is significantly better than what the PS5 Pro can output, I've compared FF7 Rebirth, RE4 Remake, and MH Wilds, and there is no comparison.

If PT on anything other than low settings is a priority in games like Indy or Cyberpunk is a priority then you should have something higher. For me the 4070S boiled down to size, power usage (my HTPC case is sub-10L), and price, and that card checked all of those boxes.

Best of all games look amazing, it really is a console on steroids. I still prefer using it for gamepad games despite having a 5080 in my desktop PC.

[-]

Imgema@reddit

Price wise the 4070 Super should have been a 4K card. It costs more than the whole PS5 console itself.

It's raw power is enough for 4K. The low VRAM amount is the main bottleneck. It's the same bottleneck the original GTX 960 2GB had that prevented it to play games like Resident Evil 7 at 1080p, despite otherwise being very fast for the game at max settings.

Bottlenecking their cards with low VRAM is the simplest way for Nvidia to gimp their cards for planed obsolesce purposes.

[-]

abrahamlincoln20@reddit

Raw power enough for 4K at maybe 30-60fps or something, but what's the fun in that? High resolution slideshows can be watched without a dedicated gaming GPU.

Low-mid tier cards aren't made to last, anyway. This has always been the case.

[-]

Zaldekkerine@reddit

A low VRAM amount is the simplest way for Nvidia to gimp their cards for planed obsolesce purposes.

No, planned obsolescence would be increasing VRAM every generation. That way GPUs would turn into trash that couldn't play the latest games in at most two generations.

By not increasing VRAM between generations, they're actually extending the lifespans of older GPUs. If over 40% of the market plays at 1080p with 8GB or less VRAM because even the 5060 series still only has that much, most developers aren't going to make games requiring more than that. If they did, their game would instantly lose a massive number of potential buyers.

[-]

Rhoken@reddit

The 4070 Super is perfect as a 1440p high refresh rate GPU but not a main 4K one.

The 4070 Ti Super is a 4K card

[-]

SovietKnuckle@reddit

What I never understood is the amount of people who don't play at 4k. You can't even buy a modern TV anymore that isn't 4K - are the majority of PC gamers not even the slightest bit interested in playing on their TV on a couch?

A game like Indiana Jones is a great example of a game that doesn't require fast reflexes and is very cinematic in its presentation - a great game for playing on the couch like you're watching a movie. But all I ever hear on this sub is how we should dial down our expectations of ever comfortably playing at 4k.

[-]

KoolAidMan00@reddit

The issue is path tracing, not ray tracing.

Indy has ray tracing on by default, it won't even work on Pascal cards or earlier because of that. It is path tracing on medium or high settings that demands loads of VRAM.

[-]

acai92@reddit

Silly question as I’m not 100% sure but wasn’t Indy one of those games where the texture setting was the pretty much the only one that massively hogged vram and basically you could keep all the other settings high and just drop that setting as needed?

[-]

Dramradhel@reddit

I run it at 1080p if streaming or 1440p local with max everything on 12gb (3060) and it runs smooth with dlss. I’m only an hour in though.

[-]

_SirLoki_@reddit

I see the price comparisons but not gpu. 4080 should be beside a 6800 and a 4090 to a 6900. So a 6800 should be better than a 4070, at least in theory.

[-]

squidgee_@reddit

4070 super with its 12gb vram is more suited for 1440p than 4k. I'd want 16gb minimum for 4k.

For a PC yes, not for a console. It's usually not at minimum 14. The ps5 pro has 16gb dedicated to the "GPU" and 2 for the OS so the regular ps5 is using at least 14gb for the graphical side of things.

[-]

Retr_0astic@reddit

The PS5 Pro is using the extra 2GB for the OS, it is not allowed for games as per my understanding.

The 16GB is fully dedicated to games now, meaning the CPU and the GPU use it.

On the PS5 OG, the OS takes part of the 16 GB, probably bringing it down to 14 GB overall, setting aside alteast 3 GB for CPU during games, thats’s around 11 GB for the GPU, I am being generous in my guesstimate. The system might allocate 4 GB to the CPU for all we know to.

[-]

nimbulan@reddit

What are you doing running GPUs of that tier at 4K? They were never designed for that. You're only getting 60 fps in an absurdly well-optimized game even with settings turned down so I can't imagine how much image quality you have to sacrifice to get other games to run decently...

[-]

emily0069@reddit

I'm with ya on this one, I got a Red Devil 6900 XT recently for just 350, hope you enjoy your 6950 XT!

[-]

Armendicus@reddit

Where are you finding these cards at such good prices?!!?? Where do you live? Heaven?!!

[-]

jmurra21@reddit

Hey. So, I didn't read through all the comments to see if someone else posted this or not, but maybe it will be useful.

When I was getting VRam errors on a couple of games (Rivals and Indy, with two similar, yet different, solutions), doing this fixed it.

(I've got a 4060ti.)

1080p

Uses a 1440p/4k card at 1080p

Doubts OPs performance while their using a 4k monitor

[-]

tan_phan_vt@reddit

[-]

GoatShapedDestroyer@reddit

I appreciate anyone willing to change their mind/opinion about things when confronted with new evidence, but I am curious why you thought this in regards to VRAM:

I told multiple friends and even on Reddit that it's horseshit..

Basically your experience is an outlier rather than the norm.

[-]

[-]

Imgema@reddit

Can't wait for the 8GB 5060 to become the most sold out card because we get what we deserve.

[-]

Fredasa@reddit

Cyberpunk, a 2020 game, oversaturates a 3080, a really damn nice GPU, without a lick of modding. On my 3080 I literally allowed this to dictate how I play the game, mostly in that I avoided opening the main map unless I truly needed it.

Somebody found an Nvidia setting that really helped with that. I don't remember specifically what it was but it was some kind of minor optimization that's on by default and turning it off can lower performance by like 1%. In exchange, whenever VRAM would get oversaturated, the game wouldn't be permanently stuck in 6fps mode. After about 15-20 seconds it will have cleared up whatever it needed to and I was back in business. That setting saved my ass.

Hogwarts used to be a stuttery mess when it ran out of VRAM, after a patch it started to run fine but to load textures with a delay or to drop them.

On path tracing medium even FSR ultra performance with frame generation won't help. At this point we probably need another 3 generations to be able to play current games with oath tracing on midrange GPUs.

Although - and I realize this is probably stupid, but I genuinely don't know how this works - I was always under impression that ray tracing would decrease VRAM usage, not increase it.

How I understood it is .. well, compare it to audio, because that's more up my alley - you can use sampled instrument which basically is fancy way to play a ton of wav files and require a lot of RAM, or use synthesizer which doesn't need RAM because it doesn't load any premade audio files, but require mych more compute power.

So I thought ray tracing is like that - instead making tons of textures dependent on lightning, light maps for everything etc. which then have to be loaded into VRAM - we use real time compute to simulate behavior of the light which makes all these hand made light maps and textures not needed.

Is that not how it works?

[-]

No_Guarantee7841@reddit

4070 super is not targeted at 4k tbh. Just 1440p. If you were aiming at 4k you should have gone for the ti super.

[-]

Narrow_Chicken_69420@reddit

I didn't know Jones was Indian :D

anyway, there is a video from hardware unboxed where the rtx 5070 runs out of memory in that title. It gives like 12 fps or something lol.

[-]

LosMechanicos@reddit

To be fair with my 3070 I never had any crashes at 4k and with the 6900xt the uplift was only barely noticeable really

[-]

This is currently the boat i found myself in one year after buying a 3080 (10gb). It's a crime Nvidia put less that 12gb on this card, should have been 16gb.... I played halo infinite campaign, not even that intense of a game, but at 1440p on ultra, you need 11GB of VRAM. I dont have stuttering or crashing issues, game plays fine. I do however get terrible texture pop in, something that is very distracting when you run into a tree that looks hideous and then it pops into full texture. Is the game unplayable? No. Is Nvidia incompetent and greedy? yes.

[-]

corvus917@reddit

I always found it kind of baffling that Nvidia has been so stingy about VRAM since Ampere. I get that they are incentivized to avoid adding generous amounts of VRAM to as a way to encourage more frequent upgrades, but Ray Tracing and DLSS Frame Gen NEED more VRAM, which means that their x070 cards are inherently and unnecessarily handicapped from the moment they’re released.

8 to 12 gigs is a well known issue if you crank it up at 4K. Especially with full RT and frame generation.

Per Steam surveys and console users, most people will never fully crank things up to where they need 16 to 32 gigs. But the idea is that anyone on the bleeding edge will be running into a VRAM bottleneck sooner than normal gamers.

[-]

Zerog2312@reddit

I've got the 6950xt and it's a really good card. No complaints at all. There was no way I could have gotten 16gb of vram for the same price from Nvidia.

[-]

BaxxyNut@reddit

There are certain thresholds for certain resolutions 12GB is a 1440p card. 16GB+ is 4K. You really only need a certain amount, after that anything extra is just a cherry on top for the system that it will use if available. Doesn't mean it actually needs all that. Like RAM, if I have 16GB normal processes will eat like 6-8GB. With 32GB it consistently sits at 15GB. Doesn't need it, but will use if available.

[-]

EiffelPower76@reddit

Pretty stupid to replace a 16GB graphics card with a 12GB VRAM one, it was nonsense from the start

[-]

Impressive-Formal742@reddit (OP)

Yeah I'm pretty dumb like that.. damn know how to hurt a man's feelings. lol jk with you. I was just curious is all, a great deal popped up and figured id try it out. I mean would you say the same if I replaced a 16gb Vram 7600xt with a 4070 super? Probably not.. but who am I to say anything.

[-]

ogioto@reddit

Ray tracing in general utilizes shiteload of VRAM. If not having enough VRAM for a game that maxes or nearly maxes the memory before RT was enabled- better not try using it...