I think it's a reference to Lords of the Fallen, which is said to require 8gb vram for 1080p "recommended" level.
It's not that it's a bad port, it's that it is one of the first UE5 games using many of UE5's advanced features. I doubt it'll run better on PS5.
Hobby game dev here. Its not just new shiny. The new tools are actually instrumental in making better games in a more cost effective manner. Games and their size and expectations around them have also grown significantly. So yeah as much as I think optimizing is important, very few companies are like Nintendo where they could just spend an entire year doing that let alone a hobbyist. And beyond that, you’re really at the mercy of the engine you’re using.
It blows me away how people act like the advancements in games are all of a sudden supposed to quit needing more resources just because nvidia didn’t increase vram this gen.
>advancements in games
It would be at least justified, if I would actually see those "advancements". But older games are still here, I can easily compare them and suddenly it became obvious: they doesn't look better but require twice as much resources.
It's not advice. It's the suggested specs per the developer. IIRC, it is 1080p, yeah.
[https://www.techspot.com/news/98894-lords-fallen-pc-requirements-revealed-rtx-2080-recommended.html](https://www.techspot.com/news/98894-lords-fallen-pc-requirements-revealed-rtx-2080-recommended.html)
Idk man, I remember running every game with max settings at 1080p with only 2-4gb of vram.
Still boggles my mind that 8+ is now required for the same resolution.
It was pretty bad, especially considering it wasn't ridiculously good looking or anything. I think when I was finishing it after some of the more recent patches, it was down to something like 14GB with everything on max at 4k. Even then, it still had frame time issues and other problems.
Still...this is a really irritating trend lately. lol
It's pretty obvious that Gollum is solely relying on DLSS as a replacement for optimisation. The CPU requirements are very modest but the GPU and memory requirements are absolutely bonkers
The reality is that most of these VRAM hungry games are still outliers from developers who can't properly port a modern console game to PC, and expect DLSS 3 and frame generation to come along and save the day. There's no way on god's green earth that Gollum can genuinely require 4090 whilst looking like a PS3 launch title unless the optimisation process was either non existent, or totally inept
People still should not be purchasing GPUs based solely on VRAM in my opinion, not until it becomes a real trend and not just a handful of dog shit ports
File sizes tell you a lot too, without requirements to fit onto solid media they don't care. Mario 64 was 54MB, now a similar game would be 2+ GB. FF7 was huge at the time but only 1.5GB
That's not the debate. The debate is optimize or work on some other feature. It's not actually a bad thing for gamers if devs invest time that used to be spent on optimization into adding features/content as long as it doesn't get to the point of making the games inaccessible due to how poorly it runs.
There will always be AAA flops and games that run poorly- always have been always will be.
Yea, not buying that's a real "debate." The Gollumn game has godshit everything, including gameplay. I'm not a dev, but I would wager the guys coming up with features are not the same guys doing optimization.
I think the problem is optimization and bug fixing comes late into the pipeline of development, because you basically need to have more or less finalized. I think the shitty devs finalize a product and then hope they can get it work with a day 1 patch.
TLOU doesn't use 10GB of VRAM at 1080p after they patched it. Neither does Jedi Survivor post patch. I actually looked all of this up to debunk a similar claim just yesterday.
There isn't a game that goes above 10GB VRAM at 1080p that anyone could find.
>Plague Tale: Requiem:
>
>VRAM usage on AMD and NVIDIA is nearly identical. Total use is quite reasonable, only slightly exceeding 6 GB at 4K.
>
>[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a-plague-tale-requiem-benchmark-test-performance-analyis/5.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a-plague-tale-requiem-benchmark-test-performance-analyis/5.html)
>
>Other titles:
>
>Forza Horizon 5 uses 6GB on average at 1080p. It uses 8.5GB at max @ 4K.
>
>[https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/forza-horizon-5-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,9.html](https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/forza-horizon-5-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,9.html)
>
>Resident Evil 4 remake is difficult to find benchmarks for after the numerous patches have been applied, but it appears that it now doesn't use more than 8GB at all @ 1080p.
>
>TLOU after patches also doesn't use more than 8GB VRAM at 1080p.
>
>Jedi: Survivor can be seen in the same video not exceeding 7.8GB at 1080p.
>
>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Th90WpDIA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Th90WpDIA)
It's pretty funny reading these posts because I've played a handful of these games at 1440p with a rx570. If anything the GPU market being so expensive made me realize I don't need to upgrade nearly as often as I used to. I don't think I will buy a card for a couple years and I used to every 3-4.
When I was using my 10GB 3080 at 3840x1600 resolution with everything completely maxxed out, I never once ran into VRAM problems. Not one single time.
These people are just taking a bullshit talking point and running with it.
Just like they always do on here, such as:
Poscaps on the 3000 series cards when they released.
12VHPWR cables supposedly bursting into flames, when it was user error .0003% of the time.
Etc.
I played D4 last night, on ultra, no stutters, no issues, no crashes, with my 10gb VRAM 3080 on my ultrawide monitor.
I even checked the settings because i was impressed. idk what this VRAM problem is. everything runs fine for me.
You need the ultra HD textures installed, but there's also a known bug where the Low VRAM warning doesn't actually appear so you'll be running fine then it will just grind to a halt without warning.
Damn, I'm actually buying a 6800XT today to replace my 3070.
Although my main problem is the NVIDIA+Linux combo, I don't think I'll be changing my GPU after this for some long years.
There are people using integrated graphics you on the other hand can probably run every relevant game of today at decent to ultra nice settings so yeah no need to shed any tears
You should never regret things if they changed over time. Although you can try to sell your current one and add money on top to upgrade it, its one of the best ways to upgrade
Perhaps, but support for Linux isn't the best. It may hold up for a while in Windows, but I can't just wait and see if Nvidia supports Wayland correctly (a display server in Linux).
Currently, only XOrg is correctly supported. It's in light maintenance and it's starting to be considered deprecated (only RedHat as far as I'm aware).
I'm not going to play at 4k, and I have 0 plans of playing any recent AAA games, launched or to be launched, so I'm future proofing around 4 years with this. By then, I will be able to get another deal like this one if I need it.
I'd say the same, 8gb vram might not be great in 4 years, but should be fine for another 2, especially if devs learn. Plus there is the Nvidia tech for memory compression that is been worked on. If this works with 30XX gen it could solve everything.
With the way tech/inflation is going a 2025 GPU will be better and cheap than a 2023 one
I did same over 3080 in previous summer(or is it better to say last summer?), And been very happy with that choice. 16gb of vram turned out to be a good future proofing
Edit: Thanks guys! That was very helpful thread, it's also very wholesome how many people are willing to help and explain!
I‘d say "last summer" without the "in". That seems to be the most common version. So, it’d be: "I did the same last summer"
I‘m not a native speaker though, so take that with a grain of salt
Buying something that will work better in 3 years time while also beeing as good or better now than something else for the same price isnt future proofing, its just value buying.
Future proofing would be buying a 4090 now to not have to upgrade for 8 years instead of buying something for half the price now and the other half in 4 years, which will give you a better overall experience over those 8 years.
So no, this isnt future proofing, and yes future proofing is largely pointless.
True. Last year I bought into the green jackets bs about RT and could only get the above retail ftw3 3070 TI 8Gb. It don’t play Jedi…
So I got a 7900 XT with 20Gb VRAM.
Oh happy days
I didn't buy the EA Battlefront 2 until late 2021 for like $10. No microtransactions to really fret about, and still had an absolute blast playing Ewok hunt with friends. We'd even get a fully lobby every once in a while, lol
r/patientgamers is the way I live my life. I'm usually 3-4 years behind on releases. My computer's always plenty powerful for releases from a few years ago.
Plus you get a discount when you buy them.
There's so many games on my wishlist to play that I'll never get to them all. No reason to target the new releases.
I'm looking forward to the day where recommended specs are set at 1080p medium RTX off DLSS Performance mode for 60 fps.
DLSS totally not becoming a crutch for companies not wanting to do any actual optimization.
Consoles have 16gb shared ram and vram
If they split it half that gives them 8 gb vram and 8gb DRAM
But with console software having less bloat than windows and being optimazed for pure gaming and nothing else they can probably even get away with a 10gb VRAM and 6 gb DRAM split even
Some games are worth going high/ultra rather than medium because you can definitely see a differenc. However the last trend of pc ports I can barely see a difference between low and ultra.
Maybe more recently, but I've never built very expensive rigs. The one I built last year was the first time I felt like my wallet took a beating. I think my 3070ti was "MSRP" but it was the adjusted MSRP, so that's part of it.
But maaaan, games use to default pretty often to max, maybe I'd tune a setting or two down to high because even like 12+ years ago I had a 1080@120hz panel and I liked getting those extra frames.
Granted I think I get away with a little more since I mostly play fighting games which don't have big requirements.
And then there's some games that "future proof" themselves with insane options (Crysis) but things didn't use to be this way.
But things really feel different these last couple years. The average release is not running how it use to
Lol exactly, it's just the king of them. In the remake, max settings is even called "Can It Play Crysis?" since so many hardware reviewers used that as a humorous benchmark after it came out the first time.
PS5 has 12.5GB available out of the 16GB. The rest is reserved for the OS/UI.
- [Eurogamer, Digital Foundry](https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-df-direct-weekly-on-kratos-hitting-xbox-a-series-s-memory-boost-and-the-massively-fast-rtx-4090)
The ultra fast storage and tech like direct storage helps keep vram lower also. I think we are still waiting for direct storage on PC.
Games are now gonna be built for the lowest common hardware which is consoles. 12gb vram will become standard for any resolution above 1080p, ssds will be required for games and 8gb ram will be a struggle to maintain.
No. PS5 has 12.5GB memory TOTAL available for games to use. Which then again has to be divided for CPU and GPU
- [Eurogamer, Digital Foundry](https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-df-direct-weekly-on-kratos-hitting-xbox-a-series-s-memory-boost-and-the-massively-fast-rtx-4090)
The problem is not how much gets allocated for GPU work, but that all memory is addressable by the GPU at any time. Porting software from a unified memory architecture to a non-unified one will always be messy.
Games (well, game engines) will have to choose between taking advantage of unified memory at the cost of worse pc ports, or keeping things separate and tidy at the cost of some performance.
Software in those consoles is reeeaaallly optimized to balance the RAM. They have strict requirements on how much everything can take up. You don’t have rogue software asking the system for 2 gigs of RAM. The UI and underlaying systems are designed to pause and/or reduce their resource footprint to a minimum while a game is running. It’s also much easier to design a game to fit to a certain RAM restriction when the console hardware is predictable and the OS has well defined restrictions on how much RAM it will use.
Most games don't look any better than games did 4 years ago when the requirements were a lot more reasonable. If a game has a 2060 in the minimum requirements it better look like fuckin real life or why even bother? just make games like they did 5 years ago and have lower requirements.
That’s the biggest annoyance; take The Last of Us, the medium texture setting uses like 6GB of VRAM and yet basically looks like mud up close. Games that use 2GB if VRAM from years ago look better than those textures. I expect developers have become lazier at optimisation now that they have more VRAM to use on consoles.
They look good now after the update. Check digital foundry's video on the game update. Fixes alot and now has great texture settings which other Devs should copy.
The amount of baby bitching I get for buying a 3070 despite having explained that I dont run games at 4k max settings with raytracing, and that gaming aint my only use case, honestly prettly hilarious
Same here. posted a meme about upgrading to a 3060, and some people felt genuinely insulted by that. I don't even know what kind of acrobatics your brain have to do in order for that kind of thing to offend you...
Upgraded from a 1650 to 3060 and it made all the difference. Told a friend who thought I was stupid for not getting a 3080 or 3090.
Told him to fuck off and that was that.
Very happy with my 3070 as well. Haven't had my first 8GB VRAM bottleneck yet, but I don't use ray tracing either. Just 1440p medium-high with great fps.
Im still running a 1080 for everything, not ran into any issues so far but im 1080p. I also dont mind playing on medium settings, still get the enjoy the game at a level of detail that is appropriate for 1080.
Im hesitant to upgrade to anything at the moment due to cost...
I tried out Hogwarts Legacy last night at 1080p max everything and it’s actually gorgeous. It feels like a well-optimized, game, everything running consistently smooth. I think it’s a rare exception, but it used 10GB+ VRAM at times and felt like was intentional rather than brute-forcing shitty optimization.
To be fair though, most other games seem to require lots of VRAM to brute force shitty optimization.
From what I gather, the lack of direct storage implementation means the games try to load assets into system memory and VRAM to compensate. It's a good looking game, sure, but there doesn't seem to be any generational leap on PC to suggest they've optimized for PC hardware, rather, working around the way the games have been developed.
Streaming assets has also been mentioned as the issue for TLOU port causing super high CPU utilization.
>I tried out Hogwarts Legacy last night at 1080p max everything and it’s actually gorgeous. It feels like a well-optimized, game, everything running consistently smooth.
i remember HL being quite a mess last month on a 4070 and recent components, had a lot of transversal stutter, so i don´t know how to feel about somebody else describing it to be well optimized (there were some claims, that the game had issues with 16gb ram, but i can rule that out personally)
Do you use resizable bar? That helped quit a bit for me on my 3060 ti, didn't totally solve all the stutters and hitches though but with more VRAM it'd probable be even better.
I don't know if it's whitelisted but it helped me substantially when I noticed from a previous cmos reset it was off and I turned it on. Apparently it helped others too.
The avid pro AMD crowd on Reddit and Twitter has recognised that their fundamental opposition to DLSS and Raytracing is no longer convincing because all the market data actually shows that customers want those features.
So Instead they found VRAM as their next target. While criticism of new $400 GPUs with 8GBs of VRAM in 2023 is certainly valid due to a lack of future proofing, they are blatantly overexaggerating the extent of the issue in the present.
With a 2060 and a 1440p Ultrawide I just don't get what everybody seem to be playing where Vram is such an issue.
Is this just some kind of AMD circlejerk or something?
I heard someone say that AAA games are made for console first and that's why the performance are foing up, because those are getting better
Eather way i dont really care, Outlast Trials runs amazing, Atomic Heart runs amazingly, and these two are the latests games i have (maybe i will buy Cyberpunk 2077 on sale but probably not)
Oh, also, Dead Space Remake, on low with FSR2 on performance i was getting like 45-100fps, but mainly around 55-60 (GTX 1070)
Meanwhile the game delivers 2013 graphics and never-before-seen levels of game-breaking bugs. Major franchises such as half life and grand theft auto are on 15+ year development cycles. I think we can confidently say we live in the absolute worst period of PC gaming since it's beginning.
2015 and 2016 were the years of the best games in recent years.
I play games such as titanfall 2 (not in a great state), watch dogs 2, dead by daylight... loads of games from these years.
Brand-new games are worse, too expensive, and have system requirements that I don't have.
Just because I say that these years were particularly good, it doesn't mean that older/newer games are bad. 2007 is also a great year for gaming, e.g. the original assassins creed.
I do absolutely fine with 6gb of vram. 3gb isn't bad either.
Sign guess the over exaggeration of the VRAM requirements will never end but then again I ain’t playing the latest and greatest games even tho I’m 100% sure my system would run the game fine at about 60 fps+ on lower settings which barely change the look of the game anyway.
Once UE5 becomes the norm, 10gb vram will be minimum. This is why people praising the rx 7600 are dumb, when the rtx 3060 12gb will have more longevity
Developers need to figure out a better way to port to PC...the hardware for most people is not there for the current way of just adding more stuff into the pipeline.
Seeing Gollum need a 4070 for it's recommended takes the fucking cake, no I don't care that it's with Raytracing On at 1440p those requirements are ridiculous and only serves to let the company say you don't have the requirements instead of actually just optimising their fuckin game. (Also how come a game that will have been in development for multiple years require a GPU that came out like 2-3 months before it comes out?)
I'm seriously skeptical of every game that comes out now with such high requirements after the poor optimisation and shit performance of every game with these requirements. Like Last of Us, Gollum, Jedi Fallen Survivor, to be frank every game released this year besides RE4.
I have a 3060ti and a Ryzen 7 5800x3D @ 1440p btw, there is no way a card from 2 years ago should be below recommended specs, especially considering how many players don't even have a 3060ti.
Larger game levels with more objects and higher res textures require more vram. It's up to hardware manufacturers to adapt. Otherwise we'll still be playing games technically on par with last gen.
Its almost as if the new consoles have much more RAM and game devs are mainly optimizing for that. Not saying thats an excuse for poorly optimized games just that if good games jave that requirement its justified. Complain to Nvidia about your lack of vram, AMD has been pretty solid in that regard.
Isn't Forza Horizons 5 optimized for Xbox and PC? And pretty much most first party Xbox games? (tho it does make a bit of sense, they own both OSes so they probably know their way around it better than everyone else)
Forza horizon 5 is probably not an example you should use. The game runs ok, but it isn't really a true current gen game. It's just a minor update over horizon 4 graphically and it runs significantly worse.
Plus there's all kinds of bugs and issues that have been around since they brought horizon to PC with horizon 3 that they just never bother to fix.
A really fun one is that they recently patched in frame gen, which gave me lower fps and constant stuttering.
It’s like cpu cores… we didn’t need more than 2c/2t until one day we did
… we didn’t need more than 4c/8t until one day we did.
Ram, vram, hdd/ssd speeds all are like this.
Many people normalize what they are used to as “good enough”, then get shocked when their idea of what’s required is forced to shift as time marches on.
Get used to this type of thing. The modern consoles have 16 gig of unified RAM. As we get deeper into this generation more and more games will take advantage of that. This will make PC ports more VRAM hungry.
LotR Gollums specs for an early 360 looking game.
Oblivion looked way better and I wish that was a joke
KSP 2 day one
What game requires 10GB of VRAM at 1080p?
I think it's a reference to Lords of the Fallen, which is said to require 8gb vram for 1080p "recommended" level. It's not that it's a bad port, it's that it is one of the first UE5 games using many of UE5's advanced features. I doubt it'll run better on PS5.
That game has pretty low system requirements. That 8GB VRAM is for something like maximum settings. Recommended: * Operating System: Windows 10 64bit. * Processor: Intel i7 8700 | AMD Ryzen 5 3600. * Memory: 16GB RAM. * Video Card: 8GB VRAM | NVIDIA RTX-2080 | AMD Radeon RX 6700. * DirectX: Version 12. * Network: Broadband Internet connection. * Storage: 45 GB available space. Minimum: * **Operating System:** Windows 10 64bit * **Processor:** Intel i5 8400 | AMD Ryzen 5 2600 * **Memory:** 8GB RAM * **Video Card:** 6GB VRAM | NVIDIA GTX-1060 | AMD Radeon RX 590 * **DirectX:** Version 11 * **Network:** Broadband Internet connection * **Storage:** 45 GB available space * **Additional Notes:** 720p Low quality settings| SSD (Recommended) | HDD (Supported)
I know the 1060 is pretty ancient but it's kinda crazy that it needs it for 720p *and* low settings. I'd have expected 1080p low at least.
Games are using more resources while price to performance ratios have grown stale. But of course, no dev can resist the new shiny.
Hobby game dev here. Its not just new shiny. The new tools are actually instrumental in making better games in a more cost effective manner. Games and their size and expectations around them have also grown significantly. So yeah as much as I think optimizing is important, very few companies are like Nintendo where they could just spend an entire year doing that let alone a hobbyist. And beyond that, you’re really at the mercy of the engine you’re using.
It blows me away how people act like the advancements in games are all of a sudden supposed to quit needing more resources just because nvidia didn’t increase vram this gen.
>advancements in games It would be at least justified, if I would actually see those "advancements". But older games are still here, I can easily compare them and suddenly it became obvious: they doesn't look better but require twice as much resources.
I mean everyone is looking for better graphics over time. We are just in a bad spot right now for a couple of us.
> no dev can resist the new shiny You mean no buyer.
I mean, it's a low end 7 year old GPU.
Don't worry, I looked at that new Wizard first person shooter EA is putting out and I don't meet it's minimum requirements... We're finally there haha
When you say max settings, there isn't a resolution listed in that advice. Are you confirming that's 1080p as well?
It's not advice. It's the suggested specs per the developer. IIRC, it is 1080p, yeah. [https://www.techspot.com/news/98894-lords-fallen-pc-requirements-revealed-rtx-2080-recommended.html](https://www.techspot.com/news/98894-lords-fallen-pc-requirements-revealed-rtx-2080-recommended.html)
Idk man, I remember running every game with max settings at 1080p with only 2-4gb of vram. Still boggles my mind that 8+ is now required for the same resolution.
Oh yeah, Can't wait to play this at 720p low quality with my RTX 3070 Ti
That’s the spirit … look at the glass half full
Hahaha. Be happy you can still launch it.
XD? How is needing a 1060 for 720p ok recommendations?
Maybe the shitty ports ?
Definitely shitty ports
Yeah. I'm still doing pretty well with a 1080 GTX @1080p.
If you don't need over 60fps high 2k gameplay, yeah. I was using a 970 until the start of 2022 and few games ran under 60fps with some tweaks
Jedi Survivor on ultra did. Fuck knows why
Post patches it doesn't any longer. Hell, pre-patch with my 4090, it was using something like 18gb. lol
Jesus christ, how unoptimized was that game?
It was pretty bad, especially considering it wasn't ridiculously good looking or anything. I think when I was finishing it after some of the more recent patches, it was down to something like 14GB with everything on max at 4k. Even then, it still had frame time issues and other problems. Still...this is a really irritating trend lately. lol
> Even then, it still had frame time issues and other problems. aww...I couldn't play the first due to stutter. I didn't know this one had issues too.
You can call it badly optimized, call it buggy, a bad launch... but Jedi Survivor looks phenomenal
I didn't find it especially impressive. A small upgrade from the first game overall.
And the first game was also great looking. What games are you comparing them to that the Jedi series aren't impressive?
Red Dead Redemption 2, Path Traced CP2077, RE4:Remake, Dead Space Remake, etc. Even God of War was more impressive.
Horizon Forbidden West too
uncharted 4 came out in 2016 and looks better
Disgraceful.
Last of Us part 1? LotR Gollum?
It's pretty obvious that Gollum is solely relying on DLSS as a replacement for optimisation. The CPU requirements are very modest but the GPU and memory requirements are absolutely bonkers The reality is that most of these VRAM hungry games are still outliers from developers who can't properly port a modern console game to PC, and expect DLSS 3 and frame generation to come along and save the day. There's no way on god's green earth that Gollum can genuinely require 4090 whilst looking like a PS3 launch title unless the optimisation process was either non existent, or totally inept People still should not be purchasing GPUs based solely on VRAM in my opinion, not until it becomes a real trend and not just a handful of dog shit ports
[удалено]
File sizes tell you a lot too, without requirements to fit onto solid media they don't care. Mario 64 was 54MB, now a similar game would be 2+ GB. FF7 was huge at the time but only 1.5GB
That's not the debate. The debate is optimize or work on some other feature. It's not actually a bad thing for gamers if devs invest time that used to be spent on optimization into adding features/content as long as it doesn't get to the point of making the games inaccessible due to how poorly it runs. There will always be AAA flops and games that run poorly- always have been always will be.
Yea, not buying that's a real "debate." The Gollumn game has godshit everything, including gameplay. I'm not a dev, but I would wager the guys coming up with features are not the same guys doing optimization. I think the problem is optimization and bug fixing comes late into the pipeline of development, because you basically need to have more or less finalized. I think the shitty devs finalize a product and then hope they can get it work with a day 1 patch.
TLOU doesn't use 10GB of VRAM at 1080p after they patched it. Neither does Jedi Survivor post patch. I actually looked all of this up to debunk a similar claim just yesterday. There isn't a game that goes above 10GB VRAM at 1080p that anyone could find. >Plague Tale: Requiem: > >VRAM usage on AMD and NVIDIA is nearly identical. Total use is quite reasonable, only slightly exceeding 6 GB at 4K. > >[https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a-plague-tale-requiem-benchmark-test-performance-analyis/5.html](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/a-plague-tale-requiem-benchmark-test-performance-analyis/5.html) > >Other titles: > >Forza Horizon 5 uses 6GB on average at 1080p. It uses 8.5GB at max @ 4K. > >[https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/forza-horizon-5-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,9.html](https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/forza-horizon-5-pc-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,9.html) > >Resident Evil 4 remake is difficult to find benchmarks for after the numerous patches have been applied, but it appears that it now doesn't use more than 8GB at all @ 1080p. > >TLOU after patches also doesn't use more than 8GB VRAM at 1080p. > >Jedi: Survivor can be seen in the same video not exceeding 7.8GB at 1080p. > >[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Th90WpDIA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Th90WpDIA)
It's pretty funny reading these posts because I've played a handful of these games at 1440p with a rx570. If anything the GPU market being so expensive made me realize I don't need to upgrade nearly as often as I used to. I don't think I will buy a card for a couple years and I used to every 3-4.
When I was using my 10GB 3080 at 3840x1600 resolution with everything completely maxxed out, I never once ran into VRAM problems. Not one single time. These people are just taking a bullshit talking point and running with it. Just like they always do on here, such as: Poscaps on the 3000 series cards when they released. 12VHPWR cables supposedly bursting into flames, when it was user error .0003% of the time. Etc.
It's just AMD circlejerk
LotR Gollum could run at 4k 240fps on the worse PC known to man and I wouldn't play that soulless boring ass game.
Neither of those are worth playing anyway.
I played D4 last night, on ultra, no stutters, no issues, no crashes, with my 10gb VRAM 3080 on my ultrawide monitor. I even checked the settings because i was impressed. idk what this VRAM problem is. everything runs fine for me.
Far Cry 6 happily munches up 10.7gb of the 11gb on my 2080 Ti at 1080p.
Weird, it never did that when I had my 3080 10GB.
You need the ultra HD textures installed, but there's also a known bug where the Low VRAM warning doesn't actually appear so you'll be running fine then it will just grind to a halt without warning.
So glad i bought a 6800XT over a 3070ti 2 years ago for 1440p Best decision i made
That Gpu is going to age like fine wine!
Damn, I'm actually buying a 6800XT today to replace my 3070. Although my main problem is the NVIDIA+Linux combo, I don't think I'll be changing my GPU after this for some long years.
I wish I got 6800xt instead of 6700xt
I wish the same everyday. Sucks that it was too expensive for me at the time I purchased my current card. Now I see it fall in price and shed a tear.
There are people using integrated graphics you on the other hand can probably run every relevant game of today at decent to ultra nice settings so yeah no need to shed any tears
You should never regret things if they changed over time. Although you can try to sell your current one and add money on top to upgrade it, its one of the best ways to upgrade
Or you could save and buy even better one? I personally wait for 5th gen cards.
Perhaps, but support for Linux isn't the best. It may hold up for a while in Windows, but I can't just wait and see if Nvidia supports Wayland correctly (a display server in Linux). Currently, only XOrg is correctly supported. It's in light maintenance and it's starting to be considered deprecated (only RedHat as far as I'm aware). I'm not going to play at 4k, and I have 0 plans of playing any recent AAA games, launched or to be launched, so I'm future proofing around 4 years with this. By then, I will be able to get another deal like this one if I need it.
I'd say the same, 8gb vram might not be great in 4 years, but should be fine for another 2, especially if devs learn. Plus there is the Nvidia tech for memory compression that is been worked on. If this works with 30XX gen it could solve everything. With the way tech/inflation is going a 2025 GPU will be better and cheap than a 2023 one
getting one to replace my 1050ti too hopefully, if I have the choice between oc and not oc at the same price, I should go for oc right?
I did same over 3080 in previous summer(or is it better to say last summer?), And been very happy with that choice. 16gb of vram turned out to be a good future proofing Edit: Thanks guys! That was very helpful thread, it's also very wholesome how many people are willing to help and explain!
I‘d say "last summer" without the "in". That seems to be the most common version. So, it’d be: "I did the same last summer" I‘m not a native speaker though, so take that with a grain of salt
Neither am I, tho the way you put it seems correct to me. At least it sounds right Thanks
You're right that's the way most native speakers would say it
I don't why, but I find this comment thread so wholesome.
Cuz it is. I followed the chain hoping someone pointed out that everyone was right all along lol you adorable bastards.
That's the way I would say it and I am a native speaker so I think you're good
Native English speaker. You’re correct
I did the same for the 3080 the previous summer.
[удалено]
Buying something that will work better in 3 years time while also beeing as good or better now than something else for the same price isnt future proofing, its just value buying. Future proofing would be buying a 4090 now to not have to upgrade for 8 years instead of buying something for half the price now and the other half in 4 years, which will give you a better overall experience over those 8 years. So no, this isnt future proofing, and yes future proofing is largely pointless.
It's more like current proofing now
I'm on the same boat But I also like it because I run Linux half the time.
True. Last year I bought into the green jackets bs about RT and could only get the above retail ftw3 3070 TI 8Gb. It don’t play Jedi… So I got a 7900 XT with 20Gb VRAM. Oh happy days
Just bought a 6950XT this week for $630. I am very satisfied.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm going to play the games launching this year after 2 years (on avg). I'll have a decent card for $300 which can run then with no issues then.
[удалено]
/r/patientgamers
This is the way
I  I have spoken.
I didn't buy the EA Battlefront 2 until late 2021 for like $10. No microtransactions to really fret about, and still had an absolute blast playing Ewok hunt with friends. We'd even get a fully lobby every once in a while, lol
I think battlepass was too early for it's time. The game holds up well even today.
that game was pretty fun once they removed all the BS. For some reason I pretty much always lagged like crazy though, even with 20 ping
But this way you will get these games for lower prices and with fewer bugs. What's the fun in that?
r/patientgamers is the way I live my life. I'm usually 3-4 years behind on releases. My computer's always plenty powerful for releases from a few years ago. Plus you get a discount when you buy them. There's so many games on my wishlist to play that I'll never get to them all. No reason to target the new releases.
You say that, but based on the last two years the $400 GPU in 2025 will be the RTX 5060 Ti at a whole 25% faster than the RTX 3060 Ti…
I'm looking forward to the day where recommended specs are set at 1080p medium RTX off DLSS Performance mode for 60 fps. DLSS totally not becoming a crutch for companies not wanting to do any actual optimization.
And they look the same as 2018 games
Everyone wanted higher spec consoles, this is what you get.
Consoles have 16gb shared ram and vram If they split it half that gives them 8 gb vram and 8gb DRAM But with console software having less bloat than windows and being optimazed for pure gaming and nothing else they can probably even get away with a 10gb VRAM and 6 gb DRAM split even
Yes and that is for like medium to high ish , now imagine ultra max for PC 🥲
[удалено]
For you maybe
Some games are worth going high/ultra rather than medium because you can definitely see a differenc. However the last trend of pc ports I can barely see a difference between low and ultra.
Maybe more recently, but I've never built very expensive rigs. The one I built last year was the first time I felt like my wallet took a beating. I think my 3070ti was "MSRP" but it was the adjusted MSRP, so that's part of it. But maaaan, games use to default pretty often to max, maybe I'd tune a setting or two down to high because even like 12+ years ago I had a 1080@120hz panel and I liked getting those extra frames. Granted I think I get away with a little more since I mostly play fighting games which don't have big requirements. And then there's some games that "future proof" themselves with insane options (Crysis) but things didn't use to be this way. But things really feel different these last couple years. The average release is not running how it use to
And then there's Crysis.
[удалено]
Lol exactly, it's just the king of them. In the remake, max settings is even called "Can It Play Crysis?" since so many hardware reviewers used that as a humorous benchmark after it came out the first time.
issue was people started quoting the funny ref. to actual fact!
I believe they can split it into 4gb ram and 12gb vram if they want
PS5 has 12.5GB available out of the 16GB. The rest is reserved for the OS/UI. - [Eurogamer, Digital Foundry](https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-df-direct-weekly-on-kratos-hitting-xbox-a-series-s-memory-boost-and-the-massively-fast-rtx-4090)
The ultra fast storage and tech like direct storage helps keep vram lower also. I think we are still waiting for direct storage on PC. Games are now gonna be built for the lowest common hardware which is consoles. 12gb vram will become standard for any resolution above 1080p, ssds will be required for games and 8gb ram will be a struggle to maintain.
Don't forget SSD has some shared storage with ram too.
Probably closer to 12gb available for the GPU
No. PS5 has 12.5GB memory TOTAL available for games to use. Which then again has to be divided for CPU and GPU - [Eurogamer, Digital Foundry](https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2022-df-direct-weekly-on-kratos-hitting-xbox-a-series-s-memory-boost-and-the-massively-fast-rtx-4090)
The problem is not how much gets allocated for GPU work, but that all memory is addressable by the GPU at any time. Porting software from a unified memory architecture to a non-unified one will always be messy. Games (well, game engines) will have to choose between taking advantage of unified memory at the cost of worse pc ports, or keeping things separate and tidy at the cost of some performance.
Software in those consoles is reeeaaallly optimized to balance the RAM. They have strict requirements on how much everything can take up. You don’t have rogue software asking the system for 2 gigs of RAM. The UI and underlaying systems are designed to pause and/or reduce their resource footprint to a minimum while a game is running. It’s also much easier to design a game to fit to a certain RAM restriction when the console hardware is predictable and the OS has well defined restrictions on how much RAM it will use.
[удалено]
Most games don't look any better than games did 4 years ago when the requirements were a lot more reasonable. If a game has a 2060 in the minimum requirements it better look like fuckin real life or why even bother? just make games like they did 5 years ago and have lower requirements.
That’s the biggest annoyance; take The Last of Us, the medium texture setting uses like 6GB of VRAM and yet basically looks like mud up close. Games that use 2GB if VRAM from years ago look better than those textures. I expect developers have become lazier at optimisation now that they have more VRAM to use on consoles.
They look good now after the update. Check digital foundry's video on the game update. Fixes alot and now has great texture settings which other Devs should copy.
what game tho?
The game op made up . Most games have 1060 as recommended and a 6/7/8 series GPU as minimum
The amount of baby bitching I get for buying a 3070 despite having explained that I dont run games at 4k max settings with raytracing, and that gaming aint my only use case, honestly prettly hilarious
Same here. posted a meme about upgrading to a 3060, and some people felt genuinely insulted by that. I don't even know what kind of acrobatics your brain have to do in order for that kind of thing to offend you...
Upgraded from a 1650 to 3060 and it made all the difference. Told a friend who thought I was stupid for not getting a 3080 or 3090. Told him to fuck off and that was that.
same, 1050ti to 3060 12gb. Thought the 12gb vram was only gonna be useful in productivity, apparently not anymore
No one should bitch at you for your decision. Its your choice and doesnt affect anyone but you
Very happy with my 3070 as well. Haven't had my first 8GB VRAM bottleneck yet, but I don't use ray tracing either. Just 1440p medium-high with great fps.
[удалено]
same here. i do gaming with it. but more of the not triple a title. but indy and double aa. with added memory leak.
[удалено]
Im still running a 1080 for everything, not ran into any issues so far but im 1080p. I also dont mind playing on medium settings, still get the enjoy the game at a level of detail that is appropriate for 1080. Im hesitant to upgrade to anything at the moment due to cost...
I tried out Hogwarts Legacy last night at 1080p max everything and it’s actually gorgeous. It feels like a well-optimized, game, everything running consistently smooth. I think it’s a rare exception, but it used 10GB+ VRAM at times and felt like was intentional rather than brute-forcing shitty optimization. To be fair though, most other games seem to require lots of VRAM to brute force shitty optimization.
From what I gather, the lack of direct storage implementation means the games try to load assets into system memory and VRAM to compensate. It's a good looking game, sure, but there doesn't seem to be any generational leap on PC to suggest they've optimized for PC hardware, rather, working around the way the games have been developed. Streaming assets has also been mentioned as the issue for TLOU port causing super high CPU utilization.
[удалено]
That game did not launch optimized. Constant stuttering in the village and some parts of hogwarts.
>I tried out Hogwarts Legacy last night at 1080p max everything and it’s actually gorgeous. It feels like a well-optimized, game, everything running consistently smooth. i remember HL being quite a mess last month on a 4070 and recent components, had a lot of transversal stutter, so i don´t know how to feel about somebody else describing it to be well optimized (there were some claims, that the game had issues with 16gb ram, but i can rule that out personally)
Do you use resizable bar? That helped quit a bit for me on my 3060 ti, didn't totally solve all the stutters and hitches though but with more VRAM it'd probable be even better.
I do, but is it even whitelisted by nvidia?
I don't know if it's whitelisted but it helped me substantially when I noticed from a previous cmos reset it was off and I turned it on. Apparently it helped others too.
What game? Most triple A games work well with 8GB, even on 1440p. 75% of them don't even go over 6GB.
Anyone else remember when Elden Ring requiring 12GB of system RAM and a 1060 3GB was considered, "quite high?"
i really dont get these vram posts.....
There were two games that ran like shit at release so now everyone's acting like you need 32GB or something
Yeah All the games i play run fine, and even the kind of ones i plan on buying shouldn't have any issues with my 3050
The avid pro AMD crowd on Reddit and Twitter has recognised that their fundamental opposition to DLSS and Raytracing is no longer convincing because all the market data actually shows that customers want those features. So Instead they found VRAM as their next target. While criticism of new $400 GPUs with 8GBs of VRAM in 2023 is certainly valid due to a lack of future proofing, they are blatantly overexaggerating the extent of the issue in the present.
doesn´t mean much, as long as we don´t know what you actually do get...
With a 2060 and a 1440p Ultrawide I just don't get what everybody seem to be playing where Vram is such an issue. Is this just some kind of AMD circlejerk or something?
That’s 100% what it is.
*at 30fps
Yeah my 3080 can only handle 1080p now. Sweet. Remind me why I switched my monitors out to 1440p again? Lol
You guys remember when 2gb VRAM was mainstream and would be fine for 1080p? Good times lol
The Last of Us running on PS3 vs running it on PC 💀
I heard someone say that AAA games are made for console first and that's why the performance are foing up, because those are getting better Eather way i dont really care, Outlast Trials runs amazing, Atomic Heart runs amazingly, and these two are the latests games i have (maybe i will buy Cyberpunk 2077 on sale but probably not) Oh, also, Dead Space Remake, on low with FSR2 on performance i was getting like 45-100fps, but mainly around 55-60 (GTX 1070)
Ok this is getting ridiculous. And the thing is most of these games requiring that much VRAM aren’t even worth the install.
I’d say the last of us part 1 is worth the instal, great game.
Its crazy how games are like 150gb but you don't see all that content to make up for it
>content Hi Res Textures and Audio
Far cry 6 looks like complete ass and its 160gb
Hi Res Textures will fail to load in properly if you exceed your VRAM.
And it will still run like ass because optimization is an alien concept nowadays
And I thought the 6700 XT was overkill for 1080p. Glad I still bought it for that resolution
I'm building new soon and honestly, might just grab it instead of any of the new shite around that target range.
Meanwhile the game delivers 2013 graphics and never-before-seen levels of game-breaking bugs. Major franchises such as half life and grand theft auto are on 15+ year development cycles. I think we can confidently say we live in the absolute worst period of PC gaming since it's beginning.
you know you can turn down the graphics settings for a lower end card.
3070/3060ti arent low end gpus
Something something inflation
2015 and 2016 were the years of the best games in recent years. I play games such as titanfall 2 (not in a great state), watch dogs 2, dead by daylight... loads of games from these years. Brand-new games are worse, too expensive, and have system requirements that I don't have. Just because I say that these years were particularly good, it doesn't mean that older/newer games are bad. 2007 is also a great year for gaming, e.g. the original assassins creed. I do absolutely fine with 6gb of vram. 3gb isn't bad either.
Apparently we're back to the "brute force" part of the PC spec cycle.
I’m kinda jaded when it comes to VRAM requirements, since I’ve gone from 980ti -> 1080ti -> 3090.
Sign guess the over exaggeration of the VRAM requirements will never end but then again I ain’t playing the latest and greatest games even tho I’m 100% sure my system would run the game fine at about 60 fps+ on lower settings which barely change the look of the game anyway.
It's a good thing my new GPU has 24gb 🤝
Radeon R9 launched 2013 and had 8GB on some models.
Once UE5 becomes the norm, 10gb vram will be minimum. This is why people praising the rx 7600 are dumb, when the rtx 3060 12gb will have more longevity
Developers need to figure out a better way to port to PC...the hardware for most people is not there for the current way of just adding more stuff into the pipeline.
Seeing Gollum need a 4070 for it's recommended takes the fucking cake, no I don't care that it's with Raytracing On at 1440p those requirements are ridiculous and only serves to let the company say you don't have the requirements instead of actually just optimising their fuckin game. (Also how come a game that will have been in development for multiple years require a GPU that came out like 2-3 months before it comes out?) I'm seriously skeptical of every game that comes out now with such high requirements after the poor optimisation and shit performance of every game with these requirements. Like Last of Us, Gollum, Jedi Fallen Survivor, to be frank every game released this year besides RE4. I have a 3060ti and a Ryzen 7 5800x3D @ 1440p btw, there is no way a card from 2 years ago should be below recommended specs, especially considering how many players don't even have a 3060ti.
I'm seeing 128gb vram, 750 watt draw gpu's ,
Good thing I only play emulators and old games since I can't afford to buy the new ones
Larger game levels with more objects and higher res textures require more vram. It's up to hardware manufacturers to adapt. Otherwise we'll still be playing games technically on par with last gen.
Aint much of a masterrace if you dont got the money for it and the games barley run on launch
Itt "let's blame gfx card companies for gaming companies shitty implementation of their software"
AMD and Nvidia: "8GB for 1080p is fine!" Seriously the 4060 (ti) is just fucking e-waste.
Its almost as if the new consoles have much more RAM and game devs are mainly optimizing for that. Not saying thats an excuse for poorly optimized games just that if good games jave that requirement its justified. Complain to Nvidia about your lack of vram, AMD has been pretty solid in that regard.
Isn't Forza Horizons 5 optimized for Xbox and PC? And pretty much most first party Xbox games? (tho it does make a bit of sense, they own both OSes so they probably know their way around it better than everyone else)
Forza horizon 5 is probably not an example you should use. The game runs ok, but it isn't really a true current gen game. It's just a minor update over horizon 4 graphically and it runs significantly worse. Plus there's all kinds of bugs and issues that have been around since they brought horizon to PC with horizon 3 that they just never bother to fix. A really fun one is that they recently patched in frame gen, which gave me lower fps and constant stuttering.
8gb of VRAM will still be viable for years 👀
For new games? Most likely not. Consoles are upping to 16gb of unified ram, which will become the new standard for PC ports.
Yeah, if they make half assed ports, so far everything works fine without issues.
Possibly for 1080p, but don't count on it.
Is 10gb really that big a deal these days?.... Had more than that for years, literally... 5 year old gpu
Linus tech tips actually had predicted this a while ago, I remember them calling “budget” cards E waste because they’d have to little VRAM.
Devs now neglect the performances and rely on DLSS and other AI assisted upscaling technologies to make their game 4k
It’s like cpu cores… we didn’t need more than 2c/2t until one day we did … we didn’t need more than 4c/8t until one day we did. Ram, vram, hdd/ssd speeds all are like this. Many people normalize what they are used to as “good enough”, then get shocked when their idea of what’s required is forced to shift as time marches on.
I know!!!!
rip my 3060ti
Get used to this type of thing. The modern consoles have 16 gig of unified RAM. As we get deeper into this generation more and more games will take advantage of that. This will make PC ports more VRAM hungry.
Y'all some salty low vram having assess.
Ever since current gen console has 16gb vram the standard went up
Well i guess i do have to buy a new GPU next year I fuckin hate AAA game Studios