• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

10GB vram enough for the 3080? Discuss..

Status
Not open for further replies.
EastCoastHandle said:
.....The remaining 3.5GB can be and will be used for games. Therefore, it's not 10GB, it's 13.5GB if you want to be technical.

And, depending on engine could dip into system memory if need raising 13.5GB to 14-15GB. This is do to obvious updates to the xbox which will reduce memory footprint. As has been the case in prior update releases.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but now you're just making up drivel to suit your argument.

Series X has 16GB GDDR6. Of that, 2.5GB is allocated to the OS. Of the remaining 13.5GB, all of it can be used as standard memory. But only the faster 10GB portion can be used by the GPU. So what you wind up with is a system which, essentially, has up to 13.5GB of standard memory accessible by games, and up to 10GB of "VRAM".
 
Last edited:
McPhee said:
Sorry, but now you're just making up drivel to suit your argument.

Based on what is known about the Series X, 13.5GB of GDDR6 is available to games. Of that, all 13.5GB can be used for CPU tasks like file IO and audio. But only 10GB can be used for GPU tasks. While the 6GB of slower GDDR isn't all that slow in absolute terms, it's significantly slower than the "GPU optimal" portion.

It might suit your argument better if the GPU portion is larger than 10GB. But it isn't.
Click to expand...
What a load of tripe! You literately just made that up. LOL
:p
 
EastCoastHandle said:
What a load of tripe! You literately just made that up. LOL
:p
Click to expand...

It's literally the entire point of having a shared RAM pool.

"Memory performance is asymmetrical - it's not something we could have done with the PC," explains Andrew Goossen "10 gigabytes of physical memory [runs at] 560GB/s. We call this GPU optimal memory. Six gigabytes [runs at] 336GB/s. We call this standard memory. GPU optimal and standard offer identical performance for CPU audio and file IO. The only hardware component that sees a difference is the GPU."

6GB is intended for other functions, which don't need the high performance of the faster RAM. Hence Microsoft saved some pennies by splitting the RAM asymmetrically. If more standard RAM is needed, it can be taken from the pool of faster RAM with no performance penalty. The inverse isn't true.

The Series X has literally been designed on the principle that <10GB "VRAM" is sufficient. If Microsoft didn't believe it to be enough, then more of the Series X's RAM would be at 560GB/s.
 
Last edited:
McPhee said:
It's literally the entire point of having a shared RAM pool.

"Memory performance is asymmetrical - it's not something we could have done with the PC," explains Andrew Goossen "10 gigabytes of physical memory [runs at] 560GB/s. We call this GPU optimal memory. Six gigabytes [runs at] 336GB/s. We call this standard memory. GPU optimal and standard offer identical performance for CPU audio and file IO. The only hardware component that sees a difference is the GPU."

6GB is intended for other functions, which don't need the high performance of the faster RAM. Hence Microsoft saved some pennies by splitting the RAM asymmetrically. If more standard RAM is needed, it can be taken from the pool of faster RAM.

The Series X has literally been designed on the principle that <10GB "VRAM" is sufficient. If Microsoft didn't believe it to be enough, then more of the Series X's RAM would be at 560GB/s.
Click to expand...
As you put it: Sorry, but now you're just making up drivel to suit your argument.

And offers no development input toward a particular console game on how they would utilize the console. :D
 
Last edited:
I haven't followed the development of graphics cards since I bought my 1080TI, but having seen the announcement for the 3 series I was a little surprised to see the 3080 have less VRAM than my current card where the prices are over £700.

I've got a 1440p monitor at the moment so VRAM isn't going to be an issue for me for a long while, but I thought 4K was starting to become the norm for PC gaming so surprised to see a card that costs that much, that gamers are likely to keep for several years, skimp on it.

Looks to me that NVIDIA are assuming that people upgrade more often than I would have. My 1080TI will be staying with me for a good couple of years yet.
 
I’ve got a 1080ti and game @4K, the only title that’s pushed my VRAM limit is FS2020 and even then it’s still under its maximum, so I don’t personally see an issue with the next generation.
 
fizzelopeguss said:
We have the same argument every time nvidia skimps on memory. And our fear are always proven right down the road.

VRAM shouldn't even be a consideration for any graphics card north of £400 notes. But evidently shareholders matter more than customers.
Click to expand...

Which fears have been proven right? I have yet to hit any issues with VRAM at 1440p and I only have 8gb.

I cant remember a single thread on here moaning about VRAM issues, granted I may have missed them, but feel free to link to them.
 
chroniclard said:
They have double the RAM, not VRAM. In practice it has about 10gb usable as VRAM.
Click to expand...

Also, One X had 12GB of RAM. So the increase isn't so dramatic there.

The doubling of RAM in consoles is over 7 years. In that time, a typical gaming PC has gone from 4GB-16GB of system RAM and 2GB-4GB of VRAM (660Ti, 7970, 680) to 16GB-32GB of system RAM and 8GB-11GB (RX580 to 2080 Ti) of VRAM. PC RAM has increased much faster than consoles.

Series X and PS5 have less RAM than many expected. IIRC both companies basically decided it was better to make efficient use of a smaller amount of high-speed RAM, than opt for lower speeds and higher capacities. To that end, both consoles focus on improving IO performance and reducing the demand for RAM (via fast file transfer from the NVME drive, and optimisations like SFS). It remains to be seen how much of this can be replicated on PC, and how much PC will have to rely on the "brute force" approach.

Been plenty of discussion on this in the consoles board. Really odd to see these arguments now being distorted to back up pre-determined positions.
 
Last edited:
One thing I did notice about 3080 marketing material; Nvidia refer to it as a card for "up to" 4K resolution. I wonder if that's a subtle concession that it could have problems with some titles and some settings, at 4K?
 
Poneros said:
When 8 GB is no longer enough, why wouldn't people think 10 GB is going to be a problem soon™ enough also? I'm buying it anyway, but let's not kid ourselves about the limitation. It's absolutely a compromise but who knows exactly how and when it's going to be a real problem.

Click to expand...


3080 doesn't appear to have any issues trouncing the 2080 Ti in Doom Eternal.
 
Last edited:
Here's something no one has mentioned yet.

Games need RAM also. Not just vram.

Games now days on the PC use how much ram? 8, 9 - 10GB?

So the consoles have to share the 16GB of RAM they have between system ram and VRAM.

A gaming PC with a 3080 would have 10GB of DEDICATED super fast VRAM and usually 16GB of system ram.

So your PC suddenly looks like it has a lot more ram than a next gen console.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom