• 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.
Yup, sadly I can't see any youtube comparisons with the HD texture pack and in my experience, HD texture packs aren't that much better generally or/and more demanding anyway. That and probably cause it isn't really worth using anyway :p ;)


More COD black ops videos but again no HD texture pack comparisons about.



Second video, 19:35 - watch the grass assets. The assets are consistenly popping in 1 to 2 seconds later on the 3080 than the 3090 and AMD cards, it continues happening ion the rest of the video

Your other 2 videos I didn't bother watching because they are 1080p and compressed to hell so I may as well look at a potatoe than watch youtube videos

 
I really like the RTX Titan, I still have 2 of them and would much rather use them than a 3080.

I also own a couple of FE 3090s and side by side the Titan is far better looking and what a GPU should look like, ie not a house brick.

The Titan shows you can get 24gb and good performance in a small package.

Bit odd given that the 3080 is better all round than a rtx titan especially if you want/use ray tracing in games....

Although no doubt the 3090 is an extreme brick!

But yeah them RTX titans are nice, not a fan of the gold. Must say I thought the 30xx FE cards looked awful too but then got one and in person, actually looks epic the gun metal finish but obviously design/looks are subjective.

Second video, 19:35 - watch the grass assets. The assets are consistenly popping in 1 to 2 seconds later on the 3080 than the 3090 and AMD cards, it continues happening ion the rest of the video

Your other 2 videos I didn't bother watching because they are 1080p and compressed to hell so I may as well look at a potatoe than watch youtube videos


Can't say I really noticed any difference in that video, at least nothing really standing out, although if you look closely at 20:05, you can see some texture pop with the 6800xt on the left rock compared to the 3080? Or is that just an issue with lighting/shadows maybe?

Although again, given the patch history for HZD i.e. numerous patches fixing asset/texture/VRAM issues, I still wouldn't base a VRAM argument on one single game, which is known to have/had problems....
 
Playing PC games should be about game play not a tiny bit of extra screen candy.

10gb is plenty if you are a serious gamer.
Well said sir, well said :D


I guess if there was no issue with only 10Gb then there probably wouldn't be 3,400 posts on it!
Well when most people still do not understand the difference between allocated and used vram that happens :p
 
I guess if there was no issue with only 10Gb then there probably wouldn't be 3,400 posts on it!

Majority of the people saying it’s not enough have zero experience with the 3080. They’re either angry that they couldn’t get one, or are trying to justify paying out their rear for their current card :D

The real answer comes down to what you’re willing to spend and what your requirements are.
 
Majority of the people saying it’s not enough have zero experience with the 3080. They’re either angry that they couldn’t get one, or are trying to justify paying out their rear for their current card :D

The real answer comes down to what you’re willing to spend and what your requirements are.

I am sure that AMD will do their best to optimise the games for more VRAM usage. They are not stupid to put as much as 16 GB for no reason.

Everyone can see that 10 GB is just as enough as the 4GB has been on the R9 Fury X.
It isn't rocket science and the trend is always go for more.
 
I am sure that AMD will do their best to optimise the games for more VRAM usage. They are not stupid to put as much as 16 GB for no reason.

Everyone can see that 10 GB is just as enough as the 4GB has been on the R9 Fury X.
It isn't rocket science and the trend is always go for more.

How do you optimise for more VRAM? AMD will definitely need to optimise for slower VRAM and a smaller memory interface.

And you're correct, it's not rocket science, but it is computer science, which I suspect you know very little about based on your comment :D
 
How do you optimise for more VRAM? AMD will definitely need to optimise for slower VRAM and a smaller memory interface.

And you're correct, it's not rocket science, but it is computer science, which I suspect you know very little about based on your comment :D
Lol :D
 
How do you optimise for more VRAM? AMD will definitely need to optimise for slower VRAM and a smaller memory interface.

And you're correct, it's not rocket science, but it is computer science, which I suspect you know very little about based on your comment :D

You have very little understanding of AMD's new Navi 2X architecture with its new Infinity caches which reach 2TB/s bandwidth. :D
 
You have very little understanding of AMD's new Navi 2X architecture with its new Infinity caches which reach 2TB/s bandwidth. :D

I thought 10GB of VRAM wasn't enough? What are we going to do with 128MB of IF? Store one rock?

IF is just a cache, so it's limited and selective in what it stores - memory throughput matters a lot more. The 3080 is 65% faster when it comes to memory transfer speeds (840GB/s vs 512GB/s).

Sorry, I know I used 3 digit numbers there; please be sure to rest if the strain is too much ;)
 
I thought 10GB of VRAM wasn't enough? What are we going to do with 128MB of IF? Store one rock?

IF is just a cache, so it's limited and selective in what it stores - memory throughput matters a lot more. The 3080 is 65% faster when it comes to memory transfer speeds (840GB/s vs 512GB/s).

128 MB is a very large memory pool designed to compensate for increased memory throughput requirements.
Which means that you have to aggregate between 2000GB/s and 512GB/s and not use the lower number for your own justification purposes.
 
Pretty much in every way you said and you've picked 1 tiny part of the article, go back and read the rest of it and youl see right at they end the are pretty similar OVERALL, 1 is designed as a jack of all trades but master of none which is amphere and 1 is designed with pure gaming in mind rdna2, Maybe stop being so wrinkly and make less general sweeping statements.. we all make mistakes but amphere isn't more advanced in every way. :D;):rolleyes: none of the articles you linked say amphere as an architecture is more advanced than RDNA, Both have pros and cons however are fairly similar and equal.

I asked you what area you were interested in. You didn't answer, thus I picked the simplest that has been discussed many times. Bottom line, RDNA2 is a budget console chip where the PC variants don't even have the optimisations that both Sony and Microsoft have added. Ampere on the other hand is a fully fledged system incorporating Tensor, ray tracing and a CUDA based GPU all working in parallel.

I know how the tech works no need for your condescending statements about compression.
Ps the cod quote was a mistake on my part quoting the wrong person.

If you know how the tech works, why then describe it as marketing?
 
Playing PC games should be about game play not a tiny bit of extra screen candy.

10gb is plenty if you are a serious gamer.
Just lol at this: "If you are a serious gamer you shouldn't care about visuals" rubbish. Is that why you buy multiple Titans and 3090's etc? Please don't be so snide and pretentious as to tell people 'how serious a gamer they are', because that is beyond ridiculous in every respect I can think of. I love gaming AND I care about visuals in the games I play in order to be as immersed as I possibly can be in the worlds I am entering into. To suggest it's one or the other and that there are any kind of qualifications for being a "serious gamer" is just laughable nonsense.

The only reason you seem to be even a notable character on this forum is that you buy obscene amounts of bleeding edge hardware and make lots of posts about it. Otherwise, based on the quality and common sense of posts like the above, I don't think you are in a position to judge anyone.
 
Last edited:
I thought 10GB of VRAM wasn't enough? What are we going to do with 128MB of IF? Store one rock?

IF is just a cache, so it's limited and selective in what it stores - memory throughput matters a lot more (till Nvidia comes up with their own caching system and throws in some buzzwords kind of like what happened with upscaling) . The 3080 is 65% faster when it comes to memory transfer speeds (840GB/s vs 512GB/s).

Sorry, I know I used 3 digit numbers there; please be sure to rest if the strain is too much ;)
FTFY;)
 
128 MB is a very large memory pool designed to compensate for increased memory throughput requirements.
Which means that you have to aggregate between 2000GB/s and 512GB/s and not use the lower number for your own justification purposes.

Less than 1% of your total available memory runs at an effective speed of 1664GB/s (I don't know where you get 2000GB/s from), and the other 99% runs at 512GB/s - AMD even said that it was to help bring down costs, which has meant nothing so far.

If you think 128MB of cache is more than enough, then 10GB of GDDR6X is more than enough.
 

Maybe they will add their own IF next year, maybe they'll paint their cards red - both equally likely when it comes to speculation.

I also wouldn't class DLSS with bargain brand upscaling, if that's what you were making reference to. AMD will 100% invest in AI upscaling given the success NVIDIA are having with DLSS.
 
Maybe they will add their own IF next year, maybe they'll paint their cards red - both equally likely when it comes to speculation.

I also wouldn't class DLSS with bargain brand upscaling, if that's what you were making reference to. AMD will 100% invest in AI upscaling given the success NVIDIA are having with DLSS.
My point is that people are against/for something till Nvidia says otherwise.

People will be praising Nvidia for their innovative solution to caching when Nvidia announces it; pretending like they weren't spouting the same nonsense that you were just saying.
 
Just lol at this: "If you are a serious gamer you shouldn't care about visuals" rubbish. Is that why you buy multiple Titans and 3090's etc? Please don't be so snide and pretentious as to tell people 'how serious a gamer they are', because that is beyond ridiculous in every respect I can think of. I love gaming AND I care about visuals in the games I play in order to be as immersed as I possibly can be in the worlds I am entering into. To suggest it's one or the other and that there are any kind of qualifications for being a "serious gamer" is just laughable nonsense.

The only reason you seem to be even a notable character on this forum is that you buy obscene amounts of bleeding edge hardware and make lots of posts about it. Otherwise, based on the quality and common sense of posts like the above, I don't think you are in a position to judge anyone.


I am not judging anyone fullstop.

I am quite old and starting gaming seriously in the early MS DOS PC days when graphics were dreadful but for me it was not important as I was far more interested in the actual gameplay.

Interestingly the quality of games in those days was far superior to the rubbish that is available now which look very pretty and not much else.

I have been thinking in the last year about not posting on this forum (or any other) anymore as I agree with you that I don't contribute anything of any real interest. I was a gamer for decades before I belonged to any forum and I think that may be the way forward again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom