• 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.
Nexus18 said:
Can't/won't comment on 3070 but with regards to the 80 running out of vram, presume you are talking about your FC 6 experience..... once again, given you are having issues with NO HD texture pack AND at 1440P AND whilst using FSR indicates something on your end or/and game issue with your combination of hardware/software.... I already stated why you may be having issues (with plenty of evidence and others reporting the same) and in that big 70+ page thread on ubi forum, I didn't see anyone mentioning these issues with those settings either and from my end, I never had any issues even with HD texture pack and not using FSR when gaming at 3440x1440.

Just so happens there were a couple of 3090 users also stating big FPS drops on that thread but just because they are doesn't mean it applies to every 3090 owner or maybe 24GB vram just isn't enough either.....
Click to expand...
Already told you/updated my findings that if you restart the game after running out of vram it doesn't have those problems, it only had those problems after running out of vram then reducing settings in game, is that clear enough this time?

Edit-could be wrong but pretty sure you told me it's problems my end in the 70 thread too.:p
 
Well if a guy with a 3090 can use all of his Vram in an easy to run game like COD warzone and a 3070 at the same settings fails to come even close to filling it's Vram of just 8GB, I think we may have a problem somewhere, and I think it is likely not the 3070.

I mean this was the video I uploaded.. after 2 previous ones to the same chap.


Then again I am on Windows 11, most people back then were on Windows 10 when bitching about Vram.
 
LtMatt said:
Far Cry 6s Ultra quality textures without the 4K Texture pack look fine to be honest. I think there was an issue with a certain vendor rendering low quality textures with GPUs that didn't meet the requirements to run the pack (which was later patched) that made them look worse than they were.

So you play games to look at reflections and lighting, but not at textures or surfaces?

As you mentioned Dying Light 2, it has some of the worst texture quality I've seen in recently released games. This quality is reduced further with image reconstruction, which adds a lot of blur to the already low quality textures present in the game.

I'll agree that the RT is nice in Dying Light 2, though.
Click to expand...
The ultra quality textures without the pack in FC6 lacked a lot of details on clothing, guns even when sitting 5 foot away from TV. Usually the differences are never this stark. I can barely tell that the HD Pack is used in WD Legion but in FC6 it adds a lot to the visuals.

You can’t compare textures and ray tracing effects as the latter is transformative to visuals when done right. Get inside a car in Cyberpunk and move through the game world. You will see beautiful reflections on the car reflecting everything and adds a lot to immersion. Get out of the car and even when walking you can see reflections on rougher surfaces. RT actually adds lighting back into the scene in many areas which look like they are oddly floating with rasterisation. On the other hand, you can’t see enhanced textures beyond a certain point unless you stop and look at them closely.
 
tommybhoy said:
Already told you/updated my findings that if you restart the game after running out of vram it doesn't have those problems, it only had those problems after running out of vram then reducing settings in game, is that clear enough this time?

Edit-could be wrong but pretty sure you told me it's problems my end in the 70 thread too.:p
Click to expand...

Will highlight this part again:

NO HD texture pack AND at 1440P AND whilst using FSR
Click to expand...

And also this point:

Just so happens there were a couple of 3090 users also stating big FPS drops on that thread but just because they are doesn't mean it applies to every 3090 owner or maybe 24GB vram just isn't enough either
Click to expand...

https://discussions.ubisoft.com/top...-for-your-issue-updated-23-02-2022?lang=en-US

Plenty of reading material there on people with all kinds of gpus mentioning perf. issues regardless of vram amount.

I can't remember exactly what my vram usage was at 1440p when using standard textures with no FSR, but it certainly was nowhere near 10GB vram, even after 1 hour of gameplay, sadly I don't have ubisoft connect anymore so can't test myself but would love to see some screenshots/footage of your vram usage with those settings "NO HD texture pack AND at 1440P AND whilst using FSR"

If someone is having issues with their game, be it, graphical corruption, being stuck in a position/object, not being to progress further or whatever and a restart fixes it, does that mean it was an issue with the GPU or more particularly the vram?


Main point is do you think just maybe there is a problem with the game or/and something on your end? Rather than this being 100% only down to vram and nothing else? The better argument to use from your end would be that ubi did a "workaround" for gpu users with lesser vram by offloading some of the workload to RAM hence the 4/5+GB increase that happened hence why it is beneficial having 32GB RAM instead of 16GB....



As for the 3070 bit, it was in the rtx thread and you were mentioning different games, not fc 6:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...are-etc-thread.18898329/page-20#post-35362630

I've said before, it would have been great to have had more vram on both the 70 and 80 but ultimately, it wouldn't have made that much of a difference since grunt is still the main thing lacking as has been evidenced many times now. I would say the only title so far which might be problematic for purely vram limitation on the 3070 across both 4k and 1440 would be fc 6 with the hd texture pack, like the comments in that thread I made, sure you could say, 3070 will also have issues with vram limitations in things like cp2077 but, we all know that lack of the grunt is the first problem to hit the 3070 first hence reducing settings also reduce vram in return..... afaik @TNA has said he has yet to encounter any issues to do with "only" vram (?) and he plays at 4k too.
 
gpuerrilla said:
I get what you are saying, but if you want to run games with blur on and low quality all the time you likely should have bought the model or two down in the SKU. If you switch to another display (higher spec and res) in the future you will need all the grunt you can afford.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what you prefer. In the current market, you have to choose between more VRAM (AMD) and better RT (nvidia). If I had to choose , I would go ray tracing every time and turn down textures to see those effects. I play Cyberpunk with DLSS performance which heavily blurs the textures, but I find the added benefit from RT makes for an overall better image than sharper textures with no RT.

Personally, I don’t think the 12GB 3080 has any more longevity than the 10GB variant and Nvidia could not release a 16GB variant.
 
Nexus18 said:
@TNA has said he has yet to encounter any issues to do with "only" vram (?) and he plays at 4k too.
Click to expand...
Only game so far has been Dying Light 2. One was that cut scene I mentioned and also I had some issues when the second part of the map opened up with the tall buildings. Certain areas of that map would tank fps for a short while (not sure if vram or not) but then it would go away, but it was not a case of oh well, I can’t play this game now I better get a 3090… :cry:

This is only because I was playing it with RT though. If I turned off RT and played it like AMD users the game used way under 8GB.
 
Tired9 said:
Not long ago a 3090 user was using all 24GB of his Vram on COD Warzone, Me with the same settings used a max of 6.7GB on 4K.

LOL
Click to expand...
That's normal and can be adjusted using the in-game video options or via the config file for the game.

The COD engine will use all available video memory, up until the maximum set using the options mentioned above.

You can set the game to use up to 100% of available video memory is so desired. Default (it varies depending on which COD game you play) is 80-85%. It can be adjusted up to 90% via video options or 100% using the config file. It can also be lowered to 70% using the video options, or even lower via the config file.

If you set it too low, the game starts rendering low quality textures in places rather than tanking FPS. There may be stuttering or hitching as you move around the world also.
 
Last edited:
Shaz12 said:
The ultra quality textures without the pack in FC6 lacked a lot of details on clothing, guns even when sitting 5 foot away from TV. Usually the differences are never this stark. I can barely tell that the HD Pack is used in WD Legion but in FC6 it adds a lot to the visuals.

You can’t compare textures and ray tracing effects as the latter is transformative to visuals when done right. Get inside a car in Cyberpunk and move through the game world. You will see beautiful reflections on the car reflecting everything and adds a lot to immersion. Get out of the car and even when walking you can see reflections on rougher surfaces. RT actually adds lighting back into the scene in many areas which look like they are oddly floating with rasterisation. On the other hand, you can’t see enhanced textures beyond a certain point unless you stop and look at them closely.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it.

Like I said earlier, the 2 big differences you witness when it comes to people comparing RT and texture differences is:

- texture comparisons are purely still based shots and guaranteed most of the time using 300% zooms with highlighted circles to show the difference....
- RT comparisons, of course you also get loads of screenshot comparisons too but they don't need to be zoomed in to show the difference and in order to show the real benefit of RT, it has to be done in motion to show how the environment etc. reacts to RT lighting with different light sources, shadows being created and reflections as you move around

TNA said:
Only game so far has been Dying Light 2. One was that cut scene I mentioned and also I had some issues when the second part of the map opened up with the tall buildings. Certain areas of that map would tank fps for a short while (not sure if vram or not) but then it would go away, but it was not a case of oh well, I can’t play this game now I better get a 3090… :cry:

This is only because I was playing it with RT though. If I turned off RT and played it like AMD users the game used way under 8GB.
Click to expand...
:cry:
 
I should add games I play typically dont have such granular settings like medium, high, very high, ultra for textures.

e.g. FF7 remake has high and low for textures, thats it. Low is pretty bad.

FF15's highest without the texture addon pack is passable, but once I tried the HQ texture pack I didnt look back. GTA5 is probably the one game I have played that has more than 3 or so texture levels, but even that game you can clearly tell the difference.

Also I tend to play games that are RPG's or RPG elements, so I absorb the environment and I hate it when I have a high quality rendered character standing next to a blurry wall or something, it just looks jarring, hence the importance I place on it. Textures in the past were considered a free quality win as they basically dont need any GPU grunt, just VRAM. But things have now changed with VRAM requirements catching up with capacity of the cards been sold, the VRAM hasnt scaled with the processing power increase.

What this thread has shown (thank you to those who made the effort to post the screenshots, especially Poneros) is that we all have different sensitivity to the differences, and the genre of game played perhaps has an impact, in Tired9's situation with not enough grunt to play MSAA at 60fps I likely would have chosen to play that game at 30fps, we are all different in what we value. Which is why I dont take other's opinions at face value without screenshots or clips to see for myself.

Ironically I dont care as much for RT as others, so swings and roundabouts. :)
 
Last edited:
I am sure next gen cards will have more vram. I mean 2 years will have have passed so I can see 4070 having 16gb gddr 6 as they won’t want to look bad vs AMD’s offering which will no doubt be able to run RT this time around.
 
TNA said:
I am sure next gen cards will have more vram. I mean 2 years will have have passed so I can see 4070 having 16gb gddr 6 as they won’t want to look bad vs AMD’s offering which will no doubt be able to run RT this time around.
Click to expand...

Fingers crossed, but so far it looks like AMD is sticking to the budget options by not developing dedicated RT cores.
 
Nexus18 said:
Way to completely ignore perfectly valid points to debunk that too :cry: :D

Hey guys, I got stuck in a car on cp 2077 last night, restarting the game fixed it! Must have been an issue with my 3080 and its 10gb vram.....


:cry:
Click to expand...
Oh so you did read it, digest it but went down the politicians 'but you did arse up' on something related to but not the cause of, to try and deflect and debunk the real issue.
 
tommybhoy said:
Oh so you did read it, digest it but went down the politicians 'but you did arse up' on something related to but not the cause of, to try and deflect and debunk the real issue.
Click to expand...

Completely lost me now....

Suggest you re-read my post a couple of times to process it.

Like I said in the past, the much smarter and better argument for you to use from your end would be this:

The better argument to use from your end would be that ubi did a "workaround" for gpu users with lesser vram by offloading some of the workload to RAM hence the 4/5+GB increase that happened hence why it is beneficial having 32GB RAM instead of 16GB....
Click to expand...

Would you look at that, everyone's arguments are so weak with no substance, I'm now having to debate with myself! :cry:
 
Shaz12 said:
Personally, I don’t think the 12GB 3080 has any more longevity than the 10GB variant and Nvidia could not release a 16GB variant.
Click to expand...

Brave statement on here my friend. Lets see if the pitchforks come out like they did if I posted remotely anything like that! :cry::p

chrcoluk said:
Also I tend to play games that are RPG's or RPG elements, so I absorb the environment and I hate it when I have a high quality rendered character standing next to a blurry wall or something, it just looks jarring, hence the importance I place on it. Textures in the past were considered a free quality win as they basically dont need any GPU grunt, just VRAM. But things have now changed with VRAM requirements catching up with capacity of the cards been sold, the VRAM hasnt scaled with the processing power increase.

What this thread has shown (thank you to those who made the effort to post the screenshots, especially Poneros) is that we all have different sensitivity to the differences, and the genre of game played perhaps has an impact...Which is why I dont take other's opinions at face value without screenshots or clips to see for myself.

Ironically I dont care as much for RT as others, so swings and roundabouts. :)
Click to expand...

Seems you were missing in some of the threads, nice to see some similar viewpoints on it. :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom