• 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.
Are you saying that Nvidia thought 10GB was enough then got it wrong? That could be a whole new 970 mess with cards having to be refunded.

There's this slight possibility that GDDR6X was in short supply and nvidia decided to market this SKU first to tide over launch commitments
It kinda makes some sense when you look at how their schedule is expected to develop.
 
Are you saying that Nvidia thought 10GB was enough then got it wrong? That could be a whole new 970 mess with cards having to be refunded.

If there is indeed a 3070 16gb and 3080 20gb its sending the wrong message as they sort of done away with this since the 9 series.

They have also sent the wrong message by calling the 80 chip a flagship as now its compared to the last 2 flagships which have more Vram. Had they called the 3090 the flagship then the 3080's direct comparison is the 2080 8gb so there is an increase in vram.
 
There's this slight possibility that GDDR6X was in short supply and nvidia decided to market this SKU first to tide over launch commitments
It kinda makes some sense when you look at how their schedule is expected to develop.

If that was the case then the boards would have space for chips on both sides.
 
If that was the case then the boards would have space for chips on both sides.

I think the short supply might be one answer which is why the FE has two blank spaces for Mem chips. I reckon it should have been a 12gb card with a 384bit bus (did I get that right?)
 
If there is indeed a 3070 16gb and 3080 20gb its sending the wrong message as they sort of done away with this since the 9 series.

They have also sent the wrong message by calling the 80 chip a flagship as now its compared to the last 2 flagships which have more Vram. Had they called the 3090 the flagship then the 3080's direct comparison is the 2080 8gb so there is an increase in vram.
Didn’t the 2060 come with multiple RAM amounts? 3GB and 6GB?
 
The real problem is, for £650+ there should be no question in the first place. The 3080 should have released with more full stop. Nvidia would not be bringing 20gb cards in the first place if they thought it was enough. When was the last time a Nvidia supposed flagship 80 card had 2 x the vram versions or even the 70.
This is actually a really good point... in 2020 you would not expect a flagship to have 2x memory configs. It supports the impression that the initial 10GB VRAM limit was an undesirable situation for Nvidia brought about by GDDR6x costs and availability... they even confirmed it was a limitation based on costs in their Nvidia blog Q&A. We have never seen a flagship VRAM amount questioned or defended like this before and that should tell people a lot.

I very curious as to what the 3080 performance would have been like with 20GB of regular GDDR6... I wonder what the actual performance impact would be.
 
It did? I had to return a 970 due to performance issues that didn't appear on a 290. That was just at 1440p.
Yeah absolutely some people had real issues. But the return rates were what, 5% as i recall? of every 100 cards sold, 5 were sent back and probably half of them had real issues. The bigger issue was how nVidia handled the situation, rather than the hardware itself. Then again, you say just at 1440p but it was never a card design to game beyond that anyway. That's what the 980 and ti were for, really. Put it this way, 5 years after it's launch (last year) Techspot did a great review in which they said the 970 was a more consistent performer next to the 290. There are caveats in there of course as we know the 290 stretched their legs more with newer games and they didnt compare it to the 290x which would have been a few % faster but regardless of that, they still didnt find any situations where memory limitations destroyed the performance before the lack of GPU grunt did.

Closing Remarks
There you have it, the GTX 970 went from ~10-15% faster four years ago to a percent faster in 2019 against the Radeon R9 290 based on our 33 game test sample that includes many newer titles.

Despite its 3.5GB of fast VRAM, the GTX 970 remains the more reliable performer which might surprise some of you, especially after you’ve no doubt heard over and over again how it’s doomed and will be completely useless before too long. It's also the cooler GPU but most important of all, either solution will let you play games at 1080p comfortably all these years later.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1822-geforce-gtx-970-vs-radeon-r9-290/

If that was the case then the boards would have space for chips on both sides.
I thought the 2gb modules were drop in replacements to be fair. that might not be the case..
Actually it doesn't. Try harder in future to refute them.
Yes it does. I dont need to refute them, you did that all by yourself. Bore off.

This is actually a really good point... in 2020 you would not expect a flagship to have 2x memory configs. It supports the impression that the initial 10GB VRAM limit was an undesirable situation for Nvidia brought about by GDDR6x costs and availability... they even confirmed it was a limitation based on costs in their Nvidia blog Q&A. We have never seen a flagship VRAM amount questioned or defended like this before and that should tell people a lot.

I very curious as to what the 3080 performance would have been like with 20GB of regular GDDR6... I wonder what the actual performance impact would be.

What's the real difference in bandwidth? Somebody with a 3080 might be able to downclock the memory and get a reasonable estimation of the performance..
 
If there is indeed a 3070 16gb and 3080 20gb its sending the wrong message as they sort of done away with this since the 9 series.

They have also sent the wrong message by calling the 80 chip a flagship as now its compared to the last 2 flagships which have more Vram. Had they called the 3090 the flagship then the 3080's direct comparison is the 2080 8gb so there is an increase in vram.

Not if but when theres been enough slip ups from third parties and Nvidia have never denied it. Its also funny that if the shoe were on the other foot if the green cards had 16gb and AMD's only 10gb you'd never hear the end of it there'd be memes and ridicule all over the net. But this way around everything is fine.
 
Not if but when theres been enough slip ups from third parties and Nvidia have never denied it. Its also funny that if the shoe were on the other foot if the green cards had 16gb and AMD's only 10gb you'd never hear the end of it there'd be memes and ridicule all over the net. But this way around everything is fine.

Doesn't this thread's continous discussion suggest that plenty of people think that it is not fine?
 
Doesn't this thread's continous discussion suggest that plenty of people think that it is not fine?
Yes, it objectively does indeed suggest that it is not fine in the minds of a significant enough proportion of people. It's been criticised in the media and among regular users, so it's definitely of enough concern to people to become a talking point and source of contention.
 
I agree there is something strange going on.

A 3070 16GB will make a 3080 10GB look oddly placed.

The "10GB is enough" fanatical crowd will be here any moment to tell us that the GDDR6X memory is so fast, that a higher than 10GB frame buffer will never be required, as the bandwidth is infinitely faster than anything before, rendering VRAM requirements redundant.

Meanwhile.... 3080 20GB "pointless editions" roll off the line, with 16GB 3070's in close succession. Hmmmmm.
 
10Gb of VRAM is right on the limit.

They really should have just fitted the two missing 1Gb GDDR6X chip's and gone with 12Gb.
But they didn't so we have to live with a slight VRAM short fall in a handful of games.

As long as it does not cause a massive frame rate drop off, I'm really not that fussed about it.
 
Where did i say that we shouldn't evaluate things ourselves? Also wasn't the tessellation issue a lack of optmisation?
Since you decided to bring it up, If you want to evaluate it, then do it properly. Buy the game. Play through the entire game (not just a small section) and flick between the two texture details. Then come back and give us your detailed breakdown. Don't watch some compressed youtube video and try to make a decision from that.
Heh. Yeah right.

By the time I saw your posted I see @james.miller sorted you out anyway :D

Got to love all the strawmaning in here now by the 10gb is not enough crowd. They are now trying to paint the picture that we are saying 10gb is enough for many generations or using 8K to justify their positions. Lol.

I still stick by my position. If you are buying a ampere card and intend to keep it for more than one gen then sure, maybe consider more than 10gb. But for the rest of us who upgrade every gen 10gb will be fine. By the time it becomes an issue I will be rocking a Hopper or Arcturus card that will have more vram anyways ;)

To me it simply makes more sense to save the extra ~£200 by going 10gb now and add that on top of the money I get for selling the 3080 to get a 4070/80 :D


10Gb of VRAM is right on the limit.

They really should have just fitted the two missing 1Gb GDDR6X chip's and gone with 12Gb.
But they didn't so we have to live with a slight VRAM short fall in a handful of games.

As long as it does not cause a massive frame rate drop off, I'm really not that fussed about it.
Does not work that way unfortunately. 12gb would indeed have been much more ideal if it did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom