10GB vram enough for the 3080? Discuss..

[K1LaW8tt5]

Didn't you read?



I posted

In reply to

As it made no sense.

I did read
and I asked you not to comment if you didn't read the original statement made and question.
(if you find it the below might make sense and the conversation can hopefully end)
why is 10GB now the MAXIMUM limit a game developer will ever use? why can they not create a game that might require 11GB,12GB,16GB or 24GB at the HIGHEST setting?.
I'm not asking if it should be playable at 10GB and below at slightly reduced settings. that's common sense. I'm not even getting involved in the debate of whether 10GB is enough for now. I just asked why all of a sudden the magic 10GB is the new MAXIMUM limit for PC games as stated by the guy I had originally quoted.

 

[Wrinkly]

I did read
and I asked you not to comment if you didn't read the original statement made and question.
(if you find it the below might make sense and the conversation can hopefully end)
why is 10GB now the MAXIMUM limit a game developer will ever use? why can they not create a game that might require 11GB,12GB,16GB or 24GB at the HIGHEST setting?.
I'm not asking if it should be playable at 10GB and below at slightly reduced settings. that's common sense. I'm not even getting involved in the debate of whether 10GB is enough for now. I just asked why all of a sudden the magic 10GB is the new MAXIMUM limit for PC games as stated by the guy I had originally quoted.

Next gen consoles only have 16GB of RAM, TOTAL and appear to target 4k. 10GB is then a sensible target for maximum in a few games, which also covers what will be very successful 3080 sales. Most games will target 8GB as maximum as the majority of PC cards will be 8GB for the next few years.

 

[K1LaW8tt5]

Next gen consoles only have 16GB of RAM, TOTAL and appear to target 4k. 10GB is then a sensible target for maximum in a few games, which also covers what will be very successful 3080 sales. Most games will target 8GB as maximum as the majority of PC cards will be 8GB for the next few years.

right so consoles set the benchmark for the MAXIMUM quality settings a game can have on a PC and so does the 3080 (but not the 2080ti or 1080ti or 6800,6800xt or 6900xt).
It's the same as me saying most people don't have GPUs capable of ray tracing so don't include it as an option in a pc game.

 

[Dem2k]

Next gen consoles only have 16GB of RAM, TOTAL and appear to target 4k. 10GB is then a sensible target for maximum in a few games, which also covers what will be very successful 3080 sales. Most games will target 8GB as maximum as the majority of PC cards will be 8GB for the next few years.

Anyone have a white sheet on how the PS5 , XBSX handles memory management between OS, and applications? Theoretically consoles have never really be designed for multitasking as an emphasis like a computer so I doubt they need to reserve 6gb for the OS at all times, they also have SSD storage now so imagine some of that space could be reserved as a cache much like Virtual Memory has done on Windows O/S for years.

I think that saying that the consoles must reserve 6gb is not correct thinking.

 

[Wrinkly]

right so consoles set the benchmark for the MAXIMUM quality settings a game can have on a PC and so does the 3080 (but not the 2080ti or 1080ti or 6800,6800xt or 6900xt).
It's the same as me saying most people don't have GPUs capable of ray tracing so don't include it as an option in a pc game.

Consoles don't generaly set the quality levels, but we are at the launch of the next set of consoles that offer far greater performance than the average gamer's PC, hence they will dictate quality for some time to come.

It's about money. There is no profit working on a higher quality that only 0.001% of gamers (mostly cheapskates) will pay for. If you want to throw a few million extra at a developer then maybe they could add some higher detail, but even then I'd have to question if the average gamer would be able to tell the difference. When a company releases a HD texture pack for their game they are releasing the original textures that were then down sampled and released originaly with their game.

It's interesting as right now we have many on the forums saying they have no interest in raytracing, which is the simplest way of adding quality to a game.

 

[Wrinkly]

Anyone have a white sheet on how the PS5 , XBSX handles memory management between OS, and applications? Theoretically consoles have never really be designed for multitasking as an emphasis like a computer so I doubt they need to reserve 6gb for the OS at all times, they also have SSD storage now so imagine some of that space could be reserved as a cache much like Virtual Memory has done on Windows O/S for years.

I think that saying that the consoles must reserve 6gb is not correct thinking.

I'm saying 6GB for O/S, housekeeping (background downloading, game recording, backups,etc.) and the actual game with it's data(including sound) is sensible. That would leave 10GB for graphics. Microsoft went with a 6/10GB split in RAM speeds for a reason.

 

[james.miller]

Anyone have a white sheet on how the PS5 , XBSX handles memory management between OS, and applications? Theoretically consoles have never really be designed for multitasking as an emphasis like a computer so I doubt they need to reserve 6gb for the OS at all times, they also have SSD storage now so imagine some of that space could be reserved as a cache much like Virtual Memory has done on Windows O/S for years.

I think that saying that the consoles must reserve 6gb is not correct thinking.

It's based on the series X having a 10gb/6gb split on the memory bus, 10Gb of it being faster than the smaller 6gb. It is assumed (reasonably, imo) that devs will want to limit their vram buffers to 10gb maximum for the console games in order to fit inside the 10Gb partition or else risk the assets being bumped in to the slower partition. Nobody said the smaller 6gb is reserved for the OS, but there is an amount of that 6Gb reserved (1Gb i THINK) meaning the game engine, any sounds held in memory ect will have 5gb-ish to play with. and that's on the series X. Obviously, it's different again for the ps5 and the series S.

There's absolutely no reason why they cant go beyond a 10gb buffer on the PC. 10Gb is generous though, so i'm not sure why they'd want to. But there's nothing stopping them.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Next gen consoles only have 16GB of RAM, TOTAL and appear to target 4k. 10GB is then a sensible target for maximum in a few games, which also covers what will be very successful 3080 sales. Most games will target 8GB as maximum as the majority of PC cards will be 8GB for the next few years.

Console games are highly tuned and what they use vram wise i doubt the pc will match and use more. The PC version of games should be running at a higher fidelity as well so more vram needed there as well. If console uses close to 10gb vram i would assume the pc will use more.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

12Gb would be completely fine for a 3080Ti is my guess. Assuming it has a GPU approximately as fast as the 3090.

My take away from all this investigation into vRAM usage is that it needs to be proportional in size to the speed of the GPU. We've seen what happens with modern games when you're up into 8-10Gb territory (Watch Dogs Legion Ultra 4k, FS2020 Ultra 4k, Avengers Ultra 4k) the GPU becomes the bottleneck to a playable frame rate before the vRAM runs out.

 

[K1LaW8tt5]

There's absolutely no reason why they cant go beyond a 10gb buffer on the PC. 10Gb is generous though, so i'm not sure why they'd want to. But there's nothing stopping them.

exactly

 

[Richdog]

12Gb would be completely fine for a 3080Ti is my guess. Assuming it has a GPU approximately as fast as the 3090.

My take away from all this investigation into vRAM usage is that it needs to be proportional in size to the speed of the GPU. We've seen what happens with modern games when you're up into 8-10Gb territory (Watch Dogs Legion Ultra 4k, FS2020 Ultra 4k, Avengers Ultra 4k) the GPU becomes the bottleneck to a playable frame rate before the vRAM runs out.

To support your argument you are quoting some games, that are, with the possible exception of FS2020, unoptimised pieces of crap. WDL and AU4k have been panned in the gaming and tech media specifically for things like that.

It is 2021 and 2022 when we will really start to see games released with better and more optimised engines released that really take advantage of next-gen hardware and then we can really get better sense for VRAM usage vs performance. At the moment the games and engines we have to judge this with are deeply flawed and definitely not true "next gen" titles.

PS: I know they are what we have available now and I accept that, but they are pieces of crap as far as game engine optimisation goes and I would not be making anything other than temporary conclusions on them.

 

[james.miller]

12Gb would be completely fine for a 3080Ti is my guess. Assuming it has a GPU approximately as fast as the 3090.

My take away from all this investigation into vRAM usage is that it needs to be proportional in size to the speed of the GPU. We've seen what happens with modern games when you're up into 8-10Gb territory (Watch Dogs Legion Ultra 4k, FS2020 Ultra 4k, Avengers Ultra 4k) the GPU becomes the bottleneck to a playable frame rate before the vRAM runs out.

This was exactly the argument I made when people were moaning about the gtx970. It ran out of grunt before that 500mb ever became a problem. like i said it would from the beginning. There's only one person i know of on these forums who had problems with a single card, the rest of them were sli users.

You are quoting games as matter-of0fact examples that support your argument that are, with the possible exception of FS2020, unoptimised pieces of crap. WDL and AU4k have been panned in the gaming and tech media specifically for things like that.

He's investigated every game he's be told the 8gb 3070 and 10gb 3080 would choke on and found that not to be the case, and you think he's cherry picking games?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Anyone have a white sheet on how the PS5 , XBSX handles memory management between OS, and applications? Theoretically consoles have never really be designed for multitasking as an emphasis like a computer so I doubt they need to reserve 6gb for the OS at all times, they also have SSD storage now so imagine some of that space could be reserved as a cache much like Virtual Memory has done on Windows O/S for years.

I think that saying that the consoles must reserve 6gb is not correct thinking.

From memory 3GB Max is reserved for the os. I think it is 2.5gb for both consoles

 

[Wrinkly]

Console games are highly tuned and what they use vram wise i doubt the pc will match and use more. The PC version of games should be running at a higher fidelity as well so more vram needed there as well. If console uses close to 10gb vram i would assume the pc will use more.

MS are looking to release the same binary on PC as they do on Xbox. DX12 allows the developer much more fine control over VRAM than previous versions. There is no reason for the PC to use more VRAM than the consoles.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Console games are highly tuned and what they use vram wise i doubt the pc will match and use more. The PC version of games should be running at a higher fidelity as well so more vram needed there as well. If console uses close to 10gb vram i would assume the pc will use more.

Bingo.

Edit
Also not everyone likes to close down all running apps and use the old style explorer look just to free up as much vram as possible

 

[james.miller]

Also not everyone likes to close down all running apps and use the old style explorer look just to free up as much vram as possible

Who on earth does that ?

MS are looking to release the same binary on PC as they do on Xbox. DX12 allows the developer much more fine control over VRAM than previous versions. There is no reason for the PC to use more VRAM than the consoles.

no, i dont agree with this at all. Discreet cards are already more powerful than anything in a new console. You can't bind them to the same set of restrictions just because it seems easier to you. MS already have smart delivery in place, which delivers a tailored version of the game dependant on which console you own, so it would be trivial for MS to deliver a top balls to the wall tier for PC gamers if they wanted to.

 

[Wrinkly]

no, i dont agree with this at all. Discreet cards are already more powerful than anything in a new console. You can't bind them to the same set of restrictions just because it seems easier to you. MS already have smart delivery in place, which delivers a tailored version of the game dependant on which console you own, so it would be trivial for MS to deliver a top balls to the wall tier for PC gamers if they wanted to.

There os no restriction other than performance. Why would MS spend more time and money doing something they don't have to? There is a reason their console uses 99.9% of the same hardware found in PCs. A DirectX extension is all that is needed on the console.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Who on earth does that ?

Admittedly the reference is dated, but when I was a low end (ultra low end?) gamer I remember reading tips about force stopping explorer or setting it to the old style (windows 95 style?) to get as much performance as possible.

 

[james.miller]

There os no restriction other than performance. Why would MS spend more time and money doing something they don't have to? There is a reason their console uses 99.9% of the same hardware found in PCs. A DirectX extension is all that is needed on the console.

MS arent the only ones who publish to gamepass or the xbox store.
the PS5 doesnt use direct x.
You're still assuming a tier that targets more capable hardware than a series X would be any more difficult to produce for.
what you are suggesting would almost kill demand for enthusiast class hardware or above from gamers overnight. If there were no games to justify anything faster than the hardware in a series X, that's bad news for the industry full stop. Nobody wants that.

Admittedly the reference is dated, but when I was a low end (ultra low end?) gamer I remember reading tips about force stopping explorer or setting it to the old style (windows 95 style?) to get as much performance as possible.

Yeah 20 years ago I do still have to close windows ect though, but only really anything that uses GPU accelleration. Some games don't play well when you've got a limited amount of vram and you've got sky go or netflix running munching vram. It's definitely a real problem if you like to have everything open all the time.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

To support your argument you are quoting some games, that are, with the possible exception of FS2020, unoptimised pieces of crap. WDL and AU4k have been panned in the gaming and tech media specifically for things like that.

It is 2021 and 2022 when we will really start to see games released with better and more optimised engines released that really take advantage of next-gen hardware.

That's plausible, but I expect unlikely. What they have been panned for is that people cannot put all the presets to ultra without getting a bad frame rate. That doesn't necessarily have to be because the game is unoptimized, it could just be that the quality settings of the game are very high and exceed current hardware. Optimization means a very specific thing especially within computing and people often blanket use this term whenever they can't just crank the settings to max. Often if you ask someone the reason why they believe something is unoptimized they'll just say it runs badly. That's not what that means.