• 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.

Is 8GB of Vram enough for the 3070

Darujhistan said:
It's not as fun as defending NV as they cheap out on VRAM though.
Click to expand...

They don't "cheap out", you do understand that if Nvidia added more vRAM to the card that it costs them to buy those RAM modules and they pass that cost on to you as a consumer. What do you think, that AMD are going to install 12Gb or 16Gb on their cards and then eat the costs out of their own profit margin, rather than pass on the costs of the memory on to the consumer because they're "didn't cheap out"?

There's an entire 80+ page thread on why 10Gb is enough for the 3080.

But yes this is a dumb little game. AMD are cheaping out because they're not putting 32Gb of vRAM on their cards. Anyone who disagrees is just defending AMD being cheap.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
They don't "cheap out", you do understand that if Nvidia added more vRAM to the card that it costs them to buy those RAM modules and they pass that cost on to you as a consumer. What do you think, that AMD are going to install 12Gb or 16Gb on their cards and then eat the costs out of their own profit margin, rather than pass on the costs of the memory on to the consumer because they're "didn't cheap out"?

There's an entire 80+ page thread on why 10Gb is enough for the 3080.

But yes this is a dumb little game. AMD are cheaping out because they're not putting 32Gb of vRAM on their cards. Anyone who disagrees is just defending AMD being cheap.
Click to expand...


Thye do cheap out, they have a history of it, 3.5 GB 970 ripoff ring any bells?

If you can buy an 8GB card for £150 then 8GB on a £500 card is a sick joke.

But you feel free to keep on defending the big corps as they rob people blind. If AMD produce 8GB cards for £500 they'll be just as bad as NV.
 
Darujhistan said:
Thye do cheap out, they have a history of it, 3.5 GB 970 ripoff ring any bells?
Click to expand...

Eurgh The memory split on the 970 happened because of the way the cores were fused off. The only way around that would be to use cores without defects and guess what a fully functional core would have been called? Gm204-400...aka gtx980. If nvidia would have charged 980 prices for a 970 you'd have a point, but they didn't did they? The 970 was far from a ripoff. It was an exceptionally priced card. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good moan.
 
Last edited:
Darujhistan said:
Thye do cheap out, they have a history of it, 3.5 GB 970 ripoff ring any bells?

If you can buy an 8GB card for £150 then 8GB on a £500 card is a sick joke.

But you feel free to keep on defending the big corps as they rob people blind. If AMD produce 8GB cards for £500 they'll be just as bad as NV.
Click to expand...

The 970 as James pointed out is an architectural limitation. And we've seen dual RAM config cards in the past but they're extremely rare. The 1060 had a 3Gb and 6Gb version and guess what, the 6Gb version was more expensive because if you add more RAM modules to a video card you have to pass on that cost to the consumer by charging more for the card. It's not "big corps" being "cheap". AMD are a big corp, they're putting 256bit bus on their memory is that cheap? They're using 16Gbps GDDR6 RAM and not GDDR6x RAM @ 19Gbps, is that "cheap"? Or how abotu we look at the performance of the cards when they're out and instead of judging them on vRAM we judge them on how well they perform at a given task?

vRAM does not give you your performance, the performance comes from the GPU itself not the memory. The memory only needs to be spec'd as big/fast as it needs to be to keep the GPU fed with data to produce the next frame. You're clearly judging the value of the card as related to how much vRAM it has and that's just wrong, it's a bad metric and if you do that you run the risk of making bad purchasing decisions.
 
james.miller said:
Eurgh The memory split on the 970 happened because of the way the cores were fused off. The only way around that would be to use cores without defects and guess what a fully function core would have been called? Gm204-400...aka gtx980. If nvidia would have charged 980 prices for a 970 you'd have a point, but they didn't did they? The 970 was far from a ripoff. It was an exceptionally priced card. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good moan.
Click to expand...


Did they sell it as a 3.5GB card?

Case closed.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
The 970 as James pointed out is an architectural limitation. And we've seen dual RAM config cards in the past but they're extremely rare. The 1060 had a 3Gb and 6Gb version and guess what, the 6Gb version was more expensive because if you add more RAM modules to a video card you have to pass on that cost to the consumer by charging more for the card. It's not "big corps" being "cheap". AMD are a big corp, they're putting 256bit bus on their memory is that cheap? They're using 16Gbps GDDR6 RAM and not GDDR6x RAM @ 19Gbps, is that "cheap"? Or how abotu we look at the performance of the cards when they're out and instead of judging them on vRAM we judge them on how well they perform at a given task?

vRAM does not give you your performance, the performance comes from the GPU itself not the memory. The memory only needs to be spec'd as big/fast as it needs to be to keep the GPU fed with data to produce the next frame. You're clearly judging the value of the card as related to how much vRAM it has and that's just wrong, it's a bad metric and if you do that you run the risk of making bad purchasing decisions.
Click to expand...


8GB of VRAM for £500 is cheaping out, simple as that. They should be 16GB cards for that price, at the very least a 12GB card in the 70 class, the 80 class (and AMD equiv's held to the same standard) should be 16GB minimum, whether it is needed (arguable) or sufficient (again arguable) - is neither here not there it is about value for money and there's no way on earth 8GB for £500 in 2020/21 is anything more than a ripoff, not when there are 4 year old cards with 8GB for £150. The mooted now cancelled ti's with 16GB show that the 70's 8GB is a complete con.

You make my argument for me with the 1060 3GB, what absolute joke that card was....as I said a track record of VRAM ripoffs.

;)
 
PrincessFrosty said:
What do you think, that AMD are going to install 12Gb or 16Gb on their cards and then eat the costs out of their own profit margin, rather than pass on the costs of the memory on to the consumer because they're "didn't cheap out"?
Click to expand...
AMD 8GB DDR6 GPU £188
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-367-ms.html

Cheapest 8GB DDR6 Nvidia GPU i see is £360
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pali...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-04u-pl.html
 
If Nvidia gave an option to buy a 16GB card for an increased price this would be a non issue. Which raises the question, why don't they offer one? The PCBs have space and I can't imagine their GPUs aren't able to support it.

Is it because selling cards with limited RAM means they'll have a shorter useful life and they can profit again selling ones with more memory later?
 
Well I was all for the 3070 until it’s all but confirmed that the 6000 series from AMD will be 16gb across the board. Just hope they focus a lot on software improvements too.
 
Darujhistan said:
But it wasn't what they sold it as, as they settled a false advertising lawsuit, so as I said a VRAM ripoff.
Click to expand...

They sold it as a 4gb card. It has 4gb of usable ram. That's a fact. The lawsuit made a few claims, one of them was about the ram. It was incorrect. What the lawsuit was right about, though it really amounts to nothing, was the advertised number of rops and l2 cache. Nvidia misadvertised those two points, not that it made any difference to the performance of the card. But that's irrelevant when an American lawyer smells a class action lawsuit.
 
james.miller said:
They sold it as a 4gb card. It has 4gb of usable ram. That's a fact. The lawsuit made a few claims, one of them was about the ram. It was incorrect. What the lawsuit was right about, though it really amounts to nothing, was the advertised number of rops and l2 cache. Nvidia misadvertised those two points, not that it made any difference to the performance of the card. But that's irrelevant when an American lawyer smells a class action lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The lied about their product, therefore it was a VRAM ripoff, end of story. They knew exactly what their card was and was not. If it amounted to nothing then it would not have ended with NV settling a false advertising lawsuit.

That's a fact, if there was no issue NV would have brazened it out, but they got caught lying about their VRAM. You can spin it all you like to make NV look good, but the facts remain.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom