Is 8GB of Vram enough for the 3070

[RavenXXX2]

So will I, if they:

• Have the actual stock
• Release asap after announcement
• Shown to actually compete with the 3080
• Price at £500 or less

Yeah you're just a Nvidia fanboy with no intention of going AMD, 3080 competitor for less than £500 and with more vram, jog on.

 

[ColdAsIce]

Yeah you're just a Nvidia fanboy with no intention of going AMD, 3080 competitor for less than £500 and with more vram, jog on.

What are the expectations of the 6800xt?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Still good, I couldn't stomach paying £500 for 8GB as I'm running 4k and want some kind of future proofing.

You're going to be right into GPU limitations in 4k.

The 3070 FE benchmarks out today https://youtu.be/NbZDERlshbQ show it running about 63fps average in RDR in 4k high, 33fps average in Total War: 3 Kingdoms 4k/Ultra, Shadow of the Tomb raider in 4k/High 65fps. Many of the games in this review were running in high presets and not Ultra and so if what you're looking to do is max out Ultra performance in 4k then a 3070 is going to be borderline on many games out right now. And those games are not bottlenecked by vRAM or even really anywhere close to it.

The games out in a few years time may creep closer to an 8Gb vRAM limit but they're also going to hammer the GPU to death. You aren't going to benefit from more vRAM if the GPU can only play the game at like 20fps.

 

[Hickaru]

Still good, I couldn't stomach paying £500 for 8GB as I'm running 4k and want some kind of future proofing.

Yep, 8gb is like **enough** for games released until now except flight simulator and doom eternal at 4k.

So cross gen titles and next gen games will destroy the 8gb so yea that's a bad idea. 10gb is barely enough and 12gb seems to the perfect number.

I don't even like the fact of buying 8gb for 1440p lol. I am going to wait for the newly rumoured 3080ti with 12gb of ddr6x, i hope they release something like that.

I want like 12gb for 1440p cos i keep my cards for 4-5 years...

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I showed this several pages back, Doom eternal real memory usage at 4k Ultra Nightmare is 7Gb roughly, for me slightly under and of that usage most of it was wasted texture pool size which wasn't being used for anything useful. It literally just reserves 4.5Gb of vRAM up front for texture streaming but provides no benefit to doing so. When low or high at about 1Gb is fine.

Flight simulator when measured correctly (real usage) tops out at about 9.5Gb but nothing can run it at those settings even a 3090 chokes on frame rate. In order to get FS2020 to be playable you have to drop the settings down, not because of vRAM limits, even the 24Gb 3090 chokes, but because the demand on the GPU is so high.

 

[Rezident]

No way 8Gb will be enough for new games.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

I showed this several pages back, Doom eternal real memory usage at 4k Ultra Nightmare is 7Gb roughly, for me slightly under and of that usage most of it was wasted texture pool size which wasn't being used for anything useful. It literally just reserves 4.5Gb of vRAM up front for texture streaming but provides no benefit to doing so. When low or high at about 1Gb is fine.
.

On one part of a single level that from your screen shot looks quite enclosed. Also are you really trying to extrapolate your data to the rest of the game?

 

[ALXAndy]

No way 8Gb will be enough for new games.

It already isn't. Tom Logan only tested a small handful of games and even Resi Evil 3 was using too much.

Hardware Unboxed showed that it was totally level pegging at 1440p, but due to many titles hitting limits at 4k the 2080Ti is still ahead. By quite a bit.

This is such a shame tbh. This could have been the best card for generations but it has been hobbled.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

On one part of a single level that from your screen shot looks quite enclosed. Also are you really trying to extrapolate your data to the rest of the game?

I played for about an hour, apparently it's a 4-7hr singleplayer. I think that's a pretty reasonable sample size. Plus the people objecting were saying they were limited by RAM in the menu where it calculates your usage which I didn't have at max on an 8Gb card. I played plenty of outdoor areas ahead in that level where you're running through a ruined city it was no different for comparisons.

Bottom line is with the id Tech 5,6,7 engine, if you set that setting higher you are literally just increasing the pool of vRAM on your card reserved for textures, it's not increasing texture size for you or improving fidelity. And doesn't even seem to affect pop in to any noticeable amount on my PC. It'd be like having a video setting that just said "type in how much vRAM you want to use" and it just sets the pool to that amount, meaning you can exceed any vRAM just typing in a high enough number. It's not actually reflective of anything real to the user.

You can literally open up the console and type is_poolsize "20480" and the game will use about 20Gb of vRAM. You could type in "40960" and use 40Gb and make even the 3090 crash. But so what? The fact they've made Ultra Nightmare 4.5Gb of vRAM seems completely arbitrary to me.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It already isn't. Tom Logan only tested a small handful of games and even Resi Evil 3 was using too much.

This Tom Logan? https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/nvidia_rtx_3070_founders_edition_review/13

Resident Evil 3 DirectX 12 Maximum preset

3070 FE 4k average 72.8 FPS
1080 TI FE 4k average 46.7 FPS

So not only not showing any kind of bottleneck on vRAM as evidenced by comparison to a card with more, the 1080 TI, but also has quite a respectable frame rate way above 60fps. It even inches out the 2080 Ti which is also 11Gb.

Why it is when I do the most curosry of checks on the claims made in these vRAM threads about people claiming something has been "hobbled" or dead before it's even launched...it's trivially shown false.

 

[TNA]

This Tom Logan? https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/nvidia_rtx_3070_founders_edition_review/13

Resident Evil 3 DirectX 12 Maximum preset

3070 FE 4k average 72.8 FPS
1080 TI FE 4k average 46.7 FPS

So not only not showing any kind of bottleneck on vRAM as evidenced by comparison to a card with more, the 1080 TI, but also has quite a respectable frame rate way above 60fps. It even inches out the 2080 Ti which is also 11Gb.

Why it is when I do the most curosry of checks on the claims made in these vRAM threads about people claiming something has been "hobbled" or dead before it's even launched...it's trivially shown false.

Haha. ALXAndy wrecked once again

 

[ALXAndy]

This Tom Logan? https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/nvidia_rtx_3070_founders_edition_review/13

Resident Evil 3 DirectX 12 Maximum preset

3070 FE 4k average 72.8 FPS
1080 TI FE 4k average 46.7 FPS

So not only not showing any kind of bottleneck on vRAM as evidenced by comparison to a card with more, the 1080 TI, but also has quite a respectable frame rate way above 60fps. It even inches out the 2080 Ti which is also 11Gb.

Why it is when I do the most curosry of checks on the claims made in these vRAM threads about people claiming something has been "hobbled" or dead before it's even launched...it's trivially shown false.

Watch the video and listen to what he says.

 

[Darujhistan]

There's conflicting opinions on vRAM usage but actually measuring usage in games is a pretty objective thing. So far in both the 10Gb and 8Gb threads we've seen FUD being spread about vRAM usage for games and I've addressed all the examples where people to have claimed to find this one killer app. But that's not the issue here as you've literally said yourself, you don't particularly care about what people need rather than what they're owed.

You're saying that people are being short changed on vRAM, can you explain what the right amount of vRAM would not "short change" people and why specifically that amount of vRAM would be appropriate for the card. What actual criteria do you use to pick the amount you're picking? Be specific.

It's hilarious that you claim I've ignored examples, I've gone to pretty long lengths in both threads to actually download and install these games, test them with new and improved tools that gather more accurate metrics and even investigate how the games are using the vRAM and what difference those settings make. Demonstrating with evidence these claims are wrong.

I pointed out that as vRAM gets faster and more compact that the price goes up and quoted real world prices of vRAM for the new cards literally being more expensive per Gb than the previous generation by at least 2x more but probably even higher for GDDR6x. It is more difficult to produce these new RAM modules that's why they're more expensive per Gb for Nvidia and AIBs to actually purchase and part of why the cards cost more. I'm sorry but if you don't know about the physical limitations of shrinking electornics then I'd suggest you read something like this https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/24/905789/were-not-prepared-for-the-end-of-moores-law/ what you're going to have to come to accept is that your expectations are wrong, not because I say they're wrong but because they don't accord with reality. It's not a controversial fact that Moore's Law is coming to an end, all the big tech leaders have said it, the principles of physics that define behaviour of electronics at small scales is well known and well studied. As long as you ignore or reject this fact you're going to continue to expect that components get faster at the same rate as previous generations for no additional cost, and this is fundamentally a bad expectation.

Nvidia will sell you whatever you will buy, if you want to buy a 20Gb card then be my guest, but you're going to pay more money for that memory, doesn't matter if it comes from Nvidia or AMD, for every additional Gb chip they put on the card is an additional cost to them which increases the price for you. It's really obvious that you have this chip on your shoulder about big business and getting ripped off and it's leading you to all sorts of odd conclusions.

1. Alrready dealt with that. I'm interested in people getting VFM. So should you be instead you're interested in defending NV in this case.

2. And still people come up examples opposite to your what you're saying, so it's the debate is still a debate in my eyes. Your case is not proven.

3. Exactly, they'll sell the easily pleased and the white knights anything that's a fact. No my expectations are not wrong, you're continued shilling for NV is clear to see and quite weird IMO.

4. You keep banging on about Moore's law and limitations, yet cearly there was no VRAM limitations on Ampere other than the ones NV artifically placed on it with their gimped 70 and 80 cards...

5. It's clear you have a problem with anyone who doesn't accept your opinions as gospel or kneel down for your beloved tech giants. You have a warped sense of priorites which leads you to defend big business rather than the consumer.

 

[Darujhistan]

Name a card from the start of 2019 that is value for money?

Name a card if we were buying new from today that is value for money?

Irrelevant.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Watch the video and listen to what he says.

I'm assuming you're referring to this https://youtu.be/pvXz-85m0V4?t=440

All he says is resident evil with everything turned up to the hilt you can get up to that 8gb. OK, where's the evidence of that?

We've shown already that resident evils measurement of video memory is not accurate, the stupid values it shows in the menu were debunked here as just flat out wrong https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/resident-evil-3-best-settings/. Guru3d has memory measurement at 7.4Gb here https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pag...-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,4.html but that article was done in March, long before we had the tools to measure actual memory usage of games rather than just the memory allocated. Which reliably shown malloc to be huge over estimation in most cases.

Does anyone have the resident evil 3 remak? I don't and I'm not downloading another game just to prove this point again, I've already done deep dives on a number of games. If you have it can you just set those max settings and then use the new afterburner per process memory feature as described here https://www.resetera.com/threads/msi-afterburner-can-now-display-per-process-vram.291986/ and actually measure real usage. That'd be a big help.

 

[ALXAndy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFAfOqTzc18&ab_channel=HardwareUnboxed

14:30.

"Increasing the resolution to 4k removes any and all CPU bottlenecks. And here we can see the 3070 is between 19 and 37% slower than the 3080. Though when not limited by VRAM capacity it's only up to 28% slower"

This is why yesterday I did not even attempt to spend hours waffling. I understand what happens to a card this gen when VRAM is breached. It streams from memory. Which is nowhere near as bad as the old way of streaming from your paging file. Thus, the game can still be playable but the FPS will be much lower, like we see in the video above, Doom Eternal being played properly and not cherry picked and so on.

I'm not getting into a stupid tit for tat argument with someone over this. I am not spending hours of my life wasted on trying to convince any one of anything. If you blindly think 8gb is enough going forward or can fit the metrics into your argument about how it is enough if you just drop settings then fine.

However. If you are going to do that (and start deviating away from benchmarks in order to make a game run, and or reduce settings? you may as well buy a console, which is my part of that argument some didn't seem to quite understand. IE - if you are about making compromises buy a console. That is not why people game on a PC, and it is not why they become enthusiasts and it certainly IS NOT about spending over double the amount of money for what is, theoretically the same thing.

If you want to continue debating it? quote the videos of the tech press who don't agree with you and put the worlds to rights that way because as a enthusiast who has been burned three times by "not enough VRAM" you will get nowhere arguing the toss with me.

TNA. Just because someone disagrees with pretty much the whole world and is prepared to slap out 10,000 word essays about the subject doesn't make them any more right. It just means they will just continue to waffle.

 

[Darujhistan]

No way 8Gb will be enough for new games.

And why would you settle for yesterday's VRAM anyway?

 

[TNA]

TNA. Just because someone disagrees with pretty much the whole world and is prepared to slap out 10,000 word essays about the subject doesn't make them any more right. It just means they will just continue to waffle.

Lol. I do not agree with everything he says (or anyone actually). I just said that to pull your leg mainly to be honest

That said Resident Evil 3 does not seem to be a game that uses a lot of VRAM to me.

And why would you settle for yesterday's VRAM anyway?

Exactly, go YOLO and buy the future's VRAM and get a 3090!

 

[ALXAndy]

And why would you settle for yesterday's VRAM anyway?

8gb has been around for years and years now.

It's blatantly obvious Nvidia were worried about upping it, as then the 3070 would have been the best card they cracked out in a decade for value. Instead they have given a questionable amount and thus know you'll be back for more. Which is fine, so long as people understand that.

 

[ALXAndy]

Lol. I do not agree with everything he says (or anyone actually). I just said that to pull your leg mainly to be honest

That said Resident Evil 3 does not seem to be a game that uses a lot of VRAM to me.


Exactly, go YOLO and buy the future's VRAM and get a 3090!

If you were to ask me what games use more VRAM? I would probably get it COMPLETELY barse ackwards. IE, a game so finely tuned and made as Doom Eternal would NOT be one I would choose.

It all just comes down to the texture sizes at the end of the day, and they won't be decreasing with bonafide 4k consoles in existence. Let alone two.