I agree. Ngreedia has been skimpy on VRAM for many years.
It's their strategy to make cards outdated 3 years after launch.
You bought 780 Ti? Too bad, in 2016 3GB is not enough!
You bought RTX 3080? Too bad, in 2023 10 GB is not enough!
You bought RTX 5080? Too bad, in 2028 16 GB is not enough!
You bought RTX 6080? Too bad in 2030 24 GB is not enough!

WarigatorI agree. Ngreedia has been skimpy on VRAM for many years.
It's their strategy to make cards outdated 3 years after launch.
You bought 780 Ti? Too bad, in 2016 3GB is not enough!
You bought RTX 3080? Too bad, in 2023 10 GB is not enough!
You bought RTX 5080? Too bad, in 2028 16 GB is not enough!
You bought RTX 6080? Too bad in 2030 24 GB is not enough!

In 2026 10 GB is fine, let alone 2023, especially considering most people don't play on ultra, and enable upscaling and thus go down a resolution step if they turn on RT.

The thing with RAM and VRAM, is that there usually is a "threshold", after which games start running better, and after that there are diminishing returns (until more advanced software appears which needs even more RAM or VRAM).

RTX 3080 10 GB is still a powerful GPU, but its 10 GB VRAM is no longer enough for reliable 2160p / Ultra textures / RT / PT / frame generation in modern 2025–2026 games. 12 GB is now often the practical floor, and 16 GB is the safer target.

Alan Wake II with RT pushes VRAM above 10 GB even at 1080p, needs 12 GB at 1440p. Hogwarts Legacy RT ON in 4K Ultra needs 16 GB. With RT, 8 GB fails even at 1080p, 1440p RT needs 12 GB minimum. Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart uses around 11.2 GB at 1080p Very High + RT, more than 12 GB are necessary with frame generation on. Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora requires ~12.6 GB at 1440p Ultra and 16 GB cards have much better 1% lows.

Tom’s Hardware found that RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB is 39.6% behind the 16 GB version in 1440p with turned on ray-tracing.

WarigatorYou bought RTX 6080? Too bad in 2030 24 GB is not enough!

Fingers crossed but chances are the 6080 could get only 20GB on a 320 bit bus and a year after that the 6080 Super will have 24GB on a 384 bit bus. 🤔

btarunr in NVIDIA Readies Rubin-based GeForce RTX 60-series with Massive RT Performance GainsThe rumor mill has started grinding about NVIDIA's next-generation gaming GPU, and it looks like NVIDIA does not want to allow the current market environment to get in the way of implementing its prod…

dgianstefaniIn 2026 10 GB is fine, let alone 2023, especially considering most people don't play on ultra, and enable upscaling and thus go down a resolution step if they turn on RT.

If you need to make all sorts of adjustments to make it fit it means that the buffer is, generally speaking, less than ideal.

5060 Ti 16 GB is much more future-oriented than 8 GB version which is going to gradually fall behind more and more often.

Warigator
5060 Ti 16 GB is much more future-oriented than 8 GB version which is going to gradually fall behind more and more often.

And how future proofed is spending an extra $100/25% for the VRAM on an entry level card?

I'm worried about that Nvidia, later this year, is going to try to convince gamers that the amount of VRAM they offer are enough and they have workarounds with AI. Like they tried to convince us recently that DLSS 5 is awesome and we ought to love it.

dgianstefaniAnd how future proofed is spending an extra $100/25% for the VRAM on an entry level card?

This depends on which segments we consider as "entry-level", because this is debatable.

source link: www.computerbase.de/artikel/gaming/indiana-jones-und-der-grosse-kreis-benchmark-test.90500/seite-2

With 8 and 10 GB, there are also major problems in Full HD

8 GB is clearly not enough for the hyper-textures even in Full HD, there is nothing more than a jerking. And the Giga textures are still too much for an 8 GB graphics card, which runs much better than Hyper, but still stutters a lot. And the ultra textures are still too much, even if the average frame rate is right, the game still lags significantly. Only from the Medium setting do 8 GB accelerators no longer have any problems – yes, even high textures are still too much.

With a 12 GB VRAM, WQHD can be played well with the hyper-textures and even in higher resolutions, corresponding graphics cards are stable, at least for short gaming times - and experience has shown that the memory consumption of games with the id tech engine does not increase any further.

However, the maximum performance of 12 GB in Ultra HD is not yet available. The frame rate only rises to the maximum from a 16 GB graphics card, even if the frame pacing is no longer confused with 12 GB.

2006 → 2016 : 512 MB → 8192 MB = 16× in 10 years
2016 → 2026 : 8192 MB → 16384 MB = 2× in 10 years
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-7900-gtx.c154 <---- 512 MB VRAM
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-5070-ti.c4243 <--- 16384 MB VRAM

*RTX 5090 should not be counted for this argument, because it is a halo/luxury product, not the normal high-end baseline.

TheGeekn°72Extremely surprised to hear of this move, I wonder if Valve convinced them? in any case, this is amazing, late but amazing

I wouldn't call this late; there's no point in releasing a product that didn't work right from the get-go and therefore needed a lot more time. Or else they would probably get criticized for releasing it if it did not work. I'll give AMD the benefit of the doubt.

WarigatorI'm worried about that Nvidia, later this year, is going to try to convince gamers that the amount of VRAM they offer are enough and they have workarounds with AI. Like they tried to convince us recently that DLSS 5 is awesome and we ought to love it.

What about Nvidia and their antics? They'll probably try something similar. Since AI ruins games rather than improves them, how about excluding it? This was demonstrated by DLSS5. Lol

dgianstefaniIn 2026 10 GB is fine, let alone 2023, especially considering most people don't play on ultra, and enable upscaling and thus go down a resolution step if they turn on RT.

10GB is not fine in 2026, of course not. Especially not when Nvidia is pushing down buyers throats other technologies such as RT and FG, consuming more VRAM.

We see this every single day, namely that increasing number of games are completely broken on 8GB cards and 10GB cards. You can't have your cake and eat it meaningfully with low VRAM an using other features at the same time.

dgianstefaniIn 2026 10 GB is fine, let alone 2023, especially considering most people don't play on ultra, and enable upscaling and thus go down a resolution step if they turn on RT.

In your own example (which is hope is not cherry picked to show a favorable view) 3080 can barely run 1080p medium settings and that is without RT and FG already (i assume these are medium settings despite the boisterous naming).

You have to remember that game alone may consume 9,2GB, but the OS and other programs also consume VRAM.
Games do not run in a vacuum.

For example i have 1,3GB VRAM used now on a debloated Win11 25H2 with Firefox (53 tabs, 1 window) and 9 smaller programs (like HwInfo64 etc) running in the background.
If i had a 10GB card and i started FH6 at 1080p medium settings then i would not be so sure it wouldn't spill over.

In fact last year i already felt that on my 11GB card at 1440p. With 16GB i can hopefully ride it out until around 2030.
Hopefully by then 16GB will be the low end option already and midrange cards have moved to 24GB (and not cost 1000+ in the process).

Im mean sure, i hope that Windows is intelligent enough to reduce the VRAM consumption of itself and background programs when im running a foreground 3D application, but with MS these days my faith is not high on that.

TomorrowIn your own example (which is hope is not cherry picked to show a favorable view) 3080 can barely run 1080p medium settings and that is without RT and FG already (i assume these are medium settings despite the boisterous naming).

It can barely run 4K Ultra, 1080p/1440p Ultra, not medium, are both fine, learn to read a graph.

It's not cherry picked, latest reviewed game.

dgianstefaniIt can barely run 4K Ultra, 1080p/1440p Ultra, not medium, are both fine, learn to read a graph.

It's not cherry picked, latest reviewed game.

The way the graph colors are arranged that is exactly the impression im getting. It's not like it would be the first time when a game developer names their settings something bizarre.

Very Low > Extreme > Extreme+RT > Extreme+RT+FG

Make it make sense. Plus there are other games where 10GB struggles at 1080p medium.
But typical Nvidia apologists claim these are just "badly coded" or whatever their latest excuse it.

Running at over 90% memory usage for the game alone is not "fine". It's a hair breath a way from trashing to RAM and stuttering issues.

TomorrowRunning at over 90% memory usage for the game alone is not "fine". It's a hair breath a way from trashing to RAM and stuttering issues.

Running at 90% memory usage at Ultra, and to be clear, still within memory, if it's such a problem, maybe turn down one setting on the six year old GPU. Big deal.

The point I'm making is your assertion it couldn't run 1080p medium is categorically wrong. It struggles with 4K Ultra, everything below is fine.

TomorrowThe way the graph colors are arranged that is exactly the impression im getting. It's not like it would be the first time when a game developer names their settings something bizarre.

Seems clear enough to me.

RT+FG (which 30 series can't even do), obviously add load on VRAM.

For games like Zenless Zone Zero, Genshin Impact, and even the new game Neverness to Everness from Hotta Studio, 8 GB is still fine (except in NTE in 4K with RT or PT on highest settings, when you need at least 12 GB).

Tek-Check10GB is not fine in 2026, of course not. Especially not when Nvidia is pushing down buyers throats other technologies such as RT and FG, consuming more VRAM.

A few hours ago i commended below the notebook which was tested here with only 8gib vram. the numbers clearly show 8gib vram is fine even in 1440p. the device ships with a 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 screen. numbers do not lie

Pull up the test yourself and check out the charts. of course we can figure out certain cases you need something else. the same wahtaboutism about those few pieces of software which benefit from the big x3d cache of rzyen cpus. i think it is time to limit the use case or viewpoint to what 80% of the software need, that is most likely not a x3d cpu and most likely a 8gib vram gpu is enough.

WarigatorYou bought 780 Ti? Too bad, in 2016 3GB is not enough!

Huh? 2016 was 3 years after the 780 Ti was released. And by that time, the card was limited by its processing power, not VRAM.

<- Someone who had a 780 Ti and was happy with it till it kicked the bucket in 2017.

dunno, maybe RTX 60 series in Q4 and RTX 60 Super series in Q3 next year?

ShihabHuh? 2016 was 3 years after the 780 Ti was released. And by that time, the card was limited by its processing power, not VRAM.

<- Someone who had a 780 Ti and was happy with it till it kicked the bucket in 2017.

Too tired to search for examples. 3 GB not not enough in some games in 2016. Like for example Far Cry 4, Witcher III and more.

ShihabHuh? 2016 was 3 years after the 780 Ti was released. And by that time, the card was limited by its processing power, not VRAM.

<- Someone who had a 780 Ti and was happy with it till it kicked the bucket in 2017.

I guess you dont remember how R9 Fury was released in 2015 with 4GB of HBM and everyone already back then said that 4GB is not enough.
3GB in 2016 was certainly not enough, unless you only played old games or exclusively at the lowest settings.

I used an 2GB from 2012 to 2016 when in moved to 8GB. 8GB became a problem for me in 2021 when i moved to 11GB.

I remember how some games poorly run on .... Titan X Maxwell in 2015, when using 3440x1440 monitor. I experienced this first-hand. Let alone games on GTX 780 Ti in 2016. 😅

For example, Mirror’s Edge Catalyst was a clear case - the GTX 1060 3 GB collapsed badly compared to the 6GB version. DOOM 2016 required 5 GB VRAM for Nightmare textures. Shadow of Mordor’s Ultra HD texture pack wanted 6 GB. Rise of the Tomb Raider’s Very High textures were also clearly aimed at cards with more than 3 GB. Gears of War 4 recommended 4GB VRAM for its normal recommended spec and 6 GB+ for the higher-end experience.

So yes, a 3 GB card could still run many 2016 games well, especially at 1080p. But for a former "high-end" card, 3 GB was already becoming a real limitation.

DOOM: The Dark Ages with path-tracing at 3840x2160 native with frame generation has VRAM usage at around 20 GB. With upscaling, it can fit much better, but once frame generation is added, it can still sit at 15 to 16 GB.

Now imagine games adding in-game LLM AIs to to have fully dynamic NPCs. 24 GB for graphics + 16 GB for AI models = 40 GB of VRAM in total needed in some newest games by 2029 and this is very likely in my opinion. That is why PS6 needs 40 GB, or it will become obsolete by 2031.

WarigatorToo tired to search for examples. 3 GB not not enough in some games in 2016. Like for example Far Cry 4, Witcher III and more

Again, 2016 was 3 years after the card was released. The Witcher 3 itself was released in 2015, and even the 2016 GTX 980Ti could barely sustain 60fps at 1080p and high settings.
The 780 Ti’s GK110 would have been brought to its knees long before it became starved for memory in that game.

Tomorrowunless you only played old games

You mean like those released around the time the card we’re talking about itself was?

ShihabYou mean like those released around the time the card we’re talking about itself was?

Obviously not. If im saying "old games" today i dont mean games released last year.
If im saying "old games" in the context of 2015-2016 i obviously mean pre-2010's

WarigatorRTX 3080 10 GB is still a powerful GPU, but its 10 GB VRAM is no longer enough for reliable 2160p / Ultra textures / RT / PT / frame generation in modern 2025–2026 games. 12 GB is now often the practical floor, and 16 GB is the safer target.

Alan Wake II with RT pushes VRAM above 10 GB even at 1080p, needs 12 GB at 1440p. Hogwarts Legacy RT ON in 4K Ultra needs 16 GB. With RT, 8 GB fails even at 1080p, 1440p RT needs 12 GB minimum. Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart uses around 11.2 GB at 1080p Very High + RT, more than 12 GB are necessary with frame generation on. Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora requires ~12.6 GB at 1440p Ultra and 16 GB cards have much better 1% lows.

Such a ridiculous argument. Which card from that era (2020) can do 4k ultra +RT / PT in any 2025 - 2026 game?

The best card AMD had can't do 1440p with RT in 2018 games my man, and you want the cheaper lower end 3080 to do that in 2025-2026 game, else nvidia is "greedy". Ok, makes sense

Warigator, Witcher III and more.

Witcher 3 literally used less than 1.5gb at max settings...

JustBenchingWitcher 3 literally used less than 1.5gb at max settings...

Fair enough, Witcher 3 was not the best VRAM-pressure example. I mentioned it in a quick post while saying I was too tired to search properly. I mistook base Witcher III game for a modded one.

But I already gave cleaner examples later: Mirror’s Edge Catalyst at "Hyper" settings, DOOM 2016 with Nightmare textures, Shadow of Mordor Ultra HD texture pack, Rise of the Tomb Raider with Very High textures, and Gears of War 4 with higher settings.

The point is that by 2016 there were already enough newer PC games/settings where 3GB was no longer comfortable for a former high-end card.

A GTX 780 Ti could still run many games well, especially at 1080p with reasonable settings. I’m not denying that. I’m saying 3GB had already become a real limitation in some newer titles/settings, so calling it simply “enough” in 2016 is too generous.

Warigator

Fair enough, Witcher 3 was not the best VRAM-pressure example. I mentioned it in a quick post while saying I was too tired to search properly. I mistook base Witcher III game for a modded one.

But I already gave cleaner examples later: Mirror’s Edge Catalyst at "Hyper" settings, DOOM 2016 with Nightmare textures, Shadow of Mordor Ultra HD texture pack, Rise of the Tomb Raider with Very High textures, and Gears of War 4 with higher settings.

The point is that by 2016 there were already enough newer PC games/settings where 3GB was no longer comfortable for a former high-end card.

A GTX 780 Ti could still run many games well, especially at 1080p with reasonable settings. I’m not denying that. I’m saying 3GB had already become a real limitation in some newer titles/settings, so calling it simply “enough” in 2016 is too generous.

And those are also terrible examples. 780ti couldn't run doom 2016 at ultra 4k regardless of vram, no card of its era could with anything close to 60 fps. They were hovering around 20-30. Why would a card that is fast enough for below 30 fps need to be able to max textures?

_roman_A few hours ago i commended below the notebook which was tested here with only 8gib vram. the numbers clearly show 8gib vram is fine even in 1440p. the device ships with a 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 screen. numbers do not lie

Look, in games where VRAM buffer is not saturated beyond 8GB, it's fine. Users will need to know which games they play and which settings and technologies they use, as this will influence VRAM usage. It's an educational journey to discover the limits of 8GB VRAM. Public testers have done their homework comprehensively and we know where those limits are in increasing number of games. If you are aware of those limits and still ok with it, all is good.

In addition, you should know that testing GPUs in variety of laptops is notoriously unreliable, unless there are two identical machines with different GPUs, as various vendors implement different power envelops with the same GPUs and implement silicon hardware in different chassis design. This often leads to many performance anomalies and bizarre measurements, such as the ones below:

1. M5070Ti is both faster and slower than M5070 in different laptops


2. M5070 is slower than M5060 in different laptops

_roman_Pull up the test yourself and check out the charts. of course we can figure out certain cases you need something else. the same wahtaboutism about those few pieces of software which benefit from the big x3d cache of rzyen cpus. i think it is time to limit the use case or viewpoint to what 80% of the software need, that is most likely not a x3d cpu and most likely a 8gib vram gpu is enough.

I check a wide range of tests regularly, perhaps too many, and I am more than acutely aware of growing number of cases where limits of 8GB apply. Everything is fine if people are aware of those limits and accept them. Here are a few examples of limits, most recently tested on Forza Horizon 6, where 5060 8GB vs 5060 16GB, allegedly the same card, behave completely differently due to VRAM differences. The 8GB model is severely limited in scenarios where 16GB model works just fine.

A few more examples. I won't spam the thread with even more examples. A few is enough to show the flavour of limits.


Even in 1080p, 8GB quickly becomes a problem the moment you want to use more technologies, so heavily advertised to mainstream gamers by Nvidia and AMD alike. Let's not be naive and blind to where limits of 8GB cards are. When I play Flight Simulator in 4K, with additional 3D building packages loaded over densely populated urban areas, my card uses more than 16GB and often commits more than 18GB, so it's always good to have a few extra GB as a headroom. And this is in pure raster, without turning on additional technologies that consume more VRAM.

dgianstefaniAnd how future proofed is spending an extra $100/25% for the VRAM on an entry level card?

Lol! It's today-proofed already, as the screenshot clearly showed that 8GB model was broken in this game.

WarigatorI'm worried about that Nvidia, later this year, is going to try to convince gamers that the amount of VRAM they offer are enough and they have workarounds with AI. Like they tried to convince us recently that DLSS 5 is awesome and we ought to love it.

Nothing to worry about. They have officially moved gaming revenue into 'edge computing' section on their latest earning call. It clearly shows the direction of travel.