Would you buy a 4 GB graphics card in 2022?

[lexluthermiester]

The 6500XT is 15% faster and 20% more expensive.

Yeah and also newer with drivers that are going to continue being supported for the foreseeable future. AMD will be retiring the RX 5XX series soon... Also, brand new cards instead of used. IF you're going to nitpick, I'm going to take you to task..

 

[chrcoluk]

Not gonna lie if 4000 series has decent VRAM and by some miracle has sane MSRP, I may go for a 4080 FE or 4070 FE. Purely for the VRAM upgrade. The reality is though MSRP will be much higher so will stay on my 3080 for a while.

 

[Chrispy_]

Yeah and also newer with drivers that are going to continue being supported for the foreseeable future. AMD will be retiring the RX 5XX series soon... Also, brand new cards instead of used. IF you're going to nitpick, I'm going to take you to task..

You've failed at reading comprehension yet again, fabricating in your own mind that I'm recommending the RX570 over the 6500XT.

I brought up the 570 and 970 not as recommendations but as justification for why there was no demand for the 6500XT; Unlike the rest of the GPU market, used 4GB cards from AMD and Nvidia have remained available in reasonable quantities and at sane prices. If you had $200-250 for a dGPU at any point between the start of the pandemic-induced GPU shortage and the 6500XT's launch, you'd likely have picked up a 570 or 970/980 - and that segment of the market was fully sated going into the GPU shortage because for the entire preceding year excess inventory of RX570 flooded the channel at ridiculously low prices.

The 6500XT arrived on the scene not as a delicious meal to hungry mouths, but as reheated leftovers to people who had already eaten.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You've failed at reading comprehension yet again

The failure was not mine. Your vocabulary choice seems to have been where misunderstanding took place.

fabricating in your own mind that I'm recommending the RX570 over the 6500XT.

That's what it seemed you were implying.

I brought up the 570 and 970 not as recommendations but as justification for why there was no demand for the 6500XT

Offering them as "reasons why" implies a recommendation by way of suggesting they are viable alternatives.

Unlike the rest of the GPU market, used 4GB cards from AMD and Nvidia have remained available in reasonable quantities and at sane prices.

Maybe where YOU live. Stateside, prices for 4GB cards in general are still pathetic.

Regardless, the 6500XT is NOT the garbage card people have made it out to be.

 

[Sstormtrooper_NelsonN]

as someone who has a Low end graphics card id really take anything

 

[John Naylor]

On a 1080p system, if it was a significant price increase to go bigger, can't think of a reason to.

 

[Athlonite]

as someone who has a Low end graphics card id really take anything

you could look around for decent second hand GPU's at reasonable prices just be wary of eBay specials like RX5700 (non XT)

 

[FlyingHopes]

4 GB is STILL enough, if you're not feel have to play with ultra settings, today most of the games looks good even with the medium settings or mixed settings, such as (I know that this game released 2018) RDR2.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

So, I guess the question is really a throw-back to the 1060 era then. That is to say whether there was a niche for the 1060 3GB versus the 1060 6GB. Hmm....when framed as such I'd gladly buy a 3050 or 4050 with only 4 GB. My choice was only if there was no other option...which is the current market.

Of course, this then needs to be framed with a cost to value proposition. If a base level card is 200 USD, and doubling the RAM is only 240 USD, then there's literally no reason to purchase the 4 GB thing. If it's a matter of a 100 USD base price and a 120 USD price (the same % difference) then the math is very much different. That is to say when the delta between the two is so much smaller and the cost is lower then there's a whole lot more reason to jump up a model to get extra VRAM. When you've got such a huge investment off the bat, then the lesser VRAM options make no sense.


I know this is counter intuitive, but it's a permutation of the sunk cost fallacy. If I'm looking at a lesser investment then, saving a bit more for less VRAM is tolerable because I can go up a level if I wanted to. If I have to spend twice as much base, then the extra investment is "just a bit more." If going from a 3050 to a 3060 is 200-400, and the space in-between is a 3050 with 8GB of VRAM for only 240, then it makes less sense to buy a 4GB model.
Now, let's talk pre-coof. The 1060 offered a 3 and 6 GB variant. The delta from these was about a 20USD, but jumping from the 1050 to 1060 was about 60USD (at one point). I bought the 1060 3GB model because it significantly out performed the1050, but the cost to double the VRAM made precious little sense when very few programs and resources used it. Hopefully this is the case with the 40x0 series.. but right now it just doesn't make sense to plunk down the crazy money for a discrete GPU, but to then cheap out on VRAM.

 

[hm1342]

I would consider a GTX 1650 Super as a possibility if I decided to modify/upgrade a couple of Dell Optiplex 9020s equipped with i5s. I might also try it out in my planned 4790k project as a first card before trying to score a 1660 Ti or 1070. Of course, I'm waiting until prices come down. Hopefully by the time the newest offerings from Team Red and Team Green appear, pricing will be acceptable. It could happen...

 

[niko084]

My monitors are 1440p and I play some games spanned, not a chance..

For an entry level gaming rig I see a purpose. Granted at that point you may arguably be better off with a console but it's more complicated than that..

Be a great card for animation, 3d modeling, and cad softwares that don't require workstation cards.. I've known pros to work with less, often the budget isn't there for a $3k+ workstation.

 

[Keullo-e]

Damn, missed the whole poll this far. Otherwise no, but if the price and performance meets, I could upgrade from my 2nd PC's HD 7970 3GB. 6500 XT is not an option though as it's a PCIe 2.0 system..

 

[grammar_phreak]

Sure..... if Nvidia made a GT 3030 with 4gb of GDDR6 memory.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Sure..... if Nvidia made a GT 3030 with 4gb of GDDR6 memory.

6GB, and that would likely be a decent card. If the 1030 had been given a 128bit memory bus and good VRAM, it would have been a good card for SFF systems.

 

[Mega X]

I would really love to buy but if you at the current trajectory of the prices I don't think I can afford it

 

[Nike_486DX]

yea, a 730 4gb ddr3x, should run minesweeper at ultra

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Might be a nice reminder and more votes for this news flash from nvidia 4gb card release

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Launching May 31st with 512 CUDA Cores & 4 GB GDDR6

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 graphics card is set to be launched on May 31st according to a recent report from VideoCardz. The GTX 1630 is based on the GTX 1650 featuring a 12 nm Turing TU117-150 GPU with 512 CUDA cores and 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit memory bus. This is a reduction from the...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[lexluthermiester]

Hi,
Might be a nice reminder and more votes for this news flash from nvidia 4gb card release

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Launching May 31st with 512 CUDA Cores & 4 GB GDDR6

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 graphics card is set to be launched on May 31st according to a recent report from VideoCardz. The GTX 1630 is based on the GTX 1650 featuring a 12 nm Turing TU117-150 GPU with 512 CUDA cores and 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit memory bus. This is a reduction from the...

www.techpowerup.com

With a 64bit memory bus, unless the benchmarks show reasonable performance, hell no.

 

[Blaeza]

I had a gt730, then 1030 gddr5, then sapphire rx470 and now a gtx1660 super. So you can get by with 2gb, enjoy 4gb but start with eye candy with 6gb. In my opinion anyway.

 

[AusWolf]

I had a gt730, then 1030 gddr5, then sapphire rx470 and now a gtx1660 super. So you can get by with 2gb, enjoy 4gb but start with eye candy with 6gb. In my opinion anyway.

I agree. Lots of people in the online community seem to think that just because X game can allocate ridiculous amounts of VRAM if it's available, you need to have that ridiculous amount if you want to to play that game, which is not true.

 

[AlwaysHope]

What if you don't use the system for gaming??
Even a 2GB card would suffice for light desktop usage like net surfing, word, etc.. at least on win 10.
4GB card in this scenario is waste.
I know, I have several systems here using 2GB cards that are 10 yrs old & they work perfect for the above scenario. Now that's value for $!

 

[lexluthermiester]

I agree. Lots of people in the online community seem to think that just because X game can allocate ridiculous amounts of VRAM if it's available, you need to have that ridiculous amount if you want to to play that game, which is not true.

However, there are minimums that need to be met..

What if you don't use the system for gaming??
Even a 2GB card would suffice for light desktop usage like net surfing, word, etc.. at least on win 10.
4GB card in this scenario is waste.
I know, I have several systems here using 2GB cards that are 10 yrs old & they work perfect for the above scenario. Now that's value for $!

True.

 

[AusWolf]

However, there are minimums that need to be met..

That's true, though that minimum usually doesn't exceed 4 GB. Also, a lot of games can run fine on PCs below the minimum spec.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

Well, I ended up buying 2GB Zotac 1030 GDDR5, soooooo yeah, I backed up my vote pretty much lol.

 

[AusWolf]

Well, I ended up buying 2GB Zotac 1030 GDDR5, soooooo yeah, I backed up my vote pretty much lol.

Nice. And I've got an Asus TUF 6500 XT on pre-order because 1. I'm curious, 2. I've had enough of my 2070's fan noise, so I backed up my vote too.