AMD Declares That The Era of 4GB Graphics Cards is Over

[ixi]

Buying extra VRAM for "future proofing" has rarely if ever paid off in the past. Generally speaking, the need for performance increases just as much (at least how games are commonly balanced), so the card is obsolete long before you get to enjoy that extra VRAM for gaming.
I for instance, have a GTX 680 4 GB in one machine and a GTX 1060 3 GB in another. Guess which one plays games better?

Which one plays games better? Easy answer. RT 5700 XT .

Jokes aside, you're comparing how many gen older gpu against newer one? Not kinda fair comparison. GTX 680 still chopping le lumbers, impresive!

 

[efikkan]

Jokes aside, you're comparing how many gen older gpu against newer one? Not kinda fair comparison. GTX 680 still chopping le lumbers, impresive!

The point wasn't to make a "fair" comparison, but to show that GPUs with more VRAM doesn't remain competitive with future products, as more performant products with less VRAM can perform better.

 

[Vayra86]

The point wasn't to make a "fair" comparison, but to show that GPUs with more VRAM doesn't remain competitive with future products, as more performant products with less VRAM can perform better.

Be that as it may, a 680 2GB was obsolete three to four years ago. The 4GB not quite...

Here's a random search

Not too bad. It also shows the 680 is still quite capable of running games, so the higher VRAM would bring a benefit.

 

[killferd]

Do we get free 4GB memory or what

What's the point of showing benefits of 8GB memory with low(er) end card.

This, i mean in witcher 3 on ultra settings @ 2560x1080p it barely touches 3 GB of VRAM on 2060 super? so if 1650 or 1660 level cards have 8 GB.... i mean whats the point other than increasing the cost to end user?

 

[ARF]

This, i mean in witcher 3 on ultra settings @ 2560x1080p it barely touches 3 GB of VRAM on 2060 super? so if 1650 or 1660 level cards have 8 GB.... i mean whats the point other than increasing the cost to end user?

Navi 23 should be the new lowest end and with its rumoured 240 mm^2 GPU and 50% higher performance per watt over the Navi 14 because of RDNA 2 vs RDNA 1, then it will be much above 1650 - 1660 level.
I mean Ultra HD maxed out will be possible on many older games.

 

[cueman]

i think amd say what its want and be wrong...example my bro playing long time 24" and 3gb gpu mems and games running ok.
you not sure need FHD games more than 4gb.

if you play more than QHD monitor or 4K monitor games run,sure but some details not might shows, but you have not time seek thouse.

amd looks try something dunno what,welling something what we really not NEED, so using too much mems, and sure its ok, but that mem pay,you.
example 16gb mem for gpu is alot alot too much.

4-8gb is fine.

try playing games 4,6 and 8gb mems, you cant seek different and i mean 24-27 monitor.

tooking mem,i choose 32gb main mem.

80% players still using FHD monitor or even smaller.

come on amd,what you try?.. is it rdna 2 24gb mem card?!?
what a waiste and buyers pay it, meaning amd pay it that mem 150$ and gpu gpu buyers 350$.... calling business.. i call cheat. after that commercial.
lol

 

[RoutedScripter]

Yes exactly, very good, I've been saying on various HW support areas that I can't imagine anything below 8GB anymore, and as I have 8GB, a new GPU should have at least above 10GB, so no more 8GB either.