Are the 8 GB cards worth it?

[ARF]

So, the history is that one, the comment taken for a reference from below the YT video:

2007 - 8800GT 512MB - $350
2015 - R9 390X 8GB - $430 (in 8 years from 512MB to 8GB)
2017 - gtx1070 8GB - $380
2019 - 2060 S. 8GB - $400
2021 - 3060ti 8GB - $400
2023 - 4060ti 8GB - $400 (8 years later still 8GB for ~$400)
In 2024 12GB of VRAM should be a bare minimum and 8GB cards should be only some entry-level sub $200 GPUs. $400 consoles have ~12GB of VRAM (from 16GB combined).

I think 8 GB is really bad for everyone, because the textures packs are large and this limited amount of VRAM holds the industry progress back, and also puts too much pressure on the PCIe protocol used - no one really needs PCIe 5.0 x16 or PCIe 4.0 x8 cards which work under PCIe 3.0 x8 on A520 boards and lower.

 

[Splinterdog]

My RX 5700 XT still holds up well today at 1440p in 90% of my games, but when I can afford it I'll be upgrading to a 16GB card, like the 9700 XT.
I would like to go Nvidia but the prices and lower VRAM are keeping me away.

 

[AusWolf]

I voted "I will explain", so let me do that.

I personally wouldn't see a problem buying an 8 GB card for a secondary, or casual gaming system for maybe £150-200. But an 8 GB gaming card for way above £300 is a definite middle finger from me.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Entirely depends what games you play and at what res. If you're a very avid gamer that likes a wide variety of games and wants them to play and look very good though, I would say these days with sys reqs as they are, it's a hinderance many would not prefer to be limited by.

 

[ARF]

My RX 5700 XT still holds up well today at 1440p in 90% of my games, but when I can afford it I'll be upgrading to a 16GB card, like the 9700 XT.
I would like to go Nvidia but the prices and lower VRAM are keeping me away.

RX 9070 is the best buy this generation. If you can afford it, get it, you won't regret.
The performance jump will be really serious, and you will escape from that 8GB non-sense.

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT Specs

AMD Navi 10, 1905 MHz, 2560 Cores, 160 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 8192 MB GDDR6, 1750 MHz, 256 bit

www.techpowerup.com

 

[boppingXQWB]

RX 480 launched in 2016 with 8 GB for 230. Inflation-adjusted, that's roughly 306 2025-USD. Nvidia charging minimum $380 for an 8GB card in 2025 is just giving gamers the finger.

DDR in the meanwhile, on desktop-RAM front, went from DDR4 to DDR5, doubled in capacity for roughly the same price: can't remember exactly how much DDR4 32GB cost in 2016-2017, but it certainly wasn't less than 150-180 2025-USD that 64GB CL30 DDR5 costs nowadays.

 

[Marcus L]

Not for £400/$400+ no, £250 territory for 8GB is where we should be, £300-£350 for 12GB and 16GB £400+ (dependent on performance ie 9060 XT £400, 9070 non-XT 450-500, 9070XT 550-600 etc ) but Nvidia have FUBAR'd the consumer GPU market and think because Ai is the current buzzword and flavour of the month can charge ridiculous prices for mediocre mid-range products like the 5070, Ti, 5060 Ti, 4060 Ti before it etc etc as datacentre is where most of their revenue is coming from, gamers are a fleeting thought... Don't get me wrong AMD's shit doesn't smell of roses either and rather than disrupt the market and gain back much needed marketshare with sane prices, let's face it they could heavily outcut Nvidia at every performance tier they compete with them at whilst still making a profit and gaining marketshare, instead they choose to play along "discounting" their offerings by $50 less than the equivalent Nvidia SKU and here we are....

I am refusing to play any of their games, 5-10% increase over last gen for the same MSRP, yea, think I will just wait longer to upgrade and if enough people feel the same then there is no point in the ridiculous prices we see today as yes, they will make more end profit for every GPU sold, but it will balance out when people are not upgrading every other gen and instead waiting 3-4 gens before getting a much better performing product at the same price as their last GPU purchase, bought my 6800 for £400 2 years ago, guess what, 5060 Ti is slightly behind a 6800xt and the cost is more than the 400 I paid 2 years ago for fuck all performance improvement apart from DLSS 4 and fake frames.

 

[_roman_]

i think the topic is similar to the other topic here https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/5060-ti-8gb-doa.335762/page-7#post-5502393

personally i would even question 16gib on graphic cards. it*s not 2023 anymore.
for low value stuff below 250€ including shipment and tax for a graphic card with 4 display output and medium gaming performance 16gib may be fine.

I*m well aware of what amd currently offers on the graphic card market

 

[io-waiter]

Depends on how the future evolves, and to be frank how much you spend. 8GB at 1080p is better than nothing.

 

[Marcus L]

i think the topic is similar to the other topic here https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/5060-ti-8gb-doa.335762/page-7#post-5502393

personally i would even question 16gib on graphic cards. it*s not 2023 anymore.
for low value stuff below 250€ including shipment and tax for a graphic card with 4 display output and medium gaming performance 16gib may be fine.

I*m well aware of what amd currently offers on the graphic card market

8GB struggles with some games at 1080p and the performance tanks in some situations, 16GB on the other hand is enough to feed higher end GPU's like the 9070XT/7800XT/5080XT, these higher end GPU's don't suffer from 16GB in the same way an 8GB card does, saying 16GB for 250 is disingenuous, you can have a 5060 Ti 16GB, does it make it better than a 12GB 5070, or as good as a 16GB 5080? on the other hand you would never pair those class of GPU's with 8GB as it is just not enough in a lot of situations

 

[Dr. Dro]

Hinges on price and price alone. It's usable, but if you're parting with a significant chunk of your money - demand better

 

[RaceT3ch]

Anything that performs better than a 6650XT should've had 12GB. Intel proved that with the B580 but Nvidia doesn't seem to care at this point cause people always default to them.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Hinges on price and price alone. It's usable, but if you're parting with a significant chunk of your money - demand better

Price AND stock, sadly there are 16GB RX 9070s showing at $550 still, but they're all out of stock.

 

[Flogger23m]

If you're at 1920x1080, and play older or less demanding games and/or are okay with turning down graphic settings, it will probably be fine. Especially if you use DLSS (upscaling, not frame generation) or FSR. Still I would not want to pay more than $200 for an 8GB card, it should be for the low end cards. So I would say not worth it unless it is very cheap and you realize the limitations.

 

[Macro Device]

If we're strictly talking gaming I don't understand those bringing RX 480 and 580 up. These cards were irrelevant for games from 2016/17 demanding more than 4 GB VRAM. They're also irrelevant for recent AAA.
IMHO we should draw the line at the 2080 Super / 3060 Ti / 4060 Ti mark. These three GPUs are the fastest green ones that are okay to only have 8 GB. Anything better (3070 / 5060 Ti upwards) can make use of more VRAM and should have this edge.

I would buy an 8 GB card today if it was sold for under $200 and was at least on par with 2080. Otherwise, not a shot. Just buy nothing until the price is right.

 

[LabRat 891]

8GB is the new 4GB. It's 'fine', if you keep expectations realistic, and that's simply what's in-budget.
Otherwise, no.

Nobody other than the most budget-constrained, should be considering a 8GB (or less) card, for modern gaming.
For UHD video encode/decode and other 'GPU accelerated' non-gaming non-LLM applications, an 8GB card is probably perfectly fine.

Just to be clear (as, this isn't the only ongoing discussion on the topic)
We're upset over nVidia trying to convince us that 8GB is enough VRAM in 2025, for modern games. -Not, that 8GB VRAM variant cards are being offered as an option.

 

[evernessince]

For $200 or less, sure. The problem is cards like the 5060 Ti 8GB are $550.

 

[A Computer Guy]

If you are going to use low profile cards you don't have much of a choice. 8GB or bust.

 

[dgianstefani]

For $200 or less, sure. The problem is cards like the 5060 Ti 8GB are $550.

NVIDIA's MSRP for the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB is set at $380, whereas the 16 GB model comes at an MSRP of $430. Finding the 16 GB model at $430 seems very hard, while finding the 8 GB card at MSRP is much easier, at least here in Europe. In the States, it seems that the GPU market is in a completely broken state. I bought this review sample for €400, including 20% VAT, so €333 without tax, which converts to $382—pretty much matching the MSRP.

 

[LabRat 891]

@dgianstefani
"it seems that the GPU market is in a completely broken state"
100%

Best part, it extends well beyond the most-recent options.
Even, (frankly) obsolete GPUs are maintaining values that make absolutely no sense, relative to their capabilities.

On the new side...
Newegg is stocking 9070s again (last I checked), but they're insanely inflated.
Amazon regularly has new cards pop up, 20-50% over MSRP.
etc. etc.

 

[A Computer Guy]

So, the history is that one, the comment taken for a reference from below the YT video:

I think 8 GB is really bad for everyone, because the textures packs are large and this limited amount of VRAM holds the industry progress back, and also puts too much pressure on the PCIe protocol used - no one really needs PCIe 5.0 x16 or PCIe 4.0 x8 cards which work under PCIe 3.0 x8 on A520 boards and lower.

What games are really held back by 8GB cards?

 

[Sir Beregond]

The problem is that while people reply here with the "if it was X price"...

Well, it's not.

If they do an ultra low cost low profile 5050 / 5040 type of card? Sure. Anything north of that and there's really no place for it. They gave the 5060 Ti 16GB, so it's very perplexing the 5070 regresses to 12GB one up the stack. What needs to happen is a shift back in tiering where the 70-class is 256-bit configuration, while the 60-class goes down to the 192-bit config. In a better world a theoretical 50-series really should have been:

5090 - 32GB (512-bit)
5080 - 24GB (either 384-bit or 256-bit depending on mem chips)
5070 Ti - 16GB (256-bit)
5070 - 16GB (256-bit)
5060 Ti - 12GB (192-bit)
5060 - 12GB (192-bit)
5050 - 8GB (128-bit)

 

[LabRat 891]

What games are really held back by 8GB cards?

Beam.NG (w/ weather/skybox mods)
Star Citizen
Cyperpunk 2077 (no scaling, no path tracing, RT-enabled)
Most-any UE5 title*, some UE4 titles.

Even 16GB can run out @1440p, with those.


*
<UE5 STALKER2 plays okay on my 16GB 9070XT @ 4K.
>UE5 MW5:Clans is unplayable, 4K down to 1440p; 1080P is playable, but looks like butt, even on my OLED's 1080p 480hz mode.
>UE4 MW5:Mercs 'gets weird' on some maps, and can eat up VRAM.
<UE4 KillingFloor 2 flat-out refuses to overindulge on resources, even 8K 'super resolution'

 

[dgianstefani]

Beam.NG (w/ weather/skybox mods)
Star Citizen
Cyperpunk 2077
Most-any UE5 title, some UE4 titles.

Even 16GB can run out @1440p, with those.

You too can get 0.4 more FPS with 16 GB VRAM by spending $100 more on an otherwise identical card.

Crazy how those 12 GB NVIDIA cards are doing better than 16 GB AMD ones if "even 16 GB" isn't enough.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

No, 8GB is not enough, unless it is a RX 6400 tier card. Spending mroe then $100 on a 8GB card today is very foolish. Buying an 8GB GPU today is like buying a 1GB GPU in 2013.

Reminder: the first 8GB GPUs came out 11 years ago, and 9 years ago you could get a RX 480 8GB for $239.