So is the 10 gb vram on rtx 3080 still enough?

[lexluthermiester]

If you look back 4+ years, these same discussions happened with the 480 4GB, and the same point about growth was made. And you're right -- the ram doesn't allow any room to grow or mod games, but when even the full fat 3090 GPU is getting 55FPS at settings that would even begin to stress the 10GB, the 3080 GPU itself doesn't really have any room to grow either.



Agreed - the 16GB is much nicer, AMD cards have always been more generous with the ram relative to GPU power (except the Fury), but they always end up dying the exact same unceremonious death at 40 fps and below before the extra vram comes into play. For editing and content creation and compute, that's a totally different story, for gaming it's largely GPU limited.

View attachment 184005

Ah that's the key point, processing textures has never been as much of a GPU intensive task as post-processing GFX such as shadows, AA and various other effects. However, those textures do take up a lot of room in VRAM, so having a lot of VRAM can offer vast improvements to certain aspects of games without a severe GPU load overhead. For example, the 3060 12GB will be able to do far more than it's 6GB sibling. Likewise, using your earlier examples, an RX480 8GB could offer much higher texture settings without taxing the GPU by much more, where-as the 4GB model was limited in the amount, size and quality of the textures it could practically handle. When you add all the VRAM cost of other post-processing FX, 4GB quickly runs out, even at 1080p(as was seen with some games on the GTX980). 8GB does not. When you bump up to 1440p/1600p, games start to brush up against that 8GB limit for some games. At 4k many games are right at the limit of 10GB and will soon push beyond it.

 

[Mussels]

When CP2077 maxes out my RTX 3090 on the GPU, i'm 100% confident GPU usage will run out before VRAM usage in future titles as well, like everyone has said.

It's very easy to turn textures from ultra to high (in games not coded poorly) and suddenly you have VRAM to spare

 

[wolf]

I mean personally I tend to follow game optimisation guides from the likes of Digital Foundry and Hardware Unboxed to get the best 'bang for buck' for my settings anyway, I do love the "turn all the dials to 11" experience when you have excessive GPU horsepower to spare, but most modern games some tweaking goes a long way.

A point to note, at least from my limited experience and rose coloured recollections is they often say something along these lines. "There is very little to no visible difference between Ultra and High textures, we even have trouble telling the difference from ultra to Medium, but since there's virtually no framerate impact, we recommend Ultra if you have the VRAM"

Naturally this isn't always going to be the case all of the time, but it happens surprisingly often, and you need to take screenshots and pixel peep to find anything meaningful often too.

Would I have preferred if the 3080 was 12+gb? sure, but having had the product going on 4 months now, I am not disappointed one bit with it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

When CP2077 maxes out my RTX 3090 on the GPU, i'm 100% confident GPU usage will run out before VRAM usage in future titles as well, like everyone has said.

It's very easy to turn textures from ultra to high (in games not coded poorly) and suddenly you have VRAM to spare

Yeah, but you have 24GB of VRAM. And you're missing the point...

"There is very little to no visible difference between Ultra and High textures, we even have trouble telling the difference from ultra to Medium, but since there's virtually no framerate impact, we recommend Ultra if you have the VRAM"

While I don't exactly agree with this statement, it does illustrate the point. Why should we have to turn texture quality down? GPU makers should be making cards with enough VRAM that we don't need to.

At this point in time, with the RAW GPU power on offer from both AMD and NVidia, there is simply no excuse for making video cards that leave no room for growth. 8GB is yesterdays news. 10GB is a pittance. The bar should be starting at 12GB and going up from there, regardless if current games will use it all, because they soon will.

I am not disappointed one bit with it.

Now? Maybe not but you soon might..

 

[wolf]

I feel you dude, it is a compromise and I would have preferred 12gb or more for sure. But at this rate I still feel lucky just to own one. Since I don't game at 4k either outside of that one recent experience I do hope I don't need to lower those settings anytime soon.

I am keen to keep revisiting this topic/thread as the years go past and check in with how it's all going, because in the end it's all totally relative. Relative to what res you play at, games you play etc etc. So some people will 100% find it not enough, possibly already, and some people it will be 100% fine for the life of the card, and all sorts of experiences anywhere in between.

 

[Metroid]

A midrange card like 3060 to have more vram than the 3080 is bs and I do have a 3080 already, yes will be enough for next 3 years but the 3080 for being a flagship, supposed to be at least 16gb. AMD did it right.

 

[lexluthermiester]

But at this rate I still feel lucky just to own one.

That's a fair point. However, patience will very likely pay off. The 12GB 3060 is coming very soon, the 3080ti 20GB is also soon and the 16GB 3070 is very likely soon thereafter. I have an RTX 2080 so I'm not hurting for GPU power. But there is no way in hell I'm willing to settle for a card that has no more VRAM than my current card, no matter how good it is.

 

[wolf]

That's a fair point. However, patience will very likely pay off. The 12GB 3060 is coming very soon, the 3080ti 20GB is also soon and the 16GB 3070 is very likely soon thereafter. I have an RTX 2080 so I'm not hurting for GPU power. But there is no way in hell I'm willing to settle for a card that has no more VRAM than my current card, no matter how good it is.

I came from a GTX1080 which I bought at launch, so over 4 years later I was realllly wanting that upgrade, and mid last year moved up to the 3440x1440 ultrawide and the GTX1080 was really starting to show it's age on it. I am very happy I got one, if there was a 20gb one that cost more I'm not even sure I'd have bought it tbh, assuming for sure it's gonna cost even more and be hard to get. I've already clocked a few games using it and am very happy with the perf level, like I said it'd just have been sick if it was a 12gb card to begin with. Lets see if I eat these words in ~2 years

 

[nguyen]

A midrange card like 3060 to have more vram than the 3080 is bs and I do have a 3080 already, yes will be enough for next 3 years but the 3080 for being a flagship, supposed to be at least 16gb. AMD did it right.

Except that the GPU core on the RX6800XT cannot take advantage of the 16GB VRAM buffer to gain leverage against RTX3080 though.
RX6800XT core shows its strength in 1440p and lower (Due to Infinity Cache hit rate being higher at 1440p and below). At this resolution 10GB VRAM is more than enough for a very long time.
At 4K, where VRAM usage generally only increase by 20% but the compute requirement is 125% compare to 1440p, this is where Ampere architecture shows its prowess.

6800XT and even the 6900XT/3090 cores run out compute juice before they can properly utilize more than 10GB VRAM at 4K.
So yeah, unless you do some extreme texture modding at 1440p (which I highly doubt would bring any visual benefit) to break the 10GB VRAM buffer, there is other usage scenario that 10GB VRAM is limiting the 3080 against the 6800XT.

Now if we are talking about 10GB 3080 vs 20GB 3080, there are very limited cases where 20GB VRAM comes in handy (RTX ON without DLSS), it is not worth it to pay 150-200usd for 10GB mode VRAM, Nvidia also delay the 3080 Ti 20GB indefinitely anyways.

 

[Metroid]

Except that the GPU core on the RX6800XT cannot take advantage of the 16GB VRAM buffer to gain leverage against RTX3080 though.
RX6800XT core shows its strength in 1440p and lower (Due to Infinity Cache hit rate being higher at 1440p and below). At this resolution 10GB VRAM is more than enough for a very long time.
At 4K, where VRAM usage generally only increase by 20% but the compute requirement is 125% compare to 1440p, this is where Ampere architecture shows its prowess.

6800XT and even the 6900XT/3090 cores run out compute juice before they can properly utilize more than 10GB VRAM at 4K.
So yeah, unless you do some extreme texture modding at 1440p (which I highly doubt would bring any visual benefit) to break the 10GB VRAM buffer, there is other usage scenario that 10GB VRAM is limiting the 3080 against the 6800XT.

Now if we are talking about 10GB 3080 vs 20GB 3080, there are very limited cases where 20GB VRAM comes in handy (RTX ON without DLSS), it is not worth it to pay 150-200usd for 10GB mode VRAM, Nvidia also delay the 3080 Ti 20GB indefinitely anyways.

Yeah is not worth to pay 200 usd for 10gb more, what I'm saying is, the 3080 should have come by default with at least 16gb.

 

[nguyen]

Yeah is not worth to pay 200 usd for 10gb more, what I'm saying is, the 3080 should have come by default with at least 16gb.

16GB VRAM is a very bad idea, there are several reasons:
_Higher production cost and lower stock, which would make the current situation worse.
_Lower efficiency since GDDR6X use like 4-5W per module, the card would use 25W more.
_Lower performance since 16GB VRAM would run on 256bit bus instead of 320bit bus.

All those detriments and none of the benefit that comes with 16GB VRAM, Nvidia already designed the 3080 10GB to be perfectly balanced between cost, performance and efficiency. The 3080 10GB will probably become the most sucessful high end GPU Nvidia has ever made.

 

[wolf]

I think the best amount it reasonably could/should have come with is 12GB, 10GB feels bad after the 11GB 2080Ti and 1080Ti, where 12GB on the 3080 would have had virtually 0 complaints IMO. In any case we got what we got for many reasons, and a good product it is.

My gut says they did it knowing full well a 20GB super/Ti would follow in 6-12 months or so.

 

[nguyen]

I think the best amount it reasonably could/should have come with is 12GB, 10GB feels bad after the 2080Ti and 1080Ti where12GB would have had virtually 0 complaints IMO. In any case we got what we got for many reasons, and a good product it is.

1080Ti and 2080Ti comes with 11GB VRAM though
But yeah I agree that 12GB VRAM for the 3080 Ti would be perfect, if it ever existed.

 

[wolf]

1080Ti and 2080Ti comes with 11GB VRAM though
But yeah I agree that 12GB VRAM for the 3080 Ti would be perfect, if it ever existed.

Indeed they did I just worded my sentence badly, edited!

 

[TumbleGeorge]

6800XT and even the 6900XT

Is limited by only 300 watt bioses and lower frequencies. I think that will be change soon. 3090 and 3080 has bioses for 400-450...also maybe for more watts? When see results with 6800/6900 equiped with modded bioses maybe will be got more fair comparison and will see also where is limitations for size of VRAM usage.

 

[Vayra86]

At ultra settings.

You act like you cant turn one or two settings down and tank that VRAM usage.

You can. But that is a choice no 700 dollar current gen GPU should ever present. Come on... We never had to. You kinda act like there are no alternatives to these 3070 and 3080s... but thats not true.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Except that the GPU core on the RX6800XT cannot take advantage of the 16GB VRAM buffer to gain leverage against RTX3080 though.

Nonsense. Again, you are misunderstanding the difference between texture quality, which uses a lot of VRAM storage, but is NOT GPU intensive and post processing effects which also have a VRAM tax and are GPU intensive.

 

[Mussels]

Nonsense. Again, you are misunderstanding the difference between texture quality, which uses a lot of VRAM storage, but is NOT GPU intensive and post processing effects which also have a VRAM tax and are GPU intensive.

i think thats the argument i've been making that people miss as well

VRAM usage/textures dont really impact on GPU usage. an 8GB RX580 gets the same FPS as a 4GB, you can just turn the textures up in some titles.

I commented earlier about my 3090 being GPU limited before VRAM limited as an obvious (to me) point that if a 3090 is GPU limited before it reaches 10GB of VRAM... well, so will anything else.

 

[nguyen]

i think thats the argument i've been making that people miss as well

VRAM usage/textures dont really impact on GPU usage. an 8GB RX580 gets the same FPS as a 4GB, you can just turn the textures up in some titles.

I commented earlier about my 3090 being GPU limited before VRAM limited as an obvious (to me) point that if a 3090 is GPU limited before it reaches 10GB of VRAM... well, so will anything else.

LOL yeah turning up the texture quality might make some people feel good about spending extra for more VRAM, but the reality is it doesn't make any difference after High texture quality anyways

Here are some 4K images of Doom Eternal, left is High texture and Right is Ultra Nightmare. 1.6GB higher VRAM usage for literally imperceptible IQ improvement.

 

[lexluthermiester]

LOL yeah turning up the texture quality might make some people feel good about spending extra for more VRAM, but the reality is it doesn't make any difference after High texture quality anyways

Here are some 4K images of Doom Eternal, left is High texture and Right is Ultra Nightmare. 1.6GB higher VRAM usage for literally imperceptible IQ improvement.

View attachment 184177

Ok, now turn off AA/FSAA/DLSS and walk closer to those plants and let's see the difference. Many games often require a player to get up close and personal with environmental objects. Turning textures down will affect visual quality.

 

[nguyen]

Ok, now turn off AA/FSAA/DLSS and walk closer to those plants and let's see the difference. Many games often require a player to get up close and personal with environmental objects. Turning textures down will affect visual quality.

In case you can't tell what is going on, that is the closest I could stand looking at wall in Doom Eternal LOL.
Change only 1 setting: Texture Quality from Ultra Nightmare to High reduce VRAM usage from ~10.6GB to ~9GB.
The result is self-explanatory: it make almost no perceivable IQ difference, even on a 4K 48in OLED TV I can't make out any difference.
And why should I turn off all the AA/FSAA ? Every other setting are set to Ultra Nightmare, as they should be. Might be best if you do some testings of your own instead of talking nonsense.

 

[Sunny and 75]

Reaching nearly 400 posts now. I'm simply speechless.

Maxwell 980 had 4 GB VRAM, then came the Pascal 1080 with 8 GB VRAM. THAT is what I consider an upgrade. You get both GPU performance and VRAM capacity at the same time.
That 10 GB should have been at least 12 GB (50% more VRAM) for Nvidia to convince me to upgrade. GPU power is definitely there, 60% more performance (vs. 2080) is nothing to sneeze at but the 25% plus VRAM simply is not gonna cut it for me.

 

[nguyen]

Reaching nearly 400 posts now. I'm simply speechless.

Maxwell 980 had 4 GB VRAM, then came the Pascal 1080 with 8 GB VRAM. THAT is what I consider an upgrade. You get both GPU performance and VRAM capacity at the same time.
That 10 GB should have been at least 12 GB (50% more VRAM) for Nvidia to convince me to upgrade. GPU power is definitely there, 60% more performance (vs. 2080) is nothing to sneeze at but the 25% plus VRAM simply is not gonna cut it for me.

Yet the 1080, 1080Ti and 2080Ti all got replaced by cheaper GPUs with lower VRAM capacity
1080 --> 2060 6GB
1080Ti --> 2070 Super
2080Ti --> 3070

Core horsepower > VRAM capacity. More VRAM cost more money and bring almost nothing to the table.
Here is a question, for 500usd do you prefer an 3070 GPU with 8GB VRAM or an 3060Ti GPU with 16GB VRAM ?

 

[TumbleGeorge]

More VRAM cost more

M-r Einstein said: "also is relatively" or something.

 

[Sunny and 75]

Yet the 1080, 1080Ti and 2080Ti all got replaced by cheaper GPUs with lower VRAM capacity
1080 --> 2060 6GB
1080Ti --> 2070 Super
2080Ti --> 3070

You mean to say that the mighty RTX 2080 Ti got replaced by a mere 3070. And that 3090 is just there for idk, to pose for a photoshoot?!?!?!
A GeForce xx80 class graphics card replaced by a mere xx60 class variant, wow, you don't say! I feel so overwhelmed, seriously there's nothing left to say, I got nothing! I literally got nothing!!!
And that RTX 2080 is just there to amuse us, right?! You know for the fun of it, to entertain us as a live performance would, yes?!

Nvidia replaced the 1080 by the 2080, the 1080 Ti by the 2080 Ti and the 2080 Ti got replaced by the 3090. And now, come late February, the 2060 6 GB is going to be replaced by the 3060 12 GB. THAT is how it works as it did before.

Nvidia just marketed those cards as such for PR purposes. What it means is that they advertised if you the 1070 owner, upgrade to a 2070 Super, you will get performance like a 1080 Ti owner does. Simple as that. That's what it reads, nothing more, nothing less. It does NOT mean that an 11 GB 1080 Ti was a bit too much so we at Nvidia wisely decided to lower that VRAM capacity and release an 8 GB version of that in the form of 2070 Super. It ONLY means here's what we're offering at the moment (July 2019 in case of 2070 Super), take it or leave it as you wish, that's it, that's the WHOLE story.
The same goes for 2060, 3070 and all the other cards as well. Those are some ****ing awesome cards, no denying that, so when Nvidia advertise them as faster than previous flagship or something like that, this is just marketing material. They do not mean that the GTX 1080 which we launched three years before RTX 2060 should have had 6 GB VRAM and so on.

Here is a question, for 500usd do you prefer an 3070 GPU with 8GB VRAM or an 3060Ti GPU with 16GB VRAM ?

What's that supposed to mean?! Is that even a question?!

Say Nvidia offer us a 4070 8 GB sometime in 2022 and market it as faster than 3090 24GB, so what, it does not mean anything. It does not mean that 8 GB VRAM is enough VRAM for 4070, it does not mean that 24 GB VRAM was overrated or anything of the sort.
It ONLY means we're offering the performance of the 3090 with third of its VRAM as a 4070 package at a certain price, so if you're interested, take a bite. That's it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is the argument about modding also:

And is the use of mods so strange on a PC? I have to say that for any game I play more than a single playthrough, its one of the first things I check out. They expand games and increase value. If I don't want mods, I can buy a console - modding is a key selling point for PC gaming.

I'll also concede that its acceptable that others accept different standards from what they get out of a GPU. But I can see myself running into trouble with 10GB going forward, and that is well founded in what I've seen up until today wrt performance and capacity. You're at liberty to think otherwise and base your choices on that But I wouldn't be too sure, neither am I - we just can't tell and that is a 'risk' for a purchase.

I did not switch from PS4 to PC to see my modding experience limited by that 10 GB VRAM.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's a quote from a 3080 owner:

They put 10gb on the rtx 3080 gpu flagship and 12 gb on a maistream gpu, this must be a joke to 3080 users.

I have a evga rtx 3080 ftw3