Is 12GB of VRAM enough for the future?

[Floresdorf]

I'm going to build a new PC for 1440p gaming. I'm considering getting an RTX 4070TI, but am worried that 12gb of VRAM won't suffice anymore in 5 years. I want to play some really demanding games, which I can't even think of doing with my present PC (barely handles cs:go).

If not, than I would be saving up for a 4080.

I want my PC to last without any upgrades for at least 4-5 years. I'm also going to be playing in 4k sometimes, on the TV.

Where I live, the 4070TI is cheaper than the 3090TI by a large margin.

The 3090 is a bit cheaper.

[Ottoman420]

Its not

 

Quite a few games now are exceeding 12gb at 1440p mostly due to poorly optimized gamaes.

 

Plus with a decreased memory bandwith bus Nvidia is making their mid-range cards struggle to play the latest games today so no chance lasting 5 years.

[Agall]

4 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

I'm going to build a new PC for 1440p gaming. I'm considering getting an RTX 4070TI, but am worried that 12gb of VRAM won't suffice anymore in 5 years. I want to play some really demanding games, which I can't even think of doing with my present PC (barely handles cs:go).

If not, than I would be saving up for a 4080.

I want my PC to last without any upgrades for at least 4-5 years. I'm also going to be playing in 4k sometimes, on the TV.

Where I live, the 4070TI is cheaper than the 3090TI by a large margin.

The 3090 is a bit cheaper.

Maybe at 1080p, but not for anything more. Even then, at 1080p its a stretch.

[JimTheBeet]

5 years will be a stretch. Is 12 gig enough today, and likely for several years? Absolutely! Really though - five years is a long time in the computer world, who knows what games will look for by then. Heck, we could even have the return of SLI like Linus has been harping!

[Clearviper]

8 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

I'm going to build a new PC for 1440p gaming. I'm considering getting an RTX 4070TI, but am worried that 12gb of VRAM won't suffice anymore in 5 years. I want to play some really demanding games, which I can't even think of doing with my present PC (barely handles cs:go).

If not, than I would be saving up for a 4080.

I want my PC to last without any upgrades for at least 4-5 years. I'm also going to be playing in 4k sometimes, on the TV.

Where I live, the 4070TI is cheaper than the 3090TI by a large margin.

The 3090 is a bit cheaper.

it depends. on most things yes. i don't see it becomming a issue till they bring 16gb-24gb to lower end cards such as a 70's or 60ti's. but 12 should be good for atleast 3-5 years  i have a 3080 12gb and so far i've not ran into anything never gets maxed atleast for what i do and runs games amazingly at 1080 1440p and 4k 

[johnno23]

if you are not going to invest in 4k then I am of the opinion you should be fine for at least 3 or 4 years of solid performance.

I am running a bog standard 3080 10GB LHR and my games on an ips 144hz 3440 1440p are so good I am not in any rush to look for an upgrade.

I run all my games at high setting not ultra although many games can run on ultra without any issues. I just find that visually i cannot see the difference and the extra power draw and ramped up fan speeds are just a waste of energy.

[Floresdorf]

@Ottoman420 @Agall @JimTheBeet @Clearviper @johnno23

Just wanted to add some pricing info on the cards:

3090 is equivalent to 725 USD

4070ti is 835 

3090ti is 1025 (looks like a terrible deal)

4080 is 1150

That's why I'm thinking about the 4080, even though it's very expensive.

I also considered AMD, but their price-to-performace is even worse here. And my friend with an RX 6650xt has driver problems.

I wanted to go with the latest gen since they have more features and also better efficiency.

But I'm really worried about that 12gb VRAM.

Perhaps I should buy a 3090 and then upgrade in 2-3 years when 6000 series is out?

[johnno23]

The 3090 would be my choice at 725. the little extra you get with the ti version is just not worth the money.

The 4080 is just really way over priced and you only need to work backward comparing cost to performance.

4090 is truly expensive but when compared to the price and performance loss on a 4080 the 4090 suddenly looks cheap.

[Floresdorf]

1 minute ago, johnno23 said:

The 3090 would be my choice at 725. the little extra you get with the ti version is just not worth the money.

The 4080 is just really way over priced and you only need to work backward comparing cost to performance.

4090 is truly expensive but when compared to the price and performance loss on a 4080 the 4090 suddenly looks cheap.

The 4090 is 1625$ here, so it's even worse

[Agall]

1 hour ago, Floresdorf said:

@Ottoman420 @Agall @JimTheBeet @Clearviper @johnno23

Just wanted to add some pricing info on the cards:

3090 is equivalent to 725 USD

4070ti is 835 

3090ti is 1025 (looks like a terrible deal)

4080 is 1150

That's why I'm thinking about the 4080, even though it's very expensive.

I also considered AMD, but their price-to-performace is even worse here. And my friend with an RX 6650xt has driver problems.

I wanted to go with the latest gen since they have more features and also better efficiency.

But I'm really worried about that 12gb VRAM.

Perhaps I should buy a 3090 and then upgrade in 2-3 years when 6000 series is out?

Problem with the RTX 4080 is you're quite close to an RTX 4090 that is markedly better silicon. The RTX 4080 is practically speaking the ada lovelace equivalent to the RTX 3070ti, which was previously $600 silicon. The whole RTX 4000 series is upsold silicon for neigh double the equivalent last generation's bin except the RTX 4090.

 

Unfortunately the RTX 4090 is the best value card for the RTX 4000 series, unless they go buck wild and release an RTX 4080ti with a 320bit bus and 20GB of DDR6x with an equivalent bin to the RTX 3080 which would put it at about 13500 cuda cores and likely get within spitting distance of the RTX 4090 for hopefully a lot less, but the RTX 4080 at $1200 sort of screws any reasonable price point they could sell it at.

 

Nvidia is sitting on millions of AD102 GPUs that weren't fully unlocked bins for their 'Quadro' nor capable enough dies to make the RTX 4090 cut that they've had no reason to release with really no market pressure from Radeon or Intel. Maybe if Radeon releases a $1200 RX 7950 XT or RX 7900 XTXXXXXX that'll beat the RTX 4080, then Nvidia will release a useful card other than the RTX 4090.

[Montana One-Six]

Just a few days ago someone else basically asked the same question:

 

3 hours ago, Floresdorf said:

but am worried that 12gb of VRAM won't suffice anymore in 5 years

Impossible to tell how much VRAM you will need in 5 years.

 

But don't fall for the VRAM panic that seems to go around these days. As someone who plays at 4K with a 12GB card I haven't had any issues so far that came from not having enough VRAM. Also there are 4 games total that I am aware of that have been released so far that use more than 12GB VRAM at 4K. Two of them TLOU and Forspoken even used close to or more than 12GB at 1440p when they came out. These two games I would consider bad ports and apparently the VRAM issues have been somewhat fixed now. The other two Hogwarts Leagcy and SW: Jedi Survivor only get over 12GB VRAM at 4K when used with RT.

 

So in summary there are no games I know of that use more than 12GB of VRAM at 1440p right now. Most new releases use around 7-9GB VRAM at 1440p. Which means 12GB for 1440p should be enough for at least a bit imo. Also all these numbers are at max settings so playing at high instead of max will save you VRAM (sometimes 1-2GB) with very minimal loss of graphical quality.

[johnno23]

5 hours ago, Floresdorf said:

The 4090 is 1625$ here, so it's even worse

For its level of performance it trounces simply everything else. If I could afford a 4080 I would still pass till I could get my hands on a 4090 but by the time that happens the 50 series will be on the market. 

For me though the reality has to be that my monitor is 1440p at 144hz and my 3080 simply does a wonderful job. Unless I join the 4k monitor train I do not need anything faster than what i already own. 

and 1625 for a 3080 was called a good deal during the scammers heyday not so long ago. 

So returning to my thoughts on a 3090 for 725. the regular 3090 is 15-17% faster than my 3080 and comes with 14 GB more vram. My MSI 3080 Suprim I paid 825USD  so had i not got it I would be jumping for joy at a 3090 for 725.

[WallacEngineering]

@Floresdorf

 

I disagree with what has been said here by most.

 

RTX 3070 is just NOW beginning to see issues at 8GB because of a few badly optimized console ports that recently came out.

 

This is NOT the standard for games, these games are reported to be extremely buggy and run very poorly. One of them even consumes like 20GB at 1440p, obviously thats not normal.

 

I like how everyone has already assumed these obviously broken games are the new standard for PC

 

But on the other hand, VRAM usage IS going up, with some developers already stating they are fed up with 8GB VRAM restrictions and will be targeting higher usage.

 

But I don't think the norm will become like 16GB at 1080p Ultra. That would simply be outrageous.

 

I think 12GB will be just fine for 1440p Ultra for a while. Maybe far in the future, ull have to drop settings to High instead of Ultra, but thats to be expected anyways as games get more demanding.

 

However, if you want Ultrawide 1440p like I play (3440x1440) or 4K, you will definitely have an issue sooner or later. And the problem is that the 4070-Ti is actually decently capable at these resolutions.

 

So as long as you strictly stick to 2560x1440p with higher frame rates instead, you should be just fine. But Nvidia definitely called it close with the 4070-Ti, which should in reality have 16GB because its so much more powerful than the non-Ti 4070.

 

Or, you could forget the worry all-together and get the slightly less expensive Radeon RX 7900-XT with 20GB of VRAM that is faster than 4070-Ti in Raster anyways

[e22big]

10 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

@Floresdorf

 

I disagree with what has been said here by most.

 

RTX 3070 is just NOW beginning to see issues at 8GB because of a few badly optimized console ports that recently came out.

 

This is NOT the standard for games, these games are reported to be extremely buggy and run very poorly. One of them even consumes like 20GB at 1440p, obviously thats not normal.

 

I like how everyone has already assumed these obviously broken games are the new standard for PC

 

But on the other hand, VRAM usage IS going up, with some developers already stating they are fed up with 8GB VRAM restrictions and will be targeting higher usage.

 

But I don't think the norm will become like 16GB at 1080p Ultra. That would simply be outrageous.

 

I think 12GB will be just fine for 1440p Ultra for a while. Maybe far in the future, ull have to drop settings to High instead of Ultra, but thats to be expected anyways as games get more demanding.

 

However, if you want Ultrawide 1440p like I play (3440x1440) or 4K, you will definitely have an issue sooner or later. And the problem is that the 4070-Ti is actually decently capable at these resolutions.

 

So as long as you strictly stick to 2560x1440p with higher frame rates instead, you should be just fine. But Nvidia definitely called it close with the 4070-Ti, which should in reality have 16GB because its so much more powerful than the non-Ti 4070.

 

Or, you could forget the worry all-together and get the slightly less expensive Radeon RX 7900-XT with 20GB of VRAM that is faster than 4070-Ti in Raster anyways

I second this opinion - or at least I hope it will be the case. 8GB and less is still the norm in the industry, devs obviously want people to brute force their game by buying a new and powerful hardware, but if they want to sell their product without listing 6800XT as the minimum, they would have to properly optimise their game for their customers. It might not be on day 1, and it most likely not going to be on 4k Ultra, but they should deliver sooner or later (as with all of the broken releases thus far.)

 

[Floresdorf]

9 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

@Floresdorf

 

I disagree with what has been said here by most.

 

RTX 3070 is just NOW beginning to see issues at 8GB because of a few badly optimized console ports that recently came out.

 

This is NOT the standard for games, these games are reported to be extremely buggy and run very poorly. One of them even consumes like 20GB at 1440p, obviously that's not normal.

 

I like how everyone has already assumed these obviously broken games are the new standard for PC

 

But on the other hand, VRAM usage IS going up, with some developers already stating they are fed up with 8GB VRAM restrictions and will be targeting higher usage.

 

But I don't think the norm will become like 16GB at 1080p Ultra. That would simply be outrageous.

 

I think 12GB will be just fine for 1440p Ultra for a while. Maybe far in the future, ull have to drop settings to High instead of Ultra, but thats to be expected anyways as games get more demanding.

 

However, if you want Ultrawide 1440p like I play (3440x1440) or 4K, you will definitely have an issue sooner or later. And the problem is that the 4070-Ti is actually decently capable at these resolutions.

 

So as long as you strictly stick to 2560x1440p with higher frame rates instead, you should be just fine. But Nvidia definitely called it close with the 4070-Ti, which should in reality have 16GB because its so much more powerful than the non-Ti 4070.

 

Or, you could forget the worry all-together and get the slightly less expensive Radeon RX 7900-XT with 20GB of VRAM that is faster than 4070-Ti in Raster anyways

I actually wanted an RX 7900 XT. They're roughly the same price as the RTX 4070TI where I live

But as I mentioned, my friend has driver issues, the Radeon cards lack an equivalent to DLSS3, have much better ray tracing (which I will be using in some games) and they are not the best in productivity tasks (but they do have a much better video encoder).

But if I decide I'm willing to live with these compromises I will definitely go with it. Or I might get a 3090 and wait 2 years to get a 5070 or something.

Also, all my friends always recommend Nvidia cards.

About that 20gb game, it's Jedi survivor isn't it?

I'm going to play 1440p 16:9, so no need to worry about that.

And they 3070 is seeing issues after 3 years of existence, which is not a lot. Also, it was criticized when it was released because of the 8gb of VRAM (while the 3060 had 12). 

[WallacEngineering]

32 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

About that 20gb game, it's Jedi survivor isn't it?

 

It was either that or Hogwarts Legacy I believe. And from what I understand they were working on fixing it too.

 

32 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

I actually wanted an RX 7900 XT. They're roughly the same price as the RTX 4070TI where I live

 

Well here in the USA the 7900-XT is a decent amount cheaper than the 4070-Ti. The very cheapest XT right now is a decent AIB Sapphire Pulse for $779 with a free game while the Ti will cost you $799 WITHOUT a free game or $819 with a free game.

 

32 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

But as I mentioned, my friend has driver issues, the Radeon cards lack an equivalent to DLSS3, have much better ray tracing

 

Not all of this is actually true anymore.

 

With RX 7000 AMD made massive leaps with their Ray Accelerators, my 7900-XTX can actually MATCH the RTX 4080 in some games with Ray Tracing turned on, but does loose most of the time by a solid 10-15% so Nvidia is definitely still better by a fair bit.

 

But my XTX DOES win in Raster, for SIGNIFICANTLY less money. Its a much easier choice to go AMD at this higher tier where the price gap gets pretty huge.

 

As for drivers, ya Nvidia is still better there too, but honestly not by much these days. Im not sure what issues your friend is having but they can't be too awful - Ive been running AMD since the RX 480 and then got the 5700-XT and now my new XTX and through all of that time Ive only ever had a real issue with ONE game and it literally JUST happened - Atomic Heart - a game KNOWN to have issues on AMD Hardware

 

Linus even switched to the same Red Devil 7900-XTX that I have because hes sick of NVIDIAs crap. Hes been daily driving the card for months now.

[Floresdorf]

28 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

It was either that or Hogwarts Legacy I believe. And from what I understand they were working on fixing it too.

 

 

Well here in the USA the 7900-XT is a decent amount cheaper than the 4070-Ti. The very cheapest XT right now is a decent AIB Sapphire Pulse for $779 with a free game while the Ti will cost you $799 WITHOUT a free game or $819 with a free game.

 

 

Not all of this is actually true anymore.

 

With RX 7000 AMD made massive leaps with their Ray Accelerators, my 7900-XTX can actually MATCH the RTX 4080 in some games with Ray Tracing turned on, but does loose most of the time by a solid 10-15% so Nvidia is definitely still better by a fair bit.

 

But my XTX DOES win in Raster, for SIGNIFICANTLY less money. Its a much easier choice to go AMD at this higher tier where the price gap gets pretty huge.

 

As for drivers, ya Nvidia is still better there too, but honestly not by much these days. Im not sure what issues your friend is having but they can't be too awful - Ive been running AMD since the RX 480 and then got the 5700-XT and now my new XTX and through all of that time Ive only ever had a real issue with ONE game and it literally JUST happened - Atomic Heart - a game KNOWN to have issues on AMD Hardware

 

Linus even switched to the same Red Devil 7900-XTX that I have because hes sick of NVIDIAs crap. Hes been daily driving the card for months now.

Linus just said in his review of the Rx 7600 that vram requirements are only going to increase, and also some other things, maybe you should watch it.

[Floresdorf]

@Ottoman420 @Agall @JimTheBeet @Clearviper @johnno23 @Montana One-Six @WallacEngineering @e22big

I'm still not sure if the 12gb on the 4070ti will be enough. I have three options:

1. Buy the 4070ti and hope vram won't be a problem in the future

2. Buy a 3090 (which is cheaper here) and than waiting 2 years to buy something better

3. Buy an rx 7900xt for the same price as a 4070ti, but have a lot less features than a nvidia card, and also worse productivity outside of video rendering

[xAcid9]

If a full fledged UE5 games start using over 10GB on 1080p, 12GB might not be enough sooner than expected. 

 

Just bite the bullet and get a 4080.

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 5/23/2023 at 12:52 PM, Floresdorf said:

@Ottoman420 @Agall @JimTheBeet @Clearviper @johnno23

Just wanted to add some pricing info on the cards:

3090 is equivalent to 725 USD

4070ti is 835 

3090ti is 1025 (looks like a terrible deal)

4080 is 1150

That's why I'm thinking about the 4080, even though it's very expensive.

I also considered AMD, but their price-to-performace is even worse here. And my friend with an RX 6650xt has driver problems.

I wanted to go with the latest gen since they have more features and also better efficiency.

But I'm really worried about that 12gb VRAM.

Perhaps I should buy a 3090 and then upgrade in 2-3 years when 6000 series is out?

What is the 7900 XT going for in your area? 12GB is not going to last.

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

What is the 7900 XT going for in your area? 12GB is not going to last.

The 4070ti and 7900xt are both (converted to usd) 835$.

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

If a full fledged UE5 games start using over 10GB on 1080p, 12GB might not be enough sooner than expected. 

 

Just bite the bullet and get a 4080.

It's hard. There's a difference of 300 dollars between a 4070ti and a 4080 where I live. 

4070ti: 835

4080: 1150

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, Floresdorf said:

The 4070ti and 7900xt are both (converted to usd) 835$.

Then the 7900 XT is by far the way to go. Better gpu right now, and 67% more RAM so it'll age a lot better, especially as UE5 games come out. Moore's Law is Dead interviewed a UE5 dev who said to expect 12GB to be what you want for 1080p and 16GB+ what's going to be necessary for 1440p.

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 5/23/2023 at 10:11 PM, WallacEngineering said:

@Floresdorf

 

I disagree with what has been said here by most.

 

RTX 3070 is just NOW beginning to see issues at 8GB because of a few badly optimized console ports that recently came out.

Not true. Here's the 3060 12GB crushing the 3070 in Doom Eternal with RT at 1440p. The Doom series have some of the best PC optimized games released in the last few years.

 

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/doom-eternal-test-rtx

 

 

 

Here's RE8 with RT at playable framerates on a 3060 12GB at 4k while the 3070 performance sucks

 

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/resident_evil_village_pc_graphics_performance_benchmark_review,7.html

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Then the 7900 XT is by far the way to go. Better gpu right now, and 67% more RAM so it'll age a lot better, especially as UE5 games come out. Moore's Law is Dead interviewed a UE5 dev who said to expect 12GB to be what you want for 1080p and 16GB+ what's going to be necessary for 1440p.

I was also thinking about it, but am worried about some things:

1. FSR is worse than DLSS, and there is still no equivalent to DLSS3. Also there are more games compatible with DLSS than ones with FSR.

2. Ray Tracing performance is worse* in most cases. I will be using it in some titles, I know that for sure.

3. Productivity performance is worse* in all cases, exept for video rendering.

4. Drivers can be buggy. My friend just got a PC with a rx 6650xt and told me about his unoptimized drivers.

BUT... if people really think 12gb won't be enough... I will be getting it.

*: in comparison with RTX 4000 series cards.