Is 12GB of VRAM enough for the future?

[WallacEngineering]

2 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Not true. Here's the 3060 12GB crushing the 3070 in Doom Eternal with RT at 1440p. This is one of the best optimized games you'll ever see on PC.

 

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

 

Thats weird, why wasn't this issue made more relevant back then? Thats the sort of thing people would raise hell over, well that sucks...

 

Well @Floresdorf

 

I would say this info pretty solidly settles it. I guess even 12GB really isn't enough if even games a couple years old are showing signs of struggling with 8GB of RAM.

 

Guess that means RTX 4080 or RX 7900-XT or XTX. Or wait for the 4060-Ti 16GB edition coming in July if you can stomach the fact ur paying $500 for no performance improvement whatsoever over the 3060-Ti, it just has more VRAM. Oh and of course where that performance gap shrinks to basically zero is of course at your chosen resolution of 1440p.

 

Actually, forget I said anything about the 4060-Ti, its so disgusting I literally CANNOT recommended it to anyone, even someone looking for a $500 card with RT performance should just forget the 4060-Ti and literally buy ANYTHING ELSE lol

[SteveGrabowski0]

1 minute ago, Floresdorf said:

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.

1. From Hardware Unboxed's testing, DLSS is a lot better when rendering low resolutions while they're pretty close if you're upscaling say 1440p to 4k if I remember right. But definitely look up that comparison to double check. Personally I don't see the appeal of DLSS3. First thing I do when I buy a new TV is turn off all that frame interpolation crap so don't see the appeal of using it driver level either. Hardware Unboxed really only recommended it for when you can render 120fps for smoothing on a 240Hz monitor. It's definitely something that should not be used to try to hit a perceived 60 fps since you're getting a latency penalty and you might controlling the game at 30-45 Hz.

 

2. Right now the 4070 Ti beats the 7900 XT by 10% in RT at 1440p in TPU's testsuite, which is pretty sad given how much stronger Nvidia's RT hardware is than AMD's. And that's from a few months ago. My post above about Doom Eternal and RE8 shows what it looks like when you run out of VRAM where the 3060 12GB and 6700 XT are killing the 3070 with RT in those games.

 

 

3. If you're buying a card for doing professional work that's a whole different can of worms than asking about a card for gaming.

 

4. AMD drivers are better than Nvidia's for DirectX 12 and it's not even close IMO. Nvidia has a lot more driver overhead than AMD on DX12 which really hurts them as you get more cpu bound. It's one of the reasons Jedi Survivor was such a disaster at launch on Nvidia cards while AMD cards ran it ok.

 

The one big bug I can think of in the AMD drivers that hasn't been fixed is with driver timeouts in Windows 10 in desktop use due to multiplane overlay which requires disabling it via a reghack. Here's the fix for it (used to also be a problem on Nvidia):

 

https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5157/~/after-updating-to-nvidia-game-ready-driver-461.09-or-newer%2C-some-desktop-apps

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Thats weird, why wasn't this issue made more relevant back then? Thats the sort of thing people would raise hell over, well that sucks...

 

Well @Floresdorf

 

I would say this info pretty solidly settles it. I guess even 12GB really isn't enough if even games a couple years old are showing signs of struggling with 8GB of RAM.

 

Guess that means RTX 4080 or RX 7900-XT or XTX. Or wait for the 4060-Ti 16GB edition coming in July if you can stomach the fact ur paying $500 for no performance improvement whatsoever over the 3060-Ti, it just has more VRAM. Oh and of course where that performance gap shrinks to basically zero is of course at your chosen resolution of 1440p.

 

Actually, forget I said anything about the 4060-Ti, its so disgusting I literally CANNOT recommended it to anyone, even someone looking for a $500 card with RT performance should just forget the 4060-Ti and literally buy ANYTHING ELSE lol

The 4060TI is pathetic

I think I'll go with a rx 7900xt. I haven't got a decent GPU anyways, so this will be an amazing upgrade.

[SteveGrabowski0]

11 minutes ago, WallacEngineering said:

 

Thats weird, why wasn't this issue made more relevant back then? Thats the sort of thing people would raise hell over, well that sucks...

 

Well @Floresdorf

 

I would say this info pretty solidly settles it. I guess even 12GB really isn't enough if even games a couple years old are showing signs of struggling with 8GB of RAM.

 

Guess that means RTX 4080 or RX 7900-XT or XTX. Or wait for the 4060-Ti 16GB edition coming in July if you can stomach the fact ur paying $500 for no performance improvement whatsoever over the 3060-Ti, it just has more VRAM. Oh and of course where that performance gap shrinks to basically zero is of course at your chosen resolution of 1440p.

 

Actually, forget I said anything about the 4060-Ti, its so disgusting I literally CANNOT recommended it to anyone, even someone looking for a $500 card with RT performance should just forget the 4060-Ti and literally buy ANYTHING ELSE lol

4060 Ti 16GB is going to be DOA thanks to that stingy 128 bit bus. That dinky bus that used to be relegated to 50 series cards is why the 4060 Ti loses to the 3060 Ti even at 1080p in Hogwarts Legacy and The Last of Us Part 1. RTX 4060 Ti is probably going to go down as Nvidia's worst release since the GTX 960.

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

1. From Hardware Unboxed's testing, DLSS is a lot better when rendering low resolutions while they're pretty close if you're upscaling say 1440p to 4k if I remember right. But definitely look up that comparison to double check. Personally I don't see the appeal of DLSS3. First thing I do when I buy a new TV is turn off all that frame interpolation crap so don't see the appeal of using it driver level either. Hardware Unboxed really only recommended it for when you can render 120fps for smoothing on a 240Hz monitor. It's definitely something that should not be used to try to hit a perceived 60 fps since you're getting a latency penalty and you might controlling the game at 30-45 Hz.

 

2. Right now the 4070 Ti beats the 7900 XT by 10% in RT at 1440p in TPU's testsuite, which is pretty sad given how much stronger Nvidia's RT hardware is than AMD's. And that's from a few months ago. My post above about Doom Eternal and RE8 shows what it looks like when you run out of VRAM where the 3060 12GB and 6700 XT are killing the 3070 with RT in those games.

 

 

3. If you're buying a card for doing professional work that's a whole different can of worms than asking about a card for gaming.

 

4. AMD drivers are better than Nvidia's for DirectX 12 and it's not even close IMO. Nvidia has a lot more driver overhead than AMD on DX12 which really hurts them as you get more cpu bound. It's one of the reasons Jedi Survivor was such a disaster at launch on Nvidia cards while AMD cards ran it ok.

 

The one big bug I can think of in the AMD drivers that hasn't been fixed is with driver timeouts in Windows 10 in desktop use due to multiplane overlay which requires disabling it via a reghack. Here's the fix for it (used to also be a problem on Nvidia):

 

https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5157/~/after-updating-to-nvidia-game-ready-driver-461.09-or-newer%2C-some-desktop-apps

Well, I'll be getting Windows 11 anyways, so I don't think this is a problem.

I'll be getting the card mostly for gaming, but sometimes I'm gonna do some video editing and 3d modelling.

I also though that nvidia cards have better compatibility with older titles, but I might be wrong.

I'm seeing now Linus's review on the 4070ti and can see the 7900xt kills it in gaming.

Also, FSR3 might be coming later.

I think I'll go with AMD. Let's hope I don't regret it. 

[ToboRobot]

On 5/23/2023 at 1:14 PM, Floresdorf said:

 

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.

 

In 4-5 years there will be discussions about "Is 16GB of VRAM enough?"

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

In 4-5 years there will be discussions about "Is 16GB of VRAM enough?"

That's why I decided to go with a rx 7900xt.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just now, Floresdorf said:

Well, I'll be getting Windows 11 anyways, so I don't think this is a problem.

I'll be getting the card mostly for gaming, but sometimes I'm gonna do some video editing and 3d modelling.

I also though that nvidia cards have better compatibility with older titles, but I might be wrong.

I'm seeing now Linus's review on the 4070ti and can see the 7900xt kills it in gaming.

Also, FSR3 might be coming later.

I think I'll go with AMD. Let's hope I don't regret it. 

Ten years ago AMD had enormous problems with overhead in DirectX 11, which made them struggle with low end cpus. It was so bad I remember Digital Foundry publishing a video showing a GTX 750 Ti getting better performance than an R9 380 in a Call of Duty game when paired with an i3-4130. That would be like seeing a GTX 1650 outperforming an RX 6650 XT in a game today. It was so bad AMD made their own low level API called Mantle and tried to get devs behind it, but AFAIK only Battlefield 4 and maybe Battlefield Hardline implemented it. But that venture into Mantle might be why their drivers for the low level DirectX 12 API have lower overhead than Nvidia's now.

 

Those DX11 problems were so bad I never recommended AMD cards to anyone with an i3 or an AMD cpu at the time (their cpus were horrible for gaming from 2011 to 2016 until Ryzen brought them back to respectability). I don't know if they ever fixed their DX11 drivers or if cpus are just fast enough now that it's not a concern with newer games that use DX11, but the DX11 results for Dying Light 2 seem pretty good at 1080p where the cpu would become more a factor.

 

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dying-light-2-stay-human-test-gpu-cpu

 

I doubt it'll be a concern with older games since AMD's DX11 driver overhead problems didn't really seem to manifest if you were using at least a Haswell i5, which is crushed by any modern cpu.

[johnno23]

AMD right now simply offer more for your money and in general are perfectly fine and most games simply look great.

the problem is that too much time effort and marketing is placed on trying to promote technologies that do this or do that but at the end of the day it is really down to the game developer team to do their dammed job right.

Just look at how well some games were on release. their ports to PC often dismal.

Horizon Zero Dawn - the last of US etc but these ports do at least get fixed over time.

The last of Us when first released had a graphical quality that stunned everyone so a DEVELOPER THAT DOES IT RIGHT can do some amazing things.

Metro series are another example of a developer team that did it right with their later releases and the quality of the graphics are so good it make no difference if you use AMD Nvidea FSR or RTX... yes visual aspects might be tweaked etc but essentially the game was exceptionally well made and looked good even without all these new tech enhancements.

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Ten years ago AMD had enormous problems with overhead in DirectX 11, which made them struggle with low end cpus. It was so bad I remember Digital Foundry publishing a video showing a GTX 750 Ti getting better performance than an R9 380 in a Call of Duty game when paired with an i3-4130. That would be like seeing a GTX 1650 outperforming an RX 6650 XT in a game today. It was so bad AMD made their own low level API called Mantle and tried to get devs behind it, but AFAIK only Battlefield 4 and maybe Battlefield Hardline implemented it. But that venture into Mantle might be why their drivers for the low level DirectX 12 API have lower overhead than Nvidia's now.

 

Those DX11 problems were so bad I never recommended AMD cards to anyone with an i3 or an AMD cpu at the time (their cpus were horrible for gaming from 2011 to 2016 until Ryzen brought them back to respectability). I don't know if they ever fixed their DX11 drivers or if cpus are just fast enough now that it's not a concern with newer games that use DX11, but the DX11 results for Dying Light 2 seem pretty good at 1080p where the cpu would become more a factor.

 

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/dying-light-2-stay-human-test-gpu-cpu

 

I doubt it'll be a concern with older games since AMD's DX11 driver overhead problems didn't really seem to manifest if you were using at least a Haswell i5, which is crushed by any modern cpu.

I now looked at the charts in Linus's video and they said that AV1 encoding is unsupported. Is this something that has been fixed by now?

[SteveGrabowski0]

17 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

I now looked at the charts in Linus's video and they said that AV1 encoding is unsupported. Is this something that has been fixed by now?

I don't know. I'm not very into video encoding so don't pay much attention to it. My use of hardware for video encoding basically consisted of once trying to compress some large videos I had with the H.265 hardware encoder on my old GTX 1660 Super, seeing the filesize was huge for the quality once it was done, deleting the files, and deciding to use my cpu to do the H.265 encoding instead since it made way smaller files of the same visual quality using the same quality settings for the encodes. Though the 1660 Super's hardware H.265 encoder was fast. I guess it was designed for people streaming to Twitch and not for people just looking to compress videos taking up space on their hard drives haha.

[xAcid9]

1 hour ago, Floresdorf said:

I now looked at the charts in Linus's video and they said that AV1 encoding is unsupported. Is this something that has been fixed by now?

Yes, BlackMagic recently added AV1 support for RDNA3 GPU.

Quote

What’s new in DaVinci Resolve 18.5 b2

• Ability to perform hardware accelerated AV1 encode on AMD systems on DaVinci Resolve.

 

But don't get too excited about FSR3 imo. 

 

 

[WallacEngineering]

1 hour ago, Floresdorf said:

Well, I'll be getting Windows 11 anyways, so I don't think this is a problem.

I'll be getting the card mostly for gaming, but sometimes I'm gonna do some video editing and 3d modelling.

I also though that nvidia cards have better compatibility with older titles, but I might be wrong.

I'm seeing now Linus's review on the 4070ti and can see the 7900xt kills it in gaming.

Also, FSR3 might be coming later.

I think I'll go with AMD. Let's hope I don't regret it. 

You won't, I love my XTX and I do some video editing from time to time.

 

AMDs performance is definitely worse than Nvidia when it comes to professional work but they are still more than fast enough to where you probably won't notice, especially on a high end card like the 7900-XT

 

On a side note, can we all just agree as a community that the 7900-XT is actually the 7800-XT and the XT is actually the 7900-XT?

 

I have no idea what the hell was going through AMDs mind when they came up with this naming scheme but it is quite literally the WORST naming scheme they have ever come up with.

 

I bet you the marketing team was literally piss drunk and laughing when they came up with it.

 

"Lets just throw another 'X' on the end, that'll show those bastards!" And then everyone bursts out laughing and somehow it comes to fruition anyways.

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

But don't get too excited about FSR3 imo. 

I mean, if we're talking about AMD, I'm COUNTING on FSR3 to be a worthy contender to DLSS3.

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

On a side note, can we all just agree as a community that the 7900-XT is actually the 7800-XT and the XT is actually the 7900-XT?

 

I have no idea what the hell was going through AMDs mind when they came up with this naming scheme but it is quite literally the WORST naming scheme they have ever come up with.

 

I bet you the marketing team was literally piss drunk and laughing when they came up with it.

 

"Lets just throw another 'X' on the end, that'll show those bastards!" And then everyone bursts out laughing and somehow it comes to fruition anyways.

Naming shemes just get worse every second

I completely agree that the 7900xt is the 7800xt.

Pherhaps they wanted to sound more like team green?

[WallacEngineering]

3 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

Naming shemes just get worse every second

I completely agree that the 7900xt is the 7800xt.

Pherhaps they wanted to sound more like team green?

I guess but Nvidia wasn't that dumb with it. Sure the 4060-Ti is a dumpster fire especially at the price but at least the 4090 isn't called like the 4080-Ti-X-Super-Mega Awesome or some shit lol

[xAcid9]

9 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

I mean, if we're talking about AMD, I'm COUNTING on FSR3 to be a worthy contender to DLSS3.

Frame gen caught them off guard imo, announcing FSR3 is like a panic move to me.

Nvidia spent years prepping frame-gen in software and hardware. 

[Ottoman420]

3 hours ago, Floresdorf said:

@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

Can you wait untill the next gen?, 3090 uses twice as much power as 4070ti for similar performance so it dosent make much sense for the long run.

 

Something i saw recently which i had not considered before the consoles have min 10gb system/vram 16gb on the ps5 and that is what the game devolpers are targetting now. So for me a nice long running gfx card would be 16gb today.

 

This is kinda a meh generation if you can wait till the next launch i would, if you cant wait and you dont need the productivity i would go 7900xt.

 

I personally wouldnt want to buy a card today that needs FSR/DLSS to run at the target frame rate unless you have a really fast monitor for e-sports these are the tools i would use to increase the life of the card down the road.

[Sol_NB]

To be honest if your buying a new card today I’d shoot for minimum 16gb of VRAM. 
 

im gonna replace my 3070 probably with a 7900XT and the main reason I’m going for that card is that it has 20gb of VRAM

[Floresdorf]

6 hours ago, Ottoman420 said:

Can you wait untill the next gen?, 3090 uses twice as much power as 4070ti for similar performance so it dosent make much sense for the long run.

 

Something i saw recently which i had not considered before the consoles have min 10gb system/vram 16gb on the ps5 and that is what the game devolpers are targetting now. So for me a nice long running gfx card would be 16gb today.

 

This is kinda a meh generation if you can wait till the next launch i would, if you cant wait and you dont need the productivity i would go 7900xt.

 

I personally wouldnt want to buy a card today that needs FSR/DLSS to run at the target frame rate unless you have a really fast monitor for e-sports these are the tools i would use to increase the life of the card down the road.

I can't wait till next gen, gotta upgrade now. My present pc is horrible, you can see it in my signature.

I'm definitely going for the rx 7900xt.

Here's the list in case someone's wondering: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Floresdorf/saved/28cBvK

(The prices are in russian rubles, I manually changed them to what it is like in russia. Pretend that the $ is a ₽)

[Ottoman420]

7 minutes ago, Floresdorf said:

I can't wait till next gen, gotta upgrade now. My present pc is horrible, you can see it in my signature.

I'm definitely going for the rx 7900xt.

Here's the list in case someone's wondering: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Floresdorf/saved/28cBvK

(The prices are in russian rubles, I manually changed them to what it is like in russia. Pretend that the $ is a ₽)

Welcome to the future sir, Looks good.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

It's not ALREADY unfortunately. I run out of VRAM quite often on my 4070ti....

[johnno23]

1 hour ago, Floresdorf said:

Here's the list in case someone's wondering: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/Floresdorf/saved/28cBvK

Formidable. 

[Floresdorf]

10 hours ago, Deadpool2onBlu-Ray said:

It's not ALREADY unfortunately. I run out of VRAM quite often on my 4070ti....

I'm sorry for you. So it's being the bottleneck in your system, right? I can see everything else is also really high-end.

[WallacEngineering]

12 hours ago, Floresdorf said:

I mean, if we're talking about AMD, I'm COUNTING on FSR3 to be a worthy contender to DLSS3.

It will be, but expect it to be like everything else from AMD - slightly behind for less money.

 

Besides, ur buying a 7900-XT. You aren't gonna need an FPS booster 99% of the time and when you do, FSR-2 is already good enough to get the job done - its not like it doesn't work.

 

I always say this about frame gen anyways - Your girlfriend can fake her orgasm too, but would you really consider that to be a good thing...?

 

Fake frames are just that - they are fake. Upscaling is also fake. There is a reason why reviews do not use DLSS or FSR as a testing standard.

 

Native Raster Horsepower is still the king for the time being and will probably continue being the standard for quite a few more years. Even RT still isn't all that relevant yet, not for the vast majority of gamers anyways.

 

Raster horsepower is something AMD has always been extremely good at, so I wouldn't really worry about FSR-3 all that much. Let these companies take a few more generations to perfect these new technologies and just max out your Raster Horsepower for now. Its still the best way to game. RT doesn't look any better than native if you have to render at a lower resolution, drop FPS too low, or have to enable frame gen.

 

Good-old Raster High/Ultra settings still looks utterly fantastic especially when you consider modern games with modern textures. Its still the way to go for now if you ask me.