Looking at the GTX 1070 and 1080 and the Radeon R9 390, I see game developers programming their games for 8 GB VRAM. I've heard that the GTX 1060 will be launched with 6 GB VRAM, so that would be a sub-optimal choice. But could manufacturers release GTX 1060 cards with 12 GB VRAM? Or are there intrinsic limitations which prevent this? Similarly, someone with a 21:9 5kx2k display might benefit from more than 8 GB VRAM so is there anything to prevent a 16 GB GTX 1080?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
As long as the GPU can address the extra VRAM, then increasing it wouldn't be a problem. We've seen double VRAM editions for many, many generations and models of GPUs from both AMD and nVidia.
Aircoookie
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2015
- Messages
- 375
It's quite unlikely that we'll see 1060s with 12GB before we see 1070s/1080s with 16GB. Customers would think the 1060 is the better product just because it has more VRAM...
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
I'll have to agree...Never has a mid-range model been released with more VRAM than a high-end, flagship, or halo model.
We've certainly seen a fair share of entry-level models offered with double VRAM, but going from 1GB to 2GB, or 2GB to 4GB when the base offering of the mid-range model has at least what the low-end double VRAM has is why...the entry-level models still don't exceed the base offering VRAM of the mid-range, high-end, flagship, or halo models - and certainly not the double VRAM offerings of the upper-end models (such as the 6GB 780 or 8GB 290X).
I hope that made sense. :/
760 4GB card would like to disagree with you.
780ti was only ever released with 3GB VRAM.
You could also argue about the 8GB 290x/390x of having more VRAM than Fury X, but I don't think it's a legitimate comparison (different microarch, actual HBM limitations, etc).
Last edited:
noobferguson
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 463
Also the 2GB 560ti > 1.5GB 580, and 3GB 660ti > 2GB 680.
If anything, I think they bank even more on people throwing more money at VRAM they may not need or know any better about.
If anything, I think they bank even more on people throwing more money at VRAM they may not need or know any better about.
sirmonkey1985
[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 22,414
and don't forget about all those 1-2GB cards back in the day when the high end cards had 512mb-1GB because people always assumed more vram meant the card was always better right?
Last edited:
It is true in an extremely broad term, but one that obscures the actual intended effect.
Much like convincing an ordinary layman that a better CPU means faster computer (historically true, but no longer quite accurate, especially in gaming), it's easier to convince the same laymen that a GPU with more VRAM is 'faster', it's the only metric that has an actual comparable value between GPUs.
An ordinary layman would have absolutely no idea whether card A is faster than card B, let alone how much faster, without actually doing research (reviews, benchmarks etc), so the only face value thing they have to compare, is VRAM, and thus leads to the "VRAM is everything" misconception. It's also one of the hardest thing to dispel too, since consumers always want a simple metric to compare 2 GPUs, just like they did with CPUs of old.
Much like convincing an ordinary layman that a better CPU means faster computer (historically true, but no longer quite accurate, especially in gaming), it's easier to convince the same laymen that a GPU with more VRAM is 'faster', it's the only metric that has an actual comparable value between GPUs.
An ordinary layman would have absolutely no idea whether card A is faster than card B, let alone how much faster, without actually doing research (reviews, benchmarks etc), so the only face value thing they have to compare, is VRAM, and thus leads to the "VRAM is everything" misconception. It's also one of the hardest thing to dispel too, since consumers always want a simple metric to compare 2 GPUs, just like they did with CPUs of old.
I don't think anyone gets confused between models of card - indeed, I'd like to see some data on that - but there's a huge variety of versions of models, usually in the cooler design but also in VRAM. And if presented with the option to choose between a 8 GB 1070 and a 12 GB 1060, only those in special edge cases are going to choose the latter; someone having to choose between a 6 GB 1060 and a 12 GB 1060 is another matter. The 12 GB model will cost more and the prospective purchaser will need to evaluate that extra cost.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
Normally "If you ain't got nothin' nice to say don't say nothin' at all" would previal... but this is a disaster through and through.
Anyone who buys a 12GB 1060 (or 1070 for that matter) is an idiot, pure and simple.
Unless you have the horsepower to be useful at the resolution, no sense putting the VRAM in. This has and will always be true.
Anyone who buys a 12GB 1060 (or 1070 for that matter) is an idiot, pure and simple.
Unless you have the horsepower to be useful at the resolution, no sense putting the VRAM in. This has and will always be true.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
Edited...see further reply below.
Last edited:
That's not correct. Raw resolution is not the only requirer of VRAM. Developers and modders love to use VRAM to pre-load textures etc. Skyrim, anyone? If developers are programming for 8 GB VRAM, then not only will they try to stuff as many textures etc there as possible but also try to keep all the required textures etc within that limit. If there's not enough room, then texture swapping may occur, with a resultant drop in fps.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
...if you're running super high texture resolutions and tons of Skyrim mods (or whatever) you shouldn't have bought a 1060 in the first place, but something more generally capable. So yes, it's correct.
I wasn't saying there shouldn't be cards with more VRAM, only that it's stupid to put that much on a relatively low end card. And it is.
Parja
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2002
- Messages
- 12,670
+1
Buying a card with an inferior GPU but more VRAM has almost never made sense.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 42,043
12GB on a 192-bit bus? Should call it GTX 1060: Mr. Sardonicus Edition.
noobferguson
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 463
Still, they wouldn't make them if they didn't sell. I'm thinking there are enough of those multiGPU diehards that might still be able to justify the extra VRAM on lower-end models.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
No one should be buying low end cards for SLI.
noobferguson
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2013
- Messages
- 463
Once again, not saying you're wrong, but they likely give that option because there are still enough people who do it.
thebeephaha
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,054
I think a lot of people start with a low-mid SLI capable card and think they'll just add a second later and double performance, but adding a second won't really be enough most times since SLI doesn't scale like that.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,824
Actually, I retract my previous reply to your statement. The 4GB 760 was still a lower tier product than the 6GB 780. Despite the 780Ti only having 3GB, there were still higher tier products that had more VRAM than the 4GB 760...the 6GB 780 and 6GB Titan. If the 780Ti had come with a 6GB option (which would have likely been priced around $750-800), then nVidia would have cannibalized their own $1000 Titan 6GB sales.