RTX 3xxx performance speculation

[Snowdog]

12GB on the highest-end non-Titan model? U serious Nvidia?

These cards better have HDMI 2.1. Seriously.

Something wrong with 12GB? These are gaming cards. NVidia wants MUCH more money for a Titan if you are serious about workstation cards.

 

[Nenu]

I think 12GB is fine for a high end gaming card.
Especially when DLSS is now being used for AA, the memory sucking methods are not required.
My 11GB 1080ti has not once been vram limited, not even close.

Yep, it must have HDMI 2.1, but I dont expect NVidia to disappoint with this.

 

[madpistol]

Something wrong with 12GB? These are gaming cards. NVidia wants MUCH more money for a Titan if you are serious about workstation cards.

We've been at this level of memory now for several generations. My RTX 2070 Super, with it's 8GB, gets close to maxing out using Ray Tracing on Control.

This is me playing around with the settings in Control. When I turned off DLSS and set the render resolution to 4k, this happened.

Now, that being said, I commend Nvidia for implementing DLSS. Not only does it increase performance without the loss of image quality (when used right), but since the render resolution is lower, the VRAM utilization is also lower. This will probably be their saving grace for this next generation of GPUs.

I'm not sure people remember this, but the GTX 780 and 780 Ti both had 3GB VRAM. I could not run GTA V on my GTX 780 at the details I wanted because I ran into that VRAM cap. I'm not saying it's going to happen here, but with the next generation of consoles coming out in a few months, you can be almost certain that we're going to hit a VRAM wall on this next gen, especially when using 4k resolution.

 

[Snowdog]

We've been at this level of memory now for several generations. My RTX 2070 Super, with it's 8GB, gets close to maxing out using Ray Tracing on Control.

Getting close to maxing out 8GB, is not an argument for needing more than 12GB.

you can be almost certain that we're going to hit a VRAM wall on this next gen, especially when using 4k resolution.

Nope, you can't. Certainly, not at 12GB. The VAST majority of new generation GPU cards will still have 8GB or less. 12GB is going to remain untouchable for the foreseeable future.

Maybe they will have a 24GB option if you want to pay through the nose for it, but I don't see any point at all for this in a gaming card.

Heck. I am just hoping they don't go back to 6GB for the 3060.

 

[madpistol]

Nope, you can't. Certainly, not at 12GB. The VAST majority of new generation GPU cards will still have 8GB or less. 12GB is going to remain untouchable for the foreseeable future.

Maybe they will have a 24GB option if you want to pay through the nose for it, but I don't see any point at all for this in a gaming card.

Heck. I am just hoping they don't go back to 6GB for the 3060.

How do you know this? Are you a game developer? Have you seen this demo of Unreal Engine 5?



That's a massive leap in graphics fidelity. You think that level of detail is going to be free? The VRAM cost is going to be tremendous. And what about Ray Tracing? You think that's free from a VRAM cost? Any on-screen reflection that is showing something off-screen means that those assets have to be loaded into VRAM as well.

12GB of VRAM is fine for now, but I seriously do not want another GTX 780/Ti situation where games only a few years old are unable to be played at high-end settings because they hit a VRAM wall.

 

[Snowdog]

How do you know this? Are you a game developer? Have you seen this demo of Unreal Engine 5?



That's a massive leap in graphics fidelity. You think that level of detail is going to be free? The VRAM cost is going to be tremendous. And what about Ray Tracing? You think that's free from a VRAM cost? Any on-screen reflection that is showing something off-screen means that those assets have to be loaded into VRAM as well.

12GB of VRAM is fine for now, but I seriously do not want another GTX 780/Ti situation where games only a few years old are unable to be played at high-end settings because they hit a VRAM wall.

8GB is fine for now.

I don't have to be a game to developer to know that it makes ZERO sense to target way under 1% of the market that has GPU with more than 12GB. It's also obvious that EVERTHING under a 3080 is still going to have 8GB or less.

You can do a hell of lot in 8GB. Let alone 12GB.

Again, there is ZERO logic in your argument, that we are barely touching 8GB today, and suddenly we are going to need more 12GB. That's a complete nonsense argument.

You might have a argument, that we might soon need more than 8GB, but there is no argument at all that we will need more than 12GB any time soon.

When we actually reach the point that we need more than 8GB, then you are start worrying about needing more than 12GB.

 

[Mylex]

8GB is fine for now.

I don't have to be a game to developer to know that it makes ZERO sense to target way under 1% of the market that has GPU with more than 12GB. It's also obvious that EVERTHING under a 3080 is still going to have 8GB or less.

I don't see them launching the 70 series with anything less than 8GB tbh. I don't know of many people that would be ok paying for that if it was the case.

 

[madpistol]

8GB is fine for now.

I don't have to be a game to developer to know that it makes ZERO sense to target way under 1% of the market that has GPU with more than 12GB. It's also obvious that EVERTHING under a 3080 is still going to have 8GB or less.

You can do a hell of lot in 8GB. Let alone 12GB.

Again, there is ZERO logic in your argument, that we are barely touching 8GB today, and suddenly we are going to need more 12GB. That's a complete nonsense argument.

You might have a argument, that we might soon need more than 8GB, but there is no argument at all that we will need more than 12GB any time soon.

When we actually reach the point that we need more than 8GB, then you are start worrying about needing more than 12GB.

For now.

As someone who works in a software shop, you don't think about "now". You think about what's coming. If you only think about "now", you get left behind. Intel got complacent using 4 core CPUs because their competition didn't have anything "now". AMD came out of nowhere and now has the more efficient architecture with better IPC, better power consumption, more cores, and they're cheaper. The company I work for is in great shape "for now", but we're also growing and more and more load is being put on our servers, so we can't be comfortable and content "for now". We have to be looking at 2, 3, 5 years from now when our servers are going to reach max operating capacity. If we remain comfortable "for now", we will be faced with potentially losing customers because they become unhappy with our services. It's not that we have a bad product... we'd just be slow and unresponsive. The solution is to stay ahead of customer needs and make plans to expand capacity so that we can meet future demands on our environment.

Telling me that my argument has ZERO logic clearly shows that you lack understanding of how technology works. You don't develop for the "for now". You develop for the future so that your product has legs for years. I don't appreciate you telling me that my argument is "complete nonsense" when it is my job to plan for the future. As I said, this issue has already happened with the GTX 780/Ti and its 3 GB of VRAM. With the maturation of Ray Tracing tech, it has the potential to happen again.


So now... it's your turn. I've given you evidence as to why game assets have the potential to exceed 8, 10, or 12 GB VRAM. Why don't you try and prove me wrong, rather than just calling my argument "complete nonsense".

 

[Factum]

For now.

As someone who works in a software shop, you don't think about "now". You think about what's coming. If you only think about "now", you get left behind. Intel got complacent using 4 core CPUs because their competition didn't have anything "now". AMD came out of nowhere and now has the more efficient architecture with better IPC, better power consumption, more cores, and they're cheaper. The company I work for is in great shape "for now", but we're also growing and more and more load is being put on our servers, so we can't be comfortable and content "for now". We have to be looking at 2, 3, 5 years from now when our servers are going to reach max operating capacity. If we remain comfortable "for now", we will be faced with potentially losing customers because they become unhappy with our services. It's not that we have a bad product... we'd just be slow and unresponsive. The solution is to stay ahead of customer needs and make plans to expand capacity so that we can meet future demands on our environment.

Telling me that my argument has ZERO logic clearly shows that you lack understanding of how technology works. You don't develop for the "for now". You develop for the future so that your product has legs for years. I don't appreciate you telling me that my argument is "complete nonsense" when it is my job to plan for the future. As I said, this issue has already happened with the GTX 780/Ti and its 3 GB of VRAM. With the maturation of Ray Tracing tech, it has the potential to happen again.


So now... it's your turn. I've given you evidence as to why game assets have the potential to exceed 8, 10, or 12 GB VRAM. Why don't you try and prove me wrong, rather than just calling my argument "complete nonsense".

You are putting the cart before the horse.
You have data of games (at playable settings) exceeding 12 GB VRAM usage yes/no?

 

[madpistol]

You are putting the cart before the horse.
You have data of games (at playable settings) exceeding 12 GB VRAM usage yes/no?

I'm not talking about now. Please read my previous posts.

 

[Snowdog]

So now... it's your turn. I've given you evidence as to why game assets have the potential to exceed 8, 10, or 12 GB VRAM. Why don't you try and prove me wrong, rather than just calling my argument "complete nonsense".

My turn for what? You haven't made a new argument. You are just spewing FUD comparing to the 780ti.

I actually have an argument, that is reasonable and logical, and you haven't refuted it.

We will have an issue with resources exceeding 8GB (A), long before we have to worry about them exceeding 12GB (B).

You are getting alarmist and spewing FUD about (B), when we haven't yet reached (A).

 

[madpistol]

My turn for what? You haven't made a new argument. You are just spewing FUD comparing to the 780ti.

I actually have an argument, that is reasonable and logical, and you haven't refuted it.

We will have an issue with resources exceeding 8GB (A), long before we have to worry about them exceeding 12GB (B).

You are getting alarmist and spewing FUD about (B), when we haven't yet reached (A).

No.

A new generation of consoles is launching within the next few months. You remember how I said GTA V was the game that caused my GTX 780 VRAM to max out?


GTX 780 release date:

Xbox One, PS4 release dates:

GTA V PC release date:

https://support.rockstargames.com/articles/202423276/Grand-Theft-Auto-V-PC-Release-Date-And-Time

GTX 780 released May 23, 2013.
GTA V released April 14, 2015.

That's less than 2 years between the release of a brand new, state-of-the-art, high-end GPU, and a VRAM bottleneck by a game. I could go back further to the release of Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor on PC (September 30, 2014), but that game is largely considered to be a VRAM hog with no tangible benefit, so I omitted that one.

People seem to forget so easily what happens to GPU VRAM utilization each time a new generation of consoles is released.

 

[Snowdog]

No.

A new generation of consoles is launching within the next few months. You remember how I said GTA V was the game that caused my GTX 780 VRAM to max out?


GTX 780 release date:

View attachment 269866


Xbox One, PS4 release dates:

View attachment 269868

View attachment 269869



GTA V PC release date:

https://support.rockstargames.com/articles/202423276/Grand-Theft-Auto-V-PC-Release-Date-And-Time

View attachment 269870





GTX 780 released May 23, 2013.
GTA V released April 14, 2015.

That's less than 2 years between the release of a brand new, state-of-the-art, high-end GPU, and a VRAM bottleneck by a game. I could go back further to the release of Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor on PC (September 30, 2014), but that game is largely considered to be a VRAM hog with no tangible benefit, so I omitted that one.

People seem to forget so easily what happens to GPU VRAM utilization each time a new generation of consoles is released.

No what? "No" doesn't refute my argument. You are back to harping about th GTX 780.

You can't see the logical disconnect between not having a problem at 8GB and yet freaking out about 12GB?

 

[Viper87227]

No.

A new generation of consoles is launching within the next few months. You remember how I said GTA V was the game that caused my GTX 780 VRAM to max out?


GTX 780 release date:

Xbox One, PS4 release day:
GTA V PC release date:

https://support.rockstargames.com/articles/202423276/Grand-Theft-Auto-V-PC-Release-Date-And-Time

GTX 780 released May 23, 2013.
GTA V released April 14, 2015.

That's less than 2 years between the release of a brand new, state-of-the-art, high-end GPU, and a VRAM bottleneck by a game. I could go back further to the release of Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor on PC (September 30, 2014), but that game is largely considered to be a VRAM hog with no tangible benefit, so I omitted that one.

People seem to forget so easily what happens to GPU VRAM utilization each time a new generation of consoles is released.

While I agree with your point that new consoles generally lead to more demanding PC games, I don't think your example holds up as well with the upcoming consoles. The 780 was a 3GB card, and the consoles that launched a few months after had an 8GB total memory pool for vram and system ram. While the consoles memory pool doesn't directly compare to a GPU's VRAM, the bottom line is the jump from 3GB to 8GB is significant. The upcoming consoles both have 16GB memory pools this time around. The gap between a 12GB GPU and a 16GB console is much less of one than the last round of consoles. Given that the 16GB is used for OS, system memory, and VRAM, I don't see games surpassing 12GB of VRAM use. That leaves less than 4GB for everything else, and that doesn't seem like enough. Hell, I would bet 3-4GB of that is reserved just for system use. My guess is that the upcoming consoles get us to a point where 8GB is no longer enough... but the 11-12GB cards will continue to be fine.

Nvidia probably has a better handle than you on what their GPU is capable of, and how it will be taxed in the years to come. It's not as if Nvidia is known for holding back to try and lower costs. If their engineers think 12GB is an appropriate match for their flagship SKU, I've got no reason to believe otherwise. I certainly am not going to subscribe to the notion that you know better than Nvidia how to design an Nvidia GPU.

 

[Snowdog]

At most there might be options to go to double RAM models. But I really can't see them forcing 20-24GB for gaming cards.

I am a little surprised that we didn't have more double RAM options before now. I am sure there would be a market for those that want to pay extra for 16GB-20GB options to do more non-gaming. It would be an upsell and margin boosting opportunity.

 

[Factum]

I'm not talking about now. Please read my previous posts.

Define your timespan then?
Besides 3 vs 6 is quite more than 8 vs 12....or substantially more than 12 vs 16.
Combine that with compression techniques in the hardware, alongside growing caches, I fail to see that your argument holds any water?
Kepler will have 3 generations between it and Ampere...games have not evolved linear since Kepler launched.

 

[madpistol]

Define your timespan then?
Besides 3 vs 6 is quite more than 8 vs 12....or substantially more than 12 vs 16.
Combine that with compression techniques in the hardware, alongside growing caches, I fail to see that your argument holds any water?
Kepler will have 3 generations between it and Ampere...games have not evolved linear since Kepler launched.

GTX 1080 Ti has 11GB VRAM
RTX 2080 Ti has 11GB VRAM
RTX 3090 suposedly has 12GB VRAM with a new generation of consoles around the corner.

No what? "No" doesn't refute my argument. You are back to harping about th GTX 780.

You can't see the logical disconnect between not having a problem at 8GB and yet freaking out about 12GB?

I just purchased an LG CX 55 OLED. It can do 4k/120, and with HDMI 2.1, it will be able to do 4k/120/HDR. 12GB VRAM will be fine for now, but I fear it will be limited by GPU VRAM limitations very quickly.

This is gonna be fun to watch. I'm gonna come back here in a couple of years to say I told you so. People are going to be on this board complaining about how their games run like crap because the GPUs don't have enough VRAM to hold game assets and it's having to sideload from System Memory. It's happened before, and you had better believe it will happen again.

 

[Snowdog]

Define your timespan then?
Besides 3 vs 6 is quite more than 8 vs 12....or substantially more than 12 vs 16.

Yep, and it was 3 GB Card vs 8GB consoles back then.

To be the analogous situation today for a 12GB GPU card would need a 12GB Card vs 32GB Console, to be in an equally "bad" position.

Even if Consoles are driving this and that in exactly the same way, the situation is nothing like that one. Even 8GB cards aren't as relatively bad off in this kind of comparison to the new consoles.

You can work the numbers backwards as well. A 16GB console puts the same relative Hurt on a 6GB GPU, as 2013 8GB console put on 3 GB GPU.

So by madpistol "console RAM" logic. The 6GB cards are in for some hurt from the new 16GB consoles.

So I can agree with his logic, once you fix the math.

6GB cards are likely going to be limited by RAM capacity more and more going forward.

 

[madpistol]

Yep, and it was 3 GB Card vs 8GB consoles back then.

To be the analogous situation today for a 12GB GPU card would need a 12GB Card vs 32GB Console, to be in an equally "bad" position.

Even if Consoles are driving this and that in exactly the same way, the situation is nothing like that one. Even 8GB cards aren't as relatively bad off in this kind of comparison to the new consoles.

You can work the numbers backwards as well. A 16GB console puts the same relative Hurt on a 6GB GPU, as 2013 8GB console put on 3 GB GPU.

So by madpistol "console RAM" logic. The 6GB cards are in for some hurt from the new 16GB consoles.

So I can agree with his logic, once you fix the math.

6GB cards are likely going to be limited by RAM capacity more and more going forward.

Ok... Now I understand where you're coming from on this.

You're viewing this through the lens of "normal to high-end users" @ 1080P and 1440P. Those people are safe for probably 3-4 years. 8-12 GB VRAM will be enough for that amount of time.

I'm viewing this through the lens of "uber high-end users" @ 4k/120hz+. 12GB VRAM is going to hurt in a hurry. The only way this doesn't happen is if DLSS and other AI-assisted upscaling techniques take off big time.

 

[Nightfire]

GTX 1080 Ti has 11GB VRAM
RTX 2080 Ti has 11GB VRAM
RTX 3090 suposedly has 12GB VRAM with a new generation of consoles around the corner.




I just purchased an LG CX 55 OLED. It can do 4k/120, and with HDMI 2.1, it will be able to do 4k/120/HDR. 12GB VRAM will be fine for now, but I fear it will be limited by GPU VRAM limitations very quickly.

This is gonna be fun to watch. I'm gonna come back here in a couple of years to say I told you so. People are going to be on this board complaining about how their games run like crap because the GPUs don't have enough VRAM to hold game assets and it's having to sideload from System Memory. It's happened before, and you had better believe it will happen again.

Don't count on it. The vram topic has been covered extensively and there has not been much of a requirement demand increase over the last few years.
https://hardforum.com/threads/the-slowing-growth-of-vram-in-games.1971558/page-3

It looks like the 3080ti/3090 could be 11GB after all as the below screenshots show 11 chips. That would be around 850-900 GB/s with gddr6.
The 12 GB version will most likely be for the Black edition again.
https://www.techpowerup.com/270986/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3090-ampere-alleged-pcb-picture-surfaces

 

[bigbluefe]

NAh, crazy is the entitlement most people feel about a luxury item.
It has been said for YEARS that the cost of shrinking process nodes would go UP...and still people start whining despite facts...

Yeah, people are "entitled" for expecting $1,200 video cards to be fast. Bug off.

 

[bigbluefe]

GTX 1080 Ti has 11GB VRAM
RTX 2080 Ti has 11GB VRAM
RTX 3090 suposedly has 12GB VRAM with a new generation of consoles around the corner.




I just purchased an LG CX 55 OLED. It can do 4k/120, and with HDMI 2.1, it will be able to do 4k/120/HDR. 12GB VRAM will be fine for now, but I fear it will be limited by GPU VRAM limitations very quickly.

This is gonna be fun to watch. I'm gonna come back here in a couple of years to say I told you so. People are going to be on this board complaining about how their games run like crap because the GPUs don't have enough VRAM to hold game assets and it's having to sideload from System Memory. It's happened before, and you had better believe it will happen again.

You don't need to wait a couple of years. You're obviously correct, and anyone who isn't completely naive and has a little experience with this stuff knows you're correct.

If these cards really ship with that little RAM, they're a joke. It's essentially Nvidia's way of raising the price on their cards again without explicitly charging more money, because this would effectively force a mid console generation upgrade on PC gamers. If you buy a $1,200 video card, it should at least last a console generation, but it wouldn't with that little RAM.

Really hope it isn't true. 11GB would be laughable.

 

[Snowdog]

Ok... Now I understand where you're coming from on this.

You're viewing this through the lens of "normal to high-end users" @ 1080P and 1440P. Those people are safe for probably 3-4 years. 8-12 GB VRAM will be enough for that amount of time.

I'm viewing this through the lens of "uber high-end users" @ 4k/120hz+. 12GB VRAM is going to hurt in a hurry. The only way this doesn't happen is if DLSS and other AI-assisted upscaling techniques take off big time.

No. I was simply correcting the math on your misused comparison with the 780Ti.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

AMD launched the R9 390 8 GB for $300 in mid 2015. I would hope to see at least 12 GB mid-range and 16 GB high-end this gen.
Don't trust 8 GB going into new consoles. I assume AMD Is going 16+ GB across the board for their new navi chips.

 

[Nightfire]

You don't need to wait a couple of years. You're obviously correct, and anyone who isn't completely naive and has a little experience with this stuff knows you're correct.

If these cards really ship with that little RAM, they're a joke. It's essentially Nvidia's way of raising the price on their cards again without explicitly charging more money, because this would effectively force a mid console generation upgrade on PC gamers. If you buy a $1,200 video card, it should at least last a console generation, but it wouldn't with that little RAM.

Really hope it isn't true. 11GB would be laughable.

Naive because I follow data and trends? Name one game aside from something using idtech7 that actually needs even 8GB of vram with playable framerates. It is possible we will see 12GB versions of 192bit cards, but there is little chance (or need) for 22 GB versions of 352 bit cards.

 

[Nightfire]

AMD launched the R9 390 8 GB for $300 in mid 2015. I would hope to see at least 12 GB mid-range and 16 GB high-end this gen.
Don't trust 8 GB going into new consoles. I assume AMD Is going 16+ GB across the board for their new navi chips.

AMD always seems to have a compression/bandwidth handicap as this newest release illistrates:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/horizon-zero-dawn-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/4.html
4GB version of both Polaris and RDNA tank before even the 3GB 1060. (though lack of vram was the least of their worries)

Speculation, but I would wager we see a 16GB 256 bit AMD card (~600 GB/S) go up against a 12GB 192 bid nVidia card (~400 GB/s) just as we saw with the RX 580 vs the GTX 1060.

 

[Factum]

Yeah, people are "entitled" for expecting $1,200 video cards to be fast. Bug off.

Who's definition of "fast"?
There hasn't been much competition at the high-end for a long while, yet performance has kept increasing.
RayTracing and A.I. started a new feature race...we as a consumer benefit from that, you bug off.

 

[Snowdog]

Naive because I follow data and trends? Name one game aside from something using idtech7 that actually needs even 8GB of vram with playable framerates. It is possible we will see 12GB versions of 192bit cards, but there is little chance (or need) for 22 GB versions of 352 bit cards.

I could see there being optional double VRAM version for those who want to pay (through the nose).

Given a choice between a 11GB $1000 card and $1400 22GB version, I would sure as hell get the the 11GB version, rather than spend 40% more for ZERO difference in games, on the hope/worry that someday, years in the future, I might encounter a game that has a couple of hitches cranking everything to the max.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

seems the 3090 is 24 GB.

http://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3090-features-twelve-gddr6x-memory-modules

 

[Snowdog]

seems the 3090 is 24 GB.

http://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3090-features-twelve-gddr6x-memory-modules

Pretty weird "evidence". Show a picture, with a section of PCB obscured by another PCB.

"See that PCB hiding stuff? Well it's another lone memory chip that it's hiding."

I seem to be missing why this convinces anyone? If you can show 11 out of 12 memory chips. Why go to efforts to hide the 12th one?

 

[Nightfire]

seems the 3090 is 24 GB.

http://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3090-features-twelve-gddr6x-memory-modules

Can you explain this. Weird place to put a 12th chip and I missed where these are 2GB chips.

 

[bigbluefe]

Naive because I follow data and trends? Name one game aside from something using idtech7 that actually needs even 8GB of vram with playable framerates. It is possible we will see 12GB versions of 192bit cards, but there is little chance (or need) for 22 GB versions of 352 bit cards.

People that buy $1,500 video cards use them for literally an entire console generation. That's like 7-8 years. If you honestly think that 12GB of RAM is going to last for 7 years, yes, you're incredibly naive.

 

[l88bastard]

I only has cheese

NO HAS THAT!

Can 3080Ti has?

 

[bigbluefe]

Who's definition of "fast"?
There hasn't been much competition at the high-end for a long while, yet performance has kept increasing.
RayTracing and A.I. started a new feature race...we as a consumer benefit from that, you bug off.

If it's less than a 50% bump, it's too slow because it won't be able to run games maxed at 120fps @ 4k. Why even bother upgrading? If you can't get over the hump and actually run modern games at high frame rates at 4k, you're not even getting anything out of it.

 

[Nightfire]

I could see there being optional double VRAM version for those who want to pay (through the nose).

Given a choice between a 11GB $1000 card and $1400 22GB version, I would sure as hell get the the 11GB version, rather than spend 40% more for ZERO difference in games, on the hope/worry that someday, years in the future, I might encounter a game that has a couple of hitches cranking everything to the max.

I can definitely see 6/12 GB versions on 192 bit and 8/16 GB versions on 256 bit, but very doubtful of 22 or 24 GB versions of anything in the consumer market.
There is a possibility of some type of hybrid design akin to the new XBOX where you have something like 11GB running at full bandwidth with 4 of the chips having 2 GB modules giving you an extra 4 GB of vram (at a slower bandwidth) for background stuff.

 

[Nightfire]

People that buy $1,500 video cards use them for literally an entire console generation. That's like 7-8 years. If you honestly think that 12GB of RAM is going to last for 7 years, yes, you're incredibly naive.

So once again you call people naive without showing evidence of the contrary, which shows your maturity level. The 6GB 980ti held up very well for its performance level over the years and I even argued that nVidia should have released a 6GB 1080ti for closer to 1080 prices. That card would have been fine today as long as you stayed out of uber guber textures. It basically would be a faster RTX 2060 today.

 

[Snowdog]

People that buy $1,500 video cards use them for literally an entire console generation. That's like 7-8 years. If you honestly think that 12GB of RAM is going to last for 7 years, yes, you're incredibly naive.

I would expect the opposite. People that buy the top end video cards, aren't likely to tolerate getting very far behind the GPU state of the art.

Every generation it's seems likes its the x80 Ti buyers that are most likely to upgrade with nearly every new generation, and at most skipping one generation. They are likely going to upgrade long before 12GB ever becomes an issue.

 

[bigbluefe]

So once again you call people naive without showing evidence of the contrary, which shows your maturity level. The 6GB 980ti held up very well for its performance level over the years and I even argued that nVidia should have released a 6GB 1080ti for closer to 1080 prices. That card would have been fine today as long as you stayed out of uber guber textures. It basically would be a faster RTX 2060 today.

No actually basically every game released during the second half of the PS4's life is evidence that these GPUs aren't shipping with enough RAM.

No one spends hundreds of dollars on video cards to not run ultra textures. You obviously don't get it.

 

[bigbluefe]

I would expect the opposite. People that buy the top end video cards, aren't likely to tolerate getting very far behind the GPU state of the art.

Every generation it's seems likes its the x80 Ti buyers that are most likely to upgrade with nearly every new generation, and at most skipping one generation. They are likely going to upgrade long before 12GB ever becomes an issue.

Wrong. People held onto 1080tis forever.

 

[Nightfire]

No actually basically every game released during the second half of the PS4's life is evidence that these GPUs aren't shipping with enough RAM.

No one spends hundreds of dollars on video cards to not run ultra textures. You obviously don't get it.

What PS4 evidence are you talking about exactly? And your 2nd point is completley false. People buy these videocards to run games at 120fps. My point was that you would have had to make very little sacrifices with a 6GB 1080ti card and still get a similar experience.

Just look at the last few games launched. All of them have the 2080ti struggling to hit 60 fps at 4k while even 6 GB cards keep relative pace (again idtech 7 notwithstanding).

Lack a performance of the 3080ti will still be an issue LONG before 11 GB is.