Would you choose a 12GB or a 24GB RTX 3090?

12GB 3090 or 24 GB 3090?

  • 12 GB for $1200

    Votes: 70 52.6%
  • 24 GB for $1600

    Votes: 36 27.1%
  • How dare you suggest 12 more GB of GDDR6X isn't FREE

    Votes: 27 20.3%

  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
The 3090 is likely a Titan'esque card that's going to be released right from the start this time around (reasons could be several but I think it's because Nvidia is knowing what is coming their way from Team Red that it makes more sense to release it now instead of not quite being able to impress people with the pricetag later), if so $2000 vs $2500 and likely being faster still (especially big difference in raytracing performance should be an easy bet), while far from a "glorious" thing won't look quite as bad but would look way less appealing in a few months.

This is what I'm expecting personally:

3090 (Titan card released from launch): $1999
3080 Ti: $1199
3080: $849
at launch
--------------------
3070: $599
-------------------
3060: $399

This is obviously by expecting Big Navi doing suprisingly well, otherwise I had put 3090 a couple hundred higher, 3080 $1299 and $899 respectively. I guessing the top card from AMD to land in the realms of 800-$1000 this time around so still putting a very decent fight vs 3080 & Ti and a huge jump from previous cards.
 
Last edited:
For 24GB VRAM wouldn’t you want at least 48GB of RAM? Basically 64GB.

Personally I am fine with 11GB+. Above $2000 I’d want 16GB+ ideally since I’ll be keeping it forever....
 
Last edited:
You, I, we have no idea what the specs are on these cards so please stop speculating. Youre just gonna be disappointed.

12gb is fine for games. 24 for productivity. No other reason for 24 period.
 
MS Flight Simulator 2020, Ultra settings flying over San Francisco took up to 13.4gb at 3440x1440p. No, once it got passed downtown, GPU ram usage went back down to 10gb. There was zero noticeable objects or textures drawing in. Virtualy consistent frame rates, zero studder. This is with 16gb Vega FE. Will test with 8gb card, 5700XT to see if the less ram is a difference with objects drawing in, studder etc. To say games cannot make effective use or could benefit with 12gb+ ram is premature I think at this time.
 
MS Flight Simulator 2020, Ultra settings flying over San Francisco took up to 13.4gb at 3440x1440p. No, once it got passed downtown, GPU ram usage went back down to 10gb. There was zero noticeable objects or textures drawing in. Virtualy consistent frame rates, zero studder. This is with 16gb Vega FE. Will test with 8gb card, 5700XT to see if the less ram is a difference with objects drawing in, studder etc. To say games cannot make effective use or could benefit with 12gb+ ram is premature I think at this time.

Decently written software will do extra caching in unused system RAM and VRAM.
 
Decently written software will do extra caching in unused system RAM and VRAM.
Well if I see a noticeable blatant, in your face difference in rendering objects and stuttering -> I will have to see how the 1080 Ti handles the same conditions with 11gb. Can't really say anything except when using the Radeon FE it was rather clean for rendering, GPU ram usage was dynamic anywhere from 9gb to over 13gb depending upon location. Since 5700 XT is more ram limited, see how it works out.
 
Decently written software will do extra caching in unused system RAM and VRAM.

At least one report of the 2080ti stuttering with this game, probably due to 16 GB of system ram. It would be interesting to if something like a Radeon 7 could do better with just 16 GB system ram.
 
At least one report of the 2080ti stuttering with this game, probably due to 16 GB of system ram. It would be interesting to if something like a Radeon 7 could do better with just 16 GB system ram.

Ideal system specs list VRAM: 8GB, System RAM 32 GB, so it sounds like higher system RAM is the more critical element.
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-pc-requirements

745-screen%20shot%202020-04-23%20at%208.41.26%20am.png
 
Ideal system specs list VRAM: 8GB, System RAM 32 GB, so it sounds like higher system RAM is the more critical element.
https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-flight-simulator-pc-requirements

View attachment 271328

Despite their own conclusion, Guru3d shows that 16 GB is not quite enough for even the 11GB 2080ti. I imagine it would be even worse with the 8 GB higher end cards. I would be curious to see if the extra vram in the R7 would work with 16GB ram.

Extra system ram does not make up for a lack if vram, but maybe extra vram makes up for a lack of system ram.
 
Extra system ram does not make up for a lack if vram, but maybe extra vram makes up for a lack of system ram.

Actually, as a scale down example, HUB did a test a couple years ago with 8GB and 16GB of system ram. The 3 GB gtx 1060 did fine with 16 GB system ram, but tanked with 8 GB. No other card had issues with 8 GB system ram at the time, including the 6 GB gtx 1060.

It's potentially a selling point for high end 16 GB card or 8 GB mid range cards over 12 GB / 6 GB versions for those that want to wait until DDR5 before upgrading to 32 GB.
 
MS Flight Simulator Ultra settings, 2560x1440p on 5700XT and 3440x1440 on Vega FE user observations, mine.

5700 XT (8gb VRam) on 32gb system with 3900x, compared to a Vega FE (16gb vram) on 16gb Ryzen 2700. Downtown San Francisco.

  • On Ultra all objects are drawn and no noticeable drawing of objects or textures I noted. At medium settings you see texture and object drawing in. Both graphics cards.
  • The 5700 XT had issues flying low inside of San Francisco, frame rate went from the 30's to less than 15 FPS at times, max GPU memory was at 9.7gb
  • The Vega FE had no sudden drops of frame rates, maintain a steady (while lower) frame rate, max GPU memory was 15gb. This was at a higher resolution.
  • While using the outside camera, the 5700 XT periodic hitching or momentary stops was very noticeable, Vega FE was much less to non-existent. When settings in game was set to medium, the 5700XT hitching stopped, vram was less than 8gb then.
  • System memory on the 5700 XT rig got up to close to 20gb of usage, while Vega FE system usage was around 12gb. Note the 5700 XT system has 32gb available of system ram while the Vega FE system was 16gb.
Game is amazing, while flying low you can read the billboards, address numbers etc. While not meant to be flying this low, between buildings, it was definitely fun. Looks like I need to install game on Threadripper system with the 1080 Ti and try this out again. That system has 64gb of ram, PCIe 4 SSD and so on, one waiting for a next gen GPU.

Now Nvidia may have something like the High Bandwidth Cache Controller on the Vega which AMD showed very effective in select games with a 4gb vram limitation imposed. So 12gb maybe enough, maybe not. I would prefer a 24gb card or even a 16gb over a 12gb card.
 
Last edited:
MS Flight Simulator Ultra settings, 2560x1440p on 5700XT and 3440x1440 on Vega FE user observations, mine.

5700 XT (8gb VRam) on 32gb system with 3900x, compared to a Vega FE (16gb vram) on 16gb Ryzen 2700. Downtown San Francisco.

  • On Ultra all objects are drawn and no noticeable drawing of objects or textures I noted. At medium settings you see texture and object drawing in. Both graphics cards.
  • The 5700 XT had issues flying low inside of San Francisco, frame rate went from the 30's to less than 15 FPS at times, max GPU memory was at 9.7gb
  • The Vega FE had no sudden drops of frame rates, maintain a steady (while lower) frame rate, max GPU memory was 15gb. This was at a higher resolution.
  • While using the outside camera, the 5700 XT periodic hitching or momentary stops was very noticeable, Vega FE was much less to non-existent. When settings in game was set to medium, the 5700XT hitching stopped, vram was less than 8gb then.
  • System memory on the 5700 XT rig got up to close to 20gb of usage, while Vega FE system usage was around 12gb. Note the 5700 XT system has 32gb available of system ram while the Vega FE was 16gb.
Game is amazing, while flying low you can read the billboards, address numbers etc. While not meant to be flying this low, between buildings, it was definitely fun. Looks like I need to install game on Threadripper system with the 1080 Ti and try this out again. That system has 64gb of ram, PCIe 4 SSD and so on, one waiting for a next gen GPU.

Wow, pretty significant findings and changes my thoughts on how much vram is 'enough'. Like I said, a lot will want to hold out for DDR5 before upgrading to 32GB+, and if Big Navi is 16 GB, that could be a game changer for some.

Just like HUBs scenario a couple years ago, I think it may be worth having a 12 GB instead of a 6 GB 3060 at 192 bit, even if a game doesn't "need it". Most reviewers test with 32 GB system ram, so this may get overlooked when using 16 GB system ram.
 
  • System memory on the 5700 XT rig got up to close to 20gb of usage, while Vega FE system usage was around 12gb. Note the 5700 XT system has 32gb available of system ram while the Vega FE system was 16gb...

Very interesting that both systems needed 28 GB of COMBINED memory, though it seems that at least 1/3 needs to be vram for smooth performance.

So I guess it is no surprise that 2080ti players are having some issues with 27 GB combined (11 GB vram + 16 GB ram).
 
Looks like I need to install game on Threadripper system with the 1080 Ti and try this out again. That system has 64gb of ram, PCIe 4 SSD and so on, one waiting for a next gen GPU.

Can you try the 5700xt on the TR system? I am curious if it can overcome the 1/3 rule if it is helped by quad pumped system memory.
 
Can you try the 5700xt on the TR system? I am curious if it can overcome the 1/3 rule if it is helped by quad pumped system memory.
Will try the 1080 Ti first, that is a good idea since it is PCIe 4 and double the bandwidth to the GPU with the 5700 XT. As you fly around Vram can drop a lot depending upon complexity of the area. Game does not look like it is just caching up to the VRam to the limit but dynamically allocating and deleting memory as needed.

Capturing 14.9gb with the Drone cam flying around with Vega FE: (Right middle is FPS monitor data, looks like 10.1gb for system memory, 14.9gb for vram at that location.

DroneCam.jpg
 
I have a hard time believing that there will be 2 versions of the RTX3090, I think it will be one or the other. Either memory size is possible, but I don't think nvidia would release a 24GB card for less than $2,000

So for me its either a 12GB version @$1,200+ or a 24GB version for $2 grand.

Just a couple of weeks to find out.
 
MS Flight Simulator Ultra settings, 2560x1440p on 5700XT and 3440x1440 on Vega FE user observations, mine.

5700 XT (8gb VRam) on 32gb system with 3900x, compared to a Vega FE (16gb vram) on 16gb Ryzen 2700. Downtown San Francisco.

  • On Ultra all objects are drawn and no noticeable drawing of objects or textures I noted. At medium settings you see texture and object drawing in. Both graphics cards.
  • The 5700 XT had issues flying low inside of San Francisco, frame rate went from the 30's to less than 15 FPS at times, max GPU memory was at 9.7gb
  • The Vega FE had no sudden drops of frame rates, maintain a steady (while lower) frame rate, max GPU memory was 15gb. This was at a higher resolution.
  • While using the outside camera, the 5700 XT periodic hitching or momentary stops was very noticeable, Vega FE was much less to non-existent. When settings in game was set to medium, the 5700XT hitching stopped, vram was less than 8gb then.
  • System memory on the 5700 XT rig got up to close to 20gb of usage, while Vega FE system usage was around 12gb. Note the 5700 XT system has 32gb available of system ram while the Vega FE system was 16gb.
Game is amazing, while flying low you can read the billboards, address numbers etc. While not meant to be flying this low, between buildings, it was definitely fun. Looks like I need to install game on Threadripper system with the 1080 Ti and try this out again. That system has 64gb of ram, PCIe 4 SSD and so on, one waiting for a next gen GPU.

Now Nvidia may have something like the High Bandwidth Cache Controller on the Vega which AMD showed very effective in select games with a 4gb vram limitation imposed. So 12gb maybe enough, maybe not. I would prefer a 24gb card or even a 16gb over a 12gb card.

Wow, pretty significant findings and changes my thoughts on how much vram is 'enough'. Like I said, a lot will want to hold out for DDR5 before upgrading to 32GB+, and if Big Navi is 16 GB, that could be a game changer for some.

Just like HUBs scenario a couple years ago, I think it may be worth having a 12 GB instead of a 6 GB 3060 at 192 bit, even if a game doesn't "need it". Most reviewers test with 32 GB system ram, so this may get overlooked when using 16 GB system ram.

I am pretty sure that the this is down to bus width not the amount of memory.
 
I am pretty sure that the this is down to bus width not the amount of memory.

The 6 GB gtx 1060 was fine with 8 GB ram while the 3 GB gtx 1060 16 GB ram. Both same bus width. I am just saying we might seem something similar with a praverbial 6 GB vs 12 GB 192 bit RTX 3060 when comparing 16 GB and 32 GB setups, which might get hidden by the fact that most reviewer setups will have 32 GB ram just as most reviewer setups had 16 GB ram back in the 1060 days.
 
With memory compression, I think its less straightforward to predict how much VRAM the new GPU will need. If it comes with a more efficient method, maybe it'll consume lesser VRAM compared to previous generations.

I'll wait for the reviews to see if 24GB offers any advantage over 12GB when it comes to 4k resolution. That will be my deciding factor, as my next upgrade after this would be to finally move to a 4k monitor.
 
Hmm this is hard one but i actually disagree that the memory used in a new gpu is allways cheap.
It depends if its the newest and the latest memory if it is then its often costly, but after the companies got their profit over the R&D the prices start to drop pretty rapid especially if other factories jump on producing the same product often in license but its almost a rule then prices drop often pretty fast.
When money would not be an issue i would like to see 32 Gb+ especially for the programs who can use more gpu and system memory to improve performance.
For gaming that will not happen very soon is my guess unless we really are going to get REAL 4K and 8K games.
But for now non of the gpu's is really able to run them without cheating or using upscaled lower res crap.
Do not get me wrong i do not say its not nice that playing around with fooling our eyes, because most people are really not seeing most of it anyway.
Only those who really can see the difference its absolute a difference, i know a few guys who exactly can tell you what res a film is playing and if its really doing that with upscaled or REAL 4K or 8K but these people are rare. They also see what res i was playing at while i fooled alot of people by putting everywhere around us real 4K content signs. Most people do not even see the difference for real.

" Dont think the top end non titan card needs 24GB and putting 11GB/12GB is kind of a slap in the face. "
I kinda feel similar but i really see often smaller companies moving also to lower priced cards which actually use often programs which benefit from much larger gpu memory but the reason is clear even these make the choice we buy a lesser card because we do not have enough budget to spend on this, they preffer to spend it on trying to get customers to sell their products instead of buying the biggest and extreme priced cards.
 
Last edited:
I still have yet to max out my launch 1080 at 8GB so I'm sure 12GB will be plenty for the next 4 or so years.

12 GB is enough, especially since Nvidia is very good at memory compression.

The only people who need 24GB are using workstations and professional productivity programs like Adobe Premiere, etc.
 
12 GB is enough, especially since Nvidia is very good at memory compression.

The only people who need 24GB are using workstations and professional productivity programs like Adobe Premiere, etc.

Again the key is whether or not 12 GB is enough with just 16 GB ram, and at least for MS flight trainer, its looking like possibly not already. Not a lot of people will have that setup, but there will be some.

Its just the nature of the beast having a 384 bit bus.
 
Yes, flight simulator can push actual ram usage and it will vary depending upon location dramatically. Here it is over 15gb on the Vram and over 12gb on system ram. Not only ram can be an issue but GPU performance as well, rasterizing performance. Being at 21fps, less than a movie frame rate is not ideal. While most would probably be OK with 30+ fps in a flight simulator, it would be nice having something 60fps+, considering this title is also suppose to support VR in the future. Ultra settings, 3440x1440, TAA, Vega FE flying around Oakland:

Oakland.jpg
When I get a chance will test on a 1080 Ti to see if Nvidia Compression allows 11gb vram to prevent periodic hitching etc. like I've seen on the 5700 XT when vram is pushed beyond it's limits.
 
Flight Simulator 2020 using 1080 Ti on threadripper system. NIGHT AND DAY! Over the 5700 XT or Vega FE systems.

Findings in general, my experience:

  • Ultra settings, 2560x1440p, TAA, Treadripper 3960x, 64gb 3600mhz DDR4, PCIe4 NVME (Salient 1tb), stock settings EVGA 1080 Ti SC Black
  • Loading time for game sucks the same as with the slower SSD previous systems tested, I saw no difference or felt any difference -> very slow for a game
  • FPS was superior, Vega FE low 20's (higher resolution through), 5700 XT low 30's and 1080 Ti average around 40 FPS
  • The 1080 Ti had almost zero hitches, very smooth compared to the other two systems and this is considering FPS, talking about momentary stops and jumps -> 1080 Ti was virtually zero, others much more noticeable pauses with the 5700 XT the worst (on the same monitor as the 1080 Ti)
  • The AMD GPU's had artifacts with TAA and items rendered behind the propeller, 1080 Ti did not
  • Max GPU Vram used was up to 9.2 gb compared to 15.4gb on the Vega FE and 9.7gb on the 5700 XT
  • System ram was around 16gb used
  • Game is fully playable on Ultra at 1440p at stock EVGA 1080 Ti SC black settings (both the 5700 XT and Vega FE were OC)
  • A much better gaming experience in this title, did notice that the 1080 Ti seemed to render differently the clouds, mist and fog (more of it) maybe the game did this not sure
Some images of Oakland and San Francisco

Oakland1080Ti.jpg

Oakland1080Ti2.jpg

Oakland1080Ti3.jpg

SF1080Ti.jpg
I know which system/GPU will be used for this game. There is more than just specs and Nvidia seems to have better drivers (normally expected) for this recently released game. So if this represents ram usage efficiency in general for Nvidia GPUs, I say it is much better than AMD, at least this title seems to show that.
 
Last edited:
Flight Simulator 2020 using 1080 Ti on threadripper system. NIGHT AND DAY! Over the 5700 XT or Vega FE systems.

Findings in general, my experience:

  • Ultra settings, 2560x1440p, TAA, Treadripper 3960x, 64gb 3600mhz DDR4, PCIe4 NVME (Salient 1tb), stock settings EVGA 1080 Ti SC Black
  • Loading time for game sucks the same as with the slower SSD previous systems tested, I saw no difference or felt any difference -> very slow for a game
  • FPS was superior, Vega FE low 20's (higher resolution through), 5700 XT low 30's and 1080 Ti average around 40 FPS
  • The 1080 Ti had almost zero hitches, very smooth compared to the other two systems and this is considering FPS, talking about momentary stops and jumps -> 1080 Ti was virtually zero, others much more noticeable pauses with the 5700 XT the worst (on the same monitor as the 1080 Ti)
  • The AMD GPU's had artifacts with TAA and items rendered behind the propeller, 1080 Ti did not
  • Max GPU Vram used was up to 9.2 gb compared to 15.4gb on the Vega FE and 9.7gb on the 5700 XT
  • System ram was around 16gb used
  • Game is fully playable on Ultra at 1440p at stock EVGA 1080 Ti SC black settings (both the 5700 XT and Vega FE were OC)
  • A much better gaming experience in this title, did notice that the 1080 Ti seemed to render differently the clouds, mist and fog (more of it) maybe the game did this not sure
Some images of Oakland and San Francisco
I know which system/GPU will be used for this game. There is more than just specs and Nvidia seems to have better drivers (normally expected) for this recently released game. So if this represents ram usage efficiency in general for Nvidia GPUs, I say it is much better than AMD, at least this title seems to show that.

You mentioned again that the 5700xt used 9.7GB vram. Shouldn't that be 8 GB max? Combined with the 20GB ram you said earlier thats 28 GB combined.

The Vega FE was 15.4 GB vram + 12 GB ram for 27.4 GB combined.

The 1080ti was 9.2 GB vram + 16 GB ram for 25.2 GB combined.

So it looks like Nvidia was a little better combined if I am getting my numbers straight.

For a system with 16 GB system ram, you only have 27 GB combined with the 1080ti so you might have some issues when factoring in o/s overhead.

Great work, man. Looking forward in seeing if the 5700xt can have some redemption in the TR system.
 
You mentioned again that the 5700xt used 9.7GB vram. Shouldn't that be 8 GB max? Combined with the 20GB ram you said earlier thats 28 GB combined.

The Vega FE was 15.4 GB vram + 12 GB ram for 27.4 GB combined.

The 1080ti was 9.2 GB vram + 16 GB ram for 25.2 GB combined.

So it looks like Nvidia was a little better combined if I am getting my numbers straight.

For a system with 16 GB system ram, you only have 27 GB combined with the 1080ti so you might have some issues when factoring in o/s overhead.

Great work, man. Looking forward in seeing if the 5700xt can have some redemption in the TR system.
Remember those number varies depending upon location in game. Yes, Nvidia GPU system seemed to do memory better but we are talking about 3 different systems so a lot of variance could be there. Since Flight Simulator 2020 is DX11, it may just be Nvidia previous hard work is continuing to pay off and AMD may have to optimize the drivers better for this title. The TAA artifacts on the AMD systems needs to be fixed. This is basically a first take, I will redo some of the testing just by playing the game. I need to go to stock clocks on the AMD GPU's, even though they were medium to mild, nothing really pushing. The reason for the Vega FE having such a much higher memory usage could be due to the limited 16gb system ram, seems logical but don't know. The 5700 XT system has 32gb of ram yet it showed 9.7gb being used by the GPU at times which appears to have caused very obvious hitching (distracting amounts), once again that is my assumption at this point, somewhat backed up by reducing settings to medium to get the GPU vram usage to less than 8gb. which then the gross hitching went away.

At this time the 1080 Ti is given me the best experience in this game, much more than I would have expected.
 
Remember those number varies depending upon location in game. Yes, Nvidia GPU system seemed to do memory better but we are talking about 3 different systems so a lot of variance could be there. Since Flight Simulator 2020 is DX11, it may just be Nvidia previous hard work is continuing to pay off and AMD may have to optimize the drivers better for this title. The TAA artifacts on the AMD systems needs to be fixed. This is basically a first take, I will redo some of the testing just by playing the game. I need to go to stock clocks on the AMD GPU's, even though they were medium to mild, nothing really pushing. The reason for the Vega FE having such a much higher memory usage could be due to the limited 16gb system ram, seems logical but don't know. The 5700 XT system has 32gb of ram yet it showed 9.7gb being used by the GPU at times which appears to have caused very obvious hitching (distracting amounts), once again that is my assumption at this point, somewhat backed up by reducing settings to medium to get the GPU vram usage to less than 8gb. which then the gross hitching went away.

At this time the 1080 Ti is given me the best experience in this game, much more than I would have expected.

Surprised it is dx11 but I suppose it made development easier and dx12 features are not really needed in this type of game. Good on Nvidia for having solid drivers.

So 9.7 GB vram was what the 5700xt was TRYING to use? I am guessing if that card had something like 16 GB vram, it would use about 10 GB vram and only use 18 GB of system ram.

In any case, 9.7 GB is considerably higher than the 8 GB max so its looking doubtful that TR will provide enough bandwidth to shift more to dynamic without causing issues.
 
Surprised it is dx11 but I suppose it made development easier and dx12 features are not really needed in this type of game. Good on Nvidia for having solid drivers.

So 9.7 GB vram was what the 5700xt was TRYING to use? I am guessing if that card had something like 16 GB vram, it would use about 10 GB vram and only use 18 GB of system ram.

In any case, 9.7 GB is considerably higher than the 8 GB max so its looking doubtful that TR will provide enough bandwidth to shift more to dynamic without causing issues.
It can probably be fixed with AMD, makes me wonder how the 2080 and 2080 Super performs with their 8gb of memory. Pretty much ad hoc, while interesting, to do it more justice one would have to keep as much the same as possible, one system keeping settings the same. I may stick the 5700 XT into the Threadripper system, maybe not. If I get some time I will. Might be interesting pulling two sticks out on the 5700 XT system to give it 16gb of ram also.

So the question of if 12GB is enough on Ampere, well it appears that it will be for at least on this title, if Ampere does it as good as the 1080 Ti or better. This is the most memory intensive game I have seen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top