NVIDIA RTX 3000 series great price. But NVIDIA skimping on Video Memory?

Perfect for 1440p so i am fine with the 8gb

Not so much skimping as waiting for AMD to reveal what they have been cooking up in order to pull out their 16GB 3070Ti at $599 and maybe a 20GB 3080Ti at $899.

It is not a great price, it is that way on purpose. FE will sell out in minutes, AIB prices rise, they are already creeping up. I'm grabbing one as soon as, but Nvidia is conning each and every one you.

It'd be fine. GDDR6 is fast enough that you won't see any huge problems with VRAM limitations. Also, the graphics from the VII is a bit misleading. That's cached VRAM vs utilized VRAM. Utilized VRAM for 4K on recent AAA titles hit about 8-9GB, and if you have a bigger VRAM, uses the rest as cache.

You mean kind of like how Sony said they'd be down 4 million Playstation 5 consoles at launch? Because they are conning everyone and waiting for the potential scalping?

Is Sony getting on board with scalping? Nintendo seems to be enabling them on purpose as well.

I don't know. I'm just saying that because it's a stupid conspiracy theory and it sounds stupid to say.

@DragonfireXZ95: Sony said that’s not true.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-denies-ps5-production-problems/?amp

Why I’m dropping a hefty dime on the 3090.

LOL @ AMD's Radeon division an their downright misleading marketing. Really sad that people still fall for that.

To cut it short - RTX 2080 (vanilla) outperforms it at 4K most of the time despite having "only" 8GB GDDR6 VRAM

-------------------------

RTX 3070 - Basically the new 1440p "sweetspot", so... no?
RTX 3080 - Will tell you if I run into any issues... :P

Imagine spending 700+ on one piece in your PC and not being able to run all games at 4K because Nvidia cheaped out on memory.

Hope this is not 970 bullshit all over again, Nvidia

I never had an issue with VRAM at 4K on the 2080 Ti. The next-gen consoles will also not be exceeding 10GB VRAM. So, I am not worried about it for the 3080. If it becomes an issue, I will lower settings as needed. I will most likely be upgrading again with the 4000 series anyway.

Read my other comment below that.

This is like arguing that all that matters about a CPU is the core clock speed.

How much memory graphics memory next-gen consoles have?

It's more than enough for 4k gaming. The next memory size jump will be when 8k becomes a standard.

For 4K yes, but the way I see it, I still feel like the 3080 is the 1440p card to go for as that’s its primary target. It’s going to demolish games at 1440p ultra this gen if you ask and I come to a conclusion just get myself 3080 cause I'll be doing myself and my PC a favor. 3070 isn't what it all seems after looking at the benchmark leaks.

VRAM usage has been greatly exaggerated. Once we learned those MSI programs were showing “allocated” VRAM and not actual used VRAM, people started digging further. 10GB of VRAM is plenty with the speed of VRAM these days. ESPECIALLY if you’re using DLSS.

The price is trash. It's sad to see how well Nvidia's tactic worked of blowing the price up to outrageous levels then dropping them back down to still very high levels to make people think they're "cheap". Even though you're paying $700 for just a graphics card, not to mention the 2nd best(soon to be 3rd best when the Ti version comes out) Nvidia card when like 5 years ago the top tier Nvidia card was like $500.

Meanwhile in just a few months we got new consoles coming out for likely $400-500 that include a whole mid range GPU, 8 core Zen2 CPU, 1tb SSD(ps5's is state of the art), motherboard, 4k Blu Ray Player, fast af RAM, cooling, PSU, case, wifi card, controller... look at the value difference. Shit, I don't even expect the GPU in the consoles to be that much weaker than a RTX 2070 either, which is already $500 alone.

As much as I love PC gaming, it's crazy how PC gamers are such pushovers with their wallets in general. Companies could charge whatever they want and I guarantee people will still buy it. I see people spending $130 for a 2-pack of Corsair case fans. Not even big fans, just 120mm. Shit you can buy a whole nice ass ceiling fan from a reputable company for that much money. Not to mention the fact that they charge full price for graphics cards pretty much until the new ones launch is fucked. No reason people should have been still paying $1200 for a nearly 2 year old 2080Ti until now. Basically just rips off people who aren't tech nerds and don't know about the new cards coming out. IMO with the rapid release cycle of these kinds of products, prices should drop steadily little by little after 6-8 months of a GPU/CPU being out.

Im ordering a 3080 as soon as the website lets me, I want to get one as soon as I can before there is any reason for the prices to get inflated. I still need a new power supply too but the prices of those are through the root at the min, I wish id have bought one sooner as now I dont know weather i should wait for the prices to go down or just buy one now. I dont want to risk making that mistake with the 3080 as its a lot more expensive than a PSU.

But here I am in a position where I can either buy the next Xbox console for $499, or wait till the next AMD GPU comes out later this year. The rest of my PC still outperforms anything any of the consoles offer, as will the GPU. I'll have greater than the "pro" console version that'll no doubt come out in a few years, and I'll have it now. And in order to catch up where this PC will be at with that GPU upgrade, you'll have to buy ANOTHER Xbox (that Pro version) later at an additional $499.

So let's say I buy a GPU for $499, Motherboard for $75, CPU for $200, ram for $100, 1TB SSD for $100, Aftermarket cooler for $25. And I can keep reusing my case, it's fans, and it's power supply for years to come. So even if Xbox takes a loss on hardware, you're still going to pay as much over the life of the console, and have a lesser system in the end than what I will start out with. But my current case was $50, PSU was $75, and I added a 5-pack of 140mm fans to it for an additional $25 or so.

I think you're right about them introducing Ti edition cards, but there is a big diff between 10gb and 16gb, which shows that 10gb is a lil low. I think 12gb & 16gb would have been a better release for the 3070 and 3080, especially for the price.

PC gamers need to remember you only upgrade when you really need to or want to and money will always be a factor and most importantly, you get what you paid for. There's a reason AMD/Nvidia exist to give gamers option if you want the best of the best or something affordable for less but sacrificing raw power GPU. Nvidia on the other hand learned their lesson this time around with the prices, and RTX 3080 is price fair for what your getting at but there's always 3070 for a reasonable price as well.

Still, if you have a nice PC, I don't see any reasons to go buy Xbox Series X at all when MS now supports PC and the only thing I see myself buying is PS5 for exclusives if I want to but I'll always buy Nintendo console for the exclusives. Buying the top of the line GPU should only be for 4K/60fps+ and that's why Nvidia charges more. Do you need 4K? That's the question and I don't game in 4K, not interested and 1440p is still the goat.

Yes AMD card looks amazing... everyone skip on the 3080 and wait for the AMD conference. Stay off your PCs tomorrow morning

Stay out of lines too. Covid-19 warning.

I rarely take advantage of my 16GB of VRAM. People just like seeing higher numbers regardless of real world utilization.

Good advice... safety 1st

Those 10 GB of ram will probably be way faster than the 16GB in the AMD cards. And with Direct Storage, games won't need to fill a GPU like that as they can be streamed in from super fast SSDs.

Doom? LOL oh plz.

Try FFXV with 4k assets, that shit eats up 10GB of my 1080ti.

it dont actually use it. The game sees no real performance gain after 6gb of vram usage. Its just cramming as much at it can into the vram as possible. with 4k with the texture pack it only needs 8gb.

I know the difference between comitted and used. gtfo.

Really? How much faster?

Lol, you're just trying to make sure you get a 3080. 😂

I don't know since we don't know all that much about the new AMD cards. That's why I said probably.

That's a lot of assumption. That's like saying Fury X with it's faster HBM memory was equivalent to 980 Ti's 6GB RAM. For a time it may have been when AMD was optimizing their driver to make use of HBM memory. But what about down the road like in 2 years time when more and more games come out, especially with the newer consoles now with more VRAM. I wouldn't be surprised if newer games easily pushes past 10 GB in 4K when we already have games pushing 10GB in 4K.

My 1060 6GB is getting pushed in certain games even at 1080P like the above mentioned Doom Eternal where you can't even choose Ultra Nightmare settings because of 6GB frame buffer, even though pretty sure the 1060 has enough horse power to run it.

That's a fair argument. But I think we should give credit where credit is due. 3070 being faster than a 2080Ti that cost over double the price is nothing to scoof at. It does seem like nVidia is taking PC Gamers for suckers when the 970 launched at $330 and the 1070 launched at $379.99. A lot of the blame can be due to AMD not providing competition on the high end. For consoles, you have to consider that they are selling at a loss.

That's not entirely accurate. In certain scenes you can see utilized VRAM in certain games, hence the "stutter" in certain games in particular scenes, as the frame buffer gets filled, seen that with games before, hence higher instance of lower 1% frame rate. May not seem that bad but as more and more games utilize more VRAM, especially with newer games several years down the road.

Why would I "lower" settings if I am going to throw that much cash at a GPU. I would expect it to stay relevant for at least 2-3 years.

@Xtasy26: There is nothing indicating that 10GB VRAM will not be enough. So, I also expect it to stay relevant for 2-3 years. All I am saying is that I am not worried about it and I could lower settings if VRAM usage becomes a problem.

I don't like the idea of overpaying for something that is not necessary. VRAM is not cheap. So, if Nvidia decided to go with 10GB of VRAM, then they obviously feel that is sufficient for 4K gaming. Developers will optimize their games around that specification. DirectStorage may also be leveraged in games to ease the burden on VRAM.

@BassMan: Watch Dogs Legions system requirements recently came out and it requires 11GB VRAM for 4k max settings with ray tracing. Although we haven't seen how the game actually performs yet.

That will be interesting to see for sure.

Some games are already pushing 10 GB already. BF5 with Ray Tracing in some cases is can get over 10GB in 4K.

That's a 2018 game. I can easily see more and more games pushing 10 GB in 2-3 years at 4K especially with the newer consoles now having more VRAM than ever.

@Xtasy26: Most likely it's cached VRAM.

Steve talks about this in the review. Basically, bandwidth is enough to alleviate the "skimped" VRAM.

@Xtasy26 said:

@BassMan said:

@Xtasy26: There is nothing indicating that 10GB VRAM will not be enough. So, I also expect it to stay relevant for 2-3 years. All I am saying is that I am not worried about it and I could lower settings if VRAM usage becomes a problem.

I don't like the idea of overpaying for something that is not necessary. VRAM is not cheap. So, if Nvidia decided to go with 10GB of VRAM, then they obviously feel that is sufficient for 4K gaming. Developers will optimize their games around that specification. DirectStorage may also be leveraged in games to ease the burden on VRAM.

Some games are already pushing 10 GB already. BF5 with Ray Tracing in some cases is can get over 10GB in 4K.

That's a 2018 game. I can easily see more and more games pushing 10 GB in 2-3 years at 4K especially with the newer consoles now having more VRAM than ever.

How much of that VRAM is actively being used by the game though and not just being unnecessarily buffered? BFV also has a GPU Memory Restriction option which prevents the game from exceeding the VRAM of your card.

@BassMan said:

@Xtasy26 said:

@BassMan said:

@Xtasy26: There is nothing indicating that 10GB VRAM will not be enough. So, I also expect it to stay relevant for 2-3 years. All I am saying is that I am not worried about it and I could lower settings if VRAM usage becomes a problem.

I don't like the idea of overpaying for something that is not necessary. VRAM is not cheap. So, if Nvidia decided to go with 10GB of VRAM, then they obviously feel that is sufficient for 4K gaming. Developers will optimize their games around that specification. DirectStorage may also be leveraged in games to ease the burden on VRAM.

Some games are already pushing 10 GB already. BF5 with Ray Tracing in some cases is can get over 10GB in 4K.

That's a 2018 game. I can easily see more and more games pushing 10 GB in 2-3 years at 4K especially with the newer consoles now having more VRAM than ever.

How much of that VRAM is actively being used by the game though and not just being unnecessarily buffered? BFV also has a GPU Memory Restriction option which prevents the game from exceeding the VRAM of your card.

It seems certain scenes it's actually using 10 GB. Haven't heard of BFV engine on those engine not unnecessarily being buffered unlike other engines. I am showing usage at the time the scene is rendered at that point in time. That fact that it's pushing 10GB in a 2018 game is troubling. What happens when games do start to use over 10GB and push easily past it in 2-3 years (especially with newer consoles). We are back to Fury X argument where it was okay for 4GB back in 2015 but 2 - 3 years down 4GB wasn't enough.

He only talks about one game, Call of Duty which we know does allocate more than it needs. But he doesn't talk about other engines like the Ego engine used in Red Dead 2. We know that RX 580 performs better than 1060 6GB DDR5X despite that engine being historically being better favoring nVidia in GTA V (which is great for my 1060 6GB) as I get great frame rates in GTA V.

1060 6GB5X even with it's faster memory version (similar to RTX 3080 using faster GDDR6X) has much lower 1% min frame rates compared to RX 580 8GB and more stutter because Red Dead 2 exceeds 6 GB in some scenes.

As techspot stated. "we see rather poor 1% low performance from the GTX 1060 due to its 6GB buffer.".

https://www.techspot.com/review/1990-geforce-1060-vs-radeon-580/

@Xtasy26: the 1060 doesn't use GDDR5X. And RDR 2 doesn't use the Ego engine. Stop, please, you're talking out of your ass.

Something to consider. Most of the memory used in games are not actively utilized. With the implementation of the newer tech from DirectX 12U, the need for such large memory footprints would be reduced (theoretically) because the data would be more dynamic than static as data is quickly swapped in and out of RAM and VRAM with the SSD DMA optimization.

I think the opposite. It's only ok on price and the memory should be fine given its substantial throughput

They used the 9Gbps version of 1060 I mean (the one with faster memory). And actually there are 1060 revision that does use GDDR5X.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-gddr5x-specs,37961.html

And I misspoke I mean the RAGE engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine

As has been stated endlessly over the past few weeks, games will display their memory allocation which will often just max out at the vram of the card but it does not mean the card is utilising that much in-game.