Yeah, 12-16GB will probably be enough for the rest of this console gen as long as the game is decently optimized. In the PS4/Xbone era you could get away with a 4GB GPU for most of it, barring some higher texture/shadow settings in certain games.
In some cutscenes I suffered from missing/late loading high-res textures on my 3070 in FoP. Pushed me to upgrade to a 4070 Super.
These are the problems I was experiencing, but it was around the time the game launched and it's possible it's much better now with all the subsequent patches the game got.
Series X does have the split RAM pools with the 10GB portion having the higher bandwidth and likely being used mostly for graphics. People on forums were using that to argue that 10GB on the RTX 3080 would be fine this whole console generation.6500XT is a steaming pile, true. 4GB VRAM is too low. 6GB can work for some, but 4, nah. Only for older games or indies.
I remember when AMD launched Fury X with 4GB HBM and called it futureproof because it was HBM, soon running into VRAM issues. Meanwhile they were praising how great 8GB was on the 390 refresh series980 Ti with its 6GB VRAM aged much much better (and overclocked like a champ, bumping performance by 30-40% with OC). Meanwhile Lisa Su called Fury X an overclockers dream on stage, yet it barely did 1% perf gain with OC.
Most PC gamers today are fine with 8GB, since 99% use 1440p or lower. 12GB is more than plenty, even for 3440x1440. If you want to push settings hard, the GPU will buckle before VRAM anyway.
Big difference between allocation and actual requirement. Its crazy how many people don't understand how allocation work.
Allocation does NOT reflect actual requirement. Especially not when you compare GPUs with diffferent VRAM Pool.
PS5 and XSX have 16GB shared RAM in total. OS and Game uses like 8-10GB. Meaning Graphics are 6-8GB, with a 4K/UHD target.
Yeah, and I have a laptop pulling 70-90w tops and I share your thoughts. Also an android handheld.
Link me one game that uses more than 12GB VRAM in 3440x1440. Meaning huge fps dips because VRAM runs out, not just allocation which many engines do. 3440x1440 has pretty much same VRAM usage as regular 1440p.
No they don't. Not a single game developer ever said that. Total nonsense.
1440p here not 1080p
1440p here not 1080p
Was looking at the Pandora charts in TPU, the 3070 is close to 2080TI 11GB and 6800 16GB. but all below 60FPS.
One of the best looking games right now and 3070 8GB beats 6800 16GB in 4K/UHD, ultra preset, minimum fps included.
Game is even AMD sponsored
Meanwhile 99% of PC gamers use 1440p or lower and don't care about 4K at all.
Keep dreaming tho
LOL motivated reasoning. You use a single game as an example, even though the $400 GPUs you're referring to can't get 40 FPS in it. That convinces nobody.
Instead look at as many games as possible to see the balance. You'll see the 6800 "smashing" the 3070, to use your exact words:
Claiming something about MSRPs is equally hilarious as if those were the prices you could buy these cards at. Look at actual prices. That real people paid. The 6700 XT was under $400 for years while the 3070 was $500+ and finally squeaked under $400 for a couple of months before recovering to it's typical price of over $100 more than the 6700 XT. The 6700 XT was always better value:
It's not about playing games with individual prices or benchmarks, it's about the whole value package. DLSS vs FSR is a good consideration as is 11% more FPS (Oooo an 11% SMASH!!) and is worth more money, but is it worth 33% more money, 50% more?
IMO no.
