The new mining is AI… TSMC is at max capacity. They’re not going to waste too many wafers making gaming GPU when AI acceleratora are selling for $30k each

You mean Nvidia GPUs? I got my 6750XT for 500€, and I think it’s a good price for the performance I get.

I have a 2060 super with 8GB. The VRAM is enough currently for FHD gaming - or at least isn’t the bottle neck, so 12 GB might be fine with this use case BUT I’m also toying around with AI models and some of the current models already ask for 12 GB VRAM to run the complete model. It’s not, that I would never get a 12 GB card as an upgrade, but you’d be sure, that I’d do some research for all alternatives and then it wouldn’t be my first choice but a compromise, as it wouldn’t future proof me in this regard.

Is it weird that until I read this I forgot that GPUs can make graphics

It can pull weight at 4k, but I’m not sure if that is justification to slam it for not having the memory for 4k.

There are many games that cut it awfully close with 12GB at 1440p, for some it’s actually not enough. And when Nvidia pushes Raytracing as hard as they do, not giving us the little extra memory we need for that is just a dick move.

Whatever this card costs, 12GB of vram is simply not appropriate.

My monitor is only 1440p, so it’s just what i need. I ordered the Founders Edition card from Best Buy on a whim after I stumbled across it at launch time by coincidence. I’d been mulling over the idea of getting a prebuilt PC to replace my laptop for a few weeks at that point and was on the lookout for sales on ones with a 4070. Guess I’ll be building my own instead now.

I’m fine playing at 30fps, I don’t really notice much of a difference. For me ram is the biggest influence in a purchase due to the capabilities it opens up for local AI stuff.

I don’t think they care. In fact I think they’re going to exit the consumer market eventually, it’s just peanuts to them and the only reason they’re still catering to it is to use it as field testing (and you’re paying them for the privilege which is quite ironic).

Really?

I wish they would have started putting out AMD products. Powercolor just doesn’t feel like a flagship partner like evga was to nvidia.

12gB vram is not a bottleneck in any current games on reasonable settings. There is no playable game/settings combination where a 7800xt’s 16gB offers any advantage. Or do you think having 15fps average is more playable than 5fps average(because the 4070s is ram bottlenecked)? Is this indicative of future potential bottlenecks? Maybe but i wouldnt be so sure.

The 4070 super offers significantly superior ray tracing performance, much lower power consumption, superior scaling(and frame generation) technology, better streaming/encoding stuff and even slightly superior rasterization performance to the 7800xt. Are these things worth sacrificing for 100€ less and 4gB vram? For most people they arent.

Amd’s offerings are competitive, not better. And the internet should stop sucking their dick, especially when most of the internet, including tech savvy people, dont even use AMD gpus. Hell, LTT even made a series of videos about how they had to “suffer” using AMD gpus, yet they usually join the nvidia shitting circlejerk.

I have an amd 580 card and have bought and recommended AMD gpus to people since the 9500/9700pro series. But my next gpu will almost certainly be an nvidia one. The only reason people are complaining is because nvidia can make a better gpu(as shown by the 4090) but they choose not to. While AMD literally cant make better gpus but they choose to only “competitively” price their gpus, instead of offering something better. Both companies suck.

The real tragedy is that PCs still have to make do with discrete graphics cards that have separate VRAM.

An actual technical answer: Apparently, it’s because while the PS5 and Xbox Series X are technically regular x86-64 architecture, they have a design that allows the GPU and CPU to share a single pool of memory with no loss in performance. This makes it easy to allocate a shit load of RAM for the GPU to store textures very quickly, but it also means that as the games industry shifts from developing for the PS4/Xbox One X first (both of which have separate pools of memory for CPU & GPU) to the PS5/XSX first, VRAM requirements are spiking up because it’s a lot easier to port to PC if you just keep the assumption that the GPU can handle storing 10-15 GB of texture data at once instead of needing to refactor your code to reduce VRAM usage.

Lmao

We have your comment: what am I doing with 20gb vram?

And one comment down: it’s actually criminal there is only 20gb vram

GPU rendering and AI.

Current gen consoles becoming the baseline is probably it.

As games running on last gen hardware drop away, and expectations for games rise above 1080p, those Recommended specs quickly become an Absolute Minimum. Plus I think RAM prices have tumbled as well, meaning it’s almost Scrooge-like not to offer 16GB on a £579 GPU.

That said, I think the pricing is still much more of an issue than the RAM. People just don’t want to pay these ludicrous prices for a GPU.

Perhaps not the biggest market but consumer cards (especially nvidia’s) have been the preferred hardware in the offline rendering space -ie animation and vfx- for a good few years now. They’re the most logical investment for freelancers and small to mid studios thanks to hardware raytracing. CUDA and later Optix may be anecdotal on the gaming front, but they completely changed the game over here

Personally I need it for video editing & 3D work but I get that’s a niche case compared to the gaming market.

I’m maxed on VRAM in VR for the most part with a 3080. It’s my main bottleneck.

Nope, that’s the 4090.