Was considering 4070 super but don't think it will age as well stuck at 12gb if I'm hoping to keep it for 4+ years without lowering settings and lowering resolutions unless it drops to below $500
GT1030 2GB. That's why after finishing playing through an old games like "Star Ocean: The Last Hope", I gave up and stopped gaming for the next few years. Will restart gaming next year with my new RTX5090 rig for 4K60+ playthroughs!
Dude, you're talking a bit of nonsense. You can easily play each of these games at 1440p on a 10GB 3080 or 4060. Saying that in some benchmark the game uses 12GB means that the game 'will not fly', or 'game required this to work' is NONSENSE. It's like with RAM - if you have 32GB, the game may take up 16GB, and if you have 8GB, it will take up 6GB. Yes, maybe your FPS or loading time will drop a bit, but saying that the game requires so much and you can't play or 'you will struggle' below that is complete b.s. Your benchmarks only mean that a game CAN use that much at some point, if it has that much available.
stop covering nvida's bullcrap, vram is needed when playing at higher settings, your GPU vram will be the bottlenecking factor in future (even now in some games) as you said in your ram example, ofc dude one with 32gb ram will have more performance, cuz the game is using more ram for it's textures and ofc bro the game will still work on 10gb video ram too, but paying horrendous pricing for still works is insane
@@A1mb0t_Fr0z3n Well, complaining about the world's only manufacturer of the fastest graphics cards is nothing more than empty whining that will result in nothing. If you don't want it, don't buy it, because the market is what it is. Would I like greedy corporations to be guided by the good of the customer rather than profit? Yes, I would also like a world without wars, social justice and beer for everyone. There will always be some 'bottlenecking factor' - if not the GPU, then the CPU, disk, RAM, or a hopelessly programmed game. And the amount of RAM in a mid-range GPU is the least of the problems.
If you have the budget it's preferred. If you don't play those titles. Fair play. But, I find myself using 10-13gb even 16gbs sometimes at 1440p and 1080. But there is so many issues in the pc industry.
I think 12GB is the sweet spot, even for years to come. I recently traded the RTX 2060 Super for a RTX 3060 12GB. Differences in performance isn't that great, but things certainly make drastic difference in VRAM demanding situations.
@@godofdeath8785 So far, I don’t find any drastic difference between 12GB and 16GB (I haven’t myself used a 16GB card but I’m saying it based on the visual and numerical data available in the web), unless you are a 1440p or 4K-extreme graphics settings gamers. For mid level gamers on medium-high setting @ 1080p, 12GB is definitely the sweet spot. Arc GPUs are nowhere close to nVIDIA or AMD. They seem to be just some Intel gimmick. Going by the trend it seems either APUs or ARM based GPUs (as per recent news and Israeli company is already into it) are going to be the future because one important aspect that has to be considered in future comparison is the power efficiency. Once the material issue for sub nano-meter nodes is solved this shouldn’t be a problem. Intel lost the GPU and ARM CPU race long time back, and Intel’s CEO has admitted that as well (at least the thing about ARM based CPU).
The vast majority of people play with less and seem happy. I’d say 12 GB is an exceptional amount for 1080p and 1440p but if you want a 4k setup a 16gb gpu is the thing you’re gonna want. But 1080p is still a very good resolution and for fps I don’t think I’d ever wanna go much higher.
6:50 I just want to ask, in this graph does that mean Ultra + FSR/DLSS enabled in Last of Us wont play on a RTX 4070 super (12gb) since it needs 13.1gb to play but it can play in RTX 4060 ti (16gb) because it has 16gb?
While RTX 4060 Ti 16GB has more RAM, it has a weaker GPU die. So your fps will be low. You are better off with RTX 4070 Super. Just dial down the textures. Honestly both these cards are not really meant for 4K gaming
@@RealTechnoPanda I agree. This is actually what im telling to people. 16gb on a GPU like 4060 ti or rx 7700/7800xt or even the 7900 gre is useless. If a game settings requires more than 12gb of ram to run, these GPUs can run it but it will be in a manner that the game is barely playable because of the low fps. A 16gb needs a more powerful card at least 4070 ti super and above to even maximize the 16gb potential.
How much VRAM is in your GPU?
4070 ti 12 gb
3060 ti, 8 gigs
Was considering 4070 super but don't think it will age as well stuck at 12gb if I'm hoping to keep it for 4+ years without lowering settings and lowering resolutions unless it drops to below $500
GT1030 2GB. That's why after finishing playing through an old games like "Star Ocean: The Last Hope", I gave up and stopped gaming for the next few years. Will restart gaming next year with my new RTX5090 rig for 4K60+ playthroughs!
6700 XT, 12GB
bro i have 2gb gtx660 be grateful man
Dude, you're talking a bit of nonsense. You can easily play each of these games at 1440p on a 10GB 3080 or 4060. Saying that in some benchmark the game uses 12GB means that the game 'will not fly', or 'game required this to work' is NONSENSE.
It's like with RAM - if you have 32GB, the game may take up 16GB, and if you have 8GB, it will take up 6GB. Yes, maybe your FPS or loading time will drop a bit, but saying that the game requires so much and you can't play or 'you will struggle' below that is complete b.s.
Your benchmarks only mean that a game CAN use that much at some point, if it has that much available.
stop covering nvida's bullcrap, vram is needed when playing at higher settings, your GPU vram will be the bottlenecking factor in future (even now in some games)
as you said in your ram example, ofc dude one with 32gb ram will have more performance, cuz the game is using more ram for it's textures
and ofc bro the game will still work on 10gb video ram too, but paying horrendous pricing for still works is insane
@@A1mb0t_Fr0z3n Well, complaining about the world's only manufacturer of the fastest graphics cards is nothing more than empty whining that will result in nothing. If you don't want it, don't buy it, because the market is what it is. Would I like greedy corporations to be guided by the good of the customer rather than profit? Yes, I would also like a world without wars, social justice and beer for everyone.
There will always be some 'bottlenecking factor' - if not the GPU, then the CPU, disk, RAM, or a hopelessly programmed game. And the amount of RAM in a mid-range GPU is the least of the problems.
Size is the least important property of RAM, for all RAMs. Bus width, frequency and timings are all more important than size.
If you have the budget it's preferred. If you don't play those titles. Fair play. But, I find myself using 10-13gb even 16gbs sometimes at 1440p and 1080. But there is so many issues in the pc industry.
Plz make a video for rx 7700 xt vs rtx 4060 ti 16gb for gaming, streaming and some ai workloads also
I think 12GB is the sweet spot, even for years to come. I recently traded the RTX 2060 Super for a RTX 3060 12GB. Differences in performance isn't that great, but things certainly make drastic difference in VRAM demanding situations.
Not really. 16 gb better and future proof. That’s why I hope in future I am will be able to get intel arc a770 16gb rn I am still with rtx 3070.
@@godofdeath8785 So far, I don’t find any drastic difference between 12GB and 16GB (I haven’t myself used a 16GB card but I’m saying it based on the visual and numerical data available in the web), unless you are a 1440p or 4K-extreme graphics settings gamers. For mid level gamers on medium-high setting @ 1080p, 12GB is definitely the sweet spot.
Arc GPUs are nowhere close to nVIDIA or AMD. They seem to be just some Intel gimmick. Going by the trend it seems either APUs or ARM based GPUs (as per recent news and Israeli company is already into it) are going to be the future because one important aspect that has to be considered in future comparison is the power efficiency. Once the material issue for sub nano-meter nodes is solved this shouldn’t be a problem. Intel lost the GPU and ARM CPU race long time back, and Intel’s CEO has admitted that as well (at least the thing about ARM based CPU).
The vast majority of people play with less and seem happy. I’d say 12 GB is an exceptional amount for 1080p and 1440p but if you want a 4k setup a 16gb gpu is the thing you’re gonna want. But 1080p is still a very good resolution and for fps I don’t think I’d ever wanna go much higher.
12 is no no 16 is min now days 18 and 20 perfect 👌 but the wont give
Is 12GB enough?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yes, absolutely.
6:50 I just want to ask, in this graph does that mean Ultra + FSR/DLSS enabled in Last of Us wont play on a RTX 4070 super (12gb) since it needs 13.1gb to play but it can play in RTX 4060 ti (16gb) because it has 16gb?
While RTX 4060 Ti 16GB has more RAM, it has a weaker GPU die. So your fps will be low. You are better off with RTX 4070 Super. Just dial down the textures. Honestly both these cards are not really meant for 4K gaming
@@RealTechnoPanda I agree. This is actually what im telling to people. 16gb on a GPU like 4060 ti or rx 7700/7800xt or even the 7900 gre is useless. If a game settings requires more than 12gb of ram to run, these GPUs can run it but it will be in a manner that the game is barely playable because of the low fps. A 16gb needs a more powerful card at least 4070 ti super and above to even maximize the 16gb potential.
I would rather have the game devs optimize their code!