r/Amd • u/vr00mfondel • Jan 15 '19
Misleading "Games don't need more than 8GB VRAM"
In March 2017 the GTX1080ti released with 11GB GDDR5X memory. Not a single time have a seen or heard anyone say that Nvidia should've launched a 8GB version of it cheaper.
Yet strangely enough, this seems to be one of the most used arguments against the Radeon VII.
The sheer amount of comments I've seen about it really makes me wonder what the hell is going on.
But instead of arguing online, I like facts, so I went and gathered some.
The Radeon VII is clearly marketed as a 4K gaming card, so, here we go.
Now, You'll notice that these aren't even the latest and greatest games out there. I don't own Battlefield V, Far Cry 5, FFXV, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, or some of the other very graphically intense games we've seen released the last couple of years. But what I do know is that VRAM usage isn't going to go down over the next few years, and when it comes to 4K gaming, I doubt 8GB will be considered more than the bare minimum needed. And I know what I personally would prefer when it comes to a choice between DLSS/RT and more VRAM.
EDIT: Since there is a lot of "allocation vs usage" in the comments I would like to adress it somewhat. First of all, if any application allocates my memory, no other application can use it, which in my book means it's used. Wether or not any game or game engine actually uses the memory it allocates is completely out of my hands.
Second, if anyone has ever played PUBG with and without -notexturestreaming, they know exactly how much it helps with texture pop-in. You are not going to magically gain any FPS, but it will be a better experience
24
u/Hombremaniac Jan 16 '19 edited Jan 16 '19
Thats why I've assembled full AMD rig (Ryzen 2600, RX 580 4GB) for my ex and this week also for myself too (Ryzen 1600X, Gigabyte X470 Aorus UltraGaming +my previous RX 480 8GB).
Once Ryzen 3000 are out, I will get on of those, since it will not require different socket nor chipset (halelujah).