According to the recent steam survey only about 10% are on 16GB or higher VRAM cards. So any game that doesn’t run well on lesser is automatically alienating 90% of the audience? Even if we consider that they can’t optimize for really old GPUs, 33% are still on 8GB VRAM, most game companies will have enough incentive to keep games running well on 8GB VRAM for atleast 4-5 years. Of course there are exceptions, but most people would be fine to omit the very few games that have these limitations.
Also, there is pretty much no gaming laptop with over 8GB VRAM in a reasonable budget, the cheapest if you aren’t buying used/old stock is a 5070Ti which costs over 1.8L, which is 3 times the average gaming laptop buying price here in India! That further emphasizes that there aren’t going to be that many games that don’t run well on 8GB VRAM in the near future.
Most players still play on 1080p which keeps VRAM usage limited with very few games touching 8-12 GB. Going with higher resolution substantially increases the VRAM usage.
If by everyone, you mean the techtubers community, they are basically trying to highlight future proofing for 2k and 4k gaming. The majority of us, as you rightly indicated by the steam numbers, don’t have 16 gb since we mostly game on 1080p.
Simple benchmark is, look at the vram typically available to consoles and try to match that, I can guarantee you will never suffer vram bottlenecks though, getting more if you can afford is always better. those texture modpacks are straight up voodoo sometimes
Yes, I agree that everyone talks about it, but very few actually use or have it. All that matters is the cost. It’s like how everyone says Crocs are the best sandals, yet only 10% actually go for them. Others are happy playing at 1080p or capping at 60 FPS on 2k with their 8GB cards. I felt the same recently a year ago, I had a 6GB card and thought it would last me 3 to 5 years. However, after switching to an 8GB card, I felt that maybe I should upgrade, even though everything was running fine. As others have said, it’s about future proofing for new buyers looking to game at 2K and 4K.
I was on a 3080 for 2 years, and at 1440p, never really had a VRAM issue. 16GB is pushing it, unless you are doing 4K maxed out, tbh. 12 GB seems to be the current sweet spot for 1440p.
Even @Tracer_Bullet is doing 4K DLDSR with DLSS upscaling, on his 3080 with no real issues.
I had vram issues with 10gb at 1440p with witcher 3 next gen with RT in novigrad area. Also i couldnt increase drawdistance via mods, again because of vram and had to look at ugly far lod grass in beautiful Toussaint.
You logic maybe fine, but we already have games giving issues with 8gb. Eventually gpus will start coming up with more vram and the pressure will increase.
This is all coping logic trying to find reason why to accept stupidly low vram.
I also went with 1050 2gb long ago and few years later had a tough time with new games. Now that was entry level, but i was also playing on 1080p.
Eventually next gen consoles will show up, likely with 24gb or 32gb vram and then all 8gb/10gb/12gb cards will get fked.
For a cheap gpu, thats fine. Not for say 60k+
I don’t even want 16gb for my next gpu. Made this mistake twice, wont again.
No man, havent touched DLDSR since moving to 4k. Nvidia only supports HDMI/120 for DLDSR on my monitor, and i use Displayport to get 240. Just too laze to change cables for a single game.
Besides, 4k is already heavy for 3080 if i want 90 fps+. DLDSR is too much.
The 16GB VRAM push is happening primarily with advising people not to get a 5060/5060Ti/9060XT 8GB variant, and get the 16GB 9060XT. With that GPU you’re not doing 4k gaming anyway, and not because of the VRAM
Developers are making games that is going to need more than 10GB VRAM to enable users to buy 16GB GPUs. This scenario is like hardware industry is guided by the needs of software industry which is inclusive.
I have seen VRAM usage crossing 12GB at only 4K resolution. For now, yes, 12GB VRAM will be fine for 1440p gaming. But say games like GoW Ragnarok was using close to 13GB VRAM at 1800p on my 7900GRE, so 5070 is definitely capable of running games beyond 1440p. So a GPU like 5070 should have had 16GB VRAM at its price point.
PS5 has sort of 10GB VRAM, so 8GB is definitely outdated. PS5’s specs will dictate minimum requirements of games soon. 12GB VRAM should be minimum in cards like RTX 5060 which has more raw performance than a PS5 GPU.
Also, tech like frame generation consume more VRAM as well, in case someone was thinking of using that to go from 60fps to close to 120fps.
they already are, PS5 normally has around 10-13gb vram available for rendering and thats what we have been seeing as well. Any card above a 3060 is automatically better than a PS5’s GPU.
It’ll be interesting to see how much vram PS6 will ship with, tho I’m estimating it wont be much more than the current one since both AMD and NVIDIA are gimping their cards to create a clear demarcation with their enterprise AI GPUs and there’s already a precedent set using PS3s or was it PS2’s, daisy chaining them and creating a super computer
Nvidia RTX 5070 Super: release date, specs, price, and performance
RTX 5070 Super could be the midrange graphics card we wished Nvidia launched in the first place, combining the strengths of a beefed-up GB205 GPU with a larger pool of VRAM and more.
If I had to guess, 16GB VRAM will be the minimum for PS6.
Anyways we have 3 years to see how GPU market shapes up, will get 2 new generations of GPU by end of 2028. Current gen is surely disappointing especially for budget gamers.
9060XT is just a 7700XT with extra VRAM & better upscaler. 5070 is a more expensive 4070 Super. No viable GPU below 9060XT 16GB. B580 could have been a saviour but need for an expensive CPU makes it pointless for budget gamers.
It remains to be seen whether PS6 will be a target for developers in the next generation. With Microsoft pushing towards Xbox as a PC gaming box, may be it will change the dynamics enough to make development PC first like it was a few decades ago.