One, HUB is an idiot.

Two, when you can happily play 99.99% of games it is totally fine.

Three, it's a cheaper option and more choices are better than less.

Four, no one is forcing anyone to buy it.

Five, this topic is as pointless as the last time.

Six, if they didn't include a cheaper 8GB option people would still complain there us no cheap 8GB option.

Seven, you know point six is correct.

Eight, which proves five right also.

Nine, so why are we talking about it?

Ten, just to round it off, have a nice day.

So buy a card with more.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

Two, when you can happily play 99.99% of games it is totally fine.

Are you insinuating that only 0.01% of new games can benefit from more than 8GB?

I know you didn’t say that but your sentence suggests that.

And here I sit with a 6 gb vram card because I figured I could just play on lower settings and save money. So far so good, but I also don't play demanding games, so I guess we'll see how well my compromise worked out.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

One, HUB is an idiot.

Two, when you can happily play 99.99% of games it is totally fine.

Three, it's a cheaper option and more choices are better than less.

Four, no one is forcing anyone to buy it.

Five, this topic is as pointless as the last time.

Six, if they didn't include a cheaper 8GB option people would still complain there us no cheap 8GB option.

Seven, you know point six is correct.

Eight, which proves five right also.

Nine, so why are we talking about it?

Ten, just to round it off, have a nice day.

wow....not one valid point out of all of it.....like always.....if your point had any validity where are the 4gb cards???

Oprindeligt skrevet af C1REX:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

Two, when you can happily play 99.99% of games it is totally fine.

Are you insinuating that only 0.01% of new games can benefit from more than 8GB?

I know you didn’t say that but your sentence suggests that.

I'm saying they will run just fine on 8GB, as has been proven constantly, but hey, we'll done trying to put words in my mouth.

To go over it you generally need high res texture packs or high resolution, even with raytracing / dlss.

The entry level cards are not intended nor do they have the power to max stuff out and, once again, as it seems too complex for some to grasp, you don't have to buy them, irs a cheaper option and I'll bet that in a years time they are very close to the most sold models.

It's common sense, though, that seems far less common these days.

Social media is all about clicks and bad mouthing stuff with idiotic takes gets more views than saying a product is adequate.

As I've said in the past, when I had my 8gb 3050 and 4090, there was nothing I could not get to play at over 60fpson the 3050, you dont need high settings etc.

Finally, I think point Six is very, very accurate and you are talking as much rubbish as the hack from HUB does, maybe if he actually tried playing games instead of just running a benchmark suite he would have a clue about what he talks about, thst ANYONE would use people like him or j2c as evidence if anything just tells me their opinions should be ignored or taken with a very large pinch of salt at a minimum.

Oprindeligt skrevet af smokerob79:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

One, HUB is an idiot.

Two, when you can happily play 99.99% of games it is totally fine.

Three, it's a cheaper option and more choices are better than less.

Four, no one is forcing anyone to buy it.

Five, this topic is as pointless as the last time.

Six, if they didn't include a cheaper 8GB option people would still complain there us no cheap 8GB option.

Seven, you know point six is correct.

Eight, which proves five right also.

Nine, so why are we talking about it?

Ten, just to round it off, have a nice day.

wow....not one valid point out of all of it.....like always.....if your point had any validity where are the 4gb cards???

Aged out largely, but still plenty playing on older cards at low settings just fine.

Once more you claim I make no sense, come in with an unrelated statement and act like you know anything about hardware.

But, feel free to actually counter my points, but I won't hold my breath.

But, points three and four counters your comment.

Worldwide stats put around 25% of users with 1080p screens and another 25% using less than 2k resolutions with screens of various makes and sizes.

Ballparking from that I would say about 10/15% need more than 8gb vram. Manufacturers are probably well aware of what sells and market accordingly, more gb's may be wanted but people are not willing to pay the price.

Not talking about those that require specifics for their business interests but gamers. Most of us have other far more important demands on our money and the price of gpu''s of late really puts the high end card in the luxury slot and the cost can be hard to justify.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

As I've said in the past, when I had my 8gb 3050 and 4090, there was nothing I could not get to play at over 60fpson the 3050, you dont need high settings etc.

Yes. I agree that 100% of games do work on a 3050 8GB.
Did you have any particular need to buy a 5060Ti and pay extra for more memory that is not needed? Or to pay even more for a 5090 that is also not needed?


We have more and more games where 5060Ti 16GB do significantly better than 5060Ti 8GB and saving $15-20 ($50 with nvidia’s and amd tax) is not worth that memory bottleneck.
Do you disagree with that specific statement? Without circling back to "3050 running all games"? Happily?

Also high resolution textures are gorgeous. I like them more than ray tracing and they have no hit to performance. Games could look and run so much better if optimised for $20 more memory.

I ever argued buying those cards made sense, I just made the argument fir why they exist and are valid.

As to why I upgraded, I needed a second gpu for another htpc, so I used my 3050, figured the £400 for the 5060ti on release day was good value and would up the settings I can run some games on the htpc at, I bought it on a whim tbh.

As for the 5090, id decided I wasn't buying one, but figured I'd see what I could get for my 4090 as it wasn't in the pc at the time abd I got what I paid for it 2 years ago, so, figured, I'd buy myself a 5090 as, once more, id budgeted for it, so why not.

But, my use case is clearly very removed from the intended user base of the 8GB cards, maybe if the intended purchasers could learn some restraint and budgeting, they could be buying a 5090 instead, as income wise, I fall much closer to the 8GB card group than the average 5090 buyer.

Edit.

Only examples I've seen that the 16GB card ran better was due to more demanding settings being used pushing the vram requirements higher.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

Only examples I've seen that the 16GB card ran better was due to more demanding settings being used pushing the vram requirements higher.

Yes, exactly.
16GB GPUs can often handle more demanding settings, better textures, less stutters and more stable frame time graph, are less CPU heavy and can take advantage of frame gen.

8GB can run the same games just fine and happily but worse looking and/or with worse performance. Occasionally even crashing with some settings.

Depending of a game it can make a substantial difference in look and performance for a mere $20 difference in hardware cost.

It's not worse performance if you set both cards to settings the 8GB card can handle, only an idiot would think you can judge performance based on settings blatantly beyond the capabilities of one of the things you are trying to test.

Again, not arguing they are a good buy, just pointing out how flawed your thinking is along with those who test like it.

For most people, the 8GB cards are enough, the manufacturers know thus a lot better than click bsiters and clearly a bunch of people on this forum do, it us why thry offer it as an option and why it will likely be among the best selling options as most don't think it's worth the extra money.

That so many here fail to see this really is funny.

i did counter your point....makers chose to get rid of 4gb cards and they need to do it for 8gb cards.....

Oprindeligt skrevet af Monk:

It's not worse performance if you set both cards to settings the 8GB card can handle, only an idiot would think you can judge performance based on settings blatantly beyond the capabilities of one of the things you are trying to test.

Yes, you need to make games uglier for 8GB to handle them. Basic features like nice textures are beyond their capabilities when 16GB versions of the exact same GPU do just fine.
$20 in memory difference but feels like a whole generation of performance apart.

Even if you're playing on 1080p, where 8gb is still usable, as soon as the next console gen hits you're going to start having issues. If you currently have an 8gb card and are satisfied with it - great!

However, if you're buying a new GPU in 2025, then unless you are absolutely sure you're going to stick to 1080p and only play light esports titles, then I very strongly recommend getting at least 12GB.

Otherwise you might end up having to upgrade again in a couple of years, and I'm guessing that's not exactly what budget gamers want. The resale value of the card will be significantly impacted by that VRAM buffer in a couple of years.