3060, 6700XT, 3080Ti and everything in between - Page 2 - Video Cards - HWzone Forums
adplus-dvertising
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

     
    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

3060, 6700XT, 3080Ti and everything in between


nec_000
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay, I was told this when I also bought my 1060 6GB at the time.

 

6GB? In 2017? Yes crazy, when there is an RX 480 with 8? But how will you play watch dogs in 4K at 7FPS in 2020?

 

Once in my life I have not encountered a VRAM problem with this card. So they said. And today they also say about 8, and about 10, so what is 6. And more than likely explains that for 1080P resolution, the 6 will also continue to be just fine.

 

I wonder who today uses the 8GB of the RX 480. 

Link to content
Share on other sites

The card will work with 6GB in new titles of 2021 and up, more on mid settings and less on high or maximum settings.

 

He also explains several times and will explain again, that there is no material significance to the resolution on memory consumption,

What dictates the bulk of the load on memory are these textures.  

 

 

 

 

Link to content
Share on other sites

Quote of Jabberwock

vram.png

vram.png

vram.png

vram.png

vram.png

 

If in 2020 these are VRAM requirements, then it is quite clear that cards with less than 10GB are irrelevant and the minimum for a card that costs a fortune is 12GB. It is not clear why people pay so much money - more than 3000 shekels for 3070 and more than 4000 for 3080.

Link to content
Share on other sites

The big leap is in 4K (despite nec's strange insistence that resolution has no effect on VRAM consumption, as he himself uses data that contradicts that statement). To say in a sweeping way that less than 10GB would not be relevant, seems to me early. What is the percentage of users with 4K screens?

 

It's also worth delving a little beyond that. What was the VRAM consumption of the craziest games 4,5 years ago? How far have we progressed since then?

And in general, how is this number tested? Software like hwinfo and afterburner even tell the user that the number they display is the number assigned in memory and not what is necessarily used. To make the difference between assignment and use you need some tool of the graphics engine itself, maybe if there is a debugging tool or something like that. Somehow I doubt that these tests do not simply report the number that appears in the afterburner.

Edited By ch33
Link to content
Share on other sites

Quote of ch33

The big leap is in 4K (despite nec's strange insistence that resolution has no effect on VRAM consumption, as he himself uses data that contradicts that statement). To say in a sweeping way that less than 10GB would not be relevant, seems to me early. What is the percentage of users with 4K screens?

 

It's also worth delving a little beyond that. What was the VRAM consumption of the craziest games 4,5 years ago? How far have we progressed since then?

And in general, how is this number tested? Software like hwinfo and afterburner even tell the user that the number they display is the number assigned in memory and not what is necessarily used. To make the difference between assignment and use you need some tool of the graphics engine itself, maybe if there is a debugging tool or something like that. Somehow I doubt that these tests do not simply report the number that appears in the afterburner.

 

I do remember tickets from a few years ago, which came out with certain models and then came out more refurbished models only with more VRAM.

Apparently maybe back then it had a little less meaning .. but today the titles are also different and even heavier in the future ..

Even most people from abroad and on such and such sites think that such an amount of It will not be good for future looking ... if there is a reason for that I guess ...

There are those who also think differently but the rabbi thinks it will not be enough.

And if most of them think so including some surveys of all kinds ... worth checking it out again ...

 

Link to content
Share on other sites

"Most people from abroad and on such and such sites think it is not enough" - Who are these people? Who are these sites? And where are the statistics that show that most of them think so? On what basis are all these determinations?

 

Meanwhile the only serious reviewer I know I can all head to on VRAM is none other than the same one that appears in the nec image. Understand from this alone what you want. 

Link to content
Share on other sites

Quote of ch33

The big leap is in 4K (despite nec's strange insistence that resolution has no effect on VRAM consumption, as he himself uses data that contradicts that statement). To say in a sweeping way that less than 10GB would not be relevant, seems to me early. What is the percentage of users with 4K screens?

 

It's also worth delving a little beyond that. What was the VRAM consumption of the craziest games 4,5 years ago? How far have we progressed since then?

And in general, how is this number tested? Software like hwinfo and afterburner even tell the user that the number they display is the number assigned in memory and not what is necessarily used. To make the difference between assignment and use you need some tool of the graphics engine itself, maybe if there is a debugging tool or something like that. Somehow I doubt that these tests do not simply report the number that appears in the afterburner.

 

Instead of "educating" me about who is the main consumer of volume In Graphic Acceleration Today (2020), Learning and the Mind,

Do yourself a favor. Here is the link to the source:

https://hwzone.co.il/community/topic/601255-כרטיסי-המסך-rx-6800-xt-ו-rx-6800-בביקורת-האם-radeon-מביס-את-geforce/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-5196562

 

And here is a copy of the things in the link to save a click:

 

"The component of the effect of resolution on VRAM memory consumption is relatively small, compared to the consumption of texture storage,

A process that expands over time. I will explain below.

 

First a quick test you will perform in HD resolutions, 1440P, 4k, Show you, that the increase in VRAM consumption is very small.

Much less than the default assumption. But the explanation is that what changes in the increase in resolution is mainly the frame buffer

(Which holds the final output in favor of its display to the screen), and a little more also intermediate calculations, which hold the render time, and they also do not consume

too much. They also evaporate after the rendering of the frame is finished and are removed from memory.

 

The HD image is 2 million pixels, and in a 32-bit representation, it is 64 million bits - which is 8 million bytes. Or 8MB. Miniature.

Even if you go up to resolution 4k Consumption increases fourfold to only 4MB. Remember that a video card has 32 (or more) GB, so all

This increase in the resolution of both the frame buffer, and even if it is of the triple buffering type, including the intermediate calculations in time

The render (until they are purge), do not tickle the huge sea of ​​VRAM nowadays, the one measured in such gigs.

8GB = 8000MB.

 

Therefore it is understood that the textures inhabit 80% or more of the total memory consumed, and probably already over 90% even (it progresses with

The years). The reason for the progress is that as time goes on, the volume and quality of the textures increases at a rapid rate, doubling every 3 years

Roughly speaking, while the memory consumed in favor of the calculations and the frame buffer remain fairly in place, or progress but very slowly, 

Adjacent to the rate of increase in resolution (which is slow).

 

hearing,

That if we have 8GB VRAM consumption, over 7 is just the textures, and less than 1 is the rest. Therefore do not get caught up in the resolution

As an element that significantly affects VRAM consumption, but rather to the quality of the textures themselves which have a much greater impact.

Nowadays a situation has arisen, that running the heaviest title in textures but at low resolution, will still consume a lot of VRAM memory. 

As mentioned, sterilization is used to cach the heavy textures.

 

Unlike frame buffers and intermediate calculations that are volatile after finishing displaying the frame on the screen, the textures do not pass

The process of purging the entire duration of the game / simulator. Since the process of drawing the balance of the frames also requires the

The textures go on. The textures are not volatile for the duration of the work.

 

From now on we talk about consumption memory In a video card, as of 2020, no more significant importance is attached to the issue of resolution.

Once upon a time in the distant past it was significant, today it is no longer. For once the resolution carried heavy weight (equivalent to textures)

In memory consumption, while today this is done to a negligible order of magnitude ratio, which only continues to expand from generation to generation.

 

In 3 years the textures will need 16GB instead of 8GB, while the consumption on the computing space and framebuffer will increase

Suppose an order of magnitude of 1GB up to 2GB. And in the next attraction the textures will again go up from 16GB to 32GB, and if the rest goes up

From 2GB to 3GB .... Dayano. Pretty quickly understand what's going on here:

The slice memory Consumed in favor of textures soared up at an exponential rate, while the slice memory The volatile does not infect it. 

That is why we have already reached a situation today in 2020, in which the share representing the resolution becomes secondary in importance, compared to the share representing

The storage of textures.

 

** You can see in the technical explanation above, an extension of the article on implementing cache in graphic cores, which I published

Here in the forum last month. The explanation here provides further insight in favor of understanding the aspect ratio and the role of cache in the process. "

 

*** A breakthrough in the world of graphic acceleration - cache

https://hwzone.co.il/community/topic/600884-פריצת-דרך-בעולם-ההאצה-הגראפית-cache/?tab=comments#comment-5193222

 

Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

You also ignore the fact that the "bottleneck" of the gaming industry is the generation of consoles. Games are developed first and foremost for consoles and only then are they converted to physical.
For more than seven years we have been in the eighth generation of consoles, which even when just launched was very mediocre compared to the average physical gaming. Now we've jumped into the ninth generation with the Xbox Size and the PlayStation 5. They both have 16GB .
Therefore, in my opinion, buying a card with less than 16GB today is a mistake that we will pay for in two or three years.
More about the new consoles: vgfreak.com/xbox-series-x-vs-ps5 (Due Diligence: I wrote it).

 

And ch33 - more and more Games on TVs (me too) and for many years it has not been possible at all to purchase a screen with a lower resolution from .

Edited By VGFreak
Link to content
Share on other sites

16GB in this console Uniform for the whole system. This cake is indeed divided into the operating system but more importantly also other things of the game that need to get into RAM regardless of the graphics, there is no such thing as "VRAM", there is simply And this is what is used for everything. Like having a computer without a dedicated video card but with a graphics processor built into the processor.

 

It is a mistake to treat this as a parallel to graphical memory on And draw conclusions, there is no connection and the consoles can not even come close to devoting all the 16 GB to graphics. One has to be careful with these comparisons, it is true that the hardware there is based in the end on what we know from the computer but it is a different machine.

 

 

Edited By ch33
Link to content
Share on other sites

Well? There are 10GB that are faster than the other 6 (and by the way still much slower than the 6X memory of the 3080, with all the talk of what will be another two hundred years no one refers to the fact that this too can be the bottleneck before the quantity). It is not yet "VRAM", the developers of the game choose how and what to use. Is still here Uniform that can be used for any system need.

 

The PS5 doesn't even have that and everything at the same speed.

By the way, if we are already talking about XBOX, the direction there in general seems more towards using DirectStorage (you can read HERE) Which will also arrive in Windows in the coming year and may reduce in the first place the amount of information that needs to be stored in VRAM while playing, rather than load insane amounts of . Sony also has some equivalent I think.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Join the discussion

You can then join the discussion and then join our community. If you already have an account with us, please Log in now To comment under your username.
Note that: The comment will appear to the surfers after approval by the board management team.

guest
Add a comment

×   The content pasted is with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically assimilated.   Show as regular link

×   Your previous content has been automatically restored.   Clear all

×   You can not paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

×
  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site