Ive got 16gb of vram 2k monitor and this tracks pretty accurately. I almost never use over 8gb. The only games that I can break 10gb are games where I can enable a setting (designed for old PCs) where I can load all the textures into vram.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
68 points (91.5% liked)
PC Gaming
11046 readers
428 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I would agree because 8gb is entry for desktop gaming and most people start at entry level
Then put 8GB in a 9060 non-XT and sell it for $200. You're just wasting dies that could've been used to make more 16GB cards available (or at least a 12 GB version instead of 8).
This video I just watched the other day says otherwise (with clear evidence.)
Do you just not want more money?
Nvidia have dropped the ball epically and you have a golden opportunity to regain some GPU share here.
IMHO The Problem is only partly the 8GB VRAM (for 1080p). An at least equal part of the Problem is the sitty Optimisation of some game engines. Especially Unreal Engine 5.
Yeah seeing a cool game and then seeing it's made in UE5 really puts a damper on things. I wish the engine had more work into performance optimization.
What would you do to optimize it more?
I would ask ChatGPT to review the source code and optimize it 😈
I just ditched my 8gb card because it wasn't doing the trick well enough at 1080p and especially not at 1440p.
So if i get this straight AMD agrees that they need to optimize games better.
I hate upscaling and frame gen with a passion, it never feels right and often looks messy too.
First descendant became a 480p mess when there were a bunch of enemies even tho i have a 24gb card and pretty decent pc to accompany that.
I'm now back to heavily modded Skyrim and damn do i love the lack of upscaling and frame gen. The Oblivion stutters were a nightmare and made me ditch the game within 10 hours.
Tell that to game developers. Specifically the ones that routinely don't optimize shit.
Or to gamers who insist on playing these unoptimized games at max settings. $80 for the game, and then spend $1000 buying a gpu that can run the game.
So the ones who had VGAs do more and more stuff like they were small separate PCs, and pushed for the "1440p Ultra Gaeming!!!1!" are telling us that nah 8GB is enough?
"8gb ought to be enough for anybody"
I personally think anything over 1080p is a waste of resolution, and I still use a card with 8GB of VRAM.
That being said, lots of other people want a 16GB card, so let them give you money AMD!
anything over 1080p is a waste of resolution
For games, maybe.
But I also use my PC for work (programming). I can't afford two, and don't really need them.
At home I've got a WQHD 1440p monitor, which leaves plenty of space for code while having the solution explorer, watch window, and whatnot still open.
At work we're just given cheap refurbished 1080p crap, which is downright painful to work with and has often made me consider buying a proper monitor and bringing it to work, just to make those ~8h/day somewhat less unbearable.
So I can't go back to 1080p, and have to run my games at 1440p (and upscaling looks like shit, so no).
1440p on a 27" monitor is the best resolution for work and for gaming.
My gaming rig is also my media center hooked up to a 4k television. I sit around 7 feet away from it. Anything less than 1440p looks grainy and blocky on my display.
I can't game at 4k because of hardware limitations (a 3070 just can't push it at good framerates) but I wouldn't say it's a waste to go above 1080p, use case is an important factor.
My TV has this stupid bullshit where it's only 30hz at 1440p but is 60hz at literally every other resolution (including 4K). 😬
It looks grainy because it's a damn TV and not a monitor. You're not going to be able to tell the difference AT THE DISTANCE that you're supposed to be using them at. Larger monitors are meant to be used from a farther distance away. TVs are meant to be used from across the room.
You're that guy with his retina plastered on the glass of his smartphone going "I CAN SEE THE PIXELS!"
Pixel density is pixel density. Doesn't matter if it's a tv or a monitor.
Sure monitors typically have less input lag and there are reasons one might choose a monitor over a tv, but the reverse is also true. I chose a 55" tv for my sim racing setup that sits maybe a meter from my face and there's no problem with that setup
TV panels have lower PPI than monitors.
Is there a reason you were so hostile with your repsonse?
Second, according to this site which I referenced at the time of purchase for my TV, I'm at the appropriate distance for my screen size of 55 inches. The image is grainy at 1080p because a 4k screen has WAY more pixels to stretch the image over so at the recommended distance for a 4k screen you end up with a blocky image with chunky pixels. It's fine, it's not like its unplayable, but why would I do that when I can get just as good an experience (30hz display can only get pushed so hard) at 2k without overwhelming my hardware and have a better image as well?
I'm not a Hardcore gamer, I'm not trying to get 9000+ fps. I mostly play tetris and my ps1 on a crt. I want my games to look the way they're intended to, they're art projects and I like to respect them as such. Ergo, I play them at the highest resolution my hardware can support.
I wish.
Send one of these guys by my place. I'll show them what 8GB can not do..
Oh so it's not that many players are FORCED to play at 1080p because AMDs and Novideos "affordable" garbage can't cope with anything more to make a game seem smooth, or better yet the game detected we're running on a calculator here so it took pity on us and set the graphics bar low.
Hey, give a little credit to our ~~public schools~~ (poorly-optimized eye-candy) new games! (where 10-20GiB is now considered small)
If he'd chosen his words more carefully and said "many" rather than "most" nobody would have a reason to disagree.
My 4k tv disagrees. Even upscaling from 1440p, my 10GB is barely enough on new games
Last month's Steam survey had 1080p as the most common primary display resolution at about 55%, while 4k was at 4.57%.
4K is a tiny part of the market. Even 1440p is a small segment (albeit rapidly growing).
Tell that to my triple 1440p screen flight simulator!
most gamers aren't doing that. You can get a very good idea of what they're doing by looking at Steam hardware surveys.
Most gamers are stuck with lower end hardware because they can't afford anything anymore.
Exactly
Have you tried buying three graphics cards?
Guess I'll stick with my GTX 1070TI until next century when GPU manufacturers have passed the bong to someone else. Prices are insane for the performance they provide these days.
Greetings fellow 1070Ti user.
The full tweet:
Majority of gamers are still playing at 1080p and have no use for more than 8GB of memory. Most played games WW are mostly esports games. We wouldn't build it if there wasn't a market for it. If 8GB isn't right for you then there's 16GB. Same GPU, no compromise, just memory options.
I don't think he's that far off; eSports games don't have the same requirements as AAA single-player games.
In this case, Intel's options of 10/12GB sounds like a more reasonable middle ground.
Counter point.
https://prosettings.net/blog/1440p-competitive-gaming/
Increased resolution has been the trend for a bit now even in these competitive games.
ETA, let's also not pretend that those who play esports games only play esports games too.
This is a much more nuanced take than the headlines implies.
I still see it being an issue of pricing and questionable value (over older/used/already-owned) of a bottlenecked part, particularly when it ends up with users who aren't esports users (for a multitude of reasons). In other words: stagnation.
It's more obvious with AMD selling new 4GB cards still in the budget category rather than ultra-budget, as in they aren't raising the floor. The jokes still work:
EDIT: There were even polaris GPUs with 8GB
Are you saying journalists will publish articles with inflammatory headlines to maximize engagement with their ad-based website funding? Nah way, I don believe it.
view more: next ›