To be honest, with how calculated NVIDIA was with planned obsolescence of all 8GB cards, i can't see how this wouldn't become a more researched topic and popular service to install those mods. Of course i can also smell the driver verification checks coming from a mile. UH OH IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO DODGE OUR PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE, GUESS WHO'S NOT GETTING WHQL DRIVERS ANYMORE?

If all the cards that suffer due to VRAM lack would get double of that, they either would run into a rather soon coming GPU limit, or lazy devs would just optimize for 20GB GPUs when every one has 16GB...

fantaskarsef:

If all the cards that suffer due to VRAM lack would get double of that, they either would run into a rather soon coming GPU limit, or lazy devs would just optimize for 20GB GPUs when every one has 16GB...

Developers/CEOs: "Gamers have cards with how much VRAM? That much!? Then no need to optimize our shi*** games, just let the game use absurd amounts of VRAM for no reason. Now, lets talk about serious matters, what car should i buy with the money i`ve saved on optimizations, Porsche or Ferrari?"

I need it for my god damned POS 3080

HUB just put out a 3070 vs A4000 (basically the quadro version of the 3070 + 16gb). [youtube=alguJBl-R3I]

H83:

Developers/CEOs: "Gamers have cards with how much VRAM? That much!? Then no need to optimize our shi*** games, just let the game use absurd amounts of VRAM for no reason. Now, lets talk about serious matters, what car should i buy with the money i`ve saved on optimizations, Porsche or Ferrari?"

Honestly, with how expensive PC hardware is getting and how demanding DXR is, I think this might be the first time since the DX9 days when devs really need to start focusing on optimization. People aren't going to buy games if their system can't run it, and the average person isn't going to spend 4 figures on a GPU when they could just get a whole console for half the price instead. For too long, devs have got lazy about optimization, because it's been rather affordable to just simply buy more to compensate. That's no longer the case. What I've always found confusing is why only competitive games are typically so well-optimized. They look very good for how many FPS they yield. I get that there is a particular demand to make them run as fast as possible, but it's hard to wrap my head around why non-competitive games just don't get the same treatment. Sure, single-player games tend to have a lot more assets, but a lot of the optimizations have to do with the code, since optimizing the assets themselves is a relatively simple task.

Vram, so hot right now

Adding more Vram would allow them to raise their prices even more!

schmidtbag:

Honestly, with how expensive PC hardware is getting and how demanding DXR is, I think this might be the first time since the DX9 days when devs really need to start focusing on optimization. People aren't going to buy games if their system can't run it, and the average person isn't going to spend 4 figures on a GPU when they could just get a whole console for half the price instead. For too long, devs have got lazy about optimization, because it's been rather affordable to just simply buy more to compensate. That's no longer the case. What I've always found confusing is why only competitive games are typically so well-optimized. They look very good for how many FPS they yield. I get that there is a particular demand to make them run as fast as possible, but it's hard to wrap my head around why non-competitive games just don't get the same treatment. Sure, single-player games tend to have a lot more assets, but a lot of the optimizations have to do with the code, since optimizing the assets themselves is a relatively simple task.

I'm agitated enough with Nvidia to switch vendors for my next upgrade if things don't change with the 5000 series (e.g. Prices coming down or truly mind blowing performance at the midrange tier + a lot more VRAM). DLSS Frame Generation should have had a fallback lower quality mode that could still work on the 3000 series cards and 3070/3080 needed more memory. If both of those things were true then the 3000 series cards would be remembered very fondly but alas. From what I've read the 3000 series cards do have optical flow hardware it's just a lot slower than on the 4000 series cards. Especially if AMD is truly working on their own lower quality frame generation technique that runs on a wider variety of hardware, I think it was probably within Nvidia's means to get FG working in some form on the 3000 series cards. AMD doesn't burn their buyers like Nvidia does lately seems to me. Intel A770 seems like it's actually a fantastic buy now that the drivers have improved. It does seem like there are a lot of shoddy PC ports that come out. For me I mainly want devs to focus very aggressively on asset streaming stutter and shader comp stutter. I hope those problems become things of the past.

schmidtbag:

Honestly, with how expensive PC hardware is getting and how demanding DXR is, I think this might be the first time since the DX9 days when devs really need to start focusing on optimization. People aren't going to buy games if their system can't run it, and the average person isn't going to spend 4 figures on a GPU when they could just get a whole console for half the price instead. For too long, devs have got lazy about optimization, because it's been rather affordable to just simply buy more to compensate. That's no longer the case. What I've always found confusing is why only competitive games are typically so well-optimized. They look very good for how many FPS they yield. I get that there is a particular demand to make them run as fast as possible, but it's hard to wrap my head around why non-competitive games just don't get the same treatment. Sure, single-player games tend to have a lot more assets, but a lot of the optimizations have to do with the code, since optimizing the assets themselves is a relatively simple task.

It`s about the money, like you said. In single player games, devs can get away with an unoptimizied game because normally we only play it once and we can look away to some technical problems like slowdows or stuttering because we can repeat that part or just keep playing it. MP games are supposed to last much longer and to attract the biggest number of players possible, so optimizing as best as possible is mandatory for the game to be successfull in the long term. It also helps that MP games normally are not that demanding compare to SP games, and most are extremely easy to run, like Fortnite, CS, Dota and so on. But there are also SP games that have very nice graphics and run very well, like the Doom reboot or D4.

H83:

It`s about the money, like you said. In single player games, devs can get away with an unoptimizied game because normally we only play it once and we can look away to some technical problems like slowdows or stuttering because we can repeat that part or just keep playing it. MP games are supposed to last much longer and to attract the biggest number of players possible, so optimizing as best as possible is mandatory for the game to be successfull in the long term. It also helps that MP games normally are not that demanding compare to SP games, and most are extremely easy to run, like Fortnite, CS, Dota and so on. But there are also SP games that have very nice graphics and run very well, like the Doom reboot or D4.

DOOM 2016 and Eternal are some of the finest PC ports I've experienced. It's one of those times where it made me feel like my PC was actually having its potential fully extracted. Id did good work. I did seem to have some checkpoint lurches here and there in Eternal which is a bit of a bummer, but overall those titles are technical master works I think. Cyberpunk was "eventually" a very accomplished PC port, but it took awhile to get there obviously. Now I'd call it a sterling example of what a high end PC game should be. I don't get streaming stutter or shader stutter in Cyberpunk and, though it's a heavy game, the visual return justifies the performance seems to me. Obviously it was buggy as hell when it came out though. Why didn't they just launch it as a full price early access game if it wasn't done and they absolutely had to release at the Christmas window? Seems like that would've side stepped a lot of the bad press maybe?

The Doom reboots are probably the games regarding the graphics/performance ratio. Graphics are very good and performance is also very good, just like we like it. Diablo 4 also seems to very solid in that aspect. As Cyberpunk, i have mixed feelings. It has great graphics but also some tecnhical issues that are hard to ignore. Performance wise, it bounces between good and bad. But at least there is a logical reason for the game being like that, it`s an open world with great graphics.

Nvidia is getting good at feedng consumer what they think they need for now, bbut will be longing ofr more next season. A very good economic model for a company as long as consumers follow along.

H83:

In single player games, devs can get away with an unoptimizied game because normally we only play it once and we can look away to some technical problems like slowdows or stuttering because we can repeat that part or just keep playing it.

That's true, I hadn't thought of it like that. Still a stupid excuse, but a likely one.

It also helps that MP games normally are not that demanding compare to SP games, and most are extremely easy to run, like Fortnite, CS, Dota and so on.

Well kind of what I alluded to in my post is that a lot of MP games don't look that much worse than SP games yet run much better. Games like CoD are a lot slower than Fortnite, CS, and Dota, but it looks a hell of a lot better and runs smoother than a lot of SP games.

But there are also SP games that have very nice graphics and run very well, like the Doom reboot or D4.

Doom is effectively a competitive game but SP, and is meant to be played with twitch reflexes. Honestly though, Doom (particularly the 2016 version) is a prime example of how to do a game right. I always refer to that as "what games should be". It looked fantastic for its time (actually still looks pretty good), yet could run on a meager system - my old 290 could play it in 4K 60FPS at high (but not max) detail. It was a lot of fun, because it threw realism out the window and focused more on classical game mechanics like secret rooms, powerups, bonus levels, collectables, abilities impossible for any human to do, etc. It had good replay value, and it didn't take itself too seriously. The last game I played before Doom that I found to be just as fun was Rocket League, and guess what: it's a lot of the same thing, despite being a totally different genre. These are actual games, not an alternate reality simulators or an interactive movies. I know it's not just me that thinks this - these are both very popular and highly rated games. They're honest about what they are and they do what they set out to do very well. It's not that I have a problem with the more realistic titles, but it seems like 9/10 AAA titles are nothing but that or MP. Indie games tend to be more fun but I am so damn bored of pixel art, and a lot of indie studios just don't have enough resources to make the game long enough. That's one of the reasons it's been hard for me to justify upgrading, because AAA titles just don't interest me for what they demand, both of my system and my wallet. I'm just glad microtransactions seem to be on the decline.

As someone who bought Doom and Doom Eternal at launch and played so many times this games (every year I replay it), what makes me come back is the fantastic gameplay, shooting mechanics and how fluid everything is. History is there but not stopping you on the middle of gameplay, fast introduction and go straight to action. If want the lore you can read the Codex. As the same as Titanfall 2 and the fantastic gameplay.

schmidtbag:

Honestly, with how expensive PC hardware is getting and how demanding DXR is, I think this might be the first time since the DX9 days when devs really need to start focusing on optimization. People aren't going to buy games if their system can't run it, and the average person isn't going to spend 4 figures on a GPU when they could just get a whole console for half the price instead. For too long, devs have got lazy about optimization, because it's been rather affordable to just simply buy more to compensate. That's no longer the case. What I've always found confusing is why only competitive games are typically so well-optimized. They look very good for how many FPS they yield. I get that there is a particular demand to make them run as fast as possible, but it's hard to wrap my head around why non-competitive games just don't get the same treatment. Sure, single-player games tend to have a lot more assets, but a lot of the optimizations have to do with the code, since optimizing the assets themselves is a relatively simple task.

They always optimse for what is popular. If 90% of PC owners had potato's then games would be designed to run on potato's. Right now I expect they look at the steam hardware charts and make sure all the popular cards are playable. If they don't it's economic suicide as no one will buy the game. Which is why to some extent the vram argument is mute - if your card is popular then the game will be optimised to run on it, so for example if lots of 1080p cards have only 8gb then games will run fine with 8gb at 1080p. Sure you can break that by running at some extreme settings, but only if you fiddle. Most users just want to install and play and the as long as you have a popular card the game will auto configure itself to something sensible and it'll run just fine.

Dribble:

They always optimse for what is popular. If 90% of PC owners had potato's then games would be designed to run on potato's. Right now I expect they look at the steam hardware charts and make sure all the popular cards are playable. If they don't it's economic suicide as no one will buy the game. Which is why to some extent the vram argument is mute - if your card is popular then the game will be optimised to run on it, so for example if lots of 1080p cards have only 8gb then games will run fine with 8gb at 1080p. Sure you can break that by running at some extreme settings, but only if you fiddle. Most users just want to install and play and the as long as you have a popular card the game will auto configure itself to something sensible and it'll run just fine.

The vast majority of PC gamers on Steam are using < 3070 hardware going off the survey. 8 gigs is "fine" for now but modern games will require turning down textures, shadowmaps, RT, and using image reconstruction to stay within reasonable budget. That honestly sucks with how new that card is, especially because it is a very capable GPU outside of its VRAM limitation. Applications with GPU acceleration like Discord/Chrome/Steam itself also use a small amount of VRAM. What I think most devs are probably doing is just building the games to target current gen consoles which have 16 gigs of unified memory (and maybe like 12 dedicated to the GPU? I don't recall) then that just carries over to how much VRAM you'll need on PC. 12 is basically the minimum you would want right now and personally there is no way I would buy a GPU with less than 16 gigs at the moment unless the card was relatively inexpensive. So, my suspicion is it has more to do with current gen console targets and how much memory they have than what specs most PC gamers have. Of course Iron Galaxy has pretty much never done exceptional work as far as I know. Arkham Knight was a disaster, Borderlands 2 Vita ran like putrid garbage left out in the sun, Last of Us PC has had numerous issues, etc. I'm hoping that most PC games are better optimized than that particular game which has served as an example of VRAM limitations, but who knows.

From the horses mouth. UE5 developer discusses vram usage in modern games. https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amds-emphasis-on-memory-capacity-in-modern-gpus-for-optimal-performance.447429/page-3#post-6121477

it's simple, VRAM utilization scales with resolution. the 3070 (8 GB) is a card intended for 1080p (1080p imho does mean 1920x1080 and not bigger) the 3080 (10 - 12 GB) cards are intended for 1440p, the 3090 (24 gb) for 4K. they benchmark at an ultrawide resolution (2560x1080) which is 1,3x the pixels and needs more VRAM, hence the 8 GB are not enough and the fps profit from more VRAM, especially in those edge cases like this where VRAM demand is slightly higher than what is available (~8400 MB)

sighunter:

it's simple, VRAM utilization scales with resolution. the 3070 (8 GB) is a card intended for 1080p (1080p imho does mean 1920x1080 and not bigger) the 3080 (10 - 12 GB) cards are intended for 1440p, the 3090 (24 gb) for 4K. they benchmark at an ultrawide resolution (2560x1080) which is 1,3x the pixels and needs more VRAM, hence the 8 GB are not enough and the fps profit from more VRAM, especially in those edge cases like this where VRAM demand is slightly higher than what is available (~8400 MB)

I dunno, 3070 has generally been considered a great 1440p GPU up until recently. Imo if Nvidia had given the 3070 the 10 gig setup of the 3080 and if the 3080 (normal version not the Ti version) had had 12 gigs from square one then they maybe could've just barely gotten away with it without burning users so hard. But at the 8 and 10 we actually got it was a miscalculation or an intended product obsolescence approach seems to me. Ideally the 12 gig setup of the 3060 would been the baseline for the 3000 series, but alas.