This is a function of Intel's still poor architectural performance per mm² not anything inherent to the drastic impossibility of offering a half decent RAM pool for consumers in a given price tier.
Doubtful as the density is almost 2X worse than what Nvidia and AMD get on the same N5 process. It's either dark silicon - which is there for some reason - or Intel is lying about complexity - take your pick.
Selling something before you'll be able to get something else - or even before knowing the price of that something else - can end up being not in your favor...
Selling something for more than I bought it for brand new after 2 years... typically ends up in my favor.
Not if you're unable to buy something as good or better later.
In a scenario where a person has no other option, you're correct. I have other capable GPUs as backups however. I will not be without the ability to play all my games comfortably. I'd rather maximize my return on the previous gen product.
Downgrade to 16GB though.
What other GPUs you got?
4070ti and 2080ti
I've got my heart set out on the best for my main PC. No interest in the 5080 at all.
You can game just fine on a 4070Ti. It would be a fine stopgap. The questions are:
It is easy, but that doesn't mean they're going to do it. Because, ya know, AMD can be greedy too. Plus free market competition doesn't work when consumers stop caring about who is actually giving them the better value.
Ah so you think Intel is deliberately running their die costs up for no reason because.....? Seriously, what on earth is this argument supposed to be about? You're literally proving my point, that Intel's architectural performance efficiency in terms of die space is absolutely dreadful. It's in their best interest to produce the smallest die possible for a given performance target, so if they didn't have to do this, they wouldn't. But they clearly cant deliver on the same level of performance per mm² as Nvidia or anywhere close and that's the only thing that really matters here, unless you've got some genius explanation why Intel would purposefully make their dies much more expensive with no performance benefit. :/
...Because they needed 192 bit bus to compete.
This does not remotely come close to explaining the overall performance per mm² deficiencies of Intel's GPUs. And you perfectly well know that.
It explains them quite well. Don't know why you think that it doesn't.
How do YOU not understand that what you're saying only proves my point?
The base architectural performance per mm^2 has zero to do with the memory bandwidth needed to perform on par with competition. I'm fairly sure that Intel will make a much smaller GPU with the same performance as soon as they'll have access to G7.