GPU prices crashed today?

It's not like the consoles are able to use the full 16gb as VRAM. A portion is used for the OS (3/4gb for last gen) and then we might have some reserved for the always-recording feature/quick resume (and PS's equalivent),
On Xbox Series X the games have a full 13.5 Gb of memory to use. Anything like video recording or the like is used out of the system reserved segment of 2.5 GB RAM. Quick Resume only reserves NVME space.

The memory speed is 10 GB at 560 GB/s and then 3.5 GB/s at 336 GB/s. While that memory is slower its still quite fast and nearly the speed of all the ram on a 3060.
 
But it's as you say last gen consoles had the same situation which why the analogy is apt. 8GB relative to this gen is the same as 4GB to last gen roughly speaking.

Perhaps, though 2GB gpu's where dominant back then, 4gb was kinda rare in 2013. 6gb Titan and 3gb 7970Ghz did exist in as early as 2012 (i had the latter). 4GB gpu's did held up very well and beyond the base consoles. 2GB's GPU struggle.

it needs to be console+ in every way with no drawbacks especially if we are moving to something like the 3070ti in terms of price.

3070Ti wouldnt have many drawbacks versus the console experiences, thats for sure. Even with a paltry 8gb vram. The advantages towards a 3070Ti (or even 3060Ti) setup would be quite worth the extra (normal) pricings.

Low enough, say with the 3060ti/3060 or 6600/xt line you can argue it doesn't have to be clearly console+ maybe.

You're obviously going to pay more with console-matching hardware. Though it depends, the 3060Ti is going to deliver both more performance in normal raster and much more in ray tracing. If we count in DLSS its quite the performer.
But as you say, it depends on what you value.

For example regardless of the reasons for it we know that there are already existing games in which 8GB VRAM provides a different experience at 1440p compared to higher amounts. Whether or not that is ultimately "acceptable" granted is debatable.

With last gen for example I consider 2016 gen GPUs (Pascal and Polaris at it's segment) as clearly "good enough" for the entire generation given their price segments. 2014 GPUs I think were only arguable.

And how do these games compare to their console variants, those that 'require' 8gb of vram? The last bit, it depends on what settings you wanted. Sure that my 7950 (modded to 7970) from 2012 outpaces anything the base consoles did from last generation.
 
On Xbox Series X the games have a full 13.5 Gb of memory to use. Anything like video recording or the like is used out of the system reserved segment of 2.5 GB RAM. Quick Resume only reserves NVME space.

The memory speed is 10 GB at 560 GB/s and then 3.5 GB/s at 336 GB/s. While that memory is slower its still quite fast and nearly the speed of all the ram on a 3060.

13.5GB free for vram/graphics ram?

Memory speeds are abit tricky to compare between these architectures (ampere/rdna2). RDNA2 products on pc sport the infinity cache which does make comparisons harder too. No memory contention with the CPU either.

With the new forum upgrade it seems not easy to edit posts and copy in new quotes.
 
Looking at the past, a 4GB card had 80% of the total game ram of PS4 / X1 (5GB). These cards lasted pretty well last gen.

3GB cards had 60% of the total game ram of PS4 / X1. These seemed to do okay for the most part, though I recall them struggling a bit later on.

2GB cards had only 40% of the total game ram in PS4 / X1. Depending on the game and settings, these could be hit pretty hard.

---------------

An 8GB GPU has ~60% of the total game ram in XSX. So roughly were the 3GB cards were last gen. Maybe this can give us an idea of how 8GB cards might fare, or maybe not. Personally, I think if you want high resolutions, HQ textures and RT and you want the card to last for years going above 8 GB would be a good idea.

It's all a tradeoff tho innit.
 
Back
Top