8GB is no longer enough VRAM for High-end 1440p Gaming - AMD Claims | OC3D News (overclock3d.net)
 
2021 is a turning point for the PC gaming market. Next-generation consoles like the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X have set a new baseline for game hardware requirements. On top of that, both console makers and GPU manufacturers have brought forth new features like hardware-accelerated ray tracing, Mesh Shaders, and Variable Rate Shading to push graphical workloads in bold new directions. The gaming landscape is changing, and AMD believes that gamers will need graphics cards with more VRAM if they want their systems to last. With their newly announced Radeon RX 6700 XT, AMD's offering gamers 12GB of video memory, 50% more memory than their last-generation RX 5700 XT graphics card. While competing graphics cards like Nvidia's RTX 3060 Ti and RTX 3070 are great graphics cards at 1440p, AMD believes that future games will start to struggle at Ultra settings as their 8GB frame buffers fill up with data. The Radeon RX 6700 XT feature 12GB of VRAM to give gamers "peace of mind when you click that Ultra Preset", claims AMD's Scott Herkelman.
 
AMD's marketing makes a bold prediction; VRAM requirements will increase drastically as developers move to support next-generation consoles. That's why the RX 6800, RX 6800 XT and RX 6900 XT feature 16GB of VRAM. AMD is preparing their graphics cards for next-generation gaming workloads, implying that Nvidia's RTX 30 series will not be ready for this transition. In recent weeks, Nvidia launched their RTX 3060, offering their users 12GB of VRAM. This is the first Nvidia RTX graphics card to launch after AMD's RX 6900 XT, and it is offering more VRAM than almost any other RTX 30 series graphics card. Nvidia's RTX 3080 features 10GB of VRAM, making Nvidia's VRAM allocation for the RTX 3060 appear like a strange choice. 

When moving from Nvidia's RTX 2060 to their RTX 3060, Nvidia has doubled their VRAM allocation from 6GB to 12GB. This can be seen as an admission that 6GB is not enough for future high-end gaming workloads, and that lends credence to AMD's marketing with their RX 6700 XT. 
 
While AMD's data shows VRAM allocation and not VRAM requirements, it is undeniable that PC games are starting to use more GPU memory. Moving forward, this trend will continue, especially as other features like Smart Access Memory (Resizable BAR) start to be utilised by game developers more explicitly. AMD is banking on their generous VRAM allocations on their RX 6000 GPUs given them a longer lifespan for gamers. Whether or not this "future-proofing tactic will work remains to be seen. Will the RX 6000 series be a new AMD Fine Wine architecture, or will this be a marketing ploy that's all hype and of no substance? 
 
Personally I agree that 8GB of GDDR memory isn't enough. 

Because game devs are getting worse and worse with optimization. Are we really to the point where we need more than 8GB of vram just to play games decently? At this point I believe they're doing it on purpose. *facepalm*

Isn’t VRAM only part of the equation, seems like marking jiberesh to me. Not all 8gigs are going to be created equal when trying to play at 1440p. 

It’s not been enough ram for longer than that. It started to not be enough for Pc gaming around the release of the X58 with the first gen of i7/1366 CPU’s. Then it moved to pretty much 16gb, with if you wanted no issues what soever in games that had a memory leaks it’s been 48-32gb since 2013-2015 to present.

Now we are at today’s present day where 4GB is not even worth messing with and you are probably on a potato super cheap budget system from Walmart, 8gb is the new 4GB, 16gb is the new 8gb, 32gb is the new 16gb, and 64gb is the new 32gb.


A lot of it is poor optimization yes. Yet the other part is how good do you want your games to look on release? A lot of people on here to elsewhere cry about engines not looking good as promised, cry when texture sizes are reduced, when optimizations take place to not be the next crysis. Because it’s the same people crying about that as well when a game looks amazing but it’s taxing. The whole I want my cake and want to eat it too or I’ll complain yet that’s all they do. Add nothing of real value or taken the dedication or time to make it into the industry and make a change. I can at least say I did that. From improving engines to arguing with studio directors to CEO’s calling them flat out to their faces.
A d if you do a d if you don’t.
That’s why I shake my head at the complaining to comments, and the full lack of understanding of any production pipeline be it art or having to Frankenstein and engine, or improving an in house engine on the coding end vs the art having to be made vs the production time for it all to come together. Then there is the clueless CEO’s micromanaging making choices/decisions they know nothing about. Then lastly there is marketing that are allowed to blow countless millions on advertising that could had been used to beef up the staff at every level of the production in the actual process of making the game.

Can’t buy either so kinda moot what each is offering lol. All I know is the new cards seem to doing just fine fps wise.

And they take up more and more every update lol. They must have kickbacks from the HD makers.

300 gigs of space for call of duty ?? wow... 
 
 

CraptacularOne

castrator86
I'm fine with needing more VRAM. I'm not fine with Call of Duty (and other major titles) taking up 300GB of hard drive space.

CoD doesn't take 300GB. I have Cold War installed and it's tipping the scales at just over 143GB. While no doubt huge, it's a far cry from 300GB. 

I was at 260GB with Modern Warfare & Warzone.

veganfanatic
I am disgusted with the NVIDIA and AMD for not moving to full 64-bit until very recently with the so called resize bar which is simply a varying window over the VRAM
 
why it is not 100% memory mapped is a question I have asked since the GTX 260 with more than 512MB of VRAM
 
I have ranted about 64-bit BS for decades
 

The reality of the matter is that resize BAR often doesn't do anything to increase performance and can have a negative impact in some cases. It's just now people think it's this huge free performance boost when in reality it won't even be noticeable even if it does increase performance by a tiny amount in a handful of games. 
 
So you being "disgusted" at this is laughable at best. We're talking about real world gains of 2-5% at best or do you really think you'd be able to tell the difference between 80 and 84fps? I think not. 

I think NVIDIA is kind of in the drivers seat of what is required for PC gaming at 1440p. If any game comes out and doesn’t run well on NVIDIA graphics card the game will be trashed online by gamers. Not running well on AMD hardware so far isn’t as bad for a game.