Is 12GB VRAM Enough For Future Gaming?

It is a "numbers game". They want you to burn more money rather then budget.
China and US are literally in a cold-war/tech-war with resources, manufacturing, and sales.

Here is the deal. Right now if everybody was "up to date" you could literally run your PS3, 360, Switch , and Saturn games
without any problems.. Every single port from those years runs better and looks better unless something is missing. Because most people are not missing anything at all. They will release remake of "Shadows Of The Damned" which you could emulate right now.

Then you have SquareEnix rehashing the past with "Octopath" which uses PSX type graphics with 2d sprites but is 4K material. The remake, of "Star Ocean 2" and "River City Ransom" both literally doing just about the same thing.

........

You have to remember there is also bad programming. Bad programming not in terms of errors or rush jobs to long Algorithms. By Bad-Programming when somebody uses Unity, Unreal Engine or any Game maker like tool, and you have something that might look good and have tons of features but clearly is using way too much resources.

Take "Wanted Dead" is able to run on Windows 7, characters look flawless, world is detailed in 3d, or even Fallout games as bragged "Running on an engine that has not been updated from 2005. Which could run on a Pentium II machine.

Then you have Star Ocean V that requires Direct X 12_1

Then you have Starfield and 21H1

.................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..................................................................

There is no future of gaming . They just $#@$@#$ up things to get you to make purchases that are pointless.
It is like the lobbyist who are sent to go against the "Right to Repair" bill.

Microsoft removed the Joule-Meter which is like task manager but shows exactly how much Watts is being used by which
instance. They repackaged it as part of their Visual basic, but think. They do not want you to calculate your electrical usage.

GPU makers as with Microsoft have been removing the ability to use your GPU externally. However other makers allow later drivers. So lets say you want to install Windows and use a "Render-farm" connecting a group of ten GPU's together. Not going to happen

Why I mention this? You literally could take a $10 ( or less ) all in one machine, Slide in the M2 Slot and boom
you have a powerful GPU system ready to use without burning the budget on any expensive Desktop or Tower.
The shipping and handling is the only thing that will cost money.

Same with form factor of the GPU cards. Those giant six-fan cards need to go. Why? You can not stack em.

i have read some mixed thing about it. Some say is fine. Some say is not. Just wondering if 12GB VRAM will be enough for future gaming?

If some of the speculation about the possible forthcoming Windows 12 is correct we may be looking at needing more System RAM of 12GB or 16GB. As to the effect on VRAM remains to be seen. Bottom line? Future proofing with computers will always be in question.

Daymin said:

Same with form factor of the GPU cards. Those giant six-fan cards need to go. Why? You can not stack em.

This is what we are looking at a future where the components just keep getting bigger unless they come with tech that is going to drastically change things.

Sure Moore's law is a thing but that is only going to take us so far on this trajectory, long story short they are trying to fit the most amount of internal components inside computer chips in the smallest confounds but we are seeing to achieve that they need to make the overall dimensions of the components bigger the Thermal dynamics is also a probable cause as to why things are going bigger too. Its why currently the fastest parts are the biggest ones.

Anything past GTX 1660 needs a bracket because its so big that it will damage the pci slot. I think therefore drastic changes need to occur this is not sustainable into the future.

I think overall we are on a trajectory that is going to plateau pretty soon. It took us 20 years or so to go from 3ghz base to 4ghz base on a CPU and we have only seen 4ghz base very recently.

64 bit computing we will never leave here because we will never saturate that ceiling but i think as a whole computer innovation needs to change to continue further in terms of more performance.

@EddieTan


The higher the resolution (more pixels to push), the more VRAM you need.
The resolution is what determines how much VRAM you need. Not the game or the year.

The games do dictate the VRAM,

Resolution scale is not as much of an increase its a linear one meaning its what you are displaying on the monitor where your resolution is a ceiling of pixels no more no less.
I could play a game that uses 4k texture maps but using 1080p resolution to view that content most of my VRAM usage is going to be in textures not pixels.

I am not sure on the math because i don't know exactly. but the first generation to do 1080p this is the entry level card the ones earlier in its generation are not fast enough. With 320mb of Memory.
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320 Specs | TechPowerUp GPU Database

Going by that logic then 1440 would have around 640mb of memory but when we get to that with GTX then we are Hitting 1gb threshold.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Specs | TechPowerUp GPU Database

so 4 k would want about 2gb vram roughly just for the screen but its probably less than this idk the actual math tbh. But the logic makes sense its the stuff in the ram like texture maps not really the resolution size.

Malneb said:

This is what we are looking at a future where the components just keep getting bigger unless they come with tech that is going to drastically change things.

Sure Moore's law is a thing but that is only going to take us so far on this trajectory, long story short they are trying to fit the most amount of internal components inside computer chips in the smallest confounds but we are seeing to achieve that they need to make the overall dimensions of the components bigger the Thermal dynamics is also a probable cause as to why things are going bigger too. Its why currently the fastest parts are the biggest ones.

Anything past GTX 1660 needs a bracket because its so big that it will damage the pci slot. I think therefore drastic changes need to occur this is not sustainable into the future.

I think overall we are on a trajectory that is going to plateau pretty soon. It took us 20 years or so to go from 3ghz base to 4ghz base on a CPU and we have only seen 4ghz base very recently.

64 bit computing we will never leave here because we will never saturate that ceiling but i think as a whole computer innovation needs to change to continue further in terms of more performance.

There is no magic trick. If you look at the various versions of the same cards and releases. You will see that a card that does not have six giant fans and can be stacked is able to run smooth without over-heating. The way it suppose to be. There are cards meant for servers and not people looking to output to DVI or HDMI, and they are stack able. They do the same amount of work as the next card equal to itself. Nvidia are waging a war against consumers because they want people to burn money on over-sized mother-boards. That is what those big-sex-fan edition cards are about. Because those cards are not stack able. If not mentioned Nvidia and Microsoft does not want you to have external GPU or even over-clock anything. There are various lockouts built into various cards. Most of the time cards that fails will be limited while others half the time will not have over-clocking on purpose. It is not 2008 anymore, where we had "Power-Users". They want to force people to
consume. They have data-collection on people who are above a certain age and their buying habits and knows that
those same people have the money to burn and will invest in purchasing computers. They want people not to save or
"balance the budget" of their homes. They want to grind at your wallet. They know you.

AKA Newer is better, buy, spend, blah blah blah. I know for certain all of these Direct X 12_1 games could run on a Direct X 11 GPU. Rinse and repeat, over and over again. It is like dating. You make your mating call to the same kind of girl and eventually you get better at it. However it does not mean the person you make the mating call to is actually an ideal person.

Malneb said:

The games do dictate the VRAM,

Resolution scale is not as much of an increase its a linear one meaning its what you are displaying on the monitor where your resolution is a ceiling of pixels no more no less.
I could play a game that uses 4k texture maps but using 1080p resolution to view that content most of my VRAM usage is going to be in textures not pixels.

I am not sure on the math because i don't know exactly. but the first generation to do 1080p this is the entry level card the ones earlier in its generation are not fast enough. With 320mb of Memory.
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320 Specs | TechPowerUp GPU Database

Going by that logic then 1440 would have around 640mb of memory but when we get to that with GTX then we are Hitting 1gb threshold.
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Specs | TechPowerUp GPU Database

so 4 k would want about 2gb vram roughly just for the screen but its probably less than this idk the actual math tbh. But the logic makes sense its the stuff in the ram like texture maps not really the resolution size.

When we talk about VRAM this is what you should be thinking.

A. About 1080p 4K 8K 12K 24K. You need to at least have 2016 technology for that stuff to function. I am able to watch 10-bit movies on my Pentium II ( whatever it is called ) because I have a GPU that is powerfull enough to process all the

1. Compressed frames
2. Compressed audio
3. Subtitles

Many video types might have uncompressed frames ( bigger size ), or in a format that is not JPG and more like TIF or even PNG.

B. When we talk GPU graphics we talking

1. Bigger images ( like photos ) means more detailed everything.
2. Bigger resolutions means less jaggies ( like the Dreamcast Football games on Display )
3. Better looking images means a format that is less compressed like RAW, or TIF and not JPG.
4. Less Jaggies means .more polygons are being used. ( heard of pixel doubling, or bleed in printing, think of adding more edges
to a polygon figure.
5. There also many features that should be supported by your GPU like

A. SLI,
B. Natural lighting
C. Light source
D. Physics
E. All of those various options including but not limited to

1. Film grain, and other film artifacts when they are called and is optional or non-optional
2. Blurring
3. Smoothing
4. Particle effects

Right now I am using an 8GB card and having a wonderful time with my 4770. Maybe if I had a
Display that was 300 inches across ( like a projector ) that allowed a 20000X resolution I would need
a more powerful card, but I am pleased to have a resolution that matches my display and is what I consider
good enough for me and my eyes.

In fact my Computer display ( while better ) that has a higher resolution and all the TV I have is a regular
1080p andis much bigger then my Computer display I use.

.................................................................................................... ......................................

The reason why you want a 32G GPU is because of the frame-rate. Talking about 60-fps ( with 25 being the minimum ).
Remember

Animation is 15fps
NTSC is 24fps
Videogames are 60fps

You want something because you want the 120fps or even 200fps. Only then you will see ( or hear ) a performance decrease.
That is why you need to get yourself a $#$@$$# GPU that has that extra push. So you could play whatever games that supports those frame rates ( made for an over-sized display that supports those higher resolutions like my smaller display )

.............................................

Not the argument i was making here the point was VRAM. You are unhinged 4k is doable since about GTX 1080. For movies its earlier than this with games context dependent.

The point is that its what you do on the computer that dictates the VRAM requirement. Resolution scale is on a linear ceiling most of the VRAM usage is from what is happening in the GPU at any given time.

if you are filling that VRAM with large texture maps and assets then that is going to mean that your VRAM requirements are higher.

Effects don't stack VRAM as much they are in the back buffer on the main GPU or either shader cache which is stored on the hard drive. So there is some VRAM requirement there but its not as much as you would think.
Bigger resolution means yes more pixels but its like i said a linear scale. The basic math is there in the previous post.

Animation in real time is also 24fps standard in the industry btw not 15. You are also talking to someone who does 3D design and games. its because you can fit more in less space.

The play back of that animation is determined by the requirement of the scene and then then the end user. we are now getting finicky because its context dependent. playback is subjective.

Overall resolution is a soft ceiling that determines a baseline requirement of VRAM which is actually not that much. The majority percent is past that. The logic earlier clearly shows that. The first 1080p cards only had 320mb of ram and 4 k is triple the screen space of 1080p so yeah about 1.5gb to 2gb of ram baseline and its what you do after that that determines the VRAM required.

for context when designing a 3D model that is under 1 million polys and no textures i am still in MB of VRAM used. Like typical next to nothing. if i start rendering then it will jump up into the GB because there is textures and other information now.

If you have money to purchase more VRAM on GPU cards go for it, you won't ask yourself this question but you will ask if your GPU powerful enough.

2GB of RAM for FHD!!! That may have been true 10 years ago. You can't even install some games with so little RAM. Even if you can get the game to run with only 2GB RAM you would have to configure it at minimum settings. If that wasn't enough you might have to reduce the resolution lower than FHD.