Is 12GB VRAM Enough For Future Gaming?
-
![]()
I thought of writing a long article about this but then I decided nah , lets give it long story short :
- The more ram you need usually revolves around how high resolution you plan on gaming and how ridiculous the game developers decided to encode the textures used in that game at and their thought of how much of the world should they load at a time . So if you plan to game at FHD from a reasonable developer such as Activition you most likely wont need above 2 GBs of VRAM , things get unreasonable with other developers such as Blizzard which use ultra high resolution textures to paint NPCs that are less than half centimeters on screen and dispense 100s of them on screen at a time and attempt to render ones that do not show on screen even so can burn out 16 GBs of VRAM with ease if they want to .
- The second factor is when will DX 13 be released , see the trend goes now adays that unlike the humble DX 9 that earned support from developers for almost over 20 years , now all developers who moved to creating titles for DX 12 find it quite unreasonable to maintain backward compatibility with DX 11 even because of difference in architecture , and hence you now see that the majority of newly released RPGs , Sports , Open World games are not backward compatible with older hardware and rendering the majority of non DX 12 GPUs obsolete .
So bottom line :
There is no such thing as if this or that can be good for few years , if a developer and a GPU maker decided to team up and make your 32 GB VRAM GPU struggling so you have to buy a new GPU to support their business model they just can (You can research the story of a game called Crysis and the meme that surfaced during "Can it run Crysis ?")
Also weather they decide to release DX13 to boost sales of new hardware because vendors want those factories running because they have loads of AI mouths to feed .
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.
Activition is a very considerate developer , they had been optimizing their graphics for Intel GPUs back when no one did , they even use texture compression for Nvidia till date where no one else does any more , you can check for yourself with their new Call Of Duty titles and see . Yet you can research the articles complaining about Blizzard's title Diablo's new release and how it requires ridiculous amount of VRAM to run smoothly on Normal settings .
I suggest you reread the post carefully , I managed to reference specific developers and incidents .
Last edited by nIGHTmAYOR; 13 Feb 2024 at 05:45.
-
-
well Activison is Blizzard now, texture compression is common in games its not rare.
-
![]()
I thought of writing a long article about this but then I decided nah , lets give it long story short :
- The more ram you need usually revolves around how high resolution you plan on gaming and how ridiculous the game developers decided to encode the textures used in that game at and their thought of how much of the world should they load at a time . So if you plan to game at FHD from a reasonable developer such as Activition you most likely wont need above 2 GBs of VRAM , things get unreasonable with other developers such as Blizzard which use ultra high resolution textures to paint NPCs that are less than half centimeters on screen and dispense 100s of them on screen at a time and attempt to render ones that do not show on screen even so can burn out 16 GBs of VRAM with ease if they want to .
- The second factor is when will DX 13 be released , see the trend goes now adays that unlike the humble DX 9 that earned support from developers for almost over 20 years , now all developers who moved to creating titles for DX 12 find it quite unreasonable to maintain backward compatibility with DX 11 even because of difference in architecture , and hence you now see that the majority of newly released RPGs , Sports , Open World games are not backward compatible with older hardware and rendering the majority of non DX 12 GPUs obsolete .
So bottom line :
There is no such thing as if this or that can be good for few years , if a developer and a GPU maker decided to team up and make your 32 GB VRAM GPU struggling so you have to buy a new GPU to support their business model they just can (You can research the story of a game called Crysis and the meme that surfaced during "Can it run Crysis ?")
Also weather they decide to release DX13 to boost sales of new hardware because vendors want those factories running because they have loads of AI mouths to feed .
well Activison is Blizzard now, texture compression is common in games its not rare.
Activision and Blizzard act as different developing studios with different lead developers on releasing games and still maintain different engines they don't share between even though the companies had a merger since 2008 .
Also texture compression is a vague name often utilized right when it comes to mobile devices titles (Where they apply certain compressions such as ETC all the way to ASTC) but when it comes to PC the majority use what is called "Loosy" compression , which while referenced to as a compression , this is actually the textures being hardly touched , the source of information comes from ripping/piracy sites that actually attempt to recompress textures of ripped titles to minimize its size and thus download time .
-
-
![]()
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.
.....
- This is wrong on so many levels, first there is no six fan cards in existence.
- Overclocking is a whole section of marketable features, bleeding edge performance is min maxing and it sells components, tools and software. if they did not want us overclocking then they would lock the clocks on those components which is not the case.
When we are seeing that cards are so big now the fastest ones need a bracket and 3 fans then yes that is showing a very clear indicator that this is not sustainable forever and therefore is subject to change.
We are already at the point where the pcie slot is subject to damage without a weight bearing bracket. Soon it will be a case of putting the PC into desktop case over a tower if we continue on this trajectory. This wont be the case though as they will have to innovate further.
The main reason is components are getting bigger because they need more surface area for heat management its not rocket science and real time rendering needs a lot of power which generates a lot of heat.
-
![]()
Activision and Blizzard act as different developing studios with different lead developers on releasing games and still maintain different engines they don't share between even though the companies had a merger since 2008 .
Also texture compression is a vague name often utilized right when it comes to mobile devices titles (Where they apply certain compressions such as ETC all the way to ASTC) but when it comes to PC the majority use what is called "Loosy" compression , which while referenced to as a compression , this is actually the textures being hardly touched , the source of information comes from ripping/piracy sites that actually attempt to recompress textures of ripped titles to minimize its size and thus download time .
Texture compression is common though in games. DXT, KTX BC, ATSC all of these have several types of compression that is also what compression is a lossy format because some of the information is omitted to achieve a smaller file size with less data to crunch.
Does not make sense.
Yes Activsion Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activation but they are the same umbrella, the dev teams are adhoc but Activtision is a market leader. it has the biggest catalog of games and without checking stats and fiance i would say its pinnacle game studio top of the pile.
This logic means that the technology is not segregate. All game inside the corp are subject to the same production standards interdependent of dev teams.
-
![]()
Texture compression is common though in games. DXT, KTX BC, ATSC all of these have several types of compression that is also what compression is a lossy format because some of the information is omitted to achieve a smaller file size with less data to crunch.
Does not make sense.
Yes Activsion Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activation but they are the same umbrella, the dev teams are adhoc but Activtision is a market leader. it has the biggest catalog of games and without checking stats and fiance i would say its pinnacle game studio top of the pile.
This logic means that the technology is not segregate. All game inside the corp are subject to the same production standards interdependent of dev teams.
Seems you enjoy to argue for the sake of argument . Its a fact Activision studio focus on optimizing its titles unlike Blizzard studio weather they have an umbrella to share or not . Mind you the fact that the majority of PC developers use Loosy (Loseless) compression is a fact . Now its better for you to go get your facts checked if you reject these arguments than for me to prove you wrong .
-
![]()
You did try and say that texture compression is rare earlier in the thread i was just pointing out that is not its very common. I am not arguing You tried to correct me after that with flawed logic so i was just pointing out some stuff that actually makes sense.
I do make game assets and games so i know a few things here. Not trying to sound grandiose either but the analogy would be trying to tell a mechanic how to fix a car.
Ok not trying to argue here really but are you sure?
Mind you the fact that the majority of PC developers use Loosy (Loseless) compression is a fact .
A PNG file is lossless but texture compressed image using a compression format is lossy majority of the time. There is a few exceptions for lossless compression though.
Most of the time compression is lossy because they want to omit information usually because that information is not required. Maybe you need to check facts?
Just one example a texture that does not need an Alpha channel would get the relative compression. A normal map is an example of a texture that does not require Alpha.
Lossy and lossless are two different things not the same.
Blizzard does not optimize its games? World of Warcraft was one of the most optimized games for its time. Initially the game was designed to run on a wide net of computers so that it can make the most money. This is becoming outdated because the most support is for Direct X 12, you can still use older parts but the experience won't be as good.
Regardless Warcraft is one of the most performant games in the last 20 years, i would say its to the point that it set industry standards along the way. I don't even play the game but i have played it and i have looked internally at the structure of the game. To make good games you study good games for examples of how to do things WOW is one of the best games since 3D in terms of game design.
Last edited by Malneb; 13 Feb 2024 at 17:28.
-
![]()
I thought of writing a long article about this but then I decided nah , lets give it long story short :
- The more ram you need usually revolves around how high resolution you plan on gaming and how ridiculous the game developers decided to encode the textures used in that game at and their thought of how much of the world should they load at a time . So if you plan to game at FHD from a reasonable developer such as Activition you most likely wont need above 2 GBs of VRAM , things get unreasonable with other developers such as Blizzard which use ultra high resolution textures to paint NPCs that are less than half centimeters on screen and dispense 100s of them on screen at a time and attempt to render ones that do not show on screen even so can burn out 16 GBs of VRAM with ease if they want to .
- The second factor is when will DX 13 be released , see the trend goes now adays that unlike the humble DX 9 that earned support from developers for almost over 20 years , now all developers who moved to creating titles for DX 12 find it quite unreasonable to maintain backward compatibility with DX 11 even because of difference in architecture , and hence you now see that the majority of newly released RPGs , Sports , Open World games are not backward compatible with older hardware and rendering the majority of non DX 12 GPUs obsolete .
So bottom line :
There is no such thing as if this or that can be good for few years , if a developer and a GPU maker decided to team up and make your 32 GB VRAM GPU struggling so you have to buy a new GPU to support their business model they just can (You can research the story of a game called Crysis and the meme that surfaced during "Can it run Crysis ?")
Also weather they decide to release DX13 to boost sales of new hardware because vendors want those factories running because they have loads of AI mouths to feed .
You did try and say that texture compression is rare earlier in the thread i was just pointing out that is not its very common. I am not arguing You tried to correct me after that with flawed logic so i was just pointing out some stuff that actually makes sense.
I do make game assets and games so i know a few things here. Not trying to sound grandiose either but the analogy would be trying to tell a mechanic how to fix a car.
Ok not trying to argue here really but are you sure?
A PNG file is lossless but texture compressed image using a compression format is lossy majority of the time. There is a few exceptions for lossless compression though.
Most of the time compression is lossy because they want to omit information usually because that information is not required. Maybe you need to check facts?
Just one example a texture that does not need an Alpha channel would get the relative compression. A normal map is an example of a texture that does not require Alpha.
Lossy and lossless are two different things not the same.
Blizzard does not optimize its games? World of Warcraft was one of the most optimized games for its time. Initially the game was designed to run on a wide net of computers so that it can make the most money. This is becoming outdated because the most support is for Direct X 12, you can still use older parts but the experience won't be as good.
Regardless Warcraft is one of the most performant games in the last 20 years, i would say its to the point that it set industry standards along the way. I don't even play the game but i have played it and i have looked internally at the structure of the game.
Apparently you just try so hard to prolong the convo without adding any references but rather claiming you are some sort of a developer and your word can be taken for granted , well here are few references to prove me right :
1 - Call of Duty by Activision references :
a. PC System Requirements for Call of Duty: Warzone
Requirements : GPU: DX12 , RAM: 8 GB , Video Memory: 2 GB
b. Call of Duty: WWII Minimum System Requirements
RAM: 8 GB RAM , Video: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 660 @ 2 GB / GTX 1050 or AMD Radeon™ HD 7850 @ 2GB
2 - Diablo by Blizzard references :
a. Is Diablo 4 Using Up Too Much VRAM? Gamers Debate on Reddit
Some users report high VRAM usage, reaching up to 20GB.
b. The Most Graphically Demanding PC Games
Warning! Ultra Texture VRAM Usage ! Unfortunately, ultra textures don't come cheap. To play Diablo 4 at max settings, you'll need at least 32 gigabytes of RAM and 10+ gb of VRAM.
Finally here is a graphical illustration of Lossy / Loseless :
The bottom line is that you still get a big texture file in VRAM , the idea of texture compression using other methods such as Nvidia's Texture Compression API maintains the texture compressed in memory , mind you other methods discussed up actually reduce the size of the texture loaded in memory to a fraction of these . Now please stop adding to this silly topic as I know my facts well .
-
-
You are getting nuanced now but you are still unhinged you think you know but clearly you don't .
-
You are getting nuanced now but you are still unhinged you think you know but clearly you don't .
Well I did rest my case , and oh btw , I have moded drivers and posted them on this forum , you can look it up for authenticity , hope you can prove you are a game developer :)
