Is 12GB VRAM Enough For Future Gaming?

Malneb said:

But you are wrong on so many levels.

Yes that's expected from someone like you who cant reference his knowledge but basing it on word of mouth ...

nIGHTmAYOR said:

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

b. Call of Duty: WWII Minimum System Requirements


2 - Diablo by Blizzard references :
a. Is Diablo 4 Using Up Too Much VRAM? Gamers Debate on Reddit

b. The Most Graphically Demanding PC Games


Finally here is a graphical illustration of Lossy / Loseless :
Attachment 405488
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 .

So basically all you could do is trying to prove you know math ? that is good for you , now the thing is your math is proving my proved theory already , that they could do things in 2 GBs VRams or they can do it in 20 GBs based on how optimized they work things so they can easily render your hardware uncapable just by believing that they need to take of the load of compression and decompression time of texture on CPU by just filling the GPU VRam instead while in reality they could just even use 256 x 256 textures for an NPC so small that is hardly noticed on screen . Ugh this is turning out to be so lame convo , you are trying to prove your self knowledgeable while you just offer nothing really , ugh , i'm out , continue with your rant on your own , adios .

- - - Updated - - -

nIGHTmAYOR said:

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 .

Don't understand why would a post like this drive some people sleepless ?

MisterEd said:

I have read the post. The problem is that it has nothing to do with the subject for this thread.

It has , the person wants to know of the average VRAM that can save him few years from buying new hardware , the post was to demonstrate that VRAM is actually a toy in the hands of developers , he can have a title as of this year that he would love to play yet they can just make it hard for him to by adopting a weird rendering strategy so he'd end up lagging or crashing and directed to an upgrade for their liking .

MisterEd said:

What is possible in theory doesn't help anyone that wants to buy a video card. The OP wanted real advice.

Over the years more and more games have been designed to use more and more VRAM. That is reality. It wasn't long ago when only 1GB VRAM was enough. Today some games need 8GB or more of VRAM. I wouldn't be surprised do see in 5 years that 12-16GB of VRAM will be a minimum for some games. Of course this is for demanding games. There are many games that require much less VRAM.

The only way to really answer the question of how much VRAM is needed is to see how much is needed for any particular game. The problem is most people have no way of knowing what games they will be playing in 5 years or how much VRAM will be needed.

So practically you are supporting the idea that the real answer is if weather you want to play a particular title then you realize that the developers decided to ambiguously blow its VRAM use to render whatever you have in hand obsolete regardless of the time span ? then this was exactly my answer .

nIGHTmAYOR
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 ?")