Is 12GB VRAM Enough For Future Gaming?

EddieTan said:

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?
I am currently playing game on my 27" samsung gaming monitor 2560 x 1440 165 Hz with my ROG STRIX GAMING AMD RADEON RX6700XT 12GB GPU.
Maybe will upgrade to RX7900XT 16GB in the near future. Just feel more comfortable with AMD since I haven't had any issues with them and feel like I have seen more problem with NVIDIA card.

Who can say?

One thing is for sure - demands will always increase over time.

Most obvious advice is when you upgrade, buy the maximum you can comfortably afford.

EddieTan said:

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?
I am currently playing game on my 27" samsung gaming monitor 2560 x 1440 165 Hz with my ROG STRIX GAMING AMD RADEON RX6700XT 12GB GPU.
Maybe will upgrade to RX7900XT 16GB in the near future. Just feel more comfortable with AMD since I haven't had any issues with them and feel like I have seen more problem with NVIDIA card.

The higher the resolution... the more VRAM you will need.

kind of a feedback loop question in 20 years it will be old and non relevant. But for current games its a new card. The logic is you can use your computer parts as long as they work and as long as they run the software and applications to a desirable degree that you are happy with.

You only need to upgrade computer parts if there is a need to do that because your current parts cannot run the application you want to use effectively. Otherwise you are realistically throwing money away each time you buy pc parts, they are like cars they depreciate as soon as you plug them in and use them and they diminish fast over time in terms of value because the newest shinny is just around the corner because throw away society now. Meaning its wise to upgrade only if you have to.

if you play team fortress 2 then that old gtx 780 from 2013 is totally fine and plays what it plays. on the other hand if you play the latest triple A game then most of them suck and are designed for people to keep up to date you would actually be surprised how unoptimized many of these games are now and its to the point that they are doing it because it means ppl will buy faster parts unbeknownst.

one of the latest resident evils had an issue where it takes like a whole 12gb vram with no room for the computer which is bad practice because they are supposed to leave vram for the desktop. The game is also a linear maze basically so there is no need for the requirements to be that obtrusive 3d design already states that these sorts of games should be very performant.
The texture maps must be obscenely large for it to take so much vram or its doing real time one or the other. I actually don't know for certain because i don't play the game just recall hearing about its issues.

It is not enough to have more VRAM. The GPU itself has to be fast enough to take advantage of it.

A few years ago I was deciding between the RTX 3060 (12GB) and RTX 3060-Ti (8GB). I opted for the RTX 3060-Ti even though it had less VRAM. I didn't the RTX 3060 was fast enough to take advantage of its additional VRAM.

I was playing star citizen on a 960 when it was in Alpha it was doable then not sure what its like now this was years ago.

High VRAM requirements should really only be needed for real time rendering on the creation side. If a game is using way to much VRAM then its poorly designed. 3D design is lightweight until you are doing lots of geometry and effects and real time which is not really inductive for games. All though we are seeing cases now where they are pushing that paradigm.