Time MOVES ON, it's ok for newer games to demand more than 8GB to use better textures, it's actually what people want! Better looking games! What is not ok is 2023 Nvidia comes up with yet another 8GB 60Ti and capping the 70 and 70Ti with 12GB when that's is definetly going to bottleneck them in near future. It's a practice called planed obsolecense and should be faced with the ban hammer by people's wallet.
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
Please provide the evidence as requested, afterall you should already have the evidence. Please account for this source in your evidence.
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
Please provide the evidence with the correct sample size. Three games out of 1000's is cherry picking. Any conclusion would be a hasty generalization. Show that out of 40-50 games sample size that most wont run without >8GB of VRAM. Thus creating a real problem.
I have shown that some people disagree with your conclusions. Sounds like you picked three games and that is all you based your conclusion on. If its just these three games, thats called an outlier. You cant base an conclusion on the parts of the sample far outside of the normal results. I doubt these games wont run on 8GB GPU's. Afterall the developers state they do in their requirements.
Lets take a look at one of the games requirements. Ultra Specs looks to need 10-11GB or there abouts. Minimum 4GB or more. 8GB recommented. Were is the problem?
11GB
Ultra Specs | |
|---|---|
| OS | 64-bit Windows 10 |
| CPU | Intel Core i7-10700K (3.80 GHz) or AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (3.80 GHz) |
| RAM | 32 GB |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti or AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT |
| DX VERSION | DX 12 |
| STORAGE | 85 GB SSD |
| NOTES | SSD, 1440p / 60fps, Ultra Quality Settings |
Thats 8GBs recommended specs.
Recommended/High Specs | |
|---|---|
| OS | 64-bit Windows 10 |
| CPU | Intel i7-8700 (3.2 GHz) or AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (3.6 GHz) |
| RAM | 16 GB |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce 1080 Ti or AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT or INTEL Arc A770 |
| DX VERSION | DX 12 |
| STORAGE | 85 GB SSD |
| NOTES | SSD, 1080p / 60 fps, High Quality Settings |
4GB.
Minimum/Low Specs | |
|---|---|
| OS | 64-bit Windows 10 |
| CPU | Intel Core i5-6600 (3.3 GHz) or AMD Ryzen 5 1400 (3.2 GHz) |
| RAM | 16 GB |
| GPU | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 4GB or AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB |
| DX VERSION | DX 12 |
| STORAGE | 85 GB HDD |
| NOTES | SSD (Preferred), HDD (Supported), 720p / 30 fps, Low Quality Settings |
Last edited:
Any new AAA title will demand more than 8GB from now on bro wake up!! You are talking about the past, time to look to present and future! The first game that came to mind is STARFIELD
Recommended requirements
Memory: 16 GB
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070
CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K
File Size: 75 GB
OS: Windows 10
Look at that, 16GB!! Why you can't have a 4070 16GB if you are paying freaking $600 for it? The 4070Ti is freaking $800!! Do you know what will happen when you try to run it at max settings with a 12GB card? It will stutter, textures will pop, fps will halve, it's going to crash!! And oh look how BEAUTIFUL is KARMA lol because THE 6950XT WILL PLAY IT JUST GREAT and at the same RT level of the 4070 (before the 12gb crippled vram Rips) and at the same raster of the 4070Ti which will ALSO CRASH AND BURN. Do you see now why people arev vocal about this and why you are to blame because you defend Nvidia instead of demanding a actual useful "feature" called VRAM that a $375 AMD RX6800 16GB have?
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
Your example shows a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070, this is a 8GB VRAM card. You can't even read system requirement for games correctly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Starfield has a release date of 6 September 2023.
Also requirements are here.
Starfield Minimum System Requirements
- CPU: AMD FX-8350/ Core i5 6600K
- RAM: 8GB RAM
- GPU / Video Card: GeForce GTX 1050 Ti / AMD Radeon RX 570
- Storage: 75GB
- Operating System: Windows 8.1 & Windows 10 (64-bit)
Starfield Recommended System Requirements
- CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K / AMD Ryzen 5 2600
- RAM: 16 GB RAM
- GPU / Video Card: GeForce RTX 3070 / Radeon RX 6800
- Storage: 75GB
- Operating System: Windows 10 or later (64-bit)
Last edited:
Recommended requirements
Memory: 16 GB
I'm done talking to you, you can't even read. Wait for the review of STARFIELD and next AAA titles
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
Thats system RAM, the games minimum requirement is 8GB of system RAM. The game runs also on a 1050 TI and thats a 4GB VRAM card. You lack the skills to read system requirements. Thats your evidence for a VRAM problem!!!
Then there is the fact that no offical system requirements have been released for this game. So this is speculation. So you cant prove anything anyway using this example.
All you are doing is smearing posters because you don't agree with them.
Last edited:
LMAO YOU ARE RIGHT THIS TIME!! NYEHEHEH
You see I'm answering while working so I didn't pay attention and really read it wrong, so your punny 12GB card is maybe safe to play this game let's see! Any 6gb card runs any game you know, it's about maxing those settings
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
You do realize there's a difference between RAM and VRAM, right?
Edit: Ah, I see you finally did.
Better at what? Jarred already summed it up in his last few paragraphs.
As I see it, those looking for the better feature set (RT and frame generation) will opt for the 4070. For value for money and longevity with more VRAM, others may choose the 6950 XT. Neither one is a bad option if they're at the same price.
As the crypto mining booms have shown us all, AMD and Nvidia are more than willing to screw their customer base over for a quick buck. The lackluster sales of the 4070 have proven that there can be a line in the sand when it comes to price-to-performance from the previous generation. At least AMD was willing to drop prices significantly on last-gen cards in order to offset their lack of a competitive feature set (RT and frame generation), but they should have priced their new flagship cards lower to keep the trend going.
Trust is hard to develop and easy to destroy, and the gaming community should not trust either AMD or Nvidia until they get their collective heads out of their asses and start charging more sane prices.
As I see it, those looking for the better feature set (RT and frame generation) will opt for the 4070. For value for money and longevity with more VRAM, others may choose the 6950 XT. Neither one is a bad option if they're at the same price.
As the crypto mining booms have shown us all, AMD and Nvidia are more than willing to screw their customer base over for a quick buck. The lackluster sales of the 4070 have proven that there can be a line in the sand when it comes to price-to-performance from the previous generation. At least AMD was willing to drop prices significantly on last-gen cards in order to offset their lack of a competitive feature set (RT and frame generation), but they should have priced their new flagship cards lower to keep the trend going.
Trust is hard to develop and easy to destroy, and the gaming community should not trust either AMD or Nvidia until they get their collective heads out of their asses and start charging more sane prices.
Last edited:
and look what that has done. cause of this " total victory" nvidia has made products that are for the most part worse then the rtx 3000 series, while at the same time, raised its prices on top of that. yea thats a good thing.
the same can be said about the butt hurt nvidia trolls, what your point?
yea ok sure. 3dfx died cause they started to make their own cards, and shut out the AIB partners, guess which direction nvidia seems to be going with the founders edition cards, sounds more like nvidia is becoming the next 3dfx then amd is.
which is moot if a person could care less about RT cause the games the play dont have it, or they dont want fake frames made up to give them false performance.
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
All this noise because nVidia had the better review. nVidia control the market. This happened because RT/DLSS was the feature people wanted. AMD's market share halfed. Its not that people don't just agree, they voted against AMD with their money.
Your views are just not that of the customer and why AMD is a small dGPU manufacture. Why they have the approx. market share of Intel and why nVidia control the dGPU market and complete with no one. Ignoring the next big market tread in graphics is how you end up as history.
People cared about AMD's raster performance so much they got nVidia cards. Cards designed to run RT games. Thus, nVidia has a total victory. This is what the data already posted shows.
The customers had a choice, buy a RX 6000 series card or and RTX 3000 series card. They all bought RTX 3000 series cards. That means the market believes differently from you about RT.
Nvidia Maintains Dominance as Sales of Graphics Cards Hit All-Time Low in 2022
So it looks like the market voted for frame generation as well.
We can see just how small AMD dGPU sales are at the moment and how close AMD is to Intel. Intel has cards which are like nVidia's. Strong RT performance and XeSS AI upscaling. nVidia continues to dominate the market.
Last edited:
- May 27, 2010
- 24,227
- 3,105
- 139,340
3DFX died in part due to NOT getting a console deal (Sega Saturn) and purchasing their fab at time when they were falling behind.
AMD does have the consoles and divested themselves of their fab. Though almost killed themselves purchasing ATI for too much.
I don't think they are that comparable in that regard, but I agree they are going to stick around for a myriad of reasons.
Government contracts were already mentioned and have always been a big part of AMD. A lot of super computers use(d) Opteron processors. Right now 2 of the top 3 supercomputers have AMD GPUs and CPUs. Further down 5 out of the top 10 is Nvidia (Two running AMD Epyc)
It's not a moot point for anyone who purchases an Nvidia card for those reasons, just as it's not a moot point for anyone buying another brand of graphics card for different reasons. It's the purchaser's choice - that's part of capitalism, right?
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
Interesting. I agree consoles and other contacts help AMD. They have the CPU side of their business. If this wasn't the case we could be talking about AMD GPUs as something heading to the history books.
How is the CPU market going for AMD?
Now Intel has entered the dGPU market, they dominate the GPU market for shipments and AMD will have to complete.
Intel could to be catching up with AMD in the dGPU market.
Intel is bigger and more powerful than nVidia. AMD will have to complete with Intel and Intel will be trying to complete with nVidia. Thats why Intel focused on good RT performance and their AI upscaling XeSS.
Last edited:
-Fran-
Illustrious
- May 3, 2007
- 8,799
- 1,882
- 40,140
Man, I wish there was a Microcenter within 300 miles. I was spoiled while living in Atlanta.
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
If only the 6950xt did cost the same as the 4070. People forget the larger case and more expensive power supply.
The suggested PSU is 550 W for a 4070. Its a TDP 200 watt card. AMD RT 6950xt cards suggested PSU 700 W and TDP 335 watts. Many youtube videos show the 6950xt hitting far higher power draws.
The nVidia RTX 4070 is just a far better card for the builds its really aimed towards. The AMD RX 6950xt wont work in many smaller cases and adds cost to the overall build. If you are going to create a build that can accommodate a AMD RX 6950xt. You might as well get a better GPU. Like a AMD RX 7900xt or a nVidia RTX 4070ti or 4080.
The nVidia 4070 is just a better card all round at its price point. You would have to be mad to get a RTX 3000 series or RX 6000 series card.
The goal of a 4070 build is overall cost. You don't want a huge case and more expensive PSU. You are on a budget.
Also a 4070 performance is really just a better RTX 3080 10GB/12GB. nVidia RTX 3080 12GB matches a RX 6900xt in raster performance and destroys it in RT performance. The RTX3080 12GB is 5% faster a 4k raster over the RX 6900xt.
Basically a RX 6950xt is an overclocked RX 6900xt with more power draw. The card can easly hit 350 watts+ in 4k gaming. Many of the AIB cards recommend a 850 watt PSU.
If your build is aimed at a RTX 4070, you would never get a RX 6950xt.
Were I live a RX 6950xt is £626.86 and a RX 7900xt is £749.99. If you have the money to spend on a better case and PSU. Then you likely have the budget for a 7900xt as well. If going AMD is the goal.
If the budget is really that tight, then why spend more on a RX 6950xt? When its going to add to the overall build cost.
When I had a RTX 2060, my build didn't have the PSU for a higher power draw GPU. The RTX 4070 and RX 6950XT are aimed at two completely different customers. Aimed at a customer that gets a 4070 the 6950 xt is not a good card at all.
Thats why the 6950xt lost in the review.
Overall Winner is the Nvidia RTX 4070 and will always be the 4070.
The suggested PSU is 550 W for a 4070. Its a TDP 200 watt card. AMD RT 6950xt cards suggested PSU 700 W and TDP 335 watts. Many youtube videos show the 6950xt hitting far higher power draws.
The nVidia RTX 4070 is just a far better card for the builds its really aimed towards. The AMD RX 6950xt wont work in many smaller cases and adds cost to the overall build. If you are going to create a build that can accommodate a AMD RX 6950xt. You might as well get a better GPU. Like a AMD RX 7900xt or a nVidia RTX 4070ti or 4080.
The nVidia 4070 is just a better card all round at its price point. You would have to be mad to get a RTX 3000 series or RX 6000 series card.
The goal of a 4070 build is overall cost. You don't want a huge case and more expensive PSU. You are on a budget.
Also a 4070 performance is really just a better RTX 3080 10GB/12GB. nVidia RTX 3080 12GB matches a RX 6900xt in raster performance and destroys it in RT performance. The RTX3080 12GB is 5% faster a 4k raster over the RX 6900xt.
Basically a RX 6950xt is an overclocked RX 6900xt with more power draw. The card can easly hit 350 watts+ in 4k gaming. Many of the AIB cards recommend a 850 watt PSU.
If your build is aimed at a RTX 4070, you would never get a RX 6950xt.
Were I live a RX 6950xt is £626.86 and a RX 7900xt is £749.99. If you have the money to spend on a better case and PSU. Then you likely have the budget for a 7900xt as well. If going AMD is the goal.
If the budget is really that tight, then why spend more on a RX 6950xt? When its going to add to the overall build cost.
When I had a RTX 2060, my build didn't have the PSU for a higher power draw GPU. The RTX 4070 and RX 6950XT are aimed at two completely different customers. Aimed at a customer that gets a 4070 the 6950 xt is not a good card at all.
Thats why the 6950xt lost in the review.
Overall Winner is the Nvidia RTX 4070 and will always be the 4070.
Last edited:
- Jun 12, 2015
- 63,073
- 5,718
- 168,090
zx128k
Reputable
- Nov 23, 2019
- 1,227
- 252
- 5,790
Video conclusion hardware unboxed.
RX 6900xt has more VRAM and better raster performance. What advantage having 4GB more of VRAM is, he doesn't know at this point.
RTX 4070. Card is far smaller. Much lower power draw, 200 watts lower. DLSS and frame generation. Frame generation which is completely missing from the 6900xt. 4070 supports AV1 encoding. Superior RT performance. If you want RT go with the 4070, don't entertain the AMD GPU. If the 4070 had 16GB of VRAM you wouldn't even consider the RX 6950xt at a 5% premium. RX 6900xt is still a viable option, based on your OWN preferences.
Personally he would pick the 4070 for the better power draw and AV1 encoding. He doesn't care about RT personally.
Everything in the video is close to tomshardware, just different games and many run better on AMD hardware. This is a win for the tomshardware review.
RX 6900xt has more VRAM and better raster performance. What advantage having 4GB more of VRAM is, he doesn't know at this point.
RTX 4070. Card is far smaller. Much lower power draw, 200 watts lower. DLSS and frame generation. Frame generation which is completely missing from the 6900xt. 4070 supports AV1 encoding. Superior RT performance. If you want RT go with the 4070, don't entertain the AMD GPU. If the 4070 had 16GB of VRAM you wouldn't even consider the RX 6950xt at a 5% premium. RX 6900xt is still a viable option, based on your OWN preferences.
Personally he would pick the 4070 for the better power draw and AV1 encoding. He doesn't care about RT personally.
Everything in the video is close to tomshardware, just different games and many run better on AMD hardware. This is a win for the tomshardware review.
Last edited:
- May 26, 2023
- 1
- 0
- 10
I'm honestly baffled at this article's fixation on power use. I have a Red Devil 6950-XT -- it is undervolted and runs at 1065 mV, which peaks at 260W under FULL benchmark load. Anyway, I know the 4070 runs at around 200W out of the box, but still... 6950-XT cards do not need THAT much power to hit 2600 MHz. Between that and undervolting a 7950X, my system runs on a 600W power supply easily.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question New Build for 3ds max and corona rendering. Is it good?
- Started by ronaldo_jr
- Replies: 12
-
-
Question New Pre-built PC, turns on but no display or keyboard lighting up
- Started by eonical
- Replies: 6
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question ASROCK B450M HDV R4.0 with Ryzen 5 3400G keeps freezing and restarting.
- Latest: ElevenSailsDaily
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram