it shouldn't. 8gb ends up in landfill sooner than not given how much vram is bloating in the past few yrs.
So why don't you get a Arc B580? It has roughly 2x the performance of a 1660S.
A lot of games are fine with 8 GB at 1080p. No, not all of them, as textures are pushing past that limit in newer games.
The world in which using 12GB GDDR7 3GB costs more than 16GB GDDR7 2GB with a clamshell design is not a real one. They simply bought the vast majority of the initial runs of GDDR7 and are saving the 3GB IC for their highest margin parts. Publicly admitting you're optimizing for profit at the cost of consumer product quality isn't something companies tend to like to do even when everyone knows it's the truth.
8 GB makes 8 GB look bad, lol. True, it's essentially cherry-picking, but we're also talking about games TODAY, not later this year, not 2026, 2027, and so on; in other words, it's only downhill from here.
The link still works for me, try going directly to the HUB channel and see. It's still there on my end.
I did, and it still works just fine. As for HUB, GN and others they actually raise most of their own funds through subscription sales and merchandise/events. This allows them to buy review hardware, not worrying about losing access to NVIDIA, Intel, AMD or board partners attaching strings. They DO get review hardware, but in this specific case they purchased the 8GB card themselves. You'll also find that their testing regimes are quite rigorous, and the size of the database they maintain and update is something Tom's just cannot do due to the cost. I get my information from multiple sources, much easier to spot and avoid bias that way. Now, that said I'm not a huge HUB fan, or even GN really, but the data they present is worth the watch (usually muted) for me.
Not what I stated, I said I replaced the 5700-XT with a 3070 only to find it's 8GB is not enough at 1440P years ago.
Friend, I just suggested to watch the video. If you do not wish to, or cannot do so, then fine.Data can be made to say anything you want it to be just altering how it's presented. Plus most people, including reviewers, do not understand how VRAM works in the first place and end up jumping to wrong conclusions. Watchers, also not understanding, eat up those conclusions and thus internet memes and myths get born.
Going to compare the 4060 Ti 8 vs 16GB because it's a perfect sample case. Both cards have identical GPUs with identical compute, power, everything. The only difference is the 8GB has the four VRAM chips operating in full node, while the 16GB has the eight VRAM chips operating in clamshell half mode.
Here is Stalking 2 at 1080p ultra/epic
Same game at 2160p ultra/epic/whatever
That is what a VRAM failure look like. Those 8GB cards are having to flush their VRAM resource cache to load new resources from system RAM mid-frame resulting in performance falling off a cliff. Of course we're looking at sub 30FPS play here on these cards so it doesn't really matter.
Toms take on The Last of Us, 1440p ulta/whatever
Same average but notice the 8GB has a slightly lower "lows", that's because it has to occasionally flush VRAM resource cache, not often but enough to effect the chart.
Same game but at 2160p
Now we are starting to see VRAM matter, performance isn't crashing hard but the game is having to flush resources often enough to actually make a difference. Of course I wouldn't call low 20's FPS "enjoyable" anyway, the 5060 TI 16GB isn't looking much better at sub 30FPS. Like Stalker 2 the 16GB cards aren't playable either at this setting.
And just for reference, Jarred was kind enough to do a 1080p medium on all these games.
Wow actually playable on a 60 class card. This tells me that we could of likely gone to 1440p high and been ok on both the 8 and 16GB cards.
This type of analysis is what all the outrage farming reviewers are missing. There are very few times when a card on a 128-bit memory bus is going to be "good" at 16GB but "bad" at 8GB. The same situations that are playable on that 128-bit memory card are ones where having extra VRAM isn't going to make much difference in the first place. The situations that you need more then 8GB aren't playable on that 128-bit card to begin with. The only two choices are changing the situation (reducing settings) or upgrading to a proper 192-bit and above card.
Seriously, my Nvidia Geforce 4200 TI AGP I used in my retro gaming rig has a 128-bit memory bus. Anytime you see a 128bit memory bus, immediately assume that card is bottom tier and should be avoided if at all possible.
Here are all the charts Jarred did, it paints a very good picture.
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/nvidia-geforce-rtx-5060-ti-16gb-review/5
I've heard when you delete the last character off a link they tend to not work c/d?
You still seem to think bus width matters that's fun. The 5060 Ti has ~55% more memory bandwidth than the 4060 Ti does with the same bus width. It's almost like memory bandwidth, not bus width, is the important part.
Like I said, for now I'm totally okay with my 1660 Super. Plus, I'm poor, and the US government isn't handing out stimulus checks like candy anymore like they were when I first built my PC and later when I bought the GPU. 🤷♂️ Maybe if its price comes down in a few years.
I'm pretty sure they didn't cause you to come to a false conclusion and then accuse the video of being edited because you couldn't be bothered to go to a tiny amount of effort.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram