News [The] Majority of gamers are still playing at 1080p and have no use for more than 8GB of memory': AMD justifies RX 9060 XT's 8GB of VRAM

[Admin]

According to Frank Azor, the RX 9060 XT 8GB is built for the majority of gamers who continue to play at 1080p, with esports being a primary focus.

[The] Majority of gamers are still playing at 1080p and have no use for more than 8GB of memory': AMD justifies RX 9060 XT's 8GB of VRAM : Read more

 

[ezst036]

Would there be any reason why one of the 3rd party vendors couldn't just go do 16GB with a 9060 GPU chip because they feel like doing it?

 

[alceryes]

Would there be any reason why one of the 3rd party vendors couldn't just go do 16GB with a 9060 GPU chip because they feel like doing it?

If the AiBs bought an 8GB model they are probably contractually obligated to NOT put more VRAM on. Otherwise, all the AiBs could just buy the cheaper 8GB version and throw 16GBs on it.

Yes, I know they are just buying the core chip, but they must stick with the RAM config they bought.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

A little disingenuous AMD? Maybe you should be asking, do you buy an 8GB card because prices for a mid-tier card requires insane money when the product now costs 2x3 more and are hard to find. I bumped up against 8GB in MSFS 2024 in 1080P where I got a "running out of VRAM.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

If 8gb were sufficient "for the majority of gamers who play at 1080p", then a 16gb variant wouldn't exist now would it?

 

[Neilbob]

This would be fine if it wasn't demonstrated where there are instances of some modern games that, even at 1920x1080, struggle with 8Gb or downgrade things like textures in order to compensate.

Not any games I play because I no longer care, which brings us to the only justification I think is warranted: 8Gb would be sufficient if that price was knocked down by (at least) 50%.

 

[hotaru251]

Yeah no.
AMD called Nvidia out ages ago for having 6GB vram....they cant try and act like 8GB is enough atm.
games use a ton of vram now even at 1080p. (thank you unoptimized caring devs) & thats ignoring if you run multiple things that sue GPU's vram...and heaven forbid you want to use "ai".

the price of 8gb vram is so small compared to benefit of having it when you need it.

 

[Amdlova]

I think they need make Open driver To old operational systems...
A rx9600 8gb for a windows XP / windows 7 will be nice.

Have tons of games with not work in these new modern OS

 

[ingtar33]

A little disingenuous AMD? Maybe you should be asking, do you buy an 8GB card because prices for a mid-tier card requires insane money when the product now costs 2x3 more and are hard to find. I bumped up against 8GB in MSFS 2024 in 1080P where I got a "running out of VRAM.

actually take those green glasses off.

AMD is being up front and clear on this. they are marketing the card at 1080p. they are not marketing it at 4k or 2k gaming.

NVIDIA is the company pushing 8gb cards and claiming they are 4k gaming cards.

while it's fair to be disapointed in the vram on these cards, or to question their decision to use 8gb of vram... or to even question the pricepoint, none of that makes it "disingenuous", just questionable design and pricepoint.
I think they're overpriced for an 8gb 1080p card. period. but that doesn't make me think AMD is being disingenuous. they're not marketing this as a 4k product. they're telling you what it is for, and while overpriced, i don't think they're lying about anything here.

 

[Mattzun]

Seems like cope.
If you are playing e-sports at 1080p on a normal monitor, modern integrated graphics or an ancient 580 or 2060 are good enough.

If you want to drive a fancy 480hz monitor, you'll be getting at least a 9070

Still not sure why AMD didn't just make a single 192 bit 12GB card and crush NVidia at the low end

 

[Notton]

IMO, you are using the steam survey wrong.
You need to look at the top played games.

CS2, Dota2, PUBG:B, Rust, Marvel Rivals, Apex Legends, Helldivers 2, GTA5, LoL, Rocket League, etc.

Of those games, the only one to run into issues with 8GB VRAM is Marvel Rivals.

 

[DavidLejdar]

Basically, sure, why pay extra for something, that for some gamers may just be bloat. Like, when someone is just in it, for a bit of CS2 with the boys on a Friday evening, etc. etc.
(MSRP difference between the 8 GB and 16 GB models: $50 - in case of 5060 Ti 8 GB and 16 GB models, same MSRP difference)

In case the 8 GB model barely runs newer games at 1080p, incl. upscaling and without RT, they may want to put a warning label on it though. In that context, sure would have made sense, to run 8 GB as 9060 non-XT / 9050, as a sort of "bare basics " model.

AMD is being up front and clear on this. ...

Then again, their slide compared the 9060 XT 16 GB model to a 5060 Ti 8 GB model. Arguably at least not in good taste, to present it like that, "with up to 62% more performance at 1440p ultra RT", when they themselves should well know, that higher resolution and RT both take more VRAM. Or if they wanted to present, why choosing a 16 GB model may be a better option, they could have compared the 9060 XT 8GB and 16GB models with each other, where the test suite would directly show what the mere difference in VRAM means for which game.

 

[Eximo]

I think they need make Open driver To old operational systems...
A rx9600 8gb for a windows XP / windows 7 will be nice.

Have tons of games with not work in these new modern OS

Emulation basically takes care of that.

Try out PCEm or 86Box.

 

[rustbucket4245]

IMO, you are using the steam survey wrong.
You need to look at the top played games.

CS2, Dota2, PUBG:B, Rust, Marvel Rivals, Apex Legends, Helldivers 2, GTA5, LoL, Rocket League, etc.

Of those games, the only one to run into issues with 8GB VRAM is Marvel Rivals.

I don't think that really gives an accurate picture either though. It's just esports and a couple of MMOs. Those aren't the top played games because they're the games that the majority of people play, they're the top played games because they have dedicated player-bases that play one or two games pretty much EXCLUSIVELY. Like, CS2 may consistently have the highest concurrent player count, but it's largely the same people playing the game every day. To put it another way, you're only going to sell a certain number of games and graphics cards going after the same 5 million people who just play the same few games over and over. I think it would make sense to look at the top SELLING games rather than the top played. That way you get a better look at what a graphics card needs to be able to do in order to be relevant across the greatest number of the most recently released and most popular games.

 

[TJ Hooker]

If 8gb were sufficient "for the majority of gamers who play at 1080p", then a 16gb variant wouldn't exist now would it?

Having a 16GB variant doesn't inherently imply that 8GB isn't sufficient for the majority. It just means they see another market that they want to address, despite it being a minority. The existence of more expensive/capable/premium products doesn't automatically render all 'lesser' products inadequate.

There may be other, valid arguments as to why 8GB is insufficient, but this ain't it.

 

[palladin9479]

Yes 8GB is perfectly fine for 1080 and 1440 gaming at high or under. It's like the 4 cylinder 150hp motor. It's the most popular class of engine on the planet, and nobody admits to using it and every car magazine trash talks it.

There is a very large market for this entry level product. The data overwhelming supports that. People's personal opinions on the matter are kinda irrelevant.

 

[JamesJones44]

Would there be any reason why one of the 3rd party vendors couldn't just go do 16GB with a 9060 GPU chip because they feel like doing it?

That's assuming the extra 8 GB can be addressed by the physical GPU. AMD could artificially limit the addressable address space to 8 GB

 

[Heat_Fan89]

actually take those green glasses off.

AMD is being up front and clear on this. they are marketing the card at 1080p. they are not marketing it at 4k or 2k gaming.

NVIDIA is the company pushing 8gb cards and claiming they are 4k gaming cards.

while it's fair to be disapointed in the vram on these cards, or to question their decision to use 8gb of vram... or to even question the pricepoint, none of that makes it "disingenuous", just questionable design and pricepoint.
I think they're overpriced for an 8gb 1080p card. period. but that doesn't make me think AMD is being disingenuous. they're not marketing this as a 4k product. they're telling you what it is for, and while overpriced, i don't think they're lying about anything here.

I hate to break it to you but I am techno agnostic. I don't give two sh*ts about Nvidia or AMD. AMD trying to pawn off an 8GB GPU is laughable.

 

[Space Cadet]

Frank's response is a bit asinine if there wasn't a duopoly and AMD didn't copy uncle Jensen every generation to play keep up they could up the 1080p cards to 160 bit instead of 128bit (which is pretty weak for over a decades standard) and make them 10gb cards, 256bit for 1440p 16gb, and 384bit for 4k 20gb. Instead they defend uncle Jensen so they can sell their $199. 99 cards for $300 then turn around and say there wasn't enough and now they have have to charge $550

 

[usertests]

If you are playing e-sports at 1080p on a normal monitor, modern integrated graphics or an ancient 580 or 2060 are good enough.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x678iefyiqQ

Here's Overwatch on an RX 580 8 GB, using less than 5 GB of VRAM but delivering under 60 FPS at 1080p.

Clearly, if esports titles or Starfield, etc. can cope with 8 GB VRAM, you can push the frame rates up with a faster 8 GB card, which the 9060 XT is.

 

[Space Cadet]

Yeah no.
AMD called Nvidia out ages ago for having 6GB vram....they cant try and act like 8GB is enough atm.
games use a ton of vram now even at 1080p. (thank you unoptimized caring devs) & thats ignoring if you run multiple things that sue GPU's vram...and heaven forbid you want to use "ai".

the price of 8gb vram is so small compared to benefit of having it when you need it.

It's like the pot calling the kettle black. Just make marketing easier using 160bit 10gb for "10"80p for very high to ultra, problem solved.

 

[redgarl]

Frank said it perfectly, AMD would not provide this option if there was no market for it.

In reality, many markets can't afford a 70 class GPU... especially now!

 

[redgarl]

I hate to break it to you but I am techno agnostic. I don't give two sh*ts about Nvidia or AMD. AMD trying to pawn off an 8GB GPU is laughable.

Sorry pal, but you do look like the one making a fuzz about AMD offering a 8GB option on their 60 class offering. Not to mention, making a fuzz over a something like the lack of memory that is ANECDOCTIC even at 1440p.

3%... that's the margin of error!!!

 

[redgarl]

That's assuming the extra 8 GB can be addressed by the physical GPU. AMD could artificially limit the addressable address space to 8 GB

It is the same GPU so they can do whatever they want.

 

[Eximo]

FPS is only part of the picture though.

60 FPS is great, until it is achieved by having textures pop in and out of existence, or with very high frame times while it fetches things from system memory.