Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I picked up a MSI Ventus 2060 for benchmarking and I thought it did pretty good for 1440p with a Ryzen 2600 on the 9 games that I tested.
Now I'm small-time but I do enjoy running benchmarks and sharing/comparing info:
Yes, it is a thread necro, but very relevant today. So after three years, it looks like a the 6GB frame buffer was not much of an issue for the 2060. It is actually a bit amusing to look back at this thread.
The new card, RTX 2060 12 GB, has the same bandwidth as the old 6 GB model with double the vram. However, it does have the same core capacity as the 8 GB Super model.
So Steve tested the "new" card against those cards. The results showed that the 12 GB model being closer to that of the 6 GB model than the higher bandwidth 8 GB model, especially at 1440p, which is a strong indicator that the bottleneck is bandwidth in both the 6 GB and 12 GB cards. Had there been a theoretical 6 GB card on a 384 bit bus (yeah, goofy) it is possible that card would have beat them all.
One possible caveat: He did do the test using 32 GB of system ram. I would like to see the test done with 16 GB of ram as well. Reason being is that the 3 GB GTX 1060 using less system ram while the 6 GB GTX did not. Curious to see if something similar happens at a larger scale.
You need to actually watch the digital foundry video on battlefield because it was indeed limited by the vram and that was 2 years ago and only at 1080p. For most games yes you would certainly be correct but there will always be some exceptions. Same goes for 8 gigs now as there are at least 4 games that will require lowering of settings that could otherwise run fine with more vram.VRAM capacity was never the problem for a card of this caliber performance. You don't buy a 60 class card to game well in 4k - especially if it has a 192-bit bus. I mean really now. You'll hit far more bottlenecks with regards to the performance before you ever hit any because of VRAM capacity.
u need to actually watch the digital foundry video on battlefield because it was indeed limited by the vram and that was 2 years ago and only at 1080p. For most games yes you would certainly be correct but there will always be some exceptions. Same goes for 8 gigs now as there are at least 4 games that will require lowering of settings that could otherwise run fine with more vram.
The easiest and quickest way is to turn down textures as texture settings have almost zero impact on anything other than vram. That is the case for Doom Eternal, Far Cry 6, Wolfenstein youngblood and a few other games that I can't think of right now. There are also a couple of games out there that will dynamically adjust the settings on the fly if you don't have enough vram so you will think that you are all right because you're not getting stuttering but you're actually losing some details. In the end it's not that big a deal but there's something about having a brand new product that's already a limitation on the day it's released.What games are those and how do we know the higher settings are too much for the cores and not the vram? Right now the RX 3070 is possibly in a worse posistion than the RX 2060 was then.
The easiest and quickest way is to turn down textures as texture settings have almost zero impact on anything other than vram. That is the case for Doom Eternal, Far Cry 6, Wolfenstein youngblood and a few other games that I can't think of right now. There are also a couple of games out there that will dynamically adjust the settings on the fly if you don't have enough vram so you will think that you are all right because you're not getting stuttering but you're actually losing some details. In the end it's not that big a deal but there's something about having a brand new product that's already a limitation on the day it's released.
What?? Show us one benchmark where a 2060 12 GB beats an 2060 Super 8 GB.Same old thing as usual, VRAM typically limits your card more than speed of it. Never skimp on VRAM if you want to use it for a few years or longer. Only exception is those weird mega gimped GDDR2? era cards of the old days with lots of slow-ass useless VRAM.
Also, wasn't there an Nvidia GPU series where they played games with bandwidth and vram capacity? Was it the 9600s? Bandwidth turned out to be a huge deal over capat...What?? Show us one benchmark where a 2060 12 GB beats an 2060 Super 8 GB.
Most certainly is a strong term. Doom Eternal was the only game I saw where the 2080ti scored a decisive victory over the 3070ti.Playing Halo Infinite the other day at 4K max and even on the interior levels I'm seeing 9.2GB of VRAM used. My brother's RX6800 sees closer to 10GB used.
I don't really see the 6GB frame buffer a problem for an RTX 2060, but for the 2080s and especially 3070s, the 8GB frame buffer will most certainly be a problem as games are using more and more VRAM.
Gears 5 and Tomb Raider both benefit from having more than 8GB. 1080TI defeats 2080 in these cases.Most certainly is a strong term. Doom Eternal was the only game I saw where the 2080ti scored a decisive victory over the 3070ti.
View attachment 427565
View attachment 427560
Remember, vram used or allocated is not the same as vram needed.
Gears 5 and Tomb Raider both benefit from having more than 8GB. 1080TI defeats 2080 in these cases.
Maybe in this case if ram speed is comparable and the gpu is relatively taxed with 8gb.. then it's less important. In most situations in past I have run into this (flagships) the VRAM has killed them before they were too slow.What?? Show us one benchmark where a 2060 12 GB beats an 2060 Super 8 GB.
Also, wasn't there an Nvidia GPU series where they played games with bandwidth and vram capacity? Was it the 9600s? Bandwidth turned out to be a huge deal over capat...
I'm not sure I agree with those examples, when you run out of memory your .1 percents take a shit. You also get alot of hitching. At least that's my experience with my older cards.
I don't see how this is showing having more vram is helping.Gears 5 and Tomb Raider both benefit from having more than 8GB. 1080TI defeats 2080 in these cases.
I don't remember that being the case very often.... My 7970 was an OC monster but I ram outta VRAM. ..
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions to the rule, but that's just what they are, exceptions.You need to actually watch the digital foundry video on battlefield because it was indeed limited by the vram and that was 2 years ago and only at 1080p. For most games yes you would certainly be correct but there will always be some exceptions. Same goes for 8 gigs now as there are at least 4 games that will require lowering of settings that could otherwise run fine with more vram.
I believe it was the 8800 series when they started to get funky about bandwidth.Also, wasn't there an Nvidia GPU series where they played games with bandwidth and vram capacity? Was it the 9600s? Bandwidth turned out to be a huge deal over capat...
The 200-series.I believe it was the 8800 series when they started to get funky about bandwidth.
The 8800 GTS had a 320 bit bus.The 200-series.
GTX 280 had a 512-bit bus and the GTX 260 and 275 had a 448-bit bus.
8800-series I believe was a combo of 256-bit and 384-bit cards depending on the model (GT, GTX, etc.)
Ah yes id software games eat up vram for sure. Given a set bandwidth, it's hard to get the "perfect" amount of vram at certain performance levels. 6 GB is said to be too little for the 2060 and 12 GB is said to be way too much. Same for the 8 GB on the 3070 and 16 GB on the upcoming 3070ti.
The only around this is using a hybrid setup with unmatched module sizes in which GPU manufactures have rarely done.
I wish that I could forget Vista as well.No such thing as too much vram. I’ve been gaming on PC for decades and I have never once has a problem with too much vram and neither have you.
Prior to the GPU price hikes, the claim of too much vram was not literally too much vram, it was simply a claim that the excess made the card unnecessary expensive. Historic examples are the 6GB 7970 or the 12 GB Titan Maxwell.No such thing as too much vram. I’ve been gaming on PC for decades and I have never once has a problem with too much vram and neither have you.
I might disagree with you on the 12 gig titan. For gaming, I tend to agree, but for those who did double duty gaming and productivity, there were uses where it came in handy.Prior to the GPU price hikes, the claim of too much vram was not literally too much vram, it was simply a claim that the excess made the card unnecessary expensive. Historic examples are the 6GB 7970 or the 12 GB Titan Maxwell.
Yeah but at a certain point the VRAM capacity is bottlenecked by either the chip or the memory interface itself or both. I can't imagine a 16GB 3060 Ti makes any sense. Are people actually running out of VRAM and stuttering at 1080p/1440p? Can the card actually make full use of that?The POINT of more vram would be that the smaller amount was already hitting limitations but it seems to go over many people's head. For instance if a 3070 ti 16gb comes out then you will see non stop idiotic comments saying you will never need 16gb on a card like that. These people cant comprehend that if 8gb is already starting to be a limitation then going with 16gb is the only option. 12gb would be more suitable and GDDR6 can technically offer 1.5gb chips so you could end up with 12gb on a 256bit bus but afaik nobody actually made that size.
Yeah but at a certain point the VRAM capacity is bottlenecked by either the chip or the memory interface itself or both. I can't imagine a 16GB 3060 Ti makes any sense. Are people actually running out of VRAM and stuttering at 1080p/1440p? Can the card actually make full use of that?
Yes. The latest trend in some games is to have zero load times. Think God of War and Guardians of the Galaxy. The way they pull this off is to load up your VRAM and even your RAM to stream in textures. The more VRAM you have the longer you can go until the new textures are streamed in.Yeah but at a certain point the VRAM capacity is bottlenecked by either the chip or the memory interface itself or both. I can't imagine a 16GB 3060 Ti makes any sense. Are people actually running out of VRAM and stuttering at 1080p/1440p? Can the card actually make full use of that?
This. I had a GTX 780 w/ 3GB of RAM (still have it getting ready to sell it). It is faster than a RX 570....except when RAM became an issue which was everywhere. Having more than 3GB of RAM meant that I literally could play games on the RX 570 that the GTX 780 would struggle with. I would experience severe stuttering, even though the GPU on the 780 was technically faster.Maybe in this case if ram speed is comparable and the gpu is relatively taxed with 8gb.. then it's less important. In most situations in past I have run into this (flagships) the VRAM has killed them before they were too slow.
Yes this is what I am referring to. Except for the situations where they have some stupidly slow but larger ram capacity or a mediocre GPU already, capacity typically is a limiting factor for most cards I've owned (when ram is similar speed). My 7970 was an OC monster but I ram outta VRAM. 780Ti owners know what I mean too.
290X same thing eventually.
My x800xt was same, it didn't have enough VRAM in the end, hell even when it was new, I couldn't run Ultra in Doom 3 smoothly @1024x768. When you weren't vram limited the GPU still had enough power.
One possible caveat: He did do the test using 32 GB of system ram. I would like to see the test done with 16 GB of ram as well. Reason being is that the 3 GB GTX 1060 using less system ram while the 6 GB GTX did not. Curious to see if something similar happens at a larger scale.