AMD defends 8GB VRAM on GPUs... by admitting they are primarily for esports

[Eldrach]

I mean, the free market being what it is, AMD and NVidia can package and sell what they want, and as long as it sells they can make a case for doing so.

I lament the fact that this feels like the GPU version of the intel core era where we are getting warmed-over product sold, as NVidia has seized a stranglehold on the market.

It really feels like gaming tech has stagnated, pc hardware has skyrocketed in cost and games have become less “fun” objectively.

Pretty stale state of affairs in my books.

I'd dare say games have not gone stale. The games from the big publishers, sure - they've not changed or innovated in any way or form for the last 8-10 years.
But games like Claire Obscure and Baldurs Gate 3 shows us that there game creators that has the ability to move the bar as long as no "board of investors" are telling them not to.

 

[Watzupken]

In my opinion, 8GB is enough if you know its limitations and willing to accept it. 8GB GPUs are common on laptops and I had to lower settings to make some games run smoother.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Except, most e-gamers have moved up to 1440p these days, so 8GB cards are irrelevant.

Explain the 40% that are on 1080p then if they don't even have e-sports.

 

[hahahanoobs]

so in short, 8GB may seems okay now, but it might not hold up in a few years

That's why it's $300.

 

[MasterAce]

I hated the 8gb on my 3070 4y ago.

 

[rmcrys]

I repeat it again and again... beside a handful of games at Ultra setting, 8GB is enough even at 1440p.

What you say is only half true, 8 GB of VRAM:
- were more than ok for old games even at 4K
- for present games from 2023 - 2025, they are borderline for 1440p, sometimes you need to go 1080p
- the near future is RT and huge textures on most games, unless you want to play at 1080p on the lowest settings and with DLSS performance (so, very bad quality) you better step up

Knowing this, who's going to get a brand new cars, knowing the chip is quite capable, but the VRAM is already borderline enough? You are basically accepting your brand new card underperforms, not because the chip is weak, but because the brand cheaps out.

You are conscious that, if Nvidia or AMD just provided not 8 GB nor 16 GB but 12 GB, it would be more than enough for a 5060 and it's lifetime. The 5060 Ti and 5070 Ti 16 GB, 5080 24 GB and the 5090 32 GB. This would be ok.

 

[Nobina]

8GB is enough if you lower textures, but why would you do that? Textures make a big difference visually and cost almost no FPS and it's not like extra VRAM is horribly expensive. Also, it is the price that makes 8GB cards "bad". It wouldn't suck if it was priced reasonably.

 

[Loadedaxe]

If you want to play at 1440p or higher with high textures then to be safe, the 8GB card isn't for you. Get the 16GB. 8GB is the low tier, low tier a few years ago was 4-6GB, so.

There is really no argument, be happy they are not charging more for the 16GB I guess.

 

[godrilla]

While some are warm to 8 gigs of vram for some of today's titles imo the resell value will likely take a hit when the user attempts to sell the 8 gig vram card in a few years.

 

[gamerk2]

Noting the poll as of this moment has 41% of individuals reporting 8GB or less on their cards. And TS leans heavily towards the enthusiast tier.

Yes, 8GB VRAM is long in the tooth, just like 8GB (heck, even 16GB) of DRAM is. But there's still a lot of people who get by on such cards, because they can't afford anything more expensive. And for 1080p/1440p it's still largely sufficient at medium/low settings.

I know it might break some people here, but not everyone plays on the "high" default.

 

[Tantor]

8GB is not the issue. The issue is the street price.

 

[Burty117]

8GB is not the issue. The issue is the street price.

It’s actually both, the GPU itself is powerful enough to run games with max textures at a high resolution, but pairing it with 8GB means you don’t get to use all of your GPU’s capabilities.

Remember, the GPU is the expensive bit, GDDR6 isn’t the expensive bit.

Nvidia and AMD need to make slightly less powerful GPU’s, pair them with 8GB of VRAM, and lower prices substantially, preferably half what they currently are.

But as you can see just from this poll and comment section alone, Nvidia have genuinely convinced the general public to pay insane money for their lowest products, on top of that, they’ve even convinced a surprising amount of gamers that 8GB is all you need anyway, even though the lowest consoles have substantially more.

Imagine spending £350 on a GPU alone and being unable to run at the same quality levels as a cheaper console.

 

[Loadedaxe]

It’s actually both, the GPU itself is powerful enough to run games with max textures at a high resolution, but pairing it with 8GB means you don’t get to use all of your GPU’s capabilities.

Remember, the GPU is the expensive bit, GDDR6 isn’t the expensive bit.

Nvidia and AMD need to make slightly less powerful GPU’s, pair them with 8GB of VRAM, and lower prices substantially, preferably half what they currently are.

But as you can see just from this poll and comment section alone, Nvidia have genuinely convinced the general public to pay insane money for their lowest products, on top of that, they’ve even convinced a surprising amount of gamers that 8GB is all you need anyway, even though the lowest consoles have substantially more.

Imagine spending £350 on a GPU alone and being unable to run at the same quality levels as a cheaper console.

Welcome to the new normal. GPU prices have been steadily climbing for the last 4+ years, and there’s no real sign of them coming down anytime soon. It's not just about Vram or silicon cost, it's the whole market shifting.

Nvidia and AMD have realized people will pay more, even for mid-tier products, and that’s exactly what’s happening. Whether it’s due to demand, branding, or a lack of real competition, this pricing trend is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.

The budget $250 cards and below, they are gone, even Intel GPUs that have a $250 MSRP are selling over $350. And if you haven't noticed in the last 2 generations, the likes of the $180 RTX 560 and GTX 1650s like gpus we were able to buy.........those types of cards are gone as well.

This is the new budget, and neither camp is budging....they don't have to.

 

[Burty117]

Welcome to the new normal. GPU prices have been steadily climbing for the last 4+ years, and there’s no real sign of them coming down anytime soon. It's not just about Vram or silicon cost, it's the whole market shifting.

Nvidia and AMD have realized people will pay more, even for mid-tier products, and that’s exactly what’s happening. Whether it’s due to demand, branding, or a lack of real competition, this pricing trend is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.

The budget $250 cards and below, they are gone, even Intel GPUs that have a $250 MSRP are selling over $350. And if you haven't noticed in the last 2 generations, the likes of the $180 RTX 560 and GTX 1650s like gpus we were able to buy.........those types of cards are gone as well.

This is the new budget, and neither camp is budging....they don't have to.

If people stopped defending (and buying) 8GB cards, they might have to do something.

They're particularly poor value, if more people stopped being sucked into the Nvidia Marketing Team, that would be a good start.

Any 8GB card is not "mid-tier" it is low tier, that's a part of the problem and as I said in my comment, Nvidia have successfully convinced the vast majority that they don't do budget/entry level anymore, they absolutely do, that's where 8GB cards should exist.

If it has the same amount of VRAM as a console from over 10+ years ago (PS4 released 13 years ago now) it's an entry/budget option.

 

[Loadedaxe]

I think that is what I said.

The budget market is $300, mid tier is $600-700, high end is ~$1k and the best is way over priced at ~$2k

The new sub $300 card, does not exist.

 

[Burty117]

I think that is what I said.

The budget market is $300, mid tier is $600-700, high end is ~$1k and the best is way over priced at ~$2k

The new sub $300 card, does not exist.

I just checked Amazon, I can pickup a brand new Intel B580 (12GB) for £270.
I can also pickup a B570 (10GB) for £240.

8GB cards should be around the £200 mark, not £300+.

I'm aware that's not reality, I'm just saying that's where they actually should sit, but Nvidia has convinced everyone to pay more somehow.

 

[Loadedaxe]

I just checked Amazon, I can pickup a brand new Intel B580 (12GB) for £270.
I can also pickup a B570 (10GB) for £240.

8GB cards should be around the £200 mark, not £300+.

I'm aware that's not reality, I'm just saying that's where they actually should sit, but Nvidia has convinced everyone to pay more somehow.

.....and AMD.

 

[Burty117]

.....and AMD.

I wish AMD would leave Nvidia's rectum and actually do their own thing, Intel's doing their own thing because they're actually trying to compete.
AMD insist on positioning themselves as the £50 knockoff of Nvidia's cards.

We truly need more competitors in the space, I don't see it happening anytime soon, but it currently, truly sucks the way it is right now.

 

[llamapanda]

Are there really that many e-sports players out there who wouldn't just spend the difference for the better-equipped version of the same card? Methinks he's making up junk to justify wanting to try and match nVidia's decisions with equally daft products. The costs of tooling up to make the lesser cards can't be zero so surely someone will see the light and realise it's just not worth the effort anymore.

 

[Loadedaxe]

Are there really that many e-sports players out there who wouldn't just spend the difference for the better-equipped version of the same card? Methinks he's making up junk to justify wanting to try and match nVidia's decisions with equally daft products. The costs of tooling up to make the lesser cards can't be zero so surely someone will see the light and realise it's just not worth the effort anymore.

The assumption that most users would just “spend the difference” overlooks the nuance in market segmentation. Not every buyer is an enthusiast or e-sports player chasing top-tier performance. There’s a significant portion of the market, OEMs, budget builders, and casual gamers.....who prioritize price to performance and efficiency over raw specs. A trimmed down GPU still fills a critical niche, especially in markets where price sensitivity is high.

As for the cost of tooling, you're overestimating the overhead. These lower end SKUs are often derived from the same silicon as higher end models with disabled cores, lower clocks, or reduced memory bus widths due to binning and yield limitations. The incremental cost to produce and support them is minimal compared to the value they bring in product stack optimization and inventory utilization.

Matching NVIDIA’s segmentation isn’t about mimicry, it’s about competitiveness. Ignoring the entry-to-midrange segment would just be ceding that ground entirely. These aren't “daft” products.....they’re strategic SKUs designed to meet market demand.

 

[Shirley Dulcey]

Nowadays, the 60 tier is probably about as low as discrete GPUs will go. APUs are taking over the rest of the market. AMD and Intel's latest integrated graphics match or outperform a 50 series card, so why should those cards continue to exist?

At least AMD is only charging a $50 premium for the upgrade to 16 GB, if street pricing matches the MSRP. Over on the team green side you have to pay over $100 more to get 16 GB, and that's just too big a gap.

 

[takemaru]

8GB is not problem in any game... Assuming your not playing games at a max settings. In most cases, it is fixed by just lower few setting (mainly textures)

-"8GB is not problem in any game" For the newest AAA games, 8GB is barely adequate.
-"just lower few setting (mainly textures)"Texture quality is the single most impactful setting for visuals...
-They are neutering an otherwise fast card with a half-sized memory capacity. The small VRAM means you may not be enable those shiny new features, they are advertising: ray-tracing, frame-generation.
-They want to upsell the higher margin product for you: pay 50$ more for 15$ hardware.
-They will trap the less tech-savvy people with the 8GB card, and those people will be forced to buy a new card much sooner, than they intended to.

 

[maroon1]

-"8GB is not problem in any game" For the newest AAA games, 8GB is barely adequate.
-"just lower few setting (mainly textures)"Texture quality is the single most impactful setting for visuals...
-They are neutering an otherwise fast card with a half-sized memory capacity. The small VRAM means you may not be enable those shiny new features, they are advertising: ray-tracing, frame-generation.
-They want to upsell the higher margin product for you: pay 50$ more for 15$ hardware.
-They will trap the less tech-savvy people with the 8GB card, and those people will be forced to buy a new card much sooner, than they intended to.

1- Don't care about frame generation. Most people don't use RT on midranged GPU (specially midranged AMD GPU)

2- Based on my experience, 8GB is runs modern games fine if you use the right settings and it looks good. Most of latest games I've played still running high setting or mix of medium and high settings on RTX 3060Ti at 1440p with DLSS (quality in most cases, balanced in few demanding games). Medium and high texures look good in most games (except maybe in indiana jones which medium is noticeably worse than high specially outdoors)

3- I'm not telling to people buy new GPU with 8GB (unless you want cheap budget GPU)... My point is that 8GB is not as bad as people claim. People act like 8GB can't run games anymore.