Developers have become too reliant on DLSS and neglect optimization because it requires longer development time, which publishers don't want. That's one of the reasons why modern games now demand excessive amounts of VRAM.
@@sc_3433That 16 Gig is all the memory available. Contrast with PCs that have GPU memory and RAM on top of that. The games are just not optimised on PC
VRAM usage isn't primarily reliant on resolution, it's almost entirely dependent on texture complexity. Since the latest console gen has effectively around 12 GB of VRAM, devs essentially treat that as the baseline in a lot of cases, and just don't generate lower quality texture maps.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombatyea it sucks,i bought it on day one but refunded it due to that. Maybe buy it one day when i upgrade it. Sm2 looks garbage in low settings.
VRAM is important with the new games. I have 16GB on my card and I thank the lord I do. Games like Dragons Dogma 2 and others would have been rough without it.
@@victorangelogabriel Detroit Become Human crashed at Ultra High settings. Unsure if it was due to lack of VRAM, because High settings was perfectly smooth at 60fps
@@victorangelogabriela variety of games will just forcibly change the settings if you run out Its not a bad chip, but for new games even 8gb is not the best idea
By then it will probably be in the same class as a 1050 today, 2gigs low performance,you can get a decent experience out of it depending on your choice of games
Jarrod, *I implore you* to watch Hubwood's video about low textures+high settings vs ultra textures+ low settings. This will probably change your mind about vram. Because vram is mostly affected by texture settings, and texture settings are what affects visual quality the most, like I mentioned in another comment. Basically it's far better to combine ultra textures with other settings set to medium or high than to simply put all settings to the same level. And this is where high vram amount truly shines.
@@JarrodsTechI don’t think that’s what they meant. You tested all available presets. That’s different than all settings available. The biggest consumer of performance for example is usually shadow quality. If you turn that down instead of using ultra quality shadows, you get a lot of performance back. Suddenly VRAM will start to matter more in general. You will see more playable frame rates, but the one percent Lows and texture pop in will be worse on 8GB graphics cards
@@JarrodsTech nope, you set all settings to the same levels, like setting textures to high and other settings to high at the same time as well. That's not optimal at all. That's like going to a supermarket and buying a little of everything instead of only getting what you need. It wastes GPU resources. Just watch that video I mentioned, you'll be surprised.
@@justmatt2655 4070 laptop have 50% cuda cores than 4060 laptop and desktop and even more than 4060ti desktop . But limited by low bus with and vram . Damn
@@aymenmrb4436 yes and yet if you look at real world performance it doesn't have much at all over the 4060, but is far more expensive. That's why it's best to avoid
The problem with the 4070 is that it adds a ludicrous premium to the cost of a laptop for very little extra performance, especially when VRAM becomes an issue. Only choose a 4070 laptop if its been discounted to a similar price as a 4060 laptop because it's just not worth the premium. Either just stick to a 4060 laptop or find the cheapest 4080 equipped laptop, where you'll actually see a huge 50 to 60% jump in performance
Yeah laptop 4070 has been cut down too much. The desktop cards are all 12gb. It’ll be ridiculous if the 5070 is another 8gb card (NVidia trying to upsell to 80 class for anyone who can afford it).
why would someone buy 4080 laptop when you can build yourself pc with 4090 for almost the same price. 4080 laptop is worse than pc 4070 super. absolutely not worth it for that price range. lenovo currently selling them for 3300. biggest waste of money you can ever make when 50 series laptops are around the corner
People who only have 4gb vram cards shouldn't even be playing GoW Ragnarog tbh, hell i even question are they really buying the game because mostly people with these ridiculously cheap low end setup 90% of em uses crack games and not from Steam
@@Eleganttf2 lol I understand what you mean. Very valid thoughts here. I have a 1660Ti with the 6GB and I’m looking to upgrade to a 40series over the Black Friday/cyber Monday period.
I'm guessing you haven't tested each game for long, have you? Judging by those performance parities. Games take time to run out of vram. 30-60 minutes and it depends on location, how many high quality textures are in VRAM at that moment. Also, HUB already compared 8GB and 16GB GPUs and found out that even back in 2023 8GB wasn't enough for many games. Also also, you haven't tried lowering other settings while keeping texture setting at maximum quality. This is where 16GB version of 3080M would shine. Texture quality is what affects visuals of the game the most, yet it doesn't need raw GPU power, all it needs is more vram to store those textures. So setting texture quality to ultra while setting other things to medium-high the 16GB version would be vastly superior. Thanks for the comparison!
My take, the 8GB VRAM version uses less power. So more power is available to the GPU to maintain a higher clock. Which I think is why the delta is quite small in favour of the 8GB variant until you hit a VRAM bottleneck. Or the extra heat from the VRAM may be causing the components to run slightly slower.
I was just watching a gaming handheld review and one game had low vram indicator on it. That got me thinking about how much vram is good for ultra high resolution gaming and here Jarrod uploaded this video withing few minutes. 😮
With handhelds, the VRAM isn't the only issue. A lot of Windows games absolutely choke when given less than 12 GB of RAM, and a handheld with 16 GB of RAM and 4 GB set aside for the iGPU has less than that.
Handled consoles doesn't have VRAM. Their iGPUs use LPDDR system RAM as VRAM. Since there is no dedicated GPU, there is also no GDDR VRAM that has high bandwidth.
I think the reason the 8 GB laptop is usually a bit faster when not limited by VRAM may be because, funnily enough, the "larger" VRAM chips require a bit of extra power to run, which makes sustaining high memory and GPU clocks more difficult with the same wattage.
I wondered this, but at the end of the day had no idea so didn't speculate, only other reason outside of silicon lottery that makes any sense. I checked both GPUs reported the same wattage used in HWInfo in a GPU stress test before testing, I don't know if this power budget includes the memory though.
Actually the video ignores that with 2Gb 32bit GDDR6 modules that it is bus width that determines VRAMBL size 128bit bus cards have 128÷32=4 modules for 8GB. The desktop 3070 chip was IIRC sold as laptop 3080 so a clamshell 2x VRAM type design doubled memory capacity. Hence similar disappointing performance boosts as desktop 4060 16GB cards vs 8GB. So for Ngreedia to copy AMD and be more generous requires them to design their chips with wider busses that cost die area and pin out so are locked down early in the design. Ngreedia pushed their luck with 30' series that lead to 3070 being destroyed compared to RX 6800 in HUB re-test last year. AMD timed Infinity Cache perfectly in 2020, with forward looking VRAM allocations taking into account the console generation. But most PC Meisterrace and Tech Tubers swallowed features like ray tracing and DLSS mitigating HW having less grunt. The result of buying into all the FUD is monopolistic pricing with AMD & AIB having only risk and nothing to gain from keener price competition.
Any data on content creator tasks? I bought a 4080 Laptop last black friday (2023) and I use it for games and content creation work. It’s been more than acceptable. What I’m seeing here is that dropping quality and resolution is the key. Do you really notice a difference on a laptop display? I wonder how many folks are trying to run high rez ultra settings? Anyway, thank you for another useful video! Cheers Rick
I disagree with the conclusion here. If the card can run "Ultra" preset or not is irrelevant, as textures can be set independently of the other settings, and they do improve the presentation with practically null performance hit (with enough vram of course)
THIS. He hasn't even tried it. One should find the right balance between different settings, not just put all to the same level. Especially if one of the GPUs is vastly superior to another in terms of one specification.
9:57 so basically you admit that this testing is pointless(unless you're never even close to using 8GB). Because people don't game for 10 minutes, they play for much, much longer almost every time. I can max out everything in No Man's Sky and for like 20 minutes, the fps is perfect. But the longer I play, the more stuttering and fps drops appear, making the game unplayable and I'm forced to lower texture setting - what affects visual quality of the game the most. With a higher vRAM GPU this is never an issue.
I don't think it's pointless, I'm simply honestly pointing out the flaws. Would you rather I didn't? Spending more than a week on a video isn't a practical alternative unfortunately - but looking forward to when you do this to show us all :)
@@JarrodsTech Hubwood already did it. He showed how benedicial textures are vs other settings, and textures only need vram, not raw GPU power. That's what I'm saying. And yes, I'd rather you didn't. From watching your video, people will come to wrong conclusions and will think that 10 minutes represent real gameplay well and that 8GB are perfectly fine. They don't. There is a reason a lot of people complain at Nvidia having even 12GB on desktop 4070. How much do you think 8 will last? I have a 3070 ti and I often run out of vram on my 1080p monitor. Look, I appreciate the effort, truly. But it would be more beneficial for gamers to see fewer games, only the most vRAM demanding ones than a lot of games 10 minutes each. Showing only the most demanding games would show how future proof 8GB are and what are the limitations of that vRAM amount are at this day. Peace.
They are artificially handicapping the GPU's VRAM size so that you are compelled to buy the next GPU. Nvidia is learning from their mistake of creating the 1080ti with 11GB of RAM in 2017. Great video!
I've got the Aorus 15G RTX 3060 with 6GB VRAM and surprising still holds up in today's games. It manages to do games 1080p medium to high settings with DLSS at performance to quality and still manages above 60 FPS. It will come to a time for me to upgrade and I'll want at least 12GB VRAM they way games are cooking nowadays.
A rare review of vram that actually acknowledges the fact that if you are pushing settings that use more vram in most cases you are limited by horrible fps before vram anyway. Same stuff on pc side. "I can't play cyberpunk 4k path tracing with frame gen on with a 4070 because it only has 12gb vram" No you can't play cyberpunk 4k path tracing with frame gen on because it still gets 45-50 fps. Frame gen is a fine argument for vram... But everyone on the internet including nivida them self say "it's not really worth using frame gen unless you have a base frame rate of 60 fps already" We are likely at the limit of what should have 8gb going into 50 series even on 60 skew cards because the state of game optimisation in 2024 (none existent) if you want to use frame gen you will be pushing that limit but saying 16gb is the absolute lowest default needed is beyond stupid. I would like to see 60 and 70 series be at 12gb and 80 be at 16gb because in any game that works that is far more than you would need but a friendly reminder that the most used vram gpus used in the steam hardware survey even in 2024 are 6 to 8gb. Anyway thanks for at least being a voice of reason unless most miss information amd fanboy channels pointing out if you are playing at 15-40 fps and "running out of vram" you have bigger problems than vram at that low fps anyway. Can't believe it's 2024 and people are trying to justify playing sub 60 fps like it's realistic or reasonable settings that anyone would use.
If 8GB of VRAM is not enough, blame the game developer. If the game developer feels that they have optimized the game, then the developer should complain to Nvidia for providing too little VRAM.If enough developers complain, I think Nvidia will be willing to increase the VRAM capacity of their GPUs.
I have a 2023 Lenovo Legion Pro 5 with an i7 13700 HX, 32 gigs of RAM and a 4070 with 8 gigs of VRAM. Play at 1440p high settings with DLSS on and it works fine. Raytracing looks fine .. Space Marine 40K plays fine, same with Black Myth Wukong... and pretty much anything else I throw at it.
With my budget I couldn't afford the higher end model this was already a $1600 laptop well above my budget.. I also bought a Samsung G5 1440p 32-in 144 HZ monitor with g-sync and with the g-sync it seems like it plays just fine. Having a monitor with either freesync or g-sync helps extraordinarily well
@@Eleganttf2 it goes to 165hz but only through the display port and my laptop doesn't have a display port so I have to use HDMI which only supports 144 HZ.
Also it was $250 new and was the best value, between the laptop $1600 the RAM upgrade for $100 and the WD black SN850X I bought that was $200 I was maxed out..I have other bills to pay and things to buy..wish I was rich lol
One thing that I noticed is that for heavier vram games I need to close other applications, including other game launchers, so 16gb could make life simpler and I believe is not a scenario usually not tested in benchmarks but probably very common.
They rely too much on upscaling for laptop because it has smaller screen size so its less noticeable when the image quality is reduced Still 12gb vram is preferable as you can always play at mix lower setting but ultra textures, giving you a better gameplay experience than a full lower setting
I have the MSI GP66 with this same hardware combo..11800h and 3080 8GB,,,,,360hz 1080p screen....8gb has been plenty at 1080p.......... It has been a great laptop over the last couple of years and plenty of life still left.
I wanted the best performance that I could get for my money and my budget was set, can't go over it. So the most logical choice for me was 2024 Victus 16 with 4060. it was barely in budget, and at that price point, had 4060 with is the first card in the rtx 40 series lineup to have 8gb of vram. anything less than that has 6, which I already upgraded from a gpu with 6gb vram, it wouldn't cut it. So for most people like me who doesn't want to or can't spend more than whereabouts of 1000 euros, we have to stick with what we can get, and on my 4060, even on some demanding titles I have never seen it max out the vram
Great video Jarrod. So timely too. I literally got a Asis Tuf 17in 4070 in the amazon sale at a good price. I have been playing cyberpunk and forza. Both games you tested and i also have my eye on black myth. Seems you are a mind reader! DLSS and frame gen are amazing i think. Thebloss of fidelty is quite minor when you are enjoying a game and not just staring at walls. My previous laptop was a gtx 1060. The difference is collosal. Great to see the 4070 stands its ground vs a 3080 laptop
VRAM uses power regardless if you use it or not. In a power constrained laptop where every watt counts you will likely get more power for clocks with lower VRAM which explains performance difference. Still would never get 8 GB of VRAM of anything. Also, maybe you should focus on settings that uses VRAM instead of general settings. Textures impact VRAM the most and don't really have any effect on performance as long as you have enough VRAM - And some games won't have lower FPS even when VRAM constrained due to textures simply not loading. :)
For me, personally, in newer games, I think 8gb or 10gb of vram is enough for gaming at 1080p max settings. For 1440p max settings, I would recommend 12gb or 16gb of vram, and for 4K max settings, most likely 16gb or 24gb of vram is sufficient.
Having more vram is usually better if memory bus width needs to be big to accommodate the bandwidth and push more intense graphics. There is some issue with latest nvidia driver 565.90 with screen capture even with nvidia beta app is stuttering randomly
yeah, i notice laptop gpu performing similar to those desktop gpus with high vram capacity compared to the overall performance (e.g. rtx4060ti 16gb, rx7600xt). when i set effects quality to high and look at fire (particle effects), fps absolutely tanks, whereas i can crank up texture quality and render distance to max and it performs great
7:03 there might be a slight latency difference between accessing 8 gigabytes and 16 from the memory controller. This would be very slight, and might show up by an average frame rate being slightly lower. But I think your reasoning that this is silicon lottery is more likely. Other possibility is that the cooling system on the 8 GB one just happened to be better placed when installed, you know the pasting and all that. I still think your idea is the most likely one
The point is 8GB is saturation point today. A lot of games have started to demand 8GB as minimum VRAM (Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Survivor and Star Wars: Outlaws). The games can barely run at 50FPS high in modern GPU's. Problem is, down the line next year and beyond games demanding such requirements will increase so a future proof laptop is better off with more VRAM as you are aready standing on the lower en of the minimum requirements. Same thing happened with me when I got a Dell G5SE in 2021. At that time, games barely needed 4GB RAM and my 6 GB was beyond good. Fast Forward 3 years and I cant run those games properly as some have 8 GB minimum ram requirements so that is my conclusion. To be future ready. Not be at saturation point.
Worth noting that iGPUs share the memory with the CPU. 8GB shared RAM is not enough for modern games. Many AAA games simply crash at startup. 16GB shared RAM is also starting to become a problem. For example Alan Wake 2 runs out of RAM on 16GB RAM systems with iGPU randomly and crashes, even if you run it at 720p using lowest settings. It doesn’t even boot at 1080p. ROG Ally X now has 24GB of RAM to make modern AAA games playable on it. 24GB shared RAM is basically the same as having 16GB RAM for CPU and 8GB for GPU. Which is enough today (except for ultra settings in some games).
I just bought a 4060 laptop and running CyberPunk 1080 full blast with DLSS and FG at 80fps+. In my view I don't see the need for anything above 8 gig at 1080 and like You said anything close to maxing out vram is unplayable by that point anyhow. I am totally happy with my 4060 gaming laptop for 800$!
Hey, could you cover which laptop can run an ultrawide monitor? Or any high res monitor? I have a 3060 laptop and struggled running black myth wukong, so that got me thinking, which laptop gpu at a minimum is good enough?
Rtx 4060 is the sweet spot to play any game easily on a laptop or you can get a 4050 at the minimum ❤ as for 30 series I would say 3070ti should be a minimum choice
@@N.K.--- I'm strictly talking about laptop gpus. The resolution I run at is 3440 x 1440p if 4060 is enough then I'll wait for 5000 series laptops for price drops. I'm done with 30 series cards on laptops.
For me I would like to see laptop GPUs in most entry level to be 8GB bare minimum at 1080p, max ray tracing at 1080p would better get somehow unusual 160-bit 10GB GDDR7 when using 2GB chips per 32-bit. Things would alleviate when more later games use even more memory at maxed out FG+RT+AI-TAAU-SR+ray reconstruction, and 3GB VRAM per single GDDR7 die would come out, so eventually getting up to 24GB VRAM in flagship, 18GB in upper midrange to higher end, 15GB midrange, 12GB entry level. Maybe after years of GDDR7 I would like to see potential way similar to how LPDDR would be, eventually to make LP-GDDR for higher bandwidth-capacity density on laptops and embedded SoCs in limited power consumption and thermally constrained scenarios.
Thanks for video! but I want to point out Gaming laptops widely used for professional workloads or newly appearing AI stuff. and both of them are Vram hungry. so I believe we really should have more Vram.
nope. He could have used ultra textures+medium settings and games would *both* look great and perform great on the 16GB GPU. But he never tried it in this video.
This video deserves a Part 2: isolate texture quality as many other graphical settings are demanding but not VRAM hungry. Educated gamers are willing to sacrifice lighting and shadow quality while maintaining good textures for higher framerates but the VRAM buffer can become a hard bottleneck. Also, is a VRAM cap possible on 4080/4090/7900M laptops? It's not exactly realistic but still could be a useful study. Then Part 3: non-gaming apps. For example, Blender Cycles demolishes VRAM for laptops 🥲
I recently got the ROG Zephyrus M16 with a 4080 and noticed an issue in Overwatch: the characters appear too small, losing their sense of scale. For example, Zenyatta and Doomfist are the same size, and Roadhog doesn’t look much bigger than Reaper. The clarity is great, but I can’t seem to fix the size, even after adjusting various settings. Is this normal for laptops? Thanks in advance for any helpful tips Y’all
I own an Asus TUF 2023 equipped with a 7535 and a 4050 6GB, which is quite sufficient for a 1080p 144Hz screen. I don't plan to exceed that even with an external monitor. Although there is a recently released 8GB version of the 4050, I am not considering an upgrade.
Hey Jarrod, can you also do a comparison on professional 3D softwares like Blender & Houdini? I’m planning on using my 4060 laptop till at least the end of college (4yrs) for 3D modeling & Rendering.
you can really game on any system from the last 20 years as long as you have realistic expectations. like if you just want to play old dos games in dosbox it doesn't take verry powerful hardware. all that really maters is that you keep your expectations realistic for the machine you happen to be using.
I have amd's 6700s with 8gb vram and like you said because its power is limited I never play on 4k and rarely play on 2k anyways so vram was never became an issiue. 8gb vram is completely fine and will be fine for another 4 years at least if you are okay with 1080p.
My 3050ti with 4gb still runs gow ragnarok, you dont need it but its awesome to have. I got a strix g18 with 4060 now and its way better obviously. But you can run most games on 4gb vram.
I don't think the point is whether performance of a given GPU is matching the amount of VRAM attached, all these tests fail to really reply to the question, what happen when VRAM isn't / won't be enough ? Try to launch Chrome / Firefox with a few Gmail / Outlook / RU-vid tabs (about 1GB VRAM), add Teams or Discord to that (512MB each), and you could still top that with OBS capture with heavy composition... Then compare what happen in games with heavy use of VRAM, not games having high compute requirement but high VRAM requirement... Maybe try to throw some modded games for edge case in there (And I don't even talk about Emulation Modded game that could strike the channel like Metroid Prime Remaster at 4K with LoD patch and texture recompression disabled) Gaming on a clean system, with nothing running in the background, using in-game presets, is obviously going to work gracefully most of the time, but PC aren't consoles, people are multi-tasking and customizing. (OBS with overlay + Discord + Webcam is a pretty common setup for people sharing their multiplayer games)
we dont need edgier case when some in game edge case do demonstrate the 8GB is limited somewhat. but these are edge cases is the whole point as to why nvidia didnt decided to put more... not that it doesnt suck to us, it does, because it truly means nvidia want way more money than reasonnable for vram... but 8GB is actually plenty enough for more than 90% of the cases...
The 30XX series can't use NVIDIA'S frame gen but still has access to Lossless Scaling's universal/all game frame gen and also FSR frame gen in the games it's coded in by default, otherwise just use the FSR FG hack.
do you think 50 series laptops be the best we have yet? seems 10-40 series laptops not too much has changed but maybe nivdia will make the greatest gen of laptops yet hopefully. What I mean by that is hopefully we see closer desktop performance or maybe even better power consumption along with more vram.... which knowing nivdia probably will get same amount of vram again.
The extra 8GB of Vram is perhaps eating into the Gpu's power budget, just enough to let the 8GB Gpu pull ahead slightly in scenarios where Vram capacity wasn't an issue. Just a guess.
I find 8GB VRAM to be more than adequate for 1080p gaming which is my laptop's resolution. I could go 4080s but those things cost like a motorcycle. Better off just keeping everything on recommended settings.
talk about apples to apples with those laptops. awesome work showing the concept of 'yeah, VRAM usage on a graph over 8, but you wouldn't use those settings and play at that fps anyway'.
nope, not apples to apples. He put all settings to the same level. Wheras on a 16GB GPU one can max out texture settings(they have next to no effect on performance as long as you have enough vram) while putting other settngs to medium-high and games would look much, much better than on the 8GB GPU.
apples to apples exists and means: 'the same' you: "nope, not apples to apples. He put all settings to the same" and yet somehow your take got even worse from there.
@@60DollarCodger because he didn't use the advantage of the 16GB GPU. It's like comparing a truck to a racecar. It's not apples to apples because he used one GPU to its best advantage(and only tested for 10 minutes)while not taking advantage of the other one which is far better at the vram amount...
if someone is opting for 1440p rt/max level gaming ,pc is their best bet and it very probable that the person will be able to afford both a pc and a laptop.
Its more than good enough. Developers target the lowest common denominator for the "recommended" experience and thats the ps5 and Xbox Series X. Consoles use shared ram so unless you are someone who needs to always max out the latest games its not going to matter for a good few years.
I use a 4GB GTX 1050ti mobile, as laptop gpu goes it's an ancient technology but it does hold quite well for playing games released before RTX GPU exist
You can try this again with 4060 6gb and 4060 8gb laptop GPUs. Unless these models are only available in my region. I found it weird to see 2 versions of 4060 for laptop
Agree until the end. "More powerful" isn't really relevant, we are stressed about hitting limits and suffering stutter so can't go with your comments saying it's OK because laptops aren't as "powerful", that's not the point ✌️
basically mobile rtx 3000 series 8gb ram is enough as it doesn't have enough power to its full potential will 4000 series will be the same tho? or future 5000, 6000 series
Hey Jarrod, New watcher here, all your videos are really cool and as a person that wasn't a tech guy I find it very interesting. I have a question if my budet is around 900 Euro (1000$) Which gaming laptop would you recommend? I am not crazy about ultra graphics like that so as long it looks good and runs smooth. I prefer a 16 inch screen. I couldn't care about the visual look of the laptop, just want it to preform good and be a reliable go to device for the next 5-6 years when buying it. OPen to suggestions from anybody, cheers
