Yeah, I remember when we used to buy RAM on CD but then Napster came along... (I'm also joking)

@@EyesOfByes Now RAM is all subscription!

Usually for free too! No idea why people spent money on physical ram, its ridiculous.

NVidia is worse than Apple

​@@JarrodsTech RAM as a Service!

They bought cards with 8gb of ram for 800 dollars and have to argue about it to make their purchase seem good.

1070 8gb , 2070 should be 10gb , 3070 sb 12gb, 4070 sb 16gb .in my opinion.

Ironically I remember HUB doing the opposite when many of us pointed out Nvidia were skimping on VRAM in 2020/21 and valuing the 12/16GB configurations RDNA2 offered. All you needed to do was listen to game devs.

I agree about NVIDIA not putting enough VRAM on their cards. HOWEVER, we are Not forced to buy those cards. If you buy one, you have little right to complain.

​@RobBCactive that didn't happen 😅

Msi had a 6gb version of 280X, a midrange card from 2013.

Sapphire da goat fr

Sapphire also created the first blow through cooler. Then almost a decade later Jensen made nvidiots believe they invented that with 30 series cooler lmao, it only took some 10 mins of bullshitting with AI, aerodynamics, thermal dynamics yada yada.

280X was high end, not mid range@@magikarp2063

@@magikarp2063 6GB hd7970 (same card) existed before that. There is no architectural change from HD7000 to Rx200 series (except 260x bonaire which added Truaudio) Infactl the shaders were unchanged from hd7000 to Polaris RX 400, even then it was a switch to 2x FP16 instead oif 1xFP32 units, vega added rapid packed math but again not *that much* changed. From Fermi 200 series to RTX20... GCN was amazing.

ikr?

4060 Ti 16 GB should be $350, 8 GB version should not exist and 4060 8 gb should be $250

12Go is acceptable in my opinion, but definitely 16Go above $400.

Even 12gb will make sense

lol stop being DELUSIONAL wanting a 16GB Vram on a measily 300$ and besides why would they need to put massive 16GB Vram on it, just take a look at how RX 7600 XT,Arc A770 16GB or 4060 Ti 16GB is lol especially at just 300$ where i dont expect the gpu to perform good even at 1080p why would they wanna put 16gb ? for "future proofing" bs ? you do realize that if your gpu is getting weaker especially as its getting older having more vram wont help right ?😂what we need is the right Vram for the right PERFORMANCE SEGMENT but for 350-400$ gpu i would agree that it needs 12gb at bare minimum

That's a really good point.

How is it that 16gb ram instead of 8 for example is bad for a setup with a 4gb vram card? I dont understand.

@@DivorcedStates Some of the games used more than 16GB of system memory with the 4GB VRAM card so if you only had 16GB RAM you'd see even bigger performance hit. With the 8GB card that wouldn't be a problem because the system memory usage was below 16GB. 8GB single-channel RAM + 4GB VRAM card would be straight from hell.

I have 16gb of ram with 24gb of vram.

​@@DivorcedStates The point is that if you're using a 4GB VRAM card, the extra VRAM demanded gets "spilled over" into RAM, taking a game that might require 12GB of RAM to requiring 17GB of RAM. If you only have 16GB of RAM, this spills over into swap/pagefile which will tank performance _exponentially_ more. Very few people using a 4GB VRAM card will be running with 32GB of RAM, which makes that 16GB RAM threshold so significant.

Haha same. Just checked and I already liked the vid instinctively. Maybe it's because the topic is so important to me and generally a thing that a lot of people think about.

KZfaq is full of videos like this.^^ the only rare comparison is 4gb vs 8gb imo. idk why we still talk about 4g while 8gb is already too low.

Lolwut? There's a ton of videos chasing the vram boogieman.

@@zodwraith5745 tons of vram drama clickbait videos, very few actual deep dive testing like this, the only one i can think of is daniel owen

No one? Really?

"No one talks about this"? It's been talked about by all the major tech channels since the 30 series launched lmao

Cmon bruh that's pretty legendary for 1080p and works decent on 1440p on any game except for games with horrible optimization

That's BS. i own a 1080ti a 3080 and a 4080 the 1080ti is pretty much dead in the water for most recent games at 1080 and certainly at 1440p@@N.K.---

@@shagohodds You're coping hard for the fact you spend tons of cash on GPUs every gen. Except for Ray and Path Tracing, the 1080ti runs pretty much everything at 50-60fps at 1440p, and is much faster at 1080p. Even in Alan Wake 2, the one game the 1080ti could not run above 30fps due to the mesh shader technology, they are going to put out a patch that will allow it to run the game at around 50-60fps. Now, you're free to spend thousands on a GPU every gen for small gains, but don't try to gaslight owners of the 1080ti, who know very well the resolutions and settings they're gaming at, as well as the fps they get.

@@shagohodds Not really. 1080 Ti is pretty much PS5/Series X power but lacks proper DX12 support. It's still a fine 1440p card if you're using upscaling. Avatar medium settings with FSR quality mode averages 56fps.

@@Phil_529 Well, depends on what games you play really. And it's not a VRAM-related problem mainly, rather than in general it's getting really really old for modern games. I had GTX 1080 Ti for many many years (too many because of the crypto craze and my refusal to buy a new card for idiotic prices) and I'll be honest, I'll take RTX 3070 8GB over it any day of the week and twice on Sunday, just because it works substantially better with most modern DX12 games, despite the lower amount of memory.

We're talking about the first official AMD spec.

Shapphire knows how to download Vram😂

@@Hardwareunboxed The way it was worded I didn't know you were referring to the official AMD spec

That was an epic GPU

@@Ale-ch7xx They always are. Cards are set to official spec clocks for core and memory if a Reference or Founders Edition is not available, etc, etc. What individual board partners do will be put into specific model reviews.

HUB did test this earlier where the 3060 actually outperformed the 3080 10GB. I believe it was in Hogwart Legacy just when the game came out.

@@TheKims82 I think that unoptimized RTX is kinda a niche case. It would be better to extend the tests to more cases

should be $75 max for a 4gig gpu in 2024

For me, I cannot do without at least 16. I prefer 24 to 32. Next year, I want 64.

@@ricky4673 32GB would be quite nice, really. A little more future proof than 24GB

you want 64gb vram next year ?@@ricky4673

Only 128gb vram

As 30 series suck in Vram, developers are forced to reduce game quality to incorporate handicapped 30 series, 12 GB going to be enough for 1440p . Fc Ngreedia. The same company released 6GB 3060 laptops. 8gb 4070 laptops.

It's possible to use 18gb in modern games at 4k. The game will use what it can. If you have less than ideal it will just stutter more and look worse but it won't run out because of Safety features keeping you from running out. My friend had a 3080 and had usage at 8.5gb then got a 7900xtx and saw those same games actually took advantage of more like 16-20gb. More than double the fps.

... and Vs 20gb!

There is no vcards that can offer 8-12-16Gb variants at the same time. But you can re-watch RTX3070vsRX6800, or seek for videos like "RTX3070-8Gb vs RTX3070-16Gb(modified)"

@@vmafarah9473what are you even talking about not true… but i agree with the laptop part

recent UE5 titles lack good VRAM settings. Robocop for example always tries to fit into 8 Gb VRAM and as a result always has texture pop-in. Saw it in some other recent titles as well.

​@@tenow ithought nanite was the holy grail in ue5 to eliminate texture pop in.

​@@residentCJonly if you have enough vram to use it. Nanite doesn't stop texture pop in, it better adjusts LOD over distance. I.e the closer you get the more details it renders. If you go past the VRAM buffer, you are still gonna have pop in as your system is forced to use system ram, which is much slower for the GPU to access. Also. Devs have the ability to not use nanite, it is quite resource intensive. So not every dev is gonna implement it.

Because not even 24gb is what you need for a 80 series card to use it's power properly. I'm having trouble playing even beat saber on my 3080 with a index.

No kidding. I have NVME, X3D, 96GB Ram (other work), and 24GB Vram, and they still manage to not have that scenario take advantage. 😂

Oh I had one of those from Sapphire. The thing didn't care what game I threw at it at the time. Eventually it started thermal throttling and some other thing that I couldn't fix. In early 2019 I got the 16GB Radeaon VII to replace it, dude's still going strong.

had the sapphire 390 nitro was a beast of a card for the price.

Double the VRAM, Double the price

I mean, this is not exactly something new. Let's take a look at the Nvidia side of things, going back to the 200 series in 2009, using data related to the '70 and '80 model cards: * Two generations saw a 0% increase in VRAM compared to the previous generation. The GTX 500 Series as well as the RTX 2000 Series. * The '70 has had an average amount of VRAM of 87.5% compared to the '80, in the same generation. * The '80 has had an average increase in VRAM of 38.5% compared to the previous generation. * The '70 has had an average increase in VRAM of 39.3% compared to the previous generation.

@@Azhtyhx I'm talking about the price increase that came with more VRAM though GTX 480 1.5GB - $500 GTX 580 1.5GB - $500 (590 3GB - $700) GTX 680 2GB - $500 (690 4GB - $1,000) GTX 780 3GB - $650, 780 Ti 6GB - $700 (TITAN 6GB - $1,000) GTX 980 4GB - $550, 980 Ti 6GB - $650 (TITAN X MAXWELL 12GB - $1,000) GTX 1080 8GB - $600, 1080 Ti 11GB - $700 RTX 2080 8GB - $700, 2080 Ti 11GB - $1,000 (TITAN RTX 24GB - $2,500) RTX 3080 10GB - $700, RTX 3080 Ti 12GB - $1,200, 3090 24GB - $1,500 RTX 4080 16GB - $1,200, RTX 4090 24GB - $1,600 Remember that 10-series gave a massive jump in performance compared to the 20-series increased price with insignificant gains. The price hike that started in 2018 wasn't really justifiable. And it kept on increasing after 2 generations. So, it's something new lol.

​@@shadowlemon69The more you spend, the more you save!

I had an 8gb GPU since 2014... 8gb is absolutely out of modern spec these days, it would've been like running a 2gb GPU back in 2014 which would've been low end for sure.

Ouch

yeah, that is like one of the worst gpus ever

I bought a 3070 over 6800 just for cuda cores. Guess I am the next 🫠

Bruh ..

@@kingplunger6033 Hard disagree, it was a great GPU for it's time in 2016. Sure, even back then it made more sense to buy the 6GB model, but I was using the 3GB variant of that card between 2016-2019 without any issues. Every gaming having 4K and 8K textures only started a few years ago, that's when having way more VRAM was starting to be necessary.

On mobile, that card was awesome for the generation There wasnt a lot of vram to go around in affordable laptops, which the 6800m fixed

@@roqeyt3566 bruh you talk as if it's a decade old gpu, it's still by far one of the best options for laptop gpus atm (especially if you're on a budget)

yea but lets be real here, the only game you'd mod the shit out until it utilizes more than 8 gb of vram is skyrim. there are strong arguments against 8gb vram, but mods aint it

Sure, if you tweak your settings you can sometimes find a game where you can run out of VRAM on one GPU while the equivalent GPU with more RAM keeps running fine, but in most cases you'll get bad performance with the higher VRAM GPU as well. Basically lower end cards don't need as much VRAM because they won't see as much benefit. I wouldn't say "no" to extra RAM but I'm not going to spend an extra $150 or $200 on it when buying a low end GPU (not a dealbreaker). For the midrange and up everything should be over 10/12 GB.

@@nimrodery I also laugh when people show that they failed to read the comment they are replying to, or, for that matter, that they didn't watch the video that comment is posted to.

​@@nimrodery"lower end cards don't need as much VRAM".....Bruh, did you even watch the video? Hardware Unboxed literally used a 6500XT (that's a lower end card, don't you know?) to disprove your point. What are you on about?

@@morgueblack No, I was talking about 8 vs 12 or 16, HUB already has a video about 8 vs 16 in the form of the 4060 ti, which shows that for the most part there's no performance gains to be had. For instance you can enable RT and ultra settings on both, and while you may run out of VRAM on one, the other GPU isn't putting out high FPS because of the settings and the fact it's a 4060 ti. No GPU should have less than 8 at this point.

Yeah I got tired of even saying it most of the time. I suspect Nvidia is leveraging their AI bots to market this way, only explanation I have for why people are so against getting a quality product at a reasonable price. They actively want to overpay for poor products, but that's the very opposite of my real life experience where people want to pay less for a great product and brag about getting great deals.

does this stay true with lower-end GPU like RX6600? im currently looking for one at the used market, they go around 150 usd, or should i go with RX6700xt at like 200 usd?

RX 6700XT has 12gb vram compared to the 8gb on the rx 6600 and the 6700xt is 40% faster, so yes, its much better than the rx 6600! you spend 33% more money but you get 40-45% more fps, its absolutely worth it@@therecoverer2481

It depends on a certain game. But 4GB vs 8GB is still an extreme case. 4GB cards are either very old or very cheap, so no one should expect them provide great results in modern games anyways. Talking about textures, it is not always the most noticeable visual change. Objects and shadows pop-in are much more crucial IMO. When everything pops out of nowhere, it makes gaming unenjoyable. I'd rather sacrifice texture quality, then draw distance. Also low resolution shadows and low quality AA are very annoying too (constant flickering is awful). So for me it is draw distance first, shadow quality and AA quality next and only then texture quality.

​@@redmooglethey probably want their product to last more. If tech moves too fast, your 8gb would be obsolete in a few years rather than having to last it for a console generation

Exactly, I put everything on low and then put high/ultra textures, next goes lighting, effects, then shadows, draw distance and other bells and whistles with ray tracing at the very bottom on priority list.

@@viktorianas indeed. I hate when developers try "optimising" and "balancing" graphical presets. Devs always put textures resolution and details way too low on their presets, making the game look like ass, while it could look so much better with some useless particle effects disabled or lowered, and decent textures raised to reasonable level. Vram capacity and its importance really opened my eyes on the subject. I won't let nvidia and AMD mislead me with "great deals" of gpus having reasonable price but low vram.

Nvidia doesn't want you to do this. They want you to crank up lighting and shadows while lowering textures. What's insane is also the motion blur modern games stuff in, and then adding the fake frames and filter on top of that pretending they are running at a higher resolution. It's really bad, the reason Nvidia can do this is because of AI marketing and their superior drivers. If AMD or Intel could deliver flawless drivers for games going back 20 years there would be no reason to even look at Nvidia anymore.

That's incorrect. Resolution makes the biggest difference, followed by textures.

@@Rapunzel879 nah, I often rather crank up shadows than resolution

390X came with 8gb and released same month as 980ti. typical nvidia planned obsolescence

​@@Pixel_FXThat was also with a good price on a 512 bit bus. Those were better days.

@@Pixel_FX I loved my 8GB 290X (essentially identical to a 390X) but let's be real here; the 980Ti was better across the board at everything and for a far longer period of time. That extra 2GB didn't do a damn thing for the 390X.

@@PhAyzoN Sure, but the 980 ti was considerably newer than the Hawaii architecture. The fact that it was rebranded for so long was thanks to AMD's "fine wine" over the years. Could you imagine if the 290x had that later spec performance all the way back in 2013? It was purely a software holdup all that time.

@@PhAyzoN GTX 980 Ti was also about 50% / $200 more expensive

10GB was a terrible choice by NVIDIA. They marketed that as a "flagship" but it had less VRAM than the 11GB 1080Ti from years earlier for the same $700.

@@Phil_529 Its a great choice for nvidia* bad for users. If they can get away with less vram and people even defend this choice, why would they put more?

@@mertince2310Well clearly they didn't have to. Ampere was peak crypto and the day I got my 10GB for $700 I could've sold it for $1500 followed by it being sold out for almost 2 years. To be fair the 10GB at 4K was mostly OK for the first 2 years but it fell off a cliff once "next gen" games started to come out. Dead Space remake and RE4 was the final straw for me and I upgraded to a 4090. Pretty sure the lack of VRAM is directly related to NVIDIA wanting to push AI users into more expensive GPUs. At least now they offer a 16GB model for $450 so next generation shouldn't be so outrageous. These overpriced mid ranged cards shouldn't be limited to 12GB and asking for $600+.

@@Phil_529 Even with 10GB I personally never actually ran into actual problems even playing games like Hogwarts legacy. 1440p and I guess I just didnt reach that area yet, but even if I would I can always go from Textures Ultra to High (which looks the same), problem solved, There's also even a mod that reduces VRAM usage.

@@BitZappleHogwarts Legacy ate VRAM like no ones business at launch if you were using ray tracing (14.2GB at 1440p). That was another game that choked up my 10GB card. I also had problems with Need for Speed Unbound (easy fix just go from ultra reflections to high and it's fine).

Yeah these Unreal 5 games look boring in appealing garbage but everyone's seems to have drinking the coolaid, they REALLY must've like that matrix demo

Robocop is fun@@chillhour6155

Actually look worse because devs rely more and more on upscalers instead of actually optimizing their games

Upscaling crutch + TAA + Poor optimization + high development cost + lack of interest in their work / homogenization of coding due to thousand and thousand programmers and developers being churned out in "bideogame skewls" and you have uninspired low risk modern AA and AAA games as a result.

@@Grandmaster-Kush that's why I started studying bass guitar instead of gaming.

I would SO love to see this

Nvidia's not gonna like this one ☠️☠️🙏🙏

​@@kenshirogenjuro873that is actually possible I saw a video of some dude testing out some modified RX 580 from China it had like 16gb of VRAM ( or was it 32? ) And it's real... it worked and used more VRAM and everything detected the extra VRAM So it's entirely possible to just add more VRAM via soldering but it may vary from card to card

To be fair, textures do the majority of the job on making a game look good. Yes 4K(or more) textures are absolutely dumb. But oh well.

well, yes. You can see what happens if textures are loaded in RAM instead of VRAM in this video

​​@@noir-13 Search about the storage space difference. It may seem like a small little number but the growth is exponential. More resolution doesn't necessarely yield higher details. It's an incredibly wide-spread issue. The whole dev market is filled with people that don't know what a 'job well done' is or even means. 2K it's fine i guess, 1K still. 4K or more is just unnecesary because of the exponential storage space consumption(that also well applies to texture loading speed, world loading speed and VRAM consumption)

Sounds like someone doesn't care to do their own research ​@noir-13

@@noir-13 Sounds like you're 12 years old. Also seems like it judging by your profile picture.

I want AMD to treat us better too. Imagine buying their highest end offering like the 7900 XTX only to get 25fps at 1440p with RT on medium in Alan Wake 2, a AAA title and one of the best titles of 2023. Scammed.

@@innie721 AMD is irrelevant in the market, and memory subsystems are a "solved" problem: it would be trivial for nVidia to increase VRAM amount. Heck, with the 3080 they had to put in work to cut the VRAM amount from 12 to 10 GB, by disabling parts of the chip.

@@innie721 Again it isn't raytracing, its raytraced lighting and shadows. Nvidia may as well call it RTLS. Were it true raytracing the game would be unplayable. Its bad enough that "RT" has as bad a performance hit it does on Nvidia let alone AMD.

4060 ti 8GB should not exist at all. and 4060 ti 16GB to be priced $350. well, $400 at max

There already is! Look at the 4060 Ti 16GB review

Yes

Yes and no. Yes, it would have been better with 8GB. No, it would not have been better received, because it was a pandemic card, created explicitly to reach the $200 point in a time of drastic supply line disruption. Doubling the VRAM would have notably increased its price at the time, and it would still have received negative reviews on that basis, even from HUB, which ignored the effect of the pandemic on pricing of all cards for some bizarre reason. Specifically, they compared AMD's MSRP values for cards released in the midst of the pandemic, which accounted for supply line disruption, to nVidia's fictional MSRP values for cards released before the supply line disruption. The 6500 XT was only ever supposed to be a stop-gap measure that allowed people to get a functional graphics card for $200, when used versions of much slower cards were selling for a lot more. AMD should have at the very leased ceased production of the 4GB model after supply lines cleared up.

@@TrueThanny Indeed, pandemic pricing for GDDR6 was about $15 / GB (while it is around $3 /GB now), extra 4GB would have cost about $60 more + OEM/retail margins which are often based on the price of the product (so about $80 more total)

Agree. noticed the same error. don't know if it's the only error.

Same, replaced it by a 3090. For VR 24GB is definitely needed.

Its not VRAM reduce the random stuttering as much that you running out of VRAM you will introduce the stuttering. CoD just asks for everything possible and you wont see a difference on a 12GB, its just an "incase" we need it moment

Definitely! On 24gb GPUs everything work smooth.

Very simplistically you can say "There are two amounts of VRAM: Enough and Not Enough". Having more than enough doesn't help with anything. Having less than enough hits 1% lows the hardest and the AVG progressively harder the bigger deficit you have. Until the whole Direct Storage thing is rolled out the system RAM is still being used as a staging area before dispatch to VRAM, rather than the VRAM being used as a buffer for things that are still (far) out of view. This means that game stutters can also occur if you're low on system RAM, despite having enough VRAM.

@@sebastian38488Not if you chuck them in a system with 8GB system RAM.

When my R9 290X-4GB card died I was able to get the RX 580-8GB card. That 8GB has allowed the card to survive to this day (good for 1080p gaming.) My friends and roommate are still using theirs, although I moved on to the RX 6900XT-16GB for 4k use.

7800GTX 256MB owner here. Literally all you need

1060 3gb was a mistake and should never have been made Or if it was to be made it should atleast have 4gb of VRAM since GTX 1050 ti has 4gb's like wtf

I still use a card with 4GB of VRAM. I'm pissed, not so much at NVIDIA for not including more VRAM (although I'm still pissed at them for different reasons, I use Linux and they have no open source drivers for the GTX series of cards)... but at the gaming industry as a whole. The only thing the gaming industry optimizes is monetization, not the games themselves. A prime example of this is "EOMM", a way to rig matchmaking to increase "engagement" which basically refers to how much people play and pay. Modern games do NOT use SBMM! SBMM is actually a good thing (game companies hate it because they can't milk players as well, and content creators/streamers do NOT tell the truth about it (along with toxic no-life "veteran" players) because they hate it that they can't "pubstomp" new players when SBMM is properly implemented. Content Creators/Streamer BTW are often paid shills, so when EOMM is brought up, they often act skeptical at best, or tell lies about it (and refer to it falsely as SBMM) likely to cover up the game companies' ass... because otherwise they could lose their partnership, get hit with lawsuits and DMCAs, etc. Combine that with grinding/progression/unlocks (and of course, "FOMO" limited-time events) and every player who doesn't spend a bunch of time grinding or spending money on "Pay To Progress" (which is Pay To win) crap like boosters, will always fall behind and be at a disadavantage, and will generally have a worse time gaming. Engagement Optimized Match Making: web.cs.ucla.edu/~yzsun/papers/WWW17Chen_EOMM) On top of that, I'd imagine there's probably some sketchy deals going on behind closed doors with hardware manufacturers and game companies. Perhaps game companies get new high-end hardware at a huge discount and/or are incentivized to "optimize" their games to run "well" only on the latest, highest end hardware (while not giving any older/weaker hardware any real optimization). (Optimized and well are in quotes because they don't mean to actually optimize the game and have it run well... just barely playable on only the newest, most powerful shit... so they can sell more hardware upgrades.) I would not be surprised if there was this much corruption in the gaming industry, as I have seen a lot of it personally as a gamer (and BTW, as a nurse - I can say the healthcare industry is also very corrupt with big government and big pharma lobbying) I'd imagine it's a somewhat similar deal here, as I follow the game industry somewhat closely. Heck, even the Australian government is defending microtransactions via state-owned media. In Defense of Microtransactions | THE LOOT DROP ABC Gamer kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qLuegpCfz9y6inU.htmlfeature=shared TBH, we really don't need more than 4GB of VRAM... if game companies would just optimize stuff. People could just say to buy a better card, but then it's only a matter of time before that card also becomes useless... which generates more and more e-waste. Not everyone can afford to do that anyway either. There has to be a point where people put their foot down and crack down on bad optimization. People need to stop buying new hardware, especially higher end hardware... and use stuff longer. They also need to stop supporting bad games (online-only/DRM'd games, games full of Grinding/P2W/Gambling, games without self hosted server support, games without modding support, etc.) Only then will we see a change in the industry.

Don't see how the two are connected, but okay. It would be very odd to expect modern games to work well on old 4GB graphics cards right?

@@Hardwareunboxed Yes modern game will not running well on 4GBs or even 8GBs of vram. What I mean is when we looked at the recent unoptimized game that need a lot of vram but don't have any graphic fidelity like Alan Wake 2, Cyberpunk 2077

Alan Wake 2 is pretty heavy on VRAM, especially if you use RT while CP2077 has fairly poor texture quality.

It's not interesting - it's expected. This is probably the only time HUB has benchmarked tested specifically be trying to extract the most performance out of each GPU at stock ehile maxing out textures. I'd like to say 4060 Ti counts except the card was too garbage to begin with to expect good fps at max settings for anything above $250. Also kudos for understanding how vram configuration works. Can't just blindly assert 2 different spec'd cards in every area besides vram capacity will suffice for a proper vram comparison.

@@Sarvak-B Its expected for you, but interested for me. I didnt know thatr 6500xt 8GB even exist. And there is no other new cards that can show me such difference between 4GB and 8GB

@@axescar of course. I can respect that. Your initial comment def shouldn't be glossed over either because it sheds light on vram configuration based on bus-width (literally everything else unchanged), which will hopefully help educate more users so neither Nvidia nor AMD can get past us for releasing generally weaker parts with compelling vram capacity. Congrats on owning Vega Frontier btw! :)

Likely a crash if not unplayable, a similar further performance dip would occur at pcie gen 3 speeds because remember the gpu isnt getting system ram bandwidth it's getting the bandwidth of the pcie link which is way lower then even that so ur pcie link speed basically determines your gpu's bandwidth from ur system ram. In other words if the 6500xt was at pciex16 it'd probably perform much better with the 4gb model too. To more directly answer ur question if ram was only just running out and needed to be compressed like a said, a similar performance drop as moving to pcie ge n3, if you went way over, almsot defintley a hard crash