You could use the igpu renderer to work around the bug, tried with an uhd 630 and the crash are way less when both gpu used in tandem

A770 its ok for gaming? Any problems?

I have a 3080 10gb, I went to a 3090 24gb because the 3080 would sometimes run out of vram when playing Far Cry 5 arcade user created maps at 4k, some maps would have 100+ characters on screen, there was 1 map where a herd of 100+ buffalo run across a field. The 3080 would tank into the single digits once it was out of vram, the 3090 would play it at a smooth 45fps (It plays most non intensive maps at twice that fps). I don't know how many games have user created content, I imagine a game like Minecraft's user created maps could use a lot of vram as well.

tbh my 3070 kind of struggles at 1440p with the vram even at medium. It is very annoying tby

I think you completely wrong about the subject and the sharpening part too. Almost all new games uses TAA and sharpening already. Last of us too, no point oversharpen the image more. We need more vram, 16GB minimum at least, we have 8GB since 2016, its a joke now. You can get an 8 core console with a decent gpu with 16 GB ram for 500 bucks, when nvidia want charge the costumers 400 bucks for a 8GB card we should laught at them.

The AAA industry is working really hard to disincentivise people from wanting to play AAA games so,it may be realistic for some, like me

I mean, the only new game I bought since 2019 is Outlast Trials. It runs great on my 1060 6gb

It's a realistic solution for me to be honest.

I have to disagree with this take, I think it's 100% NVIDIA'S fault that we are here, as a market leader they starved the market of VRAM with no real reason to do it, prices for VRAM being at an all time low. Developers need to push the boundary, and if NVIDIA is still selling cards that cost as much as an almost 4 year old console, while having less VRAM, that is not their fault. I don't want the gaming to stagnate due to one party being greedy, I love that CD project is pushing the boundaries with the next patch, and that Bethesda is finally making a game with cutting edge visuals for the first time since Morrowind. We just need to vote with our wallets and pick AMD/Intel, or alternatively a console if you don't have the money. The reality is, if you want a game to look as good on your PC as it does on a ps5/series X, you need to cough up just as much money for a graphics card as you do for the whole console. But this was always the case, even more so in the past.

yeah true true ... like telling a dog not to bark.

Yeah and this translates into the rx6800 being FASTER than the 3070 with ray tracing in some titles because it doesn't run out of vram lmao. This gen must be skipped. We need at least 16gb or more of gdrr7 next gen, with 12gb for the 200€ gpus.

Because they want you to spend the $1200.

they released the 4000 series with low vram so when they release the 5000 series with more vram people will upgrade

@@sidneyentr5640 They released the 4000 series with low VRAM so that the VRAM chips are moved to the "AI" cards in data centers. Nvidia is effectively killing PC gaming. Last gen should have had 16GB VRAM as standard, and it's not even standard THIS gen. Nvidia, go duck yourself!

@@enricod.7198 idk in which games I have RX6800 and man it sucks balls in Witcher 3 next gen when RT is turned on, same in Cyberbug, runs at 35FPS in 1080p with no upscaling lol

😂😂😂

Ironically though we do need a variety and new stuff in features and technology and improvements aswell like imagine if Nvidia didn't start the Ray tracing war, we would still be stuck with traditional raster

​@@Eleganttf2we still are though, raytracing is too damn slow and doesn't improve the image much in most games

@@PackardKotch to say RT doesn't improve much is a bit exaggeration my friend but im glad there's competition, RT not only revolutionizes gaming but don't forget 3d work has also been massively helped with it

@@Eleganttf2 gaming is revolutionized at a silky smooth 20fps

How old is your graphics card?

A game from 2018 only needs like 2gb.

We went from 4GB is more than enough for 1080P gaming back in 2019 to 8GB to be the new minimum

exactly. more than 8 is for doing work like video editing.

​@@ArcturusAlpha 8 is clearly not enough for video editing. People say its lagging all the way. Too slow of a process.

I still use gtx 1050 ti 4gb lmao

Bottlenecked in what game?

@@fitmotheyap me too

Just reduce the in game setting. Problem solved. Why people are so obsessed on using setting that they cannot see the difference vs the lower one?

@@arenzricodexd4409 i just bought rtx 4070 bc some games was laggy

LMAO no we didn't, and certainly not in the way that we enjoy them right now. Graphics back then were like "Oh, that looks so realistic!" These days I want to be able to masturbate when I look at the graphics of a videogame. IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

No but seriously, that argument is f*cking retarded. "Oh people were able to live in mud huts for thousands of years so why don't we do the same?" I've had a PS3 for a year up until 2020 when I bought my gaming PC and PS3 games look horrible. I certainly didn't enjoy my PS3 other than Persona 5 I guess and I certainly didn't have half as much fun playing it as I did enjoying the beautiful visuals at 1440p 60FPS on the Witcher 3 with my 1650 Super. Gaming back then was a vomit-inducing experience compared to these days.

entitlement is the death of fun

This man is the greatest chad I have ever heard.

So many are completely missing this. They think increased VRAM usage is just result of higher resolution textures and therefore it's waste of resources and needs to be "optimized" away.

Whilst textures do play their part, it's unfortunately nothing so simple. Plenty of channels have covered everything that eats VRAM (and why), and what devs have had to do for years to mitigate it due to HW vendors (like nVidia) not putting nearly enough VRAM on their cards in recent years. I have a GTX 1070 that has 8GB VRAM. It's 7 years old. That should say all you need to know about who is to blame (because putting more more VRAM on a card is not expensive). It's planned obsolescense to make you buy new hardware more often than you reasonably need to.

Replace vram with SSD

@@PQED I upped from a 2gb 960 to a 3070ti because at the time it was about the same price as a 3060 for some reason and I'm blown away that it's still 8gb of ram. Luckily modern games suck so it still does pretty well on the older ones I actually play.

​@@PQEDdepends actually. During the mining craze GDDR6 end up being very expensive. I think Steve (GN) talk to some partners and they told him selling the 3060 12GB at $330 can be considered selling at lost. So it is not always cheaper to add more memory. Second developer do really need to optimize more. John Carmack said ever since the 8th gen console giving significant memory upgrade over the 7th gen majority of game developer end up brute forcing things instead of more optimization. The 9th gen only double the memory from 8th gen so dev eventually need to be careful with their memory usage. But so far the issue is only on pc ultra setting which is a setting that is not used by games on console.

cuz their income depends on viewer engagement and controversy seem to be a good way to provoke viewers into interaction, such as liking/disliking and commenting vids. Tech related comunitites sometimes look pretty much like some kind of religious sect and things are blown out of proportions to the point of hating some unreleased hardware piece for being garbage cuz it's leaked specs are not as high as they should've been

Cause the option is there and people will stubbornly want to feel they can use it or max the game anyway

Yes, but no, It does matter in many games, the higher the vram amount, the more stutters the game will have when loading new textures or the texture streaming will be super slow, noticing pop in constantly.

@@metroplex29 I thought I said that? Maybe I could have expressed myself better. However it's not just texture loading. It can be everything from culling differences when turning your character around to the loading of calculations on the gpu like game "Ai" or destruction physics etc. But yes pop in is an additional problem.

While this is true, games will also use the vram they have available, just like your PC will use the system ram you have available. If a game needs say 6GB of ram to completely load a scene and you run it on a 24GB card, it has a high chance to use over 6GB because it's leaving the unused assets in ram until it needs to swap them out so it doesn't have to swap them back in later on the off chance it needs them again. It will not, however, cause a performance hit to not have a higher vram GPU and this is what idiots don't understand. It might cause a bit more temporary stutter on a new map load as stuff is swapped out but that will quickly resolve itself. This is why these type of ram videos are misleading. The same was true on videos for SLI back when it was still around. A bunch of misleading information got copypastaed and people used that info to try to run SLI with and then magically SLI sucked, just like everyone said it would. No, they just were clueless about how to use SLI properly. It always worked fine, it was a PEBKC issue.

@@JathraDH erm have you seen Hogwarts Legacy on a sub 6GB card? the textures are not even loaded because there aint enough VRAM for them.

@@sjneow I've played HL with my gtx 1660 super and I don't remember having any problems at high settings.

no amount of pixels can save a smudgy, low contrast, compression artifact loaded, badly layered image. making every pixel count is an artform.

I'm trying to take this attitude. I bought mine during the shortage and it needs to last a while. I play at 1080p so that helps.

I'm still on a 1050TI and will continue to play at (up to) 4k with motion interpolation to 120Hz till i played every game in my backlog that it still can run. It's probably going to take ~1 more year and then i'll have a lot of "new" games i can play at max settings^^ By limiting what games you play you can find some Indie-gems you wouldnt have played else way. It's like when you where a kid and only had a Nintendo with few games.

It's not really pointless though, yes sure it has "only" 8gb vram, but the power consumption is far lower than the 3060ti. For 1080P is enough. Simply stop playing poorly optimized games(mostly triple A)

@@plompudu2529Some of the best gaming experiences I've had were indie games. Inside was awesome, nothing has topped that for me in years.

That doesn't mean much. Games use the vram when is there to store extra assets. But they don't necessary need all that vram. They just use it since is there.

Is that allocation or actual usage on VRAM?

@@mitu123Copperallocation

@@MrRoro582 Ah, then that makes sense.

Series S have 8gb shared memory which games can use and need to be used as RAM and VRAM.

@@Extreme96PL the series S actually has 10gb of shared vram (2 allocated for OS, 8 allocated for games)

@@FreshStew i know but like you said 2GB is for OS and its very slow while 8gb is fast and for games.

@@Extreme96PL i don't think consoles have slow memory. Is all vram. They don't use any normal ram.

@@SIPEROTH You can see in XSS specs that 10gb is split between 8gb of fast memory and 2gb of slow memory. Its not all VRAM you still need to load OS and game's data related to CPU tasks. Is someone told you that consoles use all memory for VRAM he was wrong consoles never did that and so far still dont do that. Only thing that is worth to mention is that you dont need to duplicate data that goes to VRAM in RAM like on PC because consoles have shared memory. Technically PC with 16gb RAM have equal amount of PS5 and XSX but due to different architecture on PC memory management is different(you have VRAM on GPU) and if someone make port on PC and wants it to be good in terms of memory management game's memory and streaming system needs to be rewritten. Thats what for example Nixxess did in Spiderman PC port they made memory managment almost from scratch Naughty Dog did something similar probably in recent patches in TLOU combined probably with more PC friendly assets compression because at launch TLOU just used PS5 dev kit compression which dont work good on PC.

In 2015 we joke about can it run crysis. In 2023 we joke about can it run cyberpunk💀

@@Dayn-El But can it run hogwarts?

@@Dayn-El awnser is no a 4090 cant run cyberpunk at 8k at max settings its 1fps gaming but with some ai features its 40-48fps all less then 60fps isnt a great deal so 8k high? yes this works fine but not maxed settings! :D

There's another solution besides giving up on playing newer games: settle with a lower graphic settings. Honestly I play games because of how fun they are, not how fucking photorealistic they look. I'm fine with playing Cyberpunk with my piss poor RTX 2060 laptop even though I can only play it with 30 fps at most, but at least I'm having fun with it.

​@@wzx6x6z6wbro i also have rtx 2060 laptop and I can play on ultra settings with 30+ fps

Stream from system ram or ssd instead

@@samgee500 pcs aren't consoles you are asking for alot of latency and dropped frames.

Yeah words.

" By now 12GB of vram should be entry level, 16GB midrange, 24GB high-end, 32-48 should be prosumer/enthusiast. The thing is if they release cards with that much VRam now, people won't by the next gen, if there was a 32GB 4090, no one will buy the 5090." And that makes sense to you? clown

@@nightvision3182 saying that 12gb should be entry level is wild bro my 4gb card is doing just fine 💀

You must consider that most dev studios make games considering that they will be run on consoles. ps4/xb1 had 8GB of ram and ps5/xbseries have 16 and 10/16 respectively, so it makes sense that they make games with that amount of memory as a target. Also consoles have a bigger market share, and PC gamers have on average most varied system, some having systems as old as 10 years, so optimizing for PC at the cost of consoles doesn't seem the smartest idea (and I say this as someone that plays only on console/steamdeck and my PC is 7 years old, i5-6600K and GTX1070 with 8GB of VRAM).

@@TheShitpostExperience I think you missed the point, console games are demanding more on PC than on consoles. The new engines i.e UE5 are expecting much higher Vram usage, so it's like go to console or buy a high end card/cpu to play PC games. This is what they are going towards, it may not be the case overall right now but just look in 2 years time. This was not the case in the past. So now someone getting anything with less than 16gb WILL need to upgrade in 2 years time to play new games are high/highish settings and probably 20gb for max. There is always a lag from engine developments to proper game utilisation, so I'm looking at whats coming, the software engines are more demanding than most of the mid-range and below market for AAA gaming currently available. This is why getting 4060 for example makes no sense.

​@@RavenZahadoom To be fair, the reason someone may need more than 8GB of VRAM right now are because high quality textures (made for 4K resolutions) are being added to the games, which didn't happen 10 years ago, for example dark souls 3, that's why playing it on 4K resolution may only use like 4GB of VRAM vs a game with true 4K using up to 6 or 7, and if you add to this high or ultra graphics qualities, the VRAM needed may jump up to 8 or more. UE5 actually tries to solve some of the issues this can cause (specially in games where a lot of stuff is rendered at once, such as open world games) by using nanite to simplify poly and texture rendering. On the other hand Lumen is a tool for realistic lightning which taxes more the system (lumen is the UE5 version of raytracing), so disabling that on UE5 games may ease up on the GPU. I think it's unfair to blame engines (specially ones that are still on their first year of release) for not having the same performance of a game that uses an engine that is 10 years old for games that were meant to be played on 720p or 1080p. Current mid/high tier GPUs having less than 16GB of VRAM is a scam, specially at the prices they are released. And blaming devs for making games targeted at current gen hardware is dumb. I won't tell you to buy a 7800X3D+4090 PC to play current gen games, that's absurd, you would be better off buying a PS5 or an Xbox X, they cost a fraction of the cost.

@@TheShitpostExperience And this is my point: "I won't tell you to buy a 7800X3D+4090 PC to play current gen games, that's absurd, you would be better off buying a PS5 or an Xbox X, they cost a fraction of the cost." this is what the push is, want the top end of gaming? get the top end of hardware, this was not the case in the past apart from the very early days of 3d gaming, when for a period you pretty much had to get a 3dfx card to game while everything else on the market was a 2d card. But maybe I didn't make it clear, I wasn't only talking about the software side, the hardware guys are just as much to blame, but seen as Vex covered that side, I wanted to zoom in on the software side. In anycase I think we are actually agreeing with each other but coming from different angles.

Me too!

This, and also shared memory will be used too if you hit the ceiling of vram, itll eat some of system memory (though i dont know about this in ddr5, but in previous systems, when this happens, we will see major stutters) the hardware communication isnt great for pc unlike game consoles that is optimized to communucate well on the default settings

We don't need to. Games are made to played on consoles, so VRAM you need is RAM in console. Currently 16Gb VRAM is enough.

I have the 10gb 3080 and I get around 35 fps in cyberpunk with 4k ultra settings ray tracing and path tracing. I keep dls on auto. But if I spend any time in the inventory menu I have to reload or the game drops to around 20 fps until I reload. I'm thinking it's a vram issue. But hey I'm OK with it.

@@haroldfranklin3670 You're having such problems and you still haven't dropped the graphic settings from Ultra to High-Medium? Must be a masochist.

you can play roblox tho

@@ImTriumph i actually have a gtx 960 now with 2gb ram and no. roblox is hard to run.

That would be so nice. But sadly, the manufacturers of these cards would lose their precious revenue, so that's an automatic no from them.

there is a great reason why we went away from socketed VRAM on GPU's; those brackets cost money, are point of failure from both oxidation and mechanical failure and current GDDR is tuned for soldered to PCB applications

in theory yes, but that also adds latency which kinda defeat the purpose

That actually was a thing, my ATI mach 64 back in the 90's had 1MB video ram but had aditional chip sokets so you could upgrade it to 4MB.

I said that until I tried 21:9 3440x1440.

@@HeathBlythe Yeah, but for a display this size you, once again, need to spend even more on a good graphics card that you confidently know will handle that resolution.

The 3060 was aimed at 1080p. It can do 1440p, you're taking it beyond what it was meant for. This is a "you" problem, you don't know what you're doing.

@@chrispappas3750 good point there, I'm a 3060 owner but I play at 1080p due to my display being far from me so I can't see pixels thus I don't need to push 1440p. This channel has helped me understand why we should change resolution in one of his other videos.

Not to mention cache to reduce bus traffic.

No not really. I can play Battlefield 1 on my 2060 with over 100fps on Max settings. The finals on all low looks way worse and I cannot even get 60 on all low. Red Dead 2 can be played on high settings using 5.2gb VRAM while looking better than new games on all low. Worse performance and more VRAM usage should not be accepted by saying "just lower the settings". Using the steam hardware survey we can see that a majority of people do not have more than 8GB VRAM, and most GPU's people own are not even that powerful. Developers should optimize their games, to the best of their ability before releasing it. I do not expect to play ultra settings. I want to be able to play games at 60 fps high or medium settings or lower the settings for more fps. And people who bought a 3070 which was a $600 card should not be forced to lower settings (at 1080p) because developers cannot optimize their games.

@@cxngo8124 I had checked newest games. They look similar on low and old hardware can support them. Also, developers develop on consoles first as base standard due to their popularity.

@@REgamesplayer what new games are you talking about. For me it's bf2042, MW2, Hogwarts legacy, Dead Space, The Finals etc. There is a bug difference between low and medium when you have to use something like DLSS on balanced to get playable fps. Hogwarts legacy in general doesn't even look that good compared to other titles, MW2 looks like MW2019 but runs worse, Dead Space did a good job so I give it and bf2042 looks worse than bf1. If they don't care about making there game have a good performance to visuals ratio I dont care about buying the game till its on sale years down the line when they have updated the game.

The problems start appearing when the highest end card available struggles to run modern games in 4k, like immortals of aevum. This is due to shitty optimization (look at his latest few videos)

@@M_CFV It is difficult to tell without objective metrics. Immortals of Aevum is UE5 game. Maybe all new games are inherently demanding. In order to judge, first we need to see graphically demanding game which would be optimized. Furthermore, we got one shitty generation of video cards both from Nvidia and AMD. This generation barely pushed needle forwards while games had a massive requirements jump due to games being built for PS5 now (this is why they all suddenly need more than 8 GB of VRAM) and adoption of UE5 (which is why some games gotten so demanding). If Nvidia would not had raised each generation by a tier, picture would be different. Imagine RTX 4060 Ti being RTX 4070 and RTX 4090 costing as much as RTX 4080. Picture would be completely different. Furthermore, it is not unheard that new games practically demand flagship products to run well. Crysis was another game. It was well optimized, but required future gen hardware to run. If you would look up old benchmarking videos, you would see that games would run at around 60 FPS with high end cards for the time. So, part of the problem is that people have memory length span of a gold fish.

I was crying for more ram since 2018. If you will get a new card get at least 16GB, new games will demand it.

Imagine a 3070Ti or below with 8gb then

@@ShoteR_Omega I'm glad I didn't get a 3070 like I was supposed to. Instead going for a 12-16GB gpu next.

A) RAM is relatively cheap. B) if you’re spending £1200 on a PC, why not expect it to be better then a crappy £450 console? C) consoles typically play their generation of games on low to medium settings, usually always. PS5 and Series X can barely render 1800p/3k 30fps which is probably why there’s rumours of pro models in the works. Game assets require multiple high resolution textures to load like metallic, normal and bump maps. Less ram, more blur, it’s that simple. And for something so cheap, why settle?

Ram/memory is dirt cheap. Nvidia is purposely limiting the amount of ram they're putting on their cards. It's obviously planned obsolescence.

I have the sapphire nitro version (I always go for that brand, love them). Play with a masssssivley modded cyberpunk on ultra settings with zero issues. Such an awesome card.

Go for cosair vengeange 32gb

If you need more ram, just slot in an extra 16GB? Did the same in my rig from 2017. Sure it's only 3200MT sticks, cuz that's the fastest the mobo can handle but I paid less then $40 for it.

@@jadedrivers6794 nah i got a paired sticks. If you do this just make sure both sticks are from the same brand and have the same mhrz speed. Simple knowlege.

It was more directed at the OP, but yes you are right. Funny thing is I paid close to $200 for the Gskill Ripjaws V F4-3200 kit back in 2017 cuz memory prices exploded back then in Europe and they were the fastest available. Now the same kit is dirt cheap luckily.

I can't decide between 3080ti 12gb and 3090 24gb LoL. Some say 12gb should be enough. Others say 16gb is the sweet spot for the next 3-4 years.

@@thewebheadgt WIth 24GB you won't have to worry about it at all until the GPU itself is not powerful enough to run the games optimally

@@thewebheadgt if it’s not a lot extra I would go the 3090 over the 3080Ti personally.

I also bought 3090, didn't buy it for games but it's quite great to not have to worry about whether I can run a game or not

so true, exactly what I did; i bought my 3090 for £500, how much was yours?

Glad to see more and more people respecting Arc cards. There are many of us!

@@noelchristie7669 It's perfect for my primary use case as an editing rig. For creative workloads, coupled with a 12900k and lots of DDR5 I think it's going to be fantastic. Excited to see how they exploit hardware acceleration.

thats a good choice

1080ti is still a beast!

Just because it's allocated doesn't mean it's actually being used, minecraft can be set to use 20 of 32gb and it will allocate 20gb but use 12gb.

I was wondering too, like how? Maybe he should have done a couple of runs tried some other apps as a variable (in case the app's monitoring was bad)

Yeah this is spot on and what I think as well.

12gb is not "entry level" when it costs $500 on average

something like that, people thinking they are fine with 8~12gb for 4k assets is just crazy, the same 8~12gb they would use at 1080p, which is half the quality.

Dude same lmao 😂

I think later on this year, RX 6800 will be at the price of 340 to 370 dollars.

Same card, same boat. 2000 series brought little to no improvement (ray tracing was, and continues to be, a gimmick). Something like 12% improvement, wow. For more money. 😐 3000 series was better, but still too expensive, and the crypto bubble didn't help either. Only now these are under their MSRP, by a few percentages. Pathetic. 4000 series is a flop, all across the board. 1-2 tiers shifting in naming AND a higher price. They started out promising with 4090 then nosedived. Nvidia, duck you! If they don't get their shit pricing in check with the 5000 series, that's gonna be another skip.

@@zdspider6778 there's actually a Used 6800 asus TUF model for 330$ in my place but my CPU isn't powerful enough to drive it and i only have a 1080p monitor so I'll wait a bit more til i can upgrade my CPU and GPU at the same time (cpu is R5 2600)

@@mohamedrafik9271 I sure hope so because I would buy a RX 6800 at under 400 bucks.

you actually need more consoles dont have a heavy operating system on top and games on consoles because its all the same hardware can be optimized much better.

There's a sharpen+ filter from Nvidia, looks better and enhances texture clarity but it does come with a performance impact. Alternatively, you can add AMD CAS through reshade, it is the best sharpening filter I've seen with no performance impact.

Damm, that's an ok price! Enjoy your card, mate 😄

@@ThisIsLau Thanks! I am so excited I had my power supply and motherboard go with it so I have been upgrading piece by piece. Only thing left is the ram, case, SSD, Fans :P

@@cheetahfurry9107 Good luck with it! What are the case plans? 👀

@@ThisIsLau Thinking the new Lin Li version of the Y-60 or the new Thermaltake tower

@@cheetahfurry9107 480 bucks is how much I would spend on a 4070 so that's a nice deal!

The 3060 can barely handle games at low/medium at 1080p how tf you even consider streaming on that 🤣

I don't get it. I have 4060 8gb and it runs Alan Wake 2 1440p high-medium (optimized) settings DLSS balanced in 80+ fps. No stutters, no missing textures, nothing. And this game is notorious for how heavy it is on gpu. I mean, I think I'd get problems if I tried 4k, but 4060 is not powerful enough for that anyway, so it's not vram that would be the issue.

Oh yeah that's true about that when it comes to VRAM.

"takes up 20 GB at 4K ultra" AKA too damn much, that maxes out literally anything that isn't an RTX XX90.

@@jaronmarles941 Yep, pretty wild!

@@jaronmarles941 Indeed. You're gonna need enthusiast class GPUs to max out games at 4K.

not as long as you'd hope. in 2 years time 16gb vram would be like 16gb dram now for computers, the standard and the mininum you'd want when buying a new laptop or pc today. Today, as of now no one should be buying any gpus with less than 8gb of vram, and if you have a gpu that has less than 8gb vram sell it off immediately

​@@kenhew4641true vram=ram basically

No, no, you're being ironic... 'cause if not: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, LOOK AT THE TYPICAL SLOP CONSUMER AND IT'S BEHAVIOR, IT'S IRL BODY IS OBVIOUS BUT YT TOS WON'T LET ME SAY

$400-600 isn't decently cheap for a lot of people. Having that said I been buying $400+ bucks gpus for years(my last one was $427 bucks) so I might as well go for a 16GB one next year.

i bought rx6800xt specifically for longevity. i am fine with 50-60 fps at 1080p. i think it is good to go for at least 10 years or so for me since i don't mind playing on medium either.