AMD Says You Don't Need More VRAM
-
The tweet was specifically talking about their $299 card that also has a 16Gb version. OP is shitstirring for clicks.
-
You can confidently say that this is fine for most consumers today. There really isn’t a great argument that this will serve most consumers well for the next 3 to 5 years.
People have been saying that for years, my 8gb card is chugging along just fine. The race to vram that people were expecting just hasn’t happened. There’s little reason to move on from 1080p and the 75+ million ps5s aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
There’s no NEED to move on from 1080p, but there are a lot of reasons.
I wouldn’t even object to his position on 1080p if he said “the RX 5700 is fine for most users, don’t waste your money and reduce e-waste”.
He’s telling consumers that they should expect to pay a premium price to be playing a slightly better than 2019 experience until 2028 or 2030. There are gullible people who won’t understand that he’s selling snake oil.
-
There’s no NEED to move on from 1080p, but there are a lot of reasons.
I wouldn’t even object to his position on 1080p if he said “the RX 5700 is fine for most users, don’t waste your money and reduce e-waste”.
He’s telling consumers that they should expect to pay a premium price to be playing a slightly better than 2019 experience until 2028 or 2030. There are gullible people who won’t understand that he’s selling snake oil.
He’s telling consumers that they should expect to pay a premium price
What exactly do you expect him to say? Get the same GPU, but with more vram, at no extra cost?
If you want more performance, you pay more, that’s the way it’s always worked, and he’s correct in that 8gb is good enough for most people.
-
The tweet was specifically talking about their $299 card that also has a 16Gb version. OP is shitstirring for clicks.
The tweet was specifically talking about their $299 card that also has a 16Gb version. OP is shitstirring for clicks.
This is one of the most uninformed comments I’ve read so far.
I shared this vid to try and spread awareness that Frank Azor, AMD’s Chief Architect of Gaming Solutions and Gaming Marketing, of whom made that needless badfaith comment as it holds back the advancement of gaming.
AMD’s 9060XT 16GB ($350) released recently but we’ve yet to see if they’re able to provide them to consumers at AMD’s own stated MSRP price of $350 USD; something that was unmet in their previous launch.
For PC building, you walk around this show Computex and talk to case manufacturers and cooler manufacturers, and they’ll sync up their launches to Nvidia GPU launches cause they don’t sell things in between at the same velocity. And so if Nvidia launches a GPU and the interest falls off a cliff because people just feel like they either can’t get a card or they get screwed if they get a card, it I think actively damages the hobby.
I remember even when the RTX 3070 came out and I gave that a positive review I said it was a great value product because by all metrics/measurements that we had at the time it was a good product. We had very few examples that we could point to where 8 gigabytes wasn’t enough. Of course the competing card the upcoming competing card we knew had a 16 GB vram buffer so; it/that doesn’t necessarily make that a valid thing. Like it can be like if you had a 32GB buffer now on that product, you’d be like “Well it’s got enough vram”. It’s probably nothing.
…
But because we did see, and even when you were looking at like dedicated used vram, a lot of games like 7, 7 and a ½GB [usage of vram increasing]. So you could see it creeping up over the years from like 4, 5, 6, 7; you could see where it was trending right? Which is why I always find it funny when people [say] “Why are we using more than 8 now? Like 8 should be enough”.- First quote paragraph from Steve Burke of Gamers Nexus, second and third quote paragraph from Steve Walton of Hardware Unboxed
- Is Nvidia Damaging PC Gaming? feat. Gamers Nexus
- if you replace Nvidia’s name in the provided quotes with AMD it still holds the same force in that AMD would ruin the gaming landscape for the benefit of only themselves at the cost of literally everyone else.
Clicks literally has no value to me as what I care about the most is trying to inform gamers so that people aren’t exploited by badfaith actors, especially hardware manufacturers as they dictate the limitations that game developers must work within. I’m not paid or affiliated with any of the hardware manufacturers.
shitstirring for clicks
“Shitstirring for clicks” literally does nothing for me. It would actually be detrimental for my reputation if I were to do so.
No one should get a free pass if behaving badly. If Nvidia acts poorly they should be called out. Same for AMD, same for Intel. 0 exceptions.
-
He’s telling consumers that they should expect to pay a premium price
What exactly do you expect him to say? Get the same GPU, but with more vram, at no extra cost?
If you want more performance, you pay more, that’s the way it’s always worked, and he’s correct in that 8gb is good enough for most people.
No, I expect him to gaslight naive consumers. Which is what he did. I just don’t get why others are defending it.
In this case, at 1080p it’s barely more performance for a lot more money. And if we’re falling back on “good enough for most people” then an RX 5700 or 6600 is also “good enough for most people”.
It’s a free market, he can sell a low value product to suckers. That’s his right. You’re free to defend him and think it’s not scummy. But it’s scummy, and hopefully most people who know better are going to call it out.
-
Could you please help me understand the reason behind this? -
Here’s a comment I made in this same post here that provides some details what’s happening:
https://lemmy.ca/comment/16934365 -
This really feels like AMD’s “don’t you guys have phones” moment.
Did you read the tweet? It said most people don’t need more, but that they offer a 16gb version if you do. That’s completely reasonable.
-
I can agree that the tweet was completely unnecessary, and the naming is extremely unfair given both variants have the exact same brand name. Even their direct predecessor does not do this.
The statement that AMD could easily sell the 16 GiB variant for 50 dollars less and that $300 gives “plenty of room” is wildly misleading, and from that I can tell they’ve not factored in BOM at all.
They blanketly state that GDDR6 is cheap and I’m not sure how they figure.
They’ve had same sku different vram for a while. 480 4gb and 8gb.
As long as the core counts and such are the same it’s fine.
If vram isn’t a bottleneck performance should be equal
-
They’ve had same sku different vram for a while. 480 4gb and 8gb.
As long as the core counts and such are the same it’s fine.
If vram isn’t a bottleneck performance should be equal
As some commentators have mentioned, that was mostly fine at the time of Ellesmere (2016ish?) where games wouldn’t so frequently shoot past that limit. In today’s environment, we find that a much higher proportion of games will want more than 8 GiB of VRAM, even at lower resolutions.
Notably, the most recent predecessor in this sort of segment (RX 7600 series) used the XT suffix to denote a different SKU to customers, though it’s worth mentioning that the XT was introduced quite a bit later in the RDNA3 product cycle.
