I knew this day would come, but my GPU is finally struggling to run new games within its 8GB of VRAM, even at lower settings and resolutions.This is not inherently a problem, things do move on after all.But, it couldn't have happened at a worse time.
With memory and GPU prices seemingly climbing every day, the prospect of buying new hardware is off the table for all but the most well-heeled or fiscally-irresponsible among us.So how can you still have a good time with 8GB of VRAM? With tempered expectations, I've learned to accept some compromises in newer titles.The console conundrum Things don't quite seem to add up Close You might be wondering why games have higher VRAM requirements when the consoles still have exactly the same amount of total memory they did when they launched years ago.
Surely, a game released for consoles today should not need more VRAM than games that launched on the same hardware back then? The thing is, consoles like the PS5 have a unified memory architecture.The CPU and GPU both use the same pool of memory.This means the share of RAM for the CPU and GPU can be dynamically adjusted.
If a game needs 9GB or 10GB of VRAM, then it can have it as long as other game data that would normally be in system RAM on a PC allows for it.On top of this, developers can be more efficient with a unified pool of memory.Some types of data are often duplicated between system RAM and VRAM on a PC while playing a game.
You don't need to do that on a console, since both the CPU and GPU can directly read the same memory locations.So even though you might have a PC with 16GB of RAM and 8GB of VRAM, a PS5 with just 16GB of total memory can still outperform it when it comes to texture quality.Which means if you have an 8GB GPU, you have a hard limit to deal with that games optimized for consoles don't.
Texture quality settings don't mean what they used to It's just, like, a label, man The thing about video game graphics settings is that they don't really have any sort of objective meaning."High" or "Medium" texture detail means whatever that developer decides it means.One game's "Ultra" might look like another's "high." So, just because a new game you're playing forces you to choose "low" or "medium" textures to fit into an 8GB frame buffer doesn't mean that your games are going to look any worse on your system than the ones you've been playing so far.
Yes, a new game may have raised the ceiling for texture quality, but you're not getting a visual downgrade just because the textures that used to be high are now low.There's another wrinkle to this as well.Some modern games have texture settings that don't seem to result in any difference in visual quality at first.
I was recently watching a Digital Foundry video on , and they noted the settings affected texture streaming and the texture budget, rather than texture quality.So the game will still show high-quality textures on important things like your main character on Medium or Low, but you might see textures pop in or worse detail closer to the camera than on higher settings.Playing at 1080p on a 4K screen with lots of AA It's an older standard, but it still checks out I mainly play PC games with my gaming laptop connected to my 4K mini LED, and there are various ways you can make its mid-range RTX 4060 work on such a high-resolution screen.
NVIDIA's DLSS upscaling is the go-to solution when stretching a 1080p to 1440p card like this to 4K, and with older games it works great.However, with newer games, I've started playing them in 1080p and letting the TV itself do the perfect integer upscale 4K was designed for when it comes to FHD content.Instead of upscaling from 1080p to 4K using DLSS, I'm applying DLAA to the 1080p native frame and then letting the TV scale it.
Since DLSS and DLAA both have an impact on VRAM usage, with some newer games, I have personally found that DLAA at 1080p has better performance and less stuttering than DLSS 4K Performance mode.Yes, it's a softer image, but with DLAA sorting out the jaggies, I'm pretty happy with the end result.Your mileage may vary.
Forget about frame generation or ray tracing On reflection, maybe I don't need it after all Frame generation is a feature that's supposed to be for lowly cards like mine to take better advantage of high-refresh displays.It's not hard to get over 60fps at 1080p with an RTX 4060, so with frame generation you can hit a 120Hz level of motion smoothness without actually rendering that many frames.Unfortunately, frame generation has a VRAM cost.
In some games, I've found that turning it on causes stutter due to VRAM swapping, and so either I have to decrease texture detail, or just live with the lower frame rate.Ray tracing is another feature with a significant VRAM impact.You might think an RTX 4060 has no business turning ray tracing on, but there are plenty of games where it can handle RT shadows, or RT global illumination for a nice uplift in visual quality.
Unfortunately, activating just one RT feature means the VRAM now has to contain additional data structures needed to make the technology work.On the upside, adding more RT features increases render load, but you only need one copy of that RT data structure.Ironically, even though the GPU on my M4 Pro MacBook is less powerful than my 4060, I can run it with RT features and texture detail my PC can't, because of its 24GB of unified memory, which allow the GPU to access more VRAM.
Almost like a PlayStation 5.Related If you own any of these GPUs, it's time for an upgrade Don't fear the reaper...Posts 5 By Sydney Butler You can make it work These are just a few adjustments that have worked for me, not a set of instructions.
The truth is that different games behave differently when it comes to VRAM, and sometimes my DLAA 1080p trick works better, and other times DLSS Performance has the better result.So, the real point is not to see that your VRAM is 99% full when you try a new game, and just give up.Instead, experiment to see which features have the most VRAM impact, and dial them down for an acceptable visual tradeoff.
Read More
