Absolutely. Why pay more if less is good enough?

They are open about it, and give the option to get more RAM if you want it. Fine by me.

No one with a 4k monitor will by them anyway.

8GB VRAM is definitely a problem even at 1080p. There are already benchmarks showing this from various outlets. Not in every game of course, and it definitely hurts AAA mre than others. but it will get worse with time, and people buy GPUs to last several years, so it shouldn’t have a major issue on the day you buy it!

1. Why would they be buying a new card to play how they’re already playing?
2. What does the long term trend line look like?

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.

It’s ok if well informed consumers are fine with a compromise for their use case.

Misrepresenting the product category, and misleading less informed consumers to believe that it’s not a second rate product in the current generation is deeply anti-consumer.

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.