AMD defends RX 9060 XT 8GB, says majority of gamers have no use for more VRAM
AMD defends RX 9060 XT 8GB, says majority of gamers have no use for more VRAM
32 Comments
Call it differently then. That’s the scummy part.
I’d like it with 24 or 32gb
I don’t understand, 10GB would be barely more expensive and would actually make a case for a $300 price point.
So the 60/600/whatever cards are meant to target esports titles and lightweight indie games that the majority of people play? isn’t that what 50/500 skus were for??? And on top of that, Radeon 9000 series uses GDDR6 which has been dirt cheap since 2022-2023. I miss the days of the GTX 1060 and RX 580…
Are they assuming most gamers are just playing the top games on Steam? Which happen to be the most popular cos they run on anything?
Currently playing BF Labs play-test on PC and it’s using over 8GB. Can’t wait to see what the launch version utilizes.
Crack smoking in real time right here.
Well, statistically he is right, but there is a problem with communication regardless of his point.
It is true that statistically most applications used for gaming would not require more than 8Gb and most used ones on the market certainly dont need it.
However when you FUCKING NAME YOUR PRODUCT like that, there will be expectations, and what just happened is classical miscomunication between you and your customers.
Amount of Vram should be part of naming scheme in GPUs in all cases for the last 5 years. it should ALWAYS be printed on your GPU name.
what a bunch of clowns. 12gb should have been the new budget option years ago.
I mean this is the same dude that said 9070xt will be widely available for msrp, what do you expect.
Frank Azor used to be a great enthusiast guy during Alienware day. Why?
well atleast give it a different fkn name
He’s right about there being a market for it. However it’s deceiving to call it a 9060XT.
There is absolutely no reason to have the exact same name for a product but one costing more and having twice the capacity of something, VRAM in this case.
It was bullshit when 1060 had 3 and 6gb version, it is bullshit now.
While we can all agree that 8GB needs to die, the man is not actually wrong and there is a market for it still. While it would complicate the naming scheme, it would certainly be nice of them to give them different names.
The naming is so sketchy because at that price point you are more likely to get inexperienced buyers and builders (like parents buying their kids their first gaming computer) and because the card is gonna have a long winded name with only “8 GB” or “16 GB” at the end (after the ram clock speeds undoubtedly) the unsophisticated will mistakenly buy the cheapest one not realizing they could have gotten something with double the VRAM at nominal cost. Heck I made similar mistakes when I was starting out…
Sketchy..
Made a post about the consumerism in PCBuilding, how people keep convincing themselves to get a better PC despite it being proven that older GPUs are enough for the average gamer.
What is that fallacy called? “Most people have cards with 8 GB or less VRAM, therefore people don’t want any better” is a very obviously flawed argument that totally ignores not just that new products should support future use cases and not past ones, but also how most people will buy what they can afford, not what they would use if companies didn’t raise the prices for incremental upgrades like there’s no tomorrow all the time and cut corners every step of the way even after that.
Appeal to popularity might fit it, but I’m not sure if we can call it popular, necessarily.
Obviously playing at 1080p and Oblivion Remastered takes 9+Gb
I mean they aren’t wrong….. But that still doesn’t make it the right thing to do
but amd good nvidia bad intel bad
anyways, I hate the fact that its not a $200 gpu entry level gpu so that more people can upgrade to better hardware than before. AMD is leaving money on the table.
i agree we need more ram but for the entry level price (being what it is today) its not bad to have different ram options. also for 1080, dude is kinda right
LOL, if he really thinks that he isn’t a gamer. He’s right that a SLIGHT majority still play at 1080p or lower based on the latest steam charts but even when I had a 1080p 6 years ago I was limited to around medium graphics. Games are more demanding these days and literally nobody wants to have their game graphics at low. Well maybe if they play mobile games that are available on steam these days
They’re not wrong, but don’t call them the same name
LoL. I misread the “for system integrators to milk customers” bit and was like, “I know some folks call themselves a ‘system integrator’, but who calls themselves a ‘milk customer’?”
Frank Azor with another L take, why am I not surprised?
I side with AMD on this one. There is a significant demand for low end GPUs for people who just want to play games and don’t care about high frames or 4K or whatever. The 8GB cards work just fine for this at a far more reasonable price point. Saying that it’s deceptive for them to have the same name is a lazy argument. If your buying a product you know nothing about and don’t bother reading the spec’s and comparing then that’s on you.
Not buying it, AMD, though I *can* see the point.
I was running into trouble with my old RTX 2070 8GB at 1440p, but rarely at 1080p, and then I could drop settings a little. I don’t think anyone’s buying a “6” class card to run maxed.
Tbf i agree with both.
People will surely use this to scam others. But it’s also extremely easy to take note of VRAM when making a purchase.
And while it’s important to have enough VRAM, 1080p gaming simply doesn’t need more than 8 gigs.
Cards are named after their processing units. VRAM amount being on the name would be good but that is often determined by the distributors.