I only have 11GB.. I want more.. Why NVIDIA equipped the 2080Tis with the same amount of VRAM as the 1080Tis? They should have put at least 16..

I honestly expected 22-24GB on the 2080Ti but was disappointed when it released with only 11, it should have for the price they are asking.

To be fair, DRAM was extremely expensive at the time they were designing those cards, but yeah you'd think they could have added more for a $1200 card, especially when AMD is selling a card with 16 GB of HBM2 for $700 (though, to be fair again, they are probably losing money by doing that, or at least not making any profit).

vlad01 wrote:

I honestly expected 22-24GB on the 2080Ti but was disappointed when it released with only 11, it should have for the price they are asking.

At least they could have opted for something in-between - 16-18GBs would have been sufficient for the 2080ti so that the Titan RTX's VRAM would make more sense.
And this is precisely the reason NVidia is not going to see a single cent from me unless they release something that is worth it. (Unless I win the lottery and buy a Titan RTX ).
On the other hand I like this questionnaire: It comes to show that not all people are willing (or can afford) to have monster GPUs. Which is a good thing as Space Engineer (and other game devs) will try even harder to squeeze better visuals on less memory and may even have the power to influence the market and the big companies like NVidia to reconsider their pricing policies.
As for the 2nd part of the above sentence I have my doubts. But its good to hope for the better! After all hope is free and dies last!

N0B0DY wrote:

Source of the post On the other hand I like this questionnaire: It comes to show that not all people are willing (or can afford) to have monster GPUs.

What it shows is that only 8% of respondents do not meet the minimum VRAM requirement for 0.990, and only 27% do not meet the recommended requirement (i.e. 73% of respondents have 4 GB or more of VRAM). So even with the increased VRAM demands of 0.990, the vast majority of people can still run it. Honestly I'm surprised to find that so many people do have so much VRAM on their cards. If your point is that not all people have 8+ GB, then obviously they don't, and no one would expect otherwise, but the fact that 34% do have that much means that it's not all that rare. Certainly more common than I would have expected.

EDIT: The results as of now:

This:

N0B0DY wrote:

Source of the post And this is precisely the reason NVidia is not going to see a single cent from me unless they release something that is worth it. (Unless I win the lottery and buy a Titan RTX ).

On the other hand I like this questionnaire: It comes to show that not all people are willing (or can afford) to have monster GPUs. [Which is a good thing] as Space Engineer (and other game devs) will try even harder to squeeze better visuals on less memory and may even have the power to influence the market and the big companies like NVidia to reconsider their pricing policies.

Well said.

I added a poll about display resolution:
http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=512&p=28040#p28040

HarbingerDawn wrote:

N0B0DY wrote:

Source of the post On the other hand I like this questionnaire: It comes to show that not all people are willing (or can afford) to have monster GPUs.

What it shows is that only 8% of respondents do not meet the minimum VRAM requirement for 0.990, and only 27% do not meet the recommended requirement (i.e. 73% of respondents have 4 GB or more of VRAM). So even with the increased VRAM demands of 0.990, the vast majority of people can still run it. Honestly I'm surprised to find that so many people do have so much VRAM on their cards. If your point is that not all people have 8+ GB, then obviously they don't, and no one would expect otherwise, but the fact that 34% do have that much means that it's not all that rare. Certainly more common than I would have expected.

EDIT: The results as of now:

► Show Spoiler

27% is not insignificant. It is almost 1/3 of the sample. Ok it is less than that but still it is significant IMHO.
Also yes, I was referring to those having 8GB or more. Which constitute a surprisingly a 34%! So clearly more & more people are investing on high-end, multi-gigabyte cards.
On the other hand the VRAM requirements (both speed & quantity) have increased exponentially since the dawn of the GPU from the late 90's (20 year period). It is not easy for many people to keep up with this with every generation of new GPUs. Developers and programmers are faced with the task of trying to optimize GPU VRAM usage with their apps.  And hardware companies want to maximize their profits out of all of this..

Macronicus wrote:

I have 512 mb of vram. But I can run 980.

Coincidentally, My HD 6470M with only 512MB of VRAM, too. but at 1366×768 resolution, 0.980e running FPS is not too bad (0.980e FPS looks like 0.980 higher)

gtx 1060 3GB

Is this good?

[color=#000000][size=150][font=Helvetica]https://files.catbox.moe/rz6j21.jpg[/font][/size][/color]

Stellarator wrote:

This:

N0B0DY wrote:

Source of the post And this is precisely the reason NVidia is not going to see a single cent from me unless they release something that is worth it. (Unless I win the lottery and buy a Titan RTX ).

On the other hand I like this questionnaire: It comes to show that not all people are willing (or can afford) to have monster GPUs. [Which is a good thing] as Space Engineer (and other game devs) will try even harder to squeeze better visuals on less memory and may even have the power to influence the market and the big companies like NVidia to reconsider their pricing policies.

Well said.

NVidia like other crony corporations have draconian policies which now also applies to journalists and disclosure.  So I'm sticking with my 6 GB 1060 GTX for awhile.

Geforce 940MX 4gb.

It runs space engine well, but it has some hiccup moments. I'm using a dell inspiron 15 7000