it always depends on the amount of vram, the game needs. textures in high resolution need a lot of vram. so it depends on the game and it is the age of the card (3090 ti) and not a lot of games need 16 gb and so surely not 24 gb. if you are able to adjust the vram usage of a game ingame, i would say 16 gb vram are a lot and enough. depends on your resolution you desire, too.

Originally posted by nasty r.:

it always depends on the amount of vram, the game needs. textures in high resolution need a lot of vram. so it depends on the game and it is the age of the card (3090 ti) and not a lot of games need 16 gb and so surely not 24 gb. if you are able to adjust the vram usage of a game ingame, i would say 16 gb vram are a lot and enough. depends on your resolution you desire, too.

I have an 5120x1440p resolution, looking at benchmarks seems like RX 9070 XT out performs the 3090 Ti slightly.

Which is weird, regarding the vram sizes and the resolution somewhat being GPU demanding.

oh! 5120x1440p resolution? buy at least a grafix board with least quality like rtx 5080. nothing less. you might regret. surely!

Originally posted by nasty r.:

oh! 5120x1440p resolution? buy at least a grafix board with least quality like rtx 5080. nothing less. you might regret. surely!

The price range between RX 9070 XT vs RTX 5080 doesn’t seem to be worth it for me.

I bought excellent used condition RX 9070 XT for $525 USD.

I don’t think dropping extra $400+ USD for slight fps boost with an RTX 5080 is reasonable.

Edit:

Also having the same VRAM in comparison.

"I bought excellent used condition RX 9070 XT for $525 USD."
you bought the right thing. it is in your budget and the rx 9070 xt is a monster.

;-D

Originally posted by The Man Himself:

What’s the point of vram then?

90 series can be bought as and sell pretty well as a cheap professional GPU or bedroom A.i enthusiast, VRAM is handy for that, kind of like what the Titan was a cheaper "prosumer" card.

what about RX 7900XT

At 5120×1440, 16 GB of VRAM is basically the bare minimum (I'd even call it insufficient) if you want to run modern AAA titles on high or max settings without stutters.

Even on 3440×1440 I’m already hitting 12–16 GB in games like TW3 Next-Gen, KCD2, GTA V Next Gen or Cyberpunk,
16–18 GB in Starfield and RDR2
around 18–20 GB in MSFS 2020/2024,
and well over 20 GB in Star Citizen. So your numbers aren’t exaggerated at all, that’s just where games are heading now.

Add another 40 to 50% more utilization @5120×1440 and you'll see that it will be basically impossible for you to play those games on high/ultra settings.

That’s why the whole "but the 9070 XT is newer" argument doesn’t really matter in this case. Sure, it performs close to a 3090 Ti in raw raster, sometimes even slightly above but the VRAM difference absolutely matters at ultrawide resolutions. Once you hit that 16 GB ceiling it doesn’t matter how new the architecture is you’ll run into shader stutter, texture pop-in, and inconsistent frametimes.
And DLSS 3 is still ahead of FSR 4 in motion clarity and overall stability in most titles or at least, on par.

If you were aiming for max settings at 5120×1440, the 3090 Ti with its 24 GB would’ve honestly been the safer long-term pick. And if you were looking for a strong budget-to-performance option with high VRAM, a 7900 XTX would’ve been perfect for you, tons of VRAM, really solid raster performance and much better suited for ultrawide AAA gaming than a 16 GB card.

edit:
Just my two cents but at that resolution I wouldn’t go below 20+ GB anymore if you want a smooth experience. It's a dangerous game you're playing. ^^