Then I don't know what the point was of your post claiming you don't understand why people want the higher framerates. You're getting the same high framerates. You're merely limiting them which adds nothing and might make the experience worse if you got a fast OLED screen with adaptive sync that can actually display these additional frames. If your hardware is already capable of displaying them then I don't know why you would set a limit to 120fps or especially 60fps. 60fps won't look as smooth as 120fps or 144fps on an OLED or 144Hz LCD.
I understand this part though I don't agree here either. Higher texture resolutions make a visible impact to the quality. More so than shadow quality and anti aliasing and the like. If you got a muddy texture somewhere then that's what sticks out. Well, depends if you're racing past a muddy texture in a car or if it's a walking simulator type of game. As long as you got the VRAM available better texture quality is a "free" visual upgrade.
I am starting to see issues now with VRAM on my older 10GiB 3080 with older titles as well, in one game I had to add custom VRAM texture streaming commands to the game's config so that it wouldn't crash to desktop within the first hour. Now it works on the highest textures with DLSS just fine but it was quite a headache to figure it out in the first place and fix it. There was one other last year where I did have to drop the texture 2 notches. I think it was a game in the DOOM series, probably the latest one from last year, whichever that was.
Hardware Unboxed does put it in relation to factors like pricing and the competition as well. The message is that Nvidia is nickel and diming customers from 8GiB 5060 TI's to the more expensive cards. I had a cheap MSI RX570 with 8GiB VRAM a long time ago... I'd rather have too much VRAM for a couple bucks more rather than too little. But I guess that's too much to ask when even previously included amperage load checking for the 12VHPWR was removed from the 5000 series to save a few cents per card in manufacturing so we get melting power connectors where manufacturers then blame the user with "you're plugging it in wrong!".
Anyways, I think Hardware Unboxed did show that it's a real issue:
Unless they screwed up their testing it's clear that the same card with 8GiB and with 16GiB performs very differently.
From what I see with my own graphics card the performance is still plenty with DLSS in 4k yet the limited VRAM is what's starting to give me troubles in select few games now. I don't want to make the mistake again and buy a 16GiB card in 2025 that's definitely plenty for a long time to come only to find out in a couple years that games are even worse optimized with VRAM leaks that games like Kingdom Come 2 exhibit and then run into issues because of it like I do now where I have to look up forum posts and figure out how to optimize VRAM usage for a particular game.
I should probably have gotten a 24GiB 3090 instead of the 3080 and then I'd be set for many more years to come. Instead I am now wanting to replace it but I see nothing worth buying. I don't want an overpriced 5080 that has the same amount of VRAM as the cheaper 5070 Ti and I'd really like a card that isn't known for risking a melting connector. The 5090 is overkill and too expensive anyways but nothing else seems like a substantial upgrade worth dropping a grand and more on. The 9070 XT is a joke and even though the older 7900 XTX ticks all of the boxes it seems a beefed up version of an older architecture that doubles as a space heater. Maybe I should get that since it won't risk a house fire at least.
