GPUs with 8GB VRAM are 2025's real budget trap
Let's be clear, this isn't about raw performance alone. As we pointed out during the launch of the RTX 5060, the problem lies less in core count or clock speeds, and more in how 8GB of VRAM caps your long-term usability. Even if the card is decent at 1080p right now, it's the kind of hardware decision you'll regret two years from now.
Recommended Videos
Take Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, a 2024 release that made headlines for its high system requirements. As per testing done by Computer Base, the game chews through VRAM at 1080p using ultra textures, forcing cards like the RTX 4060 and 4060 Ti 8GB to drop frames or crash entirely.
That's not just limited to a particular title, it's becoming the new norm. Games like The Last of Us Part I, Hogwarts Legacy, and Alan Wake 2 are similarly harsh on VRAM, especially at higher settings. And no, simply lowering textures doesn't always 'fix' the problem as it can still result in texture pop-in, long asset loading, and a generally compromised experience.
VRAM is the real limiting factor
The conversation around GPU performance often fixates on frames per second, but in 2025, VRAM capacity is increasingly the thing separating playable experiences from broken ones. When modern game engines request more than your card can handle, it results in poor performance including stutters and crashes.
It doesn't matter if your 8GB GPU technically has enough shader power, it becomes a glorified bottleneck.
Worse still, newer cards with 8GB are often misleadingly marketed. Nvidia's RTX 5060 and 5060 Ti (8GB variants) look appealing on paper, with Blackwell efficiency and support for DLSS 4 with multi-frame generation. But when they choke on big textures or fail to keep up in open-world games, the real-world experience often falls short.
AMD hasn't been much better. Recent cards like the RX 9070 XT and 9060 XT do bump up to 16GB, but the 8GB RX 9060 XT and even older options like the RX 7600, 6600 XT, and 6650 XT still populate store shelves with 8GB VRAM and tempting discounts.
False economy in 2025
It's easy to think you're saving money by buying an 8GB card, but that short-term gain quickly erodes. As games become more demanding and AI workloads become more memory-intensive, you'll end up running into performance walls sooner than you'd expect. That leads to either compromises like dropping settings or resolution, or spending more to replace your GPU sooner than planned.
If you're buying a card in 2025, aim for at least 12GB of VRAM, preferably 16GB if you want the system to stay relevant for 3–4 years. Cards like the RTX 5060 Ti (16GB), RTX 5070 (12GB), RX 9060 XT (16GB), and even some budget 7700 XT (12GB) models offer a far better long-term experience, even if they're a bit more expensive.
Exceptions to the rule?
Despite the growing irrelevance of 8GB GPUs in modern AAA gaming, there are still select scenarios where these cards make sense, provided the buyer understands their limitations. Esports titles like Valorant, League of Legends, and Counter-Strike 2 remain light on VRAM requirements and are designed to run at high frame rates even on modest hardware.
For gamers who stick to 1080p resolution and play older or well-optimized games, 8GB cards can still deliver decent results.
Similarly, budget-constrained builders, those with less than $300 to spend on a GPU, may find that 8GB cards are their only option unless they opt for second-hand GPUs with higher VRAM but lower efficiency and weaker features.
There are also workloads where VRAM isn't the primary bottleneck. Media-centric systems, such as HTPCs or dedicated streaming rigs, can benefit from the video encode/decode capabilities of modern 8GB cards, especially if AV1 support or low power draw is a priority. Small form factor (SFF) builds or compact office PCs often can't accommodate large or high-wattage GPUs, and in such contexts, a compact 8GB card may be the most practical choice.
Some users also rely on cloud services like GeForce Now or Adobe's AI-based rendering tools, where the heavy lifting is offloaded to remote servers. In these hybrid workflows, the local GPU serves more as a bridge than a workhorse, making an 8GB card a tolerable, if not an ideal solution.
These use cases won't apply to everyone, but they do highlight that there's still a narrow but valid market where 8GB GPUs haven't been completely left behind.
Final thoughts
The writing is on the wall: 8GB GPUs are no longer a smart buy in 2025. Between games that already exceed that memory envelope and hardware cycles moving quickly toward more demanding workloads, buying an 8GB card today is like buying a smartphone with 64GB of storage.
It technically works, but you'll regret it the moment you use it in the real world. If you want to build a PC that lasts, gives consistent performance, and doesn't force you to dial back settings in every new game, skip the 8GB options. It's no longer enough.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL): 'This Stock Should Be Up Much More,' Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. Cramer regularly discussed tech mega-cap Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) ahead of its earnings. The firm's shares have reversed course in July and are up by 1.9% year-to-date, primarily due to July's 9.9% gain. Before the report, Cramer was explicit in sharing that he regretted selling Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL)'s stock. This time, he discussed the firm's businesses and shared that the stock should be higher after the earnings: [GOOGL]'[On earnings report] Yeah, look cloud was important. I think the big focus is frankly, uh, that paid clicks picked up 4%. I mean I was thinking paid clips might be down, I was worried that I felt that this was the beginning of the erosion and the cannibalization versus Gemini. That was completely wrong. YouTube up 200 million. Really, really fantastic. . . .Look the story here is this that the more chips that they get, better they're doing. They have so much demand I was quite surprised. 20 New Technology Trends for 2024 'This stock should be up much more than that. While we acknowledge the potential of GOOGL as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
Forbes
38 minutes ago
- Forbes
OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.
As systems like ChatGPT move toward achieving legal privilege, the boundaries between identity, ... More memory, and control are being redefined, often without consent. When OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently stated that conversations with ChatGPT should one day enjoy legal privilege, similar to those between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer, he wasn't just referring to privacy. He was pointing toward a redefinition of the relationship between people and machines. Legal privilege protects the confidentiality of certain relationships. What's said between a patient and physician, or a client and attorney, is shielded from subpoenas, court disclosures, and adversarial scrutiny. Extending that same protection to AI interactions means treating the machine not as a tool, but as a participant in a privileged exchange. This is more than a policy suggestion. It's a legal and philosophical shift with consequences no one has fully reckoned with. It also comes at a time when the legal system is already being tested. In The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, the paper has asked courts to compel the company to preserve all user prompts, including those the company says are deleted after 30 days. That request is under appeal. Meanwhile, Altman's suggestion that AI chats deserve legal shielding raises the question: if they're protected like therapy sessions, what does that make the system listening on the other side? People are already treating AI like a confidant. According to Common Sense Media, three in four teens have used an AI chatbot, and over half say they trust the advice they receive at least somewhat. Many describe a growing reliance on these systems to process everything from school to relationships. Altman himself has called this emotional over-reliance 'really bad and dangerous.' But it's not just teens. AI is being integrated into therapeutic apps, career coaching tools, HR systems, and even spiritual guidance platforms. In some healthcare environments, AI is being used to draft communications and interpret lab data before a doctor even sees it. These systems are present in decision-making loops, and their presence is being normalized. This is how it begins. First, protect the conversation. Then, protect the system. What starts as a conversation about privacy quickly evolves into a framework centered on rights, autonomy, and standing. We've seen this play out before. In U.S. law, corporations were gradually granted legal personhood, not because they were considered people, but because they acted as consistent legal entities that required protection and responsibility under the law. Over time, personhood became a useful legal fiction. Something similar may now be unfolding with AI—not because it is sentient, but because it interacts with humans in ways that mimic protected relationships. The law adapts to behavior, not just biology. The Legal System Isn't Ready For What ChatGPT Is Proposing There is no global consensus on how to regulate AI memory, consent, or interaction logs. The EU's AI Act introduces transparency mandates, but memory rights are still undefined. In the U.S., state-level data laws conflict, and no federal policy yet addresses what it means to interact with a memory‑enabled AI. (See my recent Forbes piece on why AI regulation is effectively dead—and what businesses need to do instead.) The physical location of a server is not just a technical detail. It's a legal trigger. A conversation stored on a server in California is subject to U.S. law. If it's routed through Frankfurt, it becomes subject to GDPR. When AI systems retain memory, context, and inferred consent, the server location effectively defines sovereignty over the interaction. That has implications for litigation, subpoenas, discovery, and privacy. 'I almost wish they'd go ahead and grant these AI systems legal personhood, as if they were therapists or clergy,' says technology attorney John Kheit. 'Because if they are, then all this passive data collection starts to look a lot like an illegal wiretap, which would thereby give humans privacy rights/protections when interacting with AI. It would also, then, require AI providers to disclose 'other parties to the conversation', i.e., that the provider is a mining party reading the data, and if advertisers are getting at the private conversations.' Infrastructure choices are now geopolitical. They determine how AI systems behave under pressure and what recourse a user has when something goes wrong. And yet, underneath all of this is a deeper motive: monetization. But they won't be the only ones asking questions. Every conversation becomes a four-party exchange: the user, the model, the platform's internal optimization engine, and the advertiser paying for access. It's entirely plausible for a prompt about the Pittsburgh Steelers to return a response that subtly inserts 'Buy Coke' mid-paragraph. Not because it's relevant—but because it's profitable. Recent research shows users are significantly worse at detecting unlabeled advertising when it's embedded inside AI-generated content. Worse, these ads are initially rated as more trustworthy until users discover they are, in fact, ads. At that point, they're also rated as more manipulative. 'In experiential marketing, trust is everything,' says Jeff Boedges, Founder of Soho Experiential. 'You can't fake a relationship, and you can't exploit it without consequence. If AI systems are going to remember us, recommend things to us, or even influence us, we'd better know exactly what they remember and why. Otherwise, it's not personalization. It's manipulation.' Now consider what happens when advertisers gain access to psychographic modeling: 'Which users are most emotionally vulnerable to this type of message?' becomes a viable, queryable prompt. And AI systems don't need to hand over spreadsheets to be valuable. With retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the model can shape language in real time based on prior sentiment, clickstream data, and fine-tuned advertiser objectives. This isn't hypothetical—it's how modern adtech already works. At that point, the chatbot isn't a chatbot. It's a simulation environment for influence. It is trained to build trust, then designed to monetize it. Your behavioral patterns become the product. Your emotional response becomes the target for optimization. The business model is clear: black-boxed behavioral insight at scale, delivered through helpful design, hidden from oversight, and nearly impossible to detect. We are entering a phase where machines will be granted protections without personhood, and influence without responsibility. If a user confesses to a crime during a legally privileged AI session, is the platform compelled to report it or remain silent? And who makes that decision? These are not edge cases. They are coming quickly. And they are coming at scale. Why ChatGPT Must Remain A Model—and Why Humans Must Regain Consent As generative AI systems evolve into persistent, adaptive participants in daily life, it becomes more important than ever to reassert a boundary: models must remain models. They cannot assume the legal, ethical, or sovereign status of a person quietly. And the humans generating the data that train these systems must retain explicit rights over their contributions. What we need is a standardized, enforceable system of data contracting, one that allows individuals to knowingly, transparently, and voluntarily contribute data for a limited, mutually agreed-upon window of use. This contract must be clear on scope, duration, value exchange, and termination. And it must treat data ownership as immutable, even during active use. That means: When a contract ends, or if a company violates its terms, the individual's data must, by law, be erased from the model, its training set, and any derivative products. 'Right to be forgotten' must mean what it says. But to be credible, this system must work both ways: This isn't just about ethics. It's about enforceable, mutual accountability. The user experience must be seamless and scalable. The legal backend must be secure. And the result should be a new economic compact—where humans know when they're participating in AI development, and models are kept in their place. ChatGPT Is Changing the Risk Surface. Here's How to Respond. The shift toward AI systems as quasi-participants—not just tools—will reshape legal exposure, data governance, product liability, and customer trust. Whether you're building AI, integrating it into your workflows, or using it to interface with customers, here are five things you should be doing immediately: ChatGPT May Get Privilege. You Should Get the Right to Be Forgotten. This moment isn't just about what AI can do. It's about what your business is letting it do, what it remembers, and who gets access to that memory. Ignore that, and you're not just risking privacy violations, you're risking long-term brand trust and regulatory blowback. At the very least, we need a legal framework that defines how AI memory is governed. Not as a priest, not as a doctor, and not as a partner, but perhaps as a witness. Something that stores information and can be examined when context demands it, with clear boundaries on access, deletion, and use. The public conversation remains focused on privacy. But the fundamental shift is about control. And unless the legal and regulatory frameworks evolve rapidly, the terms of engagement will be set, not by policy or users, but by whoever owns the box. Which is why, in the age of AI, the right to be forgotten may become the most valuable human right we have. Not just because your data could be used against you—but because your identity itself can now be captured, modeled, and monetized in ways that persist beyond your control. Your patterns, preferences, emotional triggers, and psychological fingerprints don't disappear when the session ends. They live on inside a system that never forgets, never sleeps, and never stops optimizing. Without the ability to revoke access to your data, you don't just lose privacy. You lose leverage. You lose the ability to opt out of prediction. You lose control over how you're remembered, represented, and replicated. The right to be forgotten isn't about hiding. It's about sovereignty. And in a world where AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly shape our choices, our identities, and our outcomes, the ability to walk away may be the last form of freedom that still belongs to you.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Broadcom is no longer the 'poor man's Nvidia' in the AI race
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to be a key theme of Big Tech earnings, as Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL) kicked off "Magnificent Seven" earnings with very high additional AI capital expenditure (CapEx), a positive sign for AI chipmakers. Nancy Tengler, CEO and chief investment officer of Laffer Tengler Investments, and Stacy Rasgon, managing director and senior analyst at Bernstein, share their thoughts on two major AI chip players: Nvidia (NVDA) and Broadcom (AVGO). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts here. I think you guys are on the same page when it comes to Nvidia. You've got a buy equivalent rating on it, Stacey. Nancy likes that one. Let's talk about Broadcom for a minute because Nancy, this is one that you've liked for a while. Um, do you still like it? What are you going to be looking for from Broadcom, Nancy, going forward? Yeah, we do, Julie. I mean, it's our largest holding across all of our large cap equity strategies, member of our 12 best, our five for 25. I think, uh, and it's outperformed Nvidia pretty handily over the last year, almost double the returns for Nvidia on a trailing one year. We've always called it the poor man's Nvidia. I think we're going to have to come up with a new name. But one of the things that we're going to be paying attention to is, of course, um, the AI revenues. We we've we've seen those compound at 60 plus percent. They've announced new partnerships. We want to hear more about that. Um, it seems that the rest of the business, the rest of the chip business may have bottomed. We'd like to hear some some information and and confirmation about that. And then I just think, you know, it's just going to be about the future guidance. And Hock Tan has demonstrated he can acquire companies, make them accretive quickly. We bought the stock when, uh, it sold off on the computer associates that used to be the name of the company they acquired. Wall Street didn't like it. They turned it around, made it a very positive acquisition. So we we'll be listening for that, too. Are there any acquisitions they're they're planning to make? And I certainly hope one of them is not Intel. Yeah, that would be something. Uh, Stacey, um, along with Nvidia, is Broadcom sort of, are those the sort of must-owns in the chip space? Yeah, I frankly, in in chips, it hasn't been great outside of AI, right? I mean, AI's been super strong. The analog, more diversified guys, like the people who were playing those on cyclical recovery, some of those prints so far this earning season have not not been so great. There's worries about pull forward and everything else. Again, you got companies like Intel which which frankly are a basket case. I mean, if it wasn't for AI, this space would not be doing very well. So I I do like the AI names. We cover Nvidia and Broadcom. I like them both. Um, Broadcom is is just more expensive than it used to be. That's the only only, you know, it was Right. I guess hence Nancy's comment that they're going to have to rename it from the poor man's video. Yeah, and look, you know, you got to remember Broadcom like not all that long ago was like 16 times earnings, like now it's like the multiple's like like doubled, right? Um, they are showing a lot of AI upside. A lot of that comes next year, but they they're clearly, I mean even the last earnings call a couple of months ago, they're clearly calling for upside in their AI revenues next year on more inference demand. They're a massive player on AI networking, right? So there's there there's a a big play there. And and and Nancy, I think, is right, they have the core semi business which admittedly has been lousy. They're not the only ones. Everybody in though in those kinds of markets has has been lousy. It it doesn't look like getting any worse at least. I we can we can argue about when it's going to start getting better. I don't know yet, but at least it isn't getting worse. Um, you know, if you're looking in in into the near term, I mean you could argue, again, we we like both stocks. Nvidia is cheaper. And you know, you know, they just they just got their China licenses, um, reinstated, so there's probably more upside to their AI numbers this year for Nvidia versus Broadcom. I think the Broadcom AI upside comes next year and Broadcom's a little more expensive. Um, and then there's a whole ASIC versus, you know, GPU debate. But I I think you can own them both. Like I I I like them both. And again, AI is the only thing in semis right now that fundamentally is really working.
