Re: "due to supply chain constraints"
"Graphics doesn't really need that much more RAM, especially not games. 8GB is still fine for the majority of games, and 12GB will run pretty much anything on max for the lifetime of this GPU generation"
Yeah, we've heard the NVIDIA line on this, but the truth is, a lot of games hit the ceiling quite easily...so I have to wonder, is the reason games require "less RAM" because developers have got used to the constraints and limited themselves in some way?
"No, they wouldn't, because lack of memory isn't really the biggest issue with Geforce RTX 4000 cards. It's price, price, lack of reasonable entry/mid range GPUs, price."
Would the price seem more reasonable if the specs matched the price? If so, one could argue that the price isn't the problem, the spec is.
I think it would, especially at the higher end.
" lack of reasonable entry/mid range GPUs"
Look at the GeForce 2. I'm an old timer relatively speaking, and I can remember GPUs going back to the mid 90s and the range that was available and the pricing. GPUs have always been relatively pricey...what has changed is the choice available...which gives the impression that GPU prices have skyrocketed...when in fact, relatively speaking, they haven't if you've always been in a certain tier.
The GeForce 2 Ti and GeForce 2 Pro came in various flavours that could have up to 64mb RAM. Some came with 32MB...in both variants. It was the same with the MX200, MX, MX400 and GTS. The only model of that era that had a fixed amount of RAM was the Ultra which always came with 64mb...mid and low end had tons of options that allowed the consumer to scale with their own price point.
What I'm trying to say here is that memory was a choice back then, you could opt for a card with less RAM, to save a few bucks, or if you needed it, opt for a higher RAM card. You could even opt for a higher end card, with lower RAM if you needed the gaming performance but weren't interested in productivity etc or you were limited to a certain resolution....or if you had the money, you could have both! These days, that choice is gone, which is why the pricing is all to fuck. There is one card per tier...you as a consumer have no way to adjust your own pricing / expectations. You pick a tier, and that's what you get. You can't really "spec up" a GPU anymore. You have to go as high as you can afford...which was never the case in previous generations.
If we had the same thing today, then we'd have a higher RAM variant of the 4080 (for those who want to push that little bit further, for less money than a 4090) and 4070 (for those that want 1080 with various settings cranked up) in each tier...and the 4090 would have more RAM because there would be only one option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce2_series
There is a massive area in the GPU space that nobody ever considers that would benefit from higher RAM on a lower end board...and that is render scaling. Rendering at a higher resolution and sampling down in lieu of anti aliasing etc...it requires more RAM, but has less of a performance overhead if you have the RAM for it.
The direction we seem to be going in though is rendering at a lower resolution and scaling up...which is part of the argument for having "enough RAM".
If you believe that line of bullshit, you're an idiot. It's fucking bollocks...scaling back the RAM just makes their margins bigger and if they can convince someone like you that you don't need more RAM and they can still hike the price while providing you with less, then they've fucking won and we're doomed to have shitty GPU prices for the foreseeable future...unless we start demanding what we're paying for.
NVIDIA has been eroding choice for years to force people into higher price points...fooling people into thinking that there are only "three tiers"...it's fucking garbage and not how they used to operate. Especially with board partners.