Test · Wan 2.2 memory use

Wan 2.2 on an 8GB GPU? Real Tests Show RAM Matters as Much as VRAM

I measured three Wan 2.2 image-to-video renders and watched where the memory actually went. The answer to "will it run on my card?" is mostly about system RAM.

Published 19 October 2026 · By Vismantas Šleinota · Measured on RTX 5070 12GB, 64GB DDR5-6000

Quick answer: Wan 2.2 image-to-video needs about 34GB of model weights, but in all three of my renders the GPU used only 8–9GB of VRAM. ComfyUI keeps the rest in system RAM and streams it to the card as needed, and Windows reported about 40GB of committed memory. So an 8GB card will most likely work at 480p if you have enough RAM, just slower. 64GB of RAM is comfortable, 32GB is borderline, 16GB is not enough.
Honest scope: everything below was measured on a 12GB card. The 8GB conclusions are reasoned from these measurements, not tested on an 8GB card. If you have one, I'd love your numbers (email at the end).

The setup

PartWhat I used
GPUNVIDIA RTX 5070, 12GB GDDR7, PCIe 5.0 x16
System RAM64GB DDR5-6000 (2 × 32GB, dual channel)
ModelWan 2.2 I2V A14B, fp8 (high-noise + low-noise experts)
Steps12 + 12 (lightx2v speed-up LoRA)
SoftwareComfyUI 0.37 with dynamic VRAM loading, run through Loomance (Stable Scene workflow)
Post-processingRIFE frame interpolation on, final upscale off, 24 FPS

All three renders ran back to back in the same session, so the models were already in memory. The first render after launching is much slower, more on that below.

Render times

ResolutionFramesTotal timeHigh-noise stepLow-noise step
832×480498 min 28 s~29 s~10 s
832×4808117 min 30 s~56 s~22 s
1024×5764914 min 0 s~49 s~19 s

Times are ComfyUI's own "Prompt executed in" figures. In every run, the high-noise stage took about two thirds of the total time, with each step roughly 2.6–2.8 times slower than in the low-noise stage.

Where the memory went

Model sizes, straight from the ComfyUI log:

ComponentSize
Wan 2.2 high-noise expert (fp8)13.9 GB
Wan 2.2 low-noise expert (fp8)13.6 GB
UMT5-XXL text encoder (fp8)6.4 GB
VAE + RIFE interpolation0.25 GB
Total~34 GB

And what Windows Task Manager showed in the middle of each render:

RenderDedicated VRAMShared GPU memorySystem RAM in use
832×480 · 49~9.0 / 12 GB14.8 GB32.2 / 63 GB
832×480 · 818.0 / 12 GB13.7 GB29.3 / 63 GB
1024×576 · 498.3 / 12 GB11.8 GB28.4 / 63 GB

Committed memory (everything Windows had promised to running programs) was about 40GB during rendering, and the GPU sat at 100% utilisation the whole time.

What this means

1. VRAM is not the hard limit you'd expect

34GB of models cannot fit in a 12GB card, and they don't have to. Recent ComfyUI versions load weights dynamically: the card holds what it needs for the current step and the rest stays in system RAM. In my runs the GPU used 8–9GB regardless of resolution or clip length. Bigger jobs didn't run out of VRAM, they just took longer.

2. RAM decides whether it runs well

If ~25GB of model weights live in system RAM and Windows commits ~40GB in total, the amount of RAM becomes the real limit:

3. For 8GB cards, the connection matters more than the GPU

Because the model is streamed from RAM to the GPU during every step, the speed of that path matters. My test machine has PCIe 5.0 x16 and DDR5-6000. Many 8GB cards use an x8 link (for example, the RTX 4060 runs at PCIe 4.0 x8, roughly a quarter of the bandwidth of PCIe 5.0 x16), and many PCs still use DDR4. On those systems, expect noticeably longer times than in the table above, even at the same resolution.

4. Longer clips cost more than you'd think

Going from 49 to 81 frames is 1.65× more frames but took 2.07× longer. Going from 832×480 to 1024×576 is 1.48× more pixels and took 1.66× longer. More frames and more pixels both mean bigger intermediate data, and the cost grows faster than the clip.

Meanwhile, interpolating 80 in-between frames with RIFE took about 10 seconds. That's the cheapest way to get a smooth, longer-looking clip.

5. The first render after launch is much slower

My first attempt in this session ran at 88–104 seconds per high-noise step (I cancelled it), versus ~29 seconds once things were warm. On the first run, ComfyUI loads ~14GB per model from disk and sets up about 26GB of pinned RAM, and the CPU sat near 100% while that happened. If your first render feels painfully slow, wait for the second one before judging your hardware.

Practical settings for 8GB and 12GB cards

How Loomance fits in

All renders here were made with Loomance, a free desktop app I built that installs ComfyUI and the Wan 2.2 models for you and runs these workflows from a simple window, including a render queue for overnight batches. Your images stay on your PC. If you prefer wiring nodes yourself, the official ComfyUI Wan 2.2 image-to-video template with the lightx2v LoRA is the same basic setup. For a side-by-side of both approaches, see Loomance vs ComfyUI.

Tools and sources

VŠ

Vismantas Šleinota builds Loomance, a free local AI animation app, as a solo project in Lithuania. Every number on this page was measured on his own PC. Have an 8GB card? Send your GPU, RAM, resolution and render time to info@loomance.app and I'll add real 8GB results here.


Frequently asked questions

Can Wan 2.2 image-to-video run on an 8GB GPU?
Likely yes at 480p, but slower than on a 12GB card. In these tests on a 12GB RTX 5070, ComfyUI used only 8–9GB of dedicated VRAM while keeping the rest of the ~34GB of models in system RAM. This was measured on a 12GB card, not an 8GB card, so treat it as a strong indication rather than a guarantee.
How much system RAM do I need for Wan 2.2?
During these renders Windows reported about 40GB of committed memory. With 64GB of RAM everything fit comfortably. With 32GB, Windows will likely have to page part of the model to disk, which makes renders much slower. 16GB is not recommended.
How long does a Wan 2.2 render take at 832×480?
On an RTX 5070 12GB with 64GB DDR5-6000, a 49-frame clip at 832×480 took 8 minutes 28 seconds, an 81-frame clip took 17 minutes 30 seconds, and a 49-frame clip at 1024×576 took 14 minutes.
Why do longer Wan 2.2 clips take disproportionately longer?
Going from 49 to 81 frames (1.65× more frames) made the render 2.07× longer. Generating fewer frames and using frame interpolation is much cheaper: interpolating 80 extra frames took about 10 seconds.
Do PCIe lanes and RAM speed affect Wan 2.2 render time?
They should matter a lot, because most of the model lives in system RAM and is moved to the GPU during every step. These tests used PCIe 5.0 x16 and DDR5-6000. Many 8GB cards use PCIe x8 links, and many PCs still use DDR4, so expect longer times on those systems.

Try Wan 2.2 on your own GPU

Loomance is free to use (ad-supported) and renders locally on your NVIDIA GPU. It sets up ComfyUI and the models for you. No node graphs, no cloud uploads.

Download free