[BitsAndChips]390X ready for launch - AMD ironing out drivers - Computex launch

[Creig]

I'm SO glad you mentioned this...

The argument you're making now is the same one that could have been made for the 680/7970. When it (680) was released it was faster and cheaper than the 7970, but with less RAM. But it didn't maintain that performance lead, especially now with games using more than 2GB of VRAM even at 1080p

That's basically what you're saying about the 390x... It might be faster and cheaper but with less RAM than the 980Ti

Yet for some strange reason, the AMD fans are all in agreement that anyone who bought a 2GB 680 at the time probably made the wrong choice, however, that EXACT same scenario playing out now, only in reverse, and they don't see a problem.

Oh how the goal posts shift...

There's no goal post shifting involved. 1080P is the most popular monitor resolution by far. And right now, 4GB is the highest amount of VRAM on cards that have been sold in great numbers. Game devs aren't going to release a game that doesn't look good or perform well at 1080P with 4GB of VRAM. 980 SLI doesn't seem to need more than 4GB of VRAM. So a single 390X with 4GB hardly seems to be any sort of limitation. Only those who play at 1440P or above will really need more than 4GB of VRAM for the foreseeable future, IMO.

If what you theorize is true, everybody who bought a 970 with its 3.5GB + 0.5GB memory are going to be in even worse shape than the 290/290X owners with their full speed 4GB of memory.

 

[2is]

There's no goal post shifting involved. 1080P is the most popular monitor resolution by far. And right now, 4GB is the highest amount of VRAM on cards that have been sold in great numbers. Game devs aren't going to release a game that doesn't look good or perform well at 1080P with 4GB of VRAM. 980 SLI doesn't seem to need more than 4GB of VRAM. So a single 390X with 4GB hardly seems to be any sort of limitation. Only those who play at 1440P or above will really need more than 4GB of VRAM for the foreseeable future, IMO.

If what you theorize is true, everybody who bought a 970 with its 3.5GB + 0.5GB memory are going to be in even worse shape than the 290/290X owners with their full speed 4GB of memory.

There is indeed goal post shifting when what is puppeteer to be an issue with nvidia is a non issue with AMD. And yes, it would be an even bigger problem with the 970. That's easy to admit for someone like me who isn't shifting goal posts. I've said it before and I'll say it again. 1080p might be the most common resolution, but top end cards aren't marketed nor are they priced for the most common gamer. 4gb limit is going to be a failed product.

 

[Headfoot]

I doubt anyone buying a 390/x or GM200 6GB on launch day is going to keep it when 16/14nm hits... and I'm fairly certain 4GB is going to be enough until then for resolutions under 4k. Hell, 4GB is enough for 4K right now. Even 3GB is enough for most purposes a la 780 and 780 Ti. I think 4GB has another 1.5 years of being enough. Beyond then? Probably not. But the jump from 28nm to 16/14nm is going to be huge and I wont be staying on 28 once it hits.

 

[Creig]

There is indeed goal post shifting when what is puppeteer to be an issue with nvidia is a non issue with AMD. And yes, it would be an even bigger problem with the 970. That's easy to admit for someone like me who isn't shifting goal posts. I've said it before and I'll say it again. 1080p might be the most common resolution, but top end cards aren't marketed nor are they priced for the most common gamer. 4gb limit is going to be a failed product.

Where do you get the idea that every gamer with a "top end card" is running above 1080P? My daughter has a Tri-X OC 290X and a 1080P monitor. I'm in the process of building a new system and plan to buy a "top end card" and keep my 1080P monitor for now. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people with 290X/980 cards who also have a 4K monitor.

 

[exar333]

I expect both the R9 390X and R9 390 to sport 8 GB HBM. I also expect R9 380X and R9 380 to sport 4 GB HBM. After having pushed higher VRAM for 3 generations (HD 6970 2GB, HD 7970 3GB, R9 290X 4 GB) I do not think AMD will regress on that tradition.

People buying R9 390 and R9 390X will basically be buying it for 1440p and 4K gaming. My expectation is these cards will be as good or even better than Titan-X in raw GPU performance. So 4GB is a handicap especially at 1440p and 4K as we already see games use more than 4GB at 1440p

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...gtx_titan_x_video_card_review/14#.VVGuJPmqqko

Watch Dogs, Dying Light, COD AW (with SSAA) are a few examples. Anyway we will see within a month if AMD has stood true to its legacy / heritage.

Very well said.

This represents how I feel as well. AMD has really been pushing VRAM since the 5870/5850 2GB cards. As much as I LOVED my 5870 at launch, I do wish I had waited a little and got the 2GB card instead. I was definitely limited the last year I had the card, and the 670 2GB card was a HUGE help. That card literally allowed me to use mods for Skyrim that caused a slideshow previously.

Lots of people here seem to think that everyone upgrades their GPUs each gen. That's just not the case. A LOT of people buying cards in the 780/980/290x gen and now 390x will be upgrading their 1080P monitors in the next upcoming 1-2 years. I do think they will be disappointed and limited by a 390X 4GB. This 4GB limit will be present if they use 1, 2, 3 or even 4 GPUs. Its a hard-cap....

I strongly believe that 4GB is fine for mid-range in 2015 and 2016, but not mid/high or halo products. Personally, I will consider a 8GB 390x to replace my 970 but will not purchase a 4GB version. Plain and simple. That's just me though...

Edit: A 6GB 980Ti will definitely be a compelling option if AMD does not release an 8GB 390x. That will be the product to get in 2015, if no 8GB 390x is released.

 

[Stuka87]

1080p might be the most common resolution, but top end cards aren't marketed nor are they priced for the most common gamer. 4gb limit is going to be a failed product.

Sorry but you are so wrong in this. There are a ton of us running 120/144Hz 1080P displays that need the horsepower to run at those FPS. And 4GB is more than enough for that resolution. The number of people with 4k displays is tiny, and will stay small for the foreseeable future. Having a 4GB card is by no means a failure today.

However, I think there will be 4 and 8 GB versions.

 

[96Firebird]

What I'm hearing now is that a 4GB 390(X) will be for those who run 1080p and will sell their card when the new node ships.

Not looking good...

 

[Udgnim]

with VSR & DSR being available, 4K gaming is a consideration on 1080 monitors

if I was making a purchasing decision for a $600+ video card, 4GB vs 6GB vs 8GB definitely matters

 

[exar333]

with VSR & DSR being available, 4K gaming is a consideration on 1080 monitors

if I was making a purchasing decision for a $600+ video card, 4GB vs 6GB vs 8GB definitely matters

For the next couple years, I really see 2GB as low-end, 4GB as low/mid, and 6-8GB as mid/high as the convention. More than 8GB (12GB, 16GB, etc.) will be for the halo offerings.

I think we will 'settle' here for a while until 4K becomes the 'norm' and we start seeing even higher DPI options like 8K available for 27''+ desktop displays. That will be a ways down the road...

 

[AnandThenMan]

4gb limit is going to be a failed product.

That means every card sold right now with 4GB is a failed product. And don't tell me that only certain performance levels need more, there is no set in stone arbitrary level of perf. where 4GB suddenly is not enough.

 

[2is]

Where do you get the idea that every gamer with a "top end card" is running above 1080P? My daughter has a Tri-X OC 290X and a 1080P monitor. I'm in the process of building a new system and plan to buy a "top end card" and keep my 1080P monitor for now. I think you're vastly overestimating the number of people with 290X/980 cards who also have a 4K monitor.

In addition to 4k, there are other resolutions that are above 1080 but below 4k, there are also multi monitor setups. Not to mention, I haven't made any estimates at all. You may not have a problem buying a 4GB card only to see it run out of VRAM in games a year down the line, but I won't make that mistake. "Next gen" games are just now starting to see the light of day with AC:Unity being one of the first. Combine that with DX12 right the corner and who knows how that's going to affect games and vram usage. Sorry, I just don't see a top end card limited to 4GB being very successful for AMD when there will be less limiting options available.

I think it's a bad idea, you don't. I get it. I also get that it would only be a bad idea if nVidia came out with a top end card with 4GB of ram... I mean, we've already seen it from members who have posted in this very thread with the 980 who are now shifting goal posts trying to convince everyone it's plenty when just a few months ago they were trying to convince everyone it's not enough. That's a goal post shift if there ever was one.

 

[Keysplayr]

4GB is plenty... unless 390 launches with 8GB. Then suddenly 6GB won't be enough. Watch it happen.

 

[2is]

That means every card sold right now with 4GB is a failed product. And don't tell me that only certain performance levels need more, there is no set in stone arbitrary level of perf. where 4GB suddenly is not enough.

If nVidia came out with a brand new flagship today that had 4GB, it would indeed be a fail on their part. That's also why i'm not jumping to a 980. What you're conveniently not mentioning the 4GB cards being sold "right now" were released 6+ months ago. You don't think time is relevant when dealing with technology?

 

[Creig]

In addition to 4k, there are other resolutions that are above 1080 but below 4k, there are also multi monitor setups. Not to mention, I haven't made any estimates at all. You may not have a problem buying a 4GB card only to see it run out of VRAM in games a year down the line, but I won't make that mistake. "Next gen" games are just now starting to see the light of day with AC:Unity being one of the first. Combine that with DX12 right the corner and who knows how that's going to affect games and vram usage. Sorry, I just don't see a top end card limited to 4GB being very successful for AMD when there will be less limiting options available.

Where's this "limit" you keep alluding to? 1080P is by far the most popular resolution for monitors on the market. Both existing AND new models. Do you honestly think that game developers are suddenly going to abandon 1080P and design their games solely with 1440P and above in mind? Hardly. It's not even open for debate.

I think it's a bad idea, you don't. I get it. I also get that it would only be a bad idea if nVidia came out with a top end card with 4GB of ram... I mean, we've already seen it from members who have posted in this very thread with the 980 who are now shifting goal posts trying to convince everyone it's plenty when just a few months ago they were trying to convince everyone it's not enough. That's a goal post shift if there ever was one.

I guess time will tell. But given the popularity of 1080P and 4GB VRAM video cards, I don't see developers ignoring that combination for a long time to come.

 

[5150Joker]

4GB is plenty... unless 390 launches with 8GB. Then suddenly 6GB won't be enough. Watch it happen.

Haha pretty much.

 

[Creig]

4GB is plenty... unless 390 launches with 8GB. Then suddenly 6GB won't be enough. Watch it happen.

8GB is going to be nothing but a niche market for years to come. 6GB may be helpful in certain resolution/mod situations while 4GB will be the mainstream amount of VRAM we'll see on cards for quite awhile yet.

 

[AnandThenMan]

What you're conveniently not mentioning the 4GB cards being sold "right now" were released 6+ months ago. You don't think time is relevant when dealing with technology?

So what are the cut off points? How old/new does a card have to be before 4GB is either fine or not enough.

 

[2is]

Where's this "limit" you keep alluding to? 1080P is by far the most popular resolution for monitors on the market. Both existing AND new models. Do you honestly think that game developers are suddenly going to abandon 1080P and design their games solely with 1440P and above in mind? Hardly. It's not even open for debate.


I guess time will tell. But given the popularity of 1080P and 4GB VRAM video cards, I don't see developers ignoring that combination for a long time to come.

The "limit" I'm referring to is a 4GB card is limited to 4GB... I thought that was obvious.

Time will indeed tell, but the fact that PS4 devs are allowed to allocate up to 6 of the available 8GB on the PS4 is a decent revelation of what time will end up telling you.

 

[Creig]

What I'm hearing now is that a 4GB 390(X) will be for those who run 1080p and will sell their card when the new node ships.

Not looking good...

So people are talking about selling a card they can't buy yet to help purchase another card they can't buy yet? I'm sure AMD is looking into this...

 

[lilltesaito]

4GB is plenty... unless 390 launches with 8GB. Then suddenly 6GB won't be enough. Watch it happen.

I agree.

I just see the price being higher for the 6GB card and people will just say save money and get more RAM.
Also, if both cards are within 10-20% of each other, why wouldn't you get more RAM?

 

[96Firebird]

So people are talking about selling a card they can't buy yet to help purchase another card they can't buy yet? I'm sure AMD is looking into this...

Don't ask me, ask the people who mentioned it...

 

[lilltesaito]

The "limit" I'm referring to is a 4GB card is limited to 4GB... I thought that was obvious.

Time will indeed tell, but the fact that PS4 devs are allowed to allocate up to 6 of the available 8GB on the PS4 is a decent revelation of what time will end up telling you.

Wouldn't that leave less then 2GB for cpu to use on games? Doesn't the OS also take up some of that RAM?

 

[2is]

So what are the cut off points? How old/new does a card have to be before 4GB is either fine or not enough.

That's for you to decide based on what you want and when you want it.

I'm going to be in the market for a new card quite soon, probably around Windows 10 release. I know what the consoles have and I know how much of that can be allocated to the game and I know that often times PC versions of games have higher quality textures and that's before we even included 3rd party mods.

Based on that, 6GB is the minimum I want for my next card. A 4GB 390x vs a 6GB 980Ti isn't even a choice as far as I'm concerned. An 8GB 390x vs a 6GB 980Ti and it's hard to ignore AMD.

 

[2is]

Wouldn't that leave less then 2GB for cpu to use on games? Doesn't the OS also take up some of that RAM?

2GB is reserved for the OS, the remaining 6 is used for the game, both game code and graphics, the majority of which goes towards storing graphics data.

 

[Creig]

The "limit" I'm referring to is a 4GB card is limited to 4GB... I thought that was obvious.

Time will indeed tell, but the fact that PS4 devs are allowed to allocate up to 6 of the available 8GB on the PS4 is a decent revelation of what time will end up telling you.

Only 4.5GB of the 8GB is normally available on a PS4 with 3.5GB being allocated to the OS. An additional 1GB of "flexible" memory is available being split into two areas – 512MB of on-chip RAM and another 512MB of paged memory. So the most memory PS4 developers can use is 5GB, but they'll have to jump through some hurdles in order to utilize it.

Since 4.5GB of regular PS4 memory is pretty close to the 4GB available on video cards, I don't see this as being a huge issue.