LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
Not solely, no. But a good part of it. The prestige of the flagship GPU.
Even the 980Ti will have 6Gb.
Not solely, no. But a good part of it. The prestige of the flagship GPU.
Even the 980Ti will have 6Gb.
so 97% to 99% of the gamers don't matter, as long as the 1%, 4k gamers approve, the gpu is automatically a success?
please explain in a logical manner so I can understand.
The rational behind it has been explained multiple times in this thread. Repeating it again isn't going to help if you haven't understood where we are coming from by now. It's my opinion, and it will stay my opinion. Feel free to go back and read the thread to understand why. You won't have to go far, it's been the topic for the last several pages.
Perhaps RS can explain the rational in terms you'll understand. I do believe he criticized the 980 for having 4GB but now defends the 390x
so 97% to 99% of the gamers don't matter, as long as the 1%, 4k gamers approve, the gpu is automatically a success?
please explain in a logical manner so I can understand.
This is a non-answer.
Yes, a top of the line gpu is designed for the 1%...that's why its called 'top of the line'.
The other 97% of the market isn't going to buy a $700 gpu...so yes, it doesn't matter.
You call it a niche crowd, I call it the gamers most likely to purchase a flagship card...
There are lots of people, most actually, who buy flagship cards and don't game on 4K. If you had to rely on 4K gamers for a cards commercial success, you likely would lose your shirt.
It certainly didn't hurt the sales of 780 ti that it had 3GB. It easily outsold the 4GB 290X, even at much higher pricing. We had 1440 and 4K and surround in 2014 too. nVidia actually blocked 6GB 780 ti models. They didn't see 3GB as a detriment to it's sales. How many people got rid of their 3GB 780 ti cards when the 780 6GB came along? Evidently people still felt that the extra ~10% was more important than the extra VRAM.
4K prices have dropped, and selection has gone up since then. For a brand new flagship card, the high-end bases should be covered, no?
Last edited:
ok, I get it, you can't explain. I will move on.The rational behind it has been explained multiple times in this thread. Repeating it again isn't going to help if you haven't understood where we are coming from by now. It's my opinion, and it will stay my opinion. Feel free to go back and read the thread to understand why. You won't have to go far, it's been the topic for the last several pages.
Perhaps RS can explain the rational in terms you'll understand. I do believe he criticized the 980 for having 4GB but now defends the 390x
that I can deal with, at least I know where you are coming from. you are the exact target consumers for the titan x 12gb. this is not meant as derision, just an honest observation. as long as you know why, who am I to judge? happy gaming bro.
and you know the 97% is not going to buy because?
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Perhaps RS can explain the rational in terms you'll understand. I do believe he criticized the 980 for having 4GB but now defends the 390x
Another example of how you are not reading what I typed. I never defended R9 390X specifically for having max 4GB of VRAM. In fact, if you read my previous posts, I even reiterated 1 more time for people putting words in my mouth that GM200 6GB is the clear pick over R9 390X 4GB in the $700 space assuming these prices and similar stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC performance, subject to no killer features that separate the two cards, etc.
I simply made a point that both R9 390/390X 4GB and 8GB card options make sense for different GPU markets/users depending on their needs and upgrade cycles. Some people in this thread don't seem to get this point, instead making bold statements like no one buys a $450-500 GPU for 1080P-1200P. The reason I criticized 980 is the exact same reason - not having both 4GB and 8GB options, as well as NV raising the price yet another $50 from 680 and a whopping $200 above 970 for a mere 16-17% increase in performance. Yuck. Some PC gamers will dump 980 SLI in 1.5-2 yeras from now and others will keep them for 3-4 years. Why didn't NV provide the 8GB option? I never saw you criticize NV for not providing the 8GB option, or addressing how 980 SLI 4GB will surely be faster than R9 390X 8GB. You seem to put blinders on when it comes to 980 SLI 4GB and all the thousnads of gamers who bought those cards, but are quick to jump on R9 390 4GB scenario without knowing a thing about its price or performance. If according to you in the next 2 years 4GB of VRAM is a huge problem/bottleneck, why weren't you or other posters in this thread advocating 6-8GB today never raise any fuss about this to ANYONE buying 970 SLI or 980 SLI? Why didn't you tell 970/980 users going SLI to wait for GM200 6GB cards? Your story is inconsistent but you blame others of shifting goal posts. ^_^
It'll be interesting to see what you have to say if a $450-500 R9 390 4GB is 87% of Titan X's performance and how you'll try to spin 4GB of VRAM against it considering you made no such mention regarding 980 or 970 SLI, 980 SLI for the last 7 months. Seems like you are so focused on the cream of the crop flagship cards just like you ignored the awesome GTX670 SLI over your 680 SLI, that it seems no matter what 2nd tier GM200 / R9 390 cards bring to the table, they would be an automatic fail to you anyway.
I don't care to start debating dynamic VRAM usage vs. required VRAM usage as I already provided actual benchmarks on this topic but most people here haven't provided a real 3rd party review where Titan X beats 980 SLI in playability when SLI scales to prove a 4GB VRAM bottleneck exists at playable DSR/VSR/MSAA settings. It's like pullling teeth just to get anyone to even link 1 game, nevermind 5-10 games. It's like even the data that was provided was ignored (i..e., 970 SLI 3.5GB >>>>> Titan X in GTA V at 1440P)
The 4GB vs. 8GB debate makes little difference to me personally as I have a 1080P monitor and have no plans to get a 4K monitor without FreeSync/GSync considering the $1K+ price tag. I am sure there are plenty of gamers who feel the same too and won't consider going 4K until we see better availability of higher quality 4K monitors and more FreeSync/GSync SKU options.
All I know is that 14nm/16nm GPUs with HBM2 will smash R9 390X or GM200 6GB in both price/performance and features and then Volta in 2018 will smash Pascal and the cycle will repeat. By August 2018, GM200 6GB/R9 390X 8GB will be equivalent to a R9 270X today. Since I know this played out for 20+ years in the GPU industry, why would I spend $1400 of my own money on a pair of cards that expensive and keep them for 4 years no matter the marketing spin about future-proofness or demands of next gen PC games? I'd rather get a pair of $400-500 cards, dump them in 2.5 years and get newer cards, and repeat again, in much the same way I would get 670 SLI over 680 SLI or 970 SLI over 980 SLI. Seems like you just want to buy the best once your upgrade cycle comes and don't care about price/performance. That's fine, just be more transparent about it so people understand the context around which your opinion is based.
That's why we have a free market -- if you think $700 flagships in pairs are worth buying to keep for 3-4+ years, you have that option and it is something that works for you and other PC gamers, Great! No one pulls a gun to your head and tells you to keep your GM200 cards for 2 years and sell them if you don't want to upgrade like that.
However, making statements like a $500 card is an automatic fail if it has 4GB of VRAM without providing any benchmarks that show 980 SLI bombing at 1440P doesn't actually show that you put a lot of thought into your answer other than the fact that you have some opinion on 4GB vs. 8GB. Ignoring that other PC gamers do not always get CF/SLI setups or upgrade to keep their cards for 3-4 years is not being open-minded either. Believe it or not some PC gamers really do buy $400-500 cards (or in pairs) and dump them every 2-2.5 years.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
The fastest card I have ever owned is a 750ti.
The fastest card I currently have is a 750.
The last time I gamed was with a Northwood and a ti4400 or a 9600pro.
HardOCP found issues with the 295X2 at 1440p maxed in GTA V, said stuttering made it "hard to call playable". Said they would probably have to lower settings due to VRAM limits. Titan X had a similar average FPS, but a much smoother experience.
Source
I'm not sure if HardOCP is on the "biased against AMD" list though, I know they are off-and-on depending on the review...
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Right, so you just proved his point:
"so, your argument is solely based on your feeling that it should have 8gb regardless of need or performance?"
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
Nope. I have employees and friends who are PC gamers.
I have built computers for them.
I stay in the loop.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Looks like you aren't following the series of HardOCP reviews on this game. HardOCP never found any issues with R9 295X2 regarding VRAM at 1440P. They just hypothesized that is the case on their Part 1 review but it wasn't a correct assessment as their Part 2 review shows.
"At 1440p only the TITAN X hit just at a full 4GB of usage with this game at the highest settings. All the other cards used quite a bit under 4GB at the same settings. It looks like 4GB of VRAM is good for this game at 1440p even using SLI and CrossFire setups."
You need to read HardOCP's GTA V analysis way more closely as you have jumped to incorrect conclusions that Part 2 of the review answers:
(1) R9 295X2 vs. TitanX at 1440P:
"Next down the list of providing the best experience at 1440p would be the AMD Radeon R9 295X2. The AMD Radeon R9 295X2 was almost playable at the highest settings along with the GTX 980 SLI, almost. We did have to lower one setting to make it playable at 1440p. We ended up having to lower the "Extended Distance" slider to the lowest setting. Finally, the single-GPU GeForce GTX TITAN X is of course slower than these other multi-GPU cards. "
Even the performance/settings chart shows that R9 295X2 can handle Ultra grass and still manage higher FPS than the Titan X at 1440P. Oops.
That means R9 295X2 >>>> Titan X at 1440P at GTA V. There goes your 4GB theory.
It gets even better when we compare 970 SLI 3.5GB vs. Titan X at 1440P in GTA V:
(2) "We are far from being able to max the game out on a single TITAN X. This is amazing, but what you will see here is that GeForce GTX 970 SLI also allows us to play this game at the highest in-game settings possible at 1440p.
That means 970 SLI 3.5GB >>>> Titan X at 1440P in GTA V too. That means in GTA 3.5GB of VRAM with faster GPU processing power >>>> 12GB of VRAM at 1440P. ^_^
More proof - Titan X gets destroyed by both 970 SLi and especially R9 295X2. It's not even close.
Now that you've been proven wrong by a professional review that 4GB isn't enough for 1440P in GTA V, let's address another thing HardOCP noted on why R9 295X2 stutters sometimes.
SLI vs. CF in this game:
"Performance is on the edge of what we consider playable, but there is a certain smoothness to SLI in this game that feels different compared to AMD CrossFire in this game. Indeed, this game feels a bit more choppy/stutter with AMD CrossFire. That means SLI can get by with a little bit lower FPS, since it actually feels smoother."
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015...igpu_performance_review_part_2/2#.VVLRtPmqpBc
Looks like AMD needs a better driver to address the frame times in this game but you erroneously concluded that the problem was VRAM.
Next time you are going to try to argue something and try to mock people, you might want to have all the information in your back pocket.
Last edited:
Yup, didn't read those reviews... Looks like AMD still needs to work on their Crossfire for that game...
Who was I mocking? You sound very upset for some reason, it'll be ok RS!
But it looks like Watch Dogs and ultra textures is bottlenecked by 4GB VRAM with the power behind the 295X2...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._gtx_titan_x_video_card_review/8#.VVLrcHXD_qA
Who was I mocking? You sound very upset for some reason, it'll be ok RS!
But it looks like Watch Dogs and ultra textures is bottlenecked by 4GB VRAM with the power behind the 295X2...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._gtx_titan_x_video_card_review/8#.VVLrcHXD_qA
Last edited:
You're confusing your lack of reading comprehension over the last several dozen posts, to an inability on my part to explain. This is not meant as derision, just an honest observation.
Also, if you think 97% of people are going to by a top of the line video card, we should both move on as that is evidence beyond doubt that explaining anything in a manner you would understand would be quite impossible.
Last edited:
For the 4GB vs 8GB arguments.
Surely price must enter the equation. What would be the $ difference be to allow a 4GB card to sell, assuming practically equal present performance to an 8GB one?
Surely price must enter the equation. What would be the $ difference be to allow a 4GB card to sell, assuming practically equal present performance to an 8GB one?
when did I claim every gamer in the 97% is going to buy it? do you always post with hyperbole in every post?
fyi, personal attacks doesn't work on me
keep trying though, it is entertaining at least.I would perfer there to be 4gb and 8gb models. I would save monies by going for the 4gb variant
I'm so glad people are off the "2GB is enough" train. That was so Kepler. Atleast most Kepler owners aren't going to make that mistake again. 4GB (also known as 3.5GB) is the new 2GB. As in, 4GB for 1080p. But for 4K gaming, I wouldn't want anything less than 2x 6GB+ top tier GPUs.
Pretty sure Fiji will be 4GB, because AMD wants to make next year's Arctic Island feel "bigger" with 8GB HBM2.
when did I claim every gamer in the 97% is going to buy it? do you always post with hyperbole in every post?
fyi, personal attacks doesn't work on me
I would perfer there to be 4gb and 8gb models. I would save monies by going for the 4gb variant
Just making observations. I mean, when you need to ask a question like "how do you know 97% won't buy a top of the line card" you know that at that point, having a meaningful and intelligent debate pretty much goes out the window.
Precisely.
buy whatever it is that fits what you want, I for one will not be the one to try to stop you. what I can't stand are people making general sweeping statements with nothing but just because ^_^
meaningful and intelligent? seriously? I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims left and right. :awe:
If [H] cranked up MSAA on GTA V they'd likely find 4GB isn't enough. At 3440x1440 with 2XMSAA and everything else maxed aside from Grass at Very High I hit 4.2GB VRAM usage.
I have a Titan X now (overclocked to 1300 MHz) and it does around 40-45 FPS average at those settings. Now, a 980 regardless of VRAM may not have enough grunt at these settings, but if the 390X is anywhere near Titan X in terms of power then I'd certainly want it to have more than 4GB.
Quite serious. But you go ahead and continue thinking 97% buy top of the line products.
How often do you leave your room? It's a serious question because if you had even the slightest inkling of what goes in in the world around you, you would know that 97% of people do not buy top of the line products. It's not a phenomenon exclusive to video cards.
I only see two possible reasons you would ask a silly question like that.
1) You were serious, and thus, I pose my question to you above. How often do you leave your room?
2) You were trying to be clever.... It didn't work.
That also sounds more like a guess than a well supported conclusion - the 4GB 295X2 performs worse than the 4GB 980 because of VRAM? It's not impossible if there's differences in the memory effectively available to the game on each card there, but it wouldn't exactly be my first guess...
It's also very odd the way they talk about what a VRAM bottleneck would look like there - if you have enough you have enough, more won't make any difference. If you don't and the GPU has to wait for transfers from system memory it's not going to be pretty.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter