"Noyiceably spikier", like this?
Of course if the prices are close there is no point in buying the 2GB version instead of the 4GB version of the graphics card. But sometimes (like for instance when the 4GB version were launched or even now on some markets, other than US), the price difference is/was relatively big.
Yup, way to ignore all the other games in the review, along with Far Cry 4, Wolfenstein NWO, Mortal Kombat X, Black Ops 3, Batman AK, Dead Rising 3, Skyrim modded, GTA IV modded, all upcoming 2016 games that will smoke 2GB cards.
Besides the argument of 2GB vs. 4GB costing more isn't logical for brand agnostic consumers due to the existence of R9 280/R9 280X nearly the entire time GTX960 2GB was on the market.
I get it though that some people on here only buy NV cards...so I guess to them no AMD alternatives existed even when said alternatives were faster and had 3GB of VRAM.
My other prediction was that 950/960/285 owners would be upgrading yet again to get a card 70-90% faster -- but wait for it that's exactly what 970/390 are. That means even before we talk about 2GB vs. 4GB of VRAM, the 950/960/285 are going to be hit with a double whammy of VRAM gimping + higher total cost of ownership and worse performance than an R9 290/970/390 for the last 12-15 months and the next period of owning the overpriced low end 2GB cards.
heck I am running 290x x4 and can barely saturate 4gb when enjoyable frame rate is taken into consideration. and a single 960/380 want 4gb.
perhaps some of them are more concerns about benchmarking then actual game play. more power to them.
As I already pointed out
in this post, your comparison isn't valid. VRAM requirements do not operate in steps of 2GB -> 4GB -> 6GB, etc.
If a game exceeds 2GB by even 300MB, it's stuttering. You might not saturate 4GB on 290Xs in some games but some games clearly saturate 3.5GB at playable fps.
My 960 is not nearly as powerful as my Titan X, but with the correct settings, the 960 is just fine. *shrug*
With the same settings, 380 4GB and 960 4GB perform just fine. So the problem is 380/960 2GB cards.
If this thread was ONLY about 380 2GB vs. 4GB, no one would say anything and just accept the truth. Since some of the people in this thread either own an NV 2GB card or specifically own 960 2GB, they are defending their card/purchase. That's all there is. Objective gamers called out 2GB as failures and advized people to stay clear of them way back when R9 285 2GB came out. Some people on this forum just do not recall that at all (i.e., how many of us flat out recommended buying 280/280X and skipping 285 because of its 2GB of VRAM).
But now that the issue his hit an NV card, it's defense mode in effect.
The fear mongering here is a bit ridiculous. D:
Right now as it stands at current US prices, 2GB cards from AMD or NV that are priced at $160-200 cannot be recommended. It's not fear mongering, it's facts. There is a difference. I sure do not remember you making any fuss about some of us steering gamers far from HD4870 512MB, X1950XT 256MB, R9 285 2GB, HD6950 1GB when cards with 50-100% the VRAM were better buys for keeping beyond the first 9 months. But since day 1 I do remember how you never pointed out any of the flaws of the 960.
HERESY.
Fortunately, the second coming is upon us. But this time the son of god appears in his true form, that of a 380x. ()
Yup, I like to point out the hypocrisy of certain team members who ignore awful price/performance and VRAM limits
but only when it comes to their brand. I can see how some of them are stuck between a rock and a hard place between $160-180 GTX960 2GB is VRAM gimped -- cannot be objectively recommended -- and $210 R9 380X smashes 960 4GB in price/performance. I guess that means NV has a gigantic gap of no card worth buying between $150->$280 space. It's no wonder this thread created so much controversy among the loyalists of a certain team. Notice how no one is denying how 380 4GB is a better buy against R9 380 2GB from the
objective members of this forum. Just saying. :sneaky:
Facebook
Twitter