Non Titan 6GB GK110 cards coming - GTX 780 6GB: 549.99$, GTX 780ti 749.99$

[Carfax83]

Those cards are just as gimmick as the AMD 290x with 8 GB, or the GTX 680 with 4 GB.... or the HD 7970 with 6GB... (unless you need that 2-3% gain compared to the original Vram size)

Extra VRAM can be useful even if the game doesn't require all of it for rendering. When you have more VRAM, games load faster, and there is less texture swapping which means games run smoother with less hitching..

The newer games have been utilizing extra VRAM for a while now. Bioshock Infinite is a good example. I've seen up to 3GB of VRAM utilization in B.I due to the game preloading and caching textures and other graphics related assets.

 

[blackened23]

The primary benefit for more VRAM is more anti aliasing at higher resolutions. Or for professional applications. Professional apps can absolutely use more VRAM. Gaming though? AA absolutely takes more VRAM in current games than basically anything else, given that game assets have been at a standstill (relatively speaking) in the past year. Such as surround and 4k resolutions - MSAA/SSAA takes far more VRAM than basically anything else, including game assets or textures. Textures, in fact, are fairly trivial in most games. Even 2GB is generally fine up to 5760*1200, tested by numerous websites.

The thing with VRAM though is that SSAA kills VRAM use. But then again, you run into situations where SSAA is so demanding that you run out of GPU power before the VRAM wall becomes an issue. So if you want to use 8X SGSSAA, downsampling, resolution scaling (same as downsampling), then you want more VRAM. FXAA uses zero VRAM, 2X MSAA uses very little VRAM, 8X MSAA uses a lot of VRAM, SGSSAA uses a ridiculous amount of VRAM, and OGSSAA/resolution scaling / downsampling (all the same thing) uses a god-awful amount of VRAM.

If you want more anti aliasing, get more VRAM, if you use 4k or surround. Personally, if I were at 4k resolution i'd be fine with FXAA or 2X MSAA. But that's me. I really don't see why people go nuts with AA because I can't really spot differences past 2X MSAA, and while SSAA is better and noticeably so - the performance hit isn't worth it most of the time. But whatever people want. Their money, they can buy whatever VRAM they want. I almost feel like the VRAM wars are a near psychological benefit much like the megapixel wars with smartphones. More doesn't mean better, but it really does depend. With 3GB you're more than set (up to 1600p or 5760*1200), but if you use 8X SGSSAA maybe you can't do that in triple 4k resolution. Or 4k resolution. More VRAM would be beneficial for 4k if you like using a lot of anti aliasing, and 4k has a higher pixel count than 5760*1200. Then again, SSAA gives you a 70% performance hit compared to 2X MSSAA. Worth it? Nah. Screw that. I'll take 2X MSAA for 70% better performance. Or FXAA for zero performance hit and zero VRAM use. But that's all in the eye of the beholder.

I don't even care about 6GB cards still. If I were on the market buying new i'd still get an on sale 3GB 780 custom card. I monitor my VRAM use constantly with afterburner, and I play a lot of games at 1600p, and it's just not an issue. And I don't use tons of anti aliasing past 2 or maybe 4X MSAA. I use SSAA in older games, but crysis 3? No thanks.

That said, I think this is cool. 50$ for 3 more GB of VRAM isn't all too bad and it's more choice for those who want it. If they want more VRAM and want to spend their money that way, hey great. More choice for consumers, what's not to like.

 

[KaRLiToS]

You may call me ignorant or stupid, I still don't see the point of that 6GB version (outside of selling more cards) Some people will sell their 3GB version for the 6GB. In my opinion, it's a gimmick just like the GTX 680 4GB was gimmick.

Even at 4k there is so few differences between a GTX Titan of 6GB and a regular GTX 780 of 3GB. Where is the place for a GTX 780 6GB version in that graph?

Can someone show me a comparaison of the loading time between a 3GB and 6GB outside of user experience, show me real numbers. And if it's half a second, then meh.

I loved to death my GTX 780 Reference (zotac) and my MSI GTX 780 Twin Frozr Gaming OC but I won't be getting that 6GB version for sure.

IMO it will go like this
-GTX 780 3GB @ 4k = 30 fps
-GTX 780 6GB @ 4k = 31.2 fps

Gimmick

 

[blackened23]

You realize that VRAM doesn't affect performance directly, right? It merely allows more assets and more anti aliasing. With current games, it is skewed towards anti aliasing such as SSAA. Assets use less VRAM than SSAA or 8X MSAA does at this time. That is, assuming, that all GPU clocks and memory clocks are the same - they will perform 100% identical regardless of 3 or 6 GB.

That said, eventually if you're running a resolution high enough you'll want more VRAM anyway. I'd get 6GB for 4k or higher. For 2560x1600? No. It isn't needed. Unless you go stupid crazy with SSAA. It isn't needed at 5760x1200 eitehr. Unless you go stupid with SSAA. But i'd rather run FXAA for 70% more performance personally.

Not a single person suggested that 6GB increases performance over 3 (I could be wrong). Again, more AA for higher resolutions. And 6GB would be desirable for 4k, as you have more wiggle room for more AA. This should be common sense, but there are a lot of VRAM misconceptions out there. It's like the thought (as I mentioned earlier) among smartphone enthusiasts that more megapixels is always better for cameras. It isn't that simple. More MP is good in certain situations, but it isn't a black and white issue.

I said this earlier but if I were on the market and using anything less than 4k, 3GB is what I would buy. No ifs ands or buts. But if I wanted more image quality and more SSAA, you could get 6GB. Or if you used professional applications. 6GB makes sense. For a gamer? 3GB is generally fine unless you are really really nuts about tons of AA.

But in the end. Whether you think it's a gimmick or not. It's more consumer choice. No harm in that. If you want 3GB, go for it. That's what I would get. If you want 6GB? For 50$ more? That's not bad. If you want 6GB, go for it. More consumer choice. Whether you consider it a gimmick or not. It's not a gimmick for some people, it isn't a gimmick for professional apps and it isn't a gimmick for higher image quality at higher resolutions. That doesn't mean I want it. I do recognize that it has uses for certain people though.

 

[Fastx]

What about also the guys who are considering a upgrading from cards under a 780 today who go SLI or have possible intentions of maybe going SLI down the road for new games coming out down the road that are more vram intensive and or next gen games. There is no way I would buy a 3GB over a 6GB for the 50.00 difference if upgrading today per above situation imo.

So in this case it's not a joke or gimmick imo.

 

[sxr7171]

Crap. Recently got a 780ti. Anyway, this 6GB thesis needs to proven in that it can handle more resolution scaling in BF4. Right now I can do 60fps at around 135-140. If the same GPU can do 160-165 with 6GB then it proves that VRAM is the limiting factor as opposed to raw GPU power.

 

[blackened23]

What about also the guys who are considering a upgrading from cards under a 780 today who go SLI or have possible intentions of maybe going SLI down the road for new games coming out down the road that are more vram intensive and or next gen games. There is no way I would buy a 3GB over a 6GB for the 50.00 difference if upgrading today per above situation imo.

So in this case it's not a joke or gimmick imo.

I both agree with you on some points and disagree on others. Next-gen games? Well if they're based on the XB1 and PS4 - I don't see it happening given the situation with the relatively weak consoles. Titan Fall on XB1 is 720p and constantly has frame rate dips. PS4? Well, I've played bf4 on it and it is 900p with detail akin to low or medium on PC at best, and it does dip in framerate at times in 64 bit MP. Like I said the current thing is MS/SSAA is using more VRAM than textures or assets.

But let's go with the next gen games argument. The current gen consoles are not at all like the 360 and PS3 were at launch; the xbox 360 actually had a more powerful GPU than what the PC offered at launch (although it was very quickly over-taken by PC GPUs in a matter of 2-3 months).

So if we're talking strictly console ports? Not gonna happen. Besides which, we're in a situation where anti aliasing is taking more VRAM than game assets. Don't believe me? Monitor VRAM use. Go from FXAA, 2X MSAA, 8X MSAA to 8X SGSSAA and monitor this on MSI afterburner. You can literally add 2+ GB of VRAM use through super sampled anti aliasing alone (compared to 2X MSAA, or even more with FXAA) at 5760x1200 if you're really stupid about it. I've tried this. The VRAM use for SSAA is amazingly dumb. And even dumber is the 70-150% performance hit (depending on which SSAA you use), but, it does look nice.

Personally, i'm happy to use 2X MSAA or FXAA and not deal with the 70% performance hit of SSAA. It's whatever though. More consumer choice. If you want more VRAM for this use, that's great - it's all up to the user and its their money to spend, even if I wouldn't do it. At certain resolutions more VRAM does become desirable. 4k pushes more pixels than 5760*1200 does, so I can see the argument there. 2560x1600? You don't need more than 3GB. Period. Unless you just want to be OCD about anti aliasing.

All that said. I agree it's not a gimmick. It isn't a gimmick if someone can benefit from it, and there are contingents of users that can benefit from it. 4k resolution? Triple 1440p? Professional video editing? The gamer who just loves SSAA? They can make use of 6GB. It isn't a gimmick for them. It's consumer choice. If you want 6GB, hey great. I don't see the problem with having more choice rather than less. It should have been this way from the start, but, whatever.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Seems that Nvidia all got you by the balls looking at your comments. I would not spend 50$ for a single fps boost.

(facepalm)


Thread crapping will not be tolerated.

-Rvenger

 

[blackened23]

Seems that Nvidia all got you by the balls looking at your comments. I would not spend 50$ for a single fps boost.

(facepalm)

Are you trolling or what? VRAM doesn't directly affect performance. Go read up on VRAM does for AA and asset use. You can benchmark identically clocked 2 vs 4GB cards or 3 vs 6 GB cards all day long and the performance is not different. The performance is exactly the same so long as the GPU clocks, memory timings, and memory speeds are the same. More VRAM is for more anti aliasing at higher resolutions. More VRAM is for professional applications. More VRAM is for super high surround resolutions without sacrificing AA. Would I want 6GB? No. But some do.

More VRAM is not about performance. Of course I've already stated this like, 3 times. You can google this stuff to see what the purpose of more VRAM is, if you're truly interested. Or you can read above. If you're interested. It isn't about performance. Unless you're just trolling, then, whatever. We've been had by the balls I guess. There's an easy comment I could make here about being had by the balls related to a non functional setup for months on end, but I won't even touch it.

 

[Kenmitch]

Last week 4GB of memory was overkill, this week it's not enough....Go figure!

Nice S move NVidia....The devoted will reward you with their $'s

 

[KaRLiToS]

Are you trolling or what? VRAM doesn't directly affect performance. Go read up on VRAM does for AA and asset use. You can benchmark identically clocked 2 vs 4GB cards or 3 vs 6 GB cards all day long and the performance is not different.

More VRAM is not about performance. Of course I've already stated this like, 3 times. You can google this stuff to see what the purpose of more VRAM is, if you're truly interested. Or you can read above. If you're interested. It isn't about performance. Unless you're just trolling, then, whatever. We've been had by the balls I guess. There's an easy comment I could make here about being had by the balls related to a non functional setup for months on end, but I won't even touch it.

Provide me a source please. It's not your explanations that will prove me anything.

Also, if you want to talk about the "non-fonctionnal" setup, it would be completly off topic and would be trolling. On the other side, i'm not trolling, I'm on topic.

Thank you

( And by the way my setup is fonctionnal, it just have an issue with the Display Port + Corssfire on my particular system only. I have a very finicky x79 chipset revision that caused me past issues with my Quad 7970s )

 

[blackened23]

Provide me a source please. It's not your explanations that will prove me anything.

You want me to google it for you. Tell you what. Go to google, type up 2 vs 4 GB GTX 680, or look at Titan Black benchmarks vs 780ti, and have fun. If you want me to use google for you, well, no thanks. The information is out there in droves. Go find it. I can tell you that most 2 and 4 GB 680s have different clocks, so there will be minor performance differences such as .5 to 1 fps. But the performance is the same. But i'm not going to waste my time using google for you. After you do this, you can read on the effects of anti aliasing on VRAM use, or professional apps on VRAM use. Via google. Big surprise - for these guys that want tons of SSAA at 4k resolution, 6GB makes sense. Because AA uses VRAM. Higher resolution with AA exponentially increases VRAM use.

And well, if you don't want to bother with google. You can by all means think what you think, that's your prerogative. That nv has us by the balls and all that sort of thing.

 

[KaRLiToS]

I aleady googled what you asked like 10 times the past year and I saw everywhere that 4GB 680 doesn't have a (big) difference with the 2GB version, less than 4%.

Even shilka at OCN prooved it that in any scenario, the 4GB version had no gain, just google shilka GTX 680.

You can even notice that in some case the GTX 680 4GB is worse. (Just like the GTx 780 versus the Titan)

 

[Fastx]

Blackend let ask you this so I am clear on your post, are you stating that any next gen games out over the next 12- 24 months are not going to need over 3GB of vram on ultra settings using MSAA 2x or 4x running a resolution of 1440 or 1600?

 

[toyota]

You may call me ignorant or stupid, I still don't see the point of that 6GB version (outside of selling more cards) Some people will sell their 3GB version for the 6GB. In my opinion, it's a gimmick just like the GTX 680 4GB was gimmick.

Even at 4k there is so few differences between a GTX Titan of 6GB and a regular GTX 780 of 3GB. Where is the place for a GTX 780 6GB version in that graph?

Can someone show me a comparaison of the loading time between a 3GB and 6GB outside of user experience, show me real numbers. And if it's half a second, then meh.

I loved to death my GTX 780 Reference (zotac) and my MSI GTX 780 Twin Frozr Gaming OC but I won't be getting that 6GB version for sure.

http://www.nvidia.fr/docs/IO/143515/nvidia-geforce-gtx-battlebox-4k-gaming-performance-draft-fr.jpg

IMO it will go like this
-GTX 780 3GB @ 4k = 30 fps
-GTX 780 6GB @ 4k = 31.2 fps

Gimmick

are you really not capable of comprehending that some games will go over 3gb of vram usage at settings that 780/780 ti sli and especially tri sli can run at high resolutions? just because you cant understand that simple concept does not make it a gimmick.

 

[UaVaj]

Gimmick

shader drives fps. vram drives eye candy.
when there is not enough shader. vram just sits dormant.
when there is not enough vram. first swapping, then stutter. (try a 580sli with 1.5gb on bf4 max at 1k/1080p n go underwater or go out of map)

that means = if you have enough shaders (as in tri/quad sli situations) to crank up "max" eye candy. you will need more vram.

the current 780ti 3gb for trisli "do" have enough shaders, however not enough vram (for bf4 ultra at 3k/1080p surround).

here another account with 3gb for eye candy at 4k.

-----

if you "ever" get your 290x 4gb working.

you will realize that your 290x quad fire will choke on vram with your 5.5k/1440p eyefinity. and if you are as loyal to the red team as you are. you will want that 8gb sapphire.


Your last sentence was not necessary. Trolling will not be permitted here, period.

-Rvenger

 

[Rvenger]

Thread cleaned and offenders warned/infracted. Guys, let's keep it civil from here on out. No more personal attacks, trolling, and stay on topic.

-Moderator Rvenger

 

[Larnz]

Titan Fall's ultra setting warns that you need a 3GB minimum graphics card to run it. I have 2x 2GB GTX 680s in SLI and if i go from 'High' to 'ultra' I drop from 110 fps to 40 so there is definitely a huge impact between 2 & 3GB VRAM I would imagine that in the not too distant future this will increase and over 3 might be needed for the large asserts.

 

[Roland00Address]

My first thought on reading this, is my gtx 680 is starting to feel less.

I then realized that my gtx 680 is 2 years old for I bought the card at launch, and it still plays everything out there that I play at 1440p. The gtx titan is 13 months old now, and the gtx 780 is 10 months old.

Bring on 20nm maxwell, we desperately need a die shrink. Paying 10% more for an extra 3 gbs of ram is a reasonable request, but seriously who will be buying these cards at $500+ when they are 1 to 2 year old technology now. What a gtx 780 at $500 to $550 is what 20% faster on average than my 2 year old gtx 680 (it can be as high as 30% in some games, but it is 20% most of the time), so in 2 years the gtx 680 that launched at $500 has a replacement that is only about 20% faster. (Also the replacement has to use 50 watts more of energy to achieve these results.)

Bring on the die shrink, bring on maxwell greater efficency.

 

[3DVagabond]

This is a smart move. It will improve the perceived value of the cards without having to reduce prices. This also might help keep the prices of the Sapphire 8gig cards down to compete.

 

[sascha]

and that really bothers you? this is not some rebadged card and nothing sneaky is going on here. they are simply giving you an option to double the amount of vram for 50 bucks which is actually not bad. its simply another option but I swear some of you will find something to bitch about.

$50 more is very fair for 3GB more.

 

[Shmee]

Good news. This is much needed for say, 4k surround users who don't use titans. As mentioned, the 780ti should really have had this to begin with IMO.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

The moral of the story is this...as soon as I buy a GPU from any company, will release a new version in two weeks that is better for the price I paid for the old one.

Just bought a gtx780 and a r9 290 in the last 2 weeks hahahahahahaa...

 

[KaRLiToS]

Good news. This is much needed for say, 4k surround users who don't use titans. As mentioned, the 780ti should really have had this to begin with IMO.

Do you mean 4k triple monitors surround? Are you aware that is worth of 25 MegaPixel?

3840x2160x3 = 24,883,200 pixels

Check this out: GTX 780ti 3GB VS GTX Titan (3GB vs 6GB)

If you analyse this graph correctly, you clearly see that even if they do a 32GB version of the GTX 780... it will still be bandwidth limited. I don't understand why you people can't realise that.

Also, I only know one guy accross the web that have 4k triple monitors in surround and it's baasha. He has 3 x 24" 4k monitors. So I only see people with 1080p or 1440p single monitors buying those cards ... or the less informed thinking that this extra 3GB will do the difference.

 

[omeds]

I aleady googled what you asked like 10 times the past year and I saw everywhere that 4GB 680 doesn't have a (big) difference with the 2GB version, less than 4%.

Even shilka at OCN prooved it that in any scenario, the 4GB version had no gain, just google shilka GTX 680.

You can even notice that in some case the GTX 680 4GB is worse. (Just like the GTx 780 versus the Titan)

When you run out of Vram you see stutter and often significantly reduced performance. More Vram doesn't gain you performance per se, instead it allows you to use more graphical assets and higher resolutions before you run into those issues.

When you start enhancing your games with features like SSAA, Transparency AA, HBAO, or mods, you really start to chew through it. I can hit 3GB on a single display quite easily.