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

[moonbogg]

if that is the extent of your knowledge and concern then your opinion on the matter is almost worthless.

So you're saying its worth something. Thanks yota.

 

[rgallant]

2 things though.

1. are the mods necessarily taking all that ram, or is it bad coding? I know its kinda ambiguous because it gets into the idea that you can always code more efficiently.

2. were you limited to 2xAA because of vram side, or speed of card? the extra processing could be the limiting factor, or it could be file swapping.

I know 4k is 4x 1080, but I didnt realize we had hit that threshold of VRAM yet. If we have then wow, time flies.

what about the next gen. of games you can't bench ?
milking is all over this or maybe not I can replace my 1.5k gpu set up next year if need be ,but won't need to thanks to your input.

 

[KaRLiToS]

I know you are making fun of me right now and being sarcastic. But baasha clearly mention this in his thread

No other game comes anywhere near the VRAM usage that Crysis 3 does!

So only Crysis 3 is worth the 6 GB ... AT 5160x2560 (0,000001% of the gamers' resolution)
So you guys believe that GK110-300 will beneficiate of that extra 3GB for 0,000001% of the gamers, that is just GREAT.

I say lets wait for benchies and see how they perform at VERY high resolutions. If they perform better than Titans.... then I will sell my Quad R9 290x cards for my 7680x1440 resolutions and get GTX 780 6 GB.

But IMO, Hawaii or Kepler are not strong enough for 6gb/8GB.

 

[thesmokingman]

^^

The only setups that need this sort of vram are those pushing closer to proof of concepts than daily run rigs. And as shown, at the resolutions where large vram onboard will help, the resolution has become so obnoxiously large that the processing load is too great to actually have any fun playing the game. What is the point of gaming anyways? To have fun right?

 

[rgallant]

I know you are making fun of me right now and being sarcastic. But baasha clearly mention this in his thread



So only Crysis 3 is worth the 6 GB ... AT 5160x2560 (0,000001% of the gamers' resolution)
So you guys believe that GK110-300 will beneficiate of that extra 3GB for 0,000001% of the gamers, that is just GREAT.

I say lets wait for benchies and see how they perform at VERY high resolutions. If they perform better than Titans.... then I will sell my Quad R9 290x cards for my 7680x1440 resolutions and get GTX 780 6 GB.

But IMO, Hawaii or Kepler are not strong enough for 6gb/8GB.

what about 3.1 gb when the current nv 3gb cards crash ?

 

[toyota]

I know you are making fun of me right now and being sarcastic. But baasha clearly mention this in his thread



So only Crysis 3 is worth the 6 GB ... AT 5160x2560 (0,000001% of the gamers' resolution)
So you guys believe that GK110-300 will beneficiate of that extra 3GB for 0,000001% of the gamers, that is just GREAT.

I say lets wait for benchies and see how they perform at VERY high resolutions. If they perform better than Titans.... then I will sell my Quad R9 290x cards for my 7680x1440 resolutions and get GTX 780 6 GB.

But IMO, Hawaii or Kepler are not strong enough for 6gb/8GB.

and I already told you that Thief would go over 3gb at 4k because its maxing out my vram at 3200x1800 already and hitching.

 

[KaRLiToS]

and I already told you that Thief would go over 3gb at 4k because its maxing out my vram at 3200x1800 already and hitching.

But you are playing with a single GTX 780? I think you have your problem. Your resolution is 5.8 MegaPixel. That is a lot for a single card.

 

[OCGuy]

And people still have no idea how RAM works.

 

[UaVaj]

And people still have no idea how RAM works.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[toyota]

But you are playing with a single GTX 780? I think you have your problem. Your resolution is 5.8 MegaPixel. That is a lot for a single card.

how are you making any sense at all? I have told you numerous times that the primary reason for this card is for sli setups at very high res. I just gave you an example of 3gb running out at just 3200x1800. :whiste:

 

[KaRLiToS]

:sneaky: whatever :sneaky:

__________________________________________________

 

[thesmokingman]

how are you making any sense at all? I have told you numerous times that the primary reason for this card is for sli setups at very high res. I just gave you an example of 3gb running out at just 3200x1800. :whiste:

Shakes head. You use your own gpu bound situation to prove you used up 3gb of vram? The hitching you describe is because you are gpu bottlenecked lol. When in a situation of vram choke, it doesn't "hitch", instead everything stops completely while the system swaps to disk. There is a big arse difference between being too slow and being out of memory.

 

[toyota]

Shakes head. You use your own gpu bound situation to prove you used up 3gb of vram? The hitching you describe is because you are gpu bottlenecked lol. When in a situation of vram choke, it doesn't "hitch", instead everything stops completely while the system swaps to disk. There is a big arse difference between being too slow and being out of memory.

lol you think I am some freaking noob here? nice try but the hitching is from vram running out in spots. this is well known to be an issue with 2gb cards running max settings and SSAA at 1080 and especially 1440. and yes that includes a 670, 680 or 770 which otherwise provide playable framerates. now a game patch fixed some of the excessive vram usage but again it will still run out at otherwise playable settings.

 

[toyota]

:sneaky: whatever :sneaky:

__________________________________________________

yeah thats about all I would expect to hear from you

 

[KaRLiToS]

yeah thats about all I would expect to hear from you

C'mon man, we are debating, no need to be arrogant or mad.

 

[toyota]

C'mon man, we are debating, no need to be arrogant or mad.

well here is a screenshot. I had to just take a pic with printscreen of the original and zoom in since none of the free image hosts will take large pics.

 

[omeds]

I can go over 3GB in Skyrim at 1080p ffs. There is no debate that having over 3GB of Vram will be beneficial to a lot of enthusiasts.

 

[toyota]

just played Tomb Raider at 3200x1800 for about 15 minutes. vram usage was almost pegged in a couple spots and that is without SSAA or tressfx. so imagine cranked at 4k or in surround setup going well over 4k.

 

[KaRLiToS]

just played Tomb Raider at 3200x1800 for about 15 minutes. vram usage was almost pegged in a couple spots and that is without SSAA or tressfx. so imagine cranked at 4k or in surround setup going well over 4k.

Maybe you should get a GTX 760 with 4 GB of RAM... it might help you. :whiste:

Imagine if they did a GTX 760 with 8GB of RAM, you could run 4k surround with a single card, wow.


You can have a day off for Trolling.

- Moderator Rvenger

 

[omeds]

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[ShintaiDK]

well here is a screenshot. I had to just take a pic with printscreen of the original and zoom in since none of the free image hosts will take large pics.

Just because a game shows the usage, doesnt mean it needs it.

Thief the crappy game runs perfectly fine at 2560*1440 with everything maxed on my 2GB.

Its a classic misunderstanding, inherited from the misunderstandings of the taskmgr as well.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Just because a game shows the usage, doesnt mean it needs it.

Thief the crappy game runs perfectly fine at 2560*1440 with everything maxed on my 2GB.

Its a classic misunderstanding, inherited from the misunderstandings of the taskmgr as well.

Exactly, Thief is one of the less demanding game since 2013.

Also, there is no real way to calculate Vram usage. It's hard to find any explanations about this... but here you go

These tools all just give you various ways of looking at 'allocation', not real-time 'usage'. A true usage measurement would be 'how much vram does this particular frame I'm rendering right now need'. It would include of course frame buffer allocation, along with the file size of every texture displayed on the screen at that particular moment, along with probably some allocation for storage needed by instruction code (which would be inherently somewhat nebulous).

If you were actually seeing what was 'used', there'd be large variances occurring constantly, based on the particular scene you were looking at. Go stare at a wall, your usage would instantly drop. Then looking at a city-wide battle scene from a rooftop, your usage would be dramatically jump up. But we don't see this in any of these tools, do we?

None of these tools are really telling you what you're 'using' to render the particular frame you're looking at. To do so would be extremely taxing on your system I suspect.

______________

That doesn't even make sense.

Oh yeah, I'm really aware of that.


____________

For you Toyota: Please explain to me how come the GTX 780ti with 3GB is ahead of the Titan?

This is at 2560x1600

 

[KaRLiToS]

just played Tomb Raider at 3200x1800 for about 15 minutes. vram usage was almost pegged in a couple spots and that is without SSAA or tressfx. so imagine cranked at 4k or in surround setup going well over 4k.

Here is another example on how wrong you are.

Tell me how come GTX 770 Sli with 2 GB are better than a GTX Titan with 6 GB?? Though, the Titan has 4 GB more???

So I was right when I said you were GPU bound and not Vram bound with your single GTX 780. Get a second GTx 780 and you'll see the boost you get, yes, even if its 3 GB.

 

[caswow]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Titan...anfall-Benchmarks-welche-Grafikkarte-1114386/

Here is another example for 2gb vs the rest.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Here is another example for 2gb vs the rest.

Virtually no difference to get more than 2GB.