Several R9 285's pictured (VideoCardz)

[blackened23]

4k resolution. 4k..resolution.

Yes, more VRAM is warranted at 4k but then again you can simply lower AA and be just fine.

The topic was 1080p. 2GB is fine for 1080p, and I gamed for ages with 2GB at 1600p. If you want to game at 4k resolution, you'd need more horsepower anyway...but assuming you want to lower settings, then you would lower or disable AA a notch and be just fine with 2GB at 4k as well. I'm not advocating that, but i'm just saying...you can make it work with lowered AA settings. You would obviously not be maxing games at on a 770 at 4k.

Remember, anti aliasing (MSAA uses a lot, SSAA is a GOD AWFUL ton of VRAM) takes more VRAM than anything else in current games. It's both sad and stupid, and a byproduct of few PC first games ever being developed. The 770 is a mid range GPU just like the 285 or whatever will be a mid range GPU. 2GB will be just fine for the intended audience who will be gaming at 1080p. Unless the intended audience goes full retard with 8X SSAA, there is no need for 4GB.

I will say that, 4GB should be the baseline for both the 770 and the 285. But, I don't think it will be a big deal to the intended audience. Know what i'm saying. Let's face it: 1080p is the prime market for these cards, and both of those cards will do just fine. I'm assuming the 285 would be a fair bit faster than the 770, and in a 2GB configuration - it could have a significant cost advantage over the 760/770 which could cause a big shift in the mid range market for sure.

 

[Keysplayr]

Here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...views/65636-pny-gtx-770-oc2-4gb-review-6.html

Some of these are clearly playable on the 770 4GB and not the 2GB model.

The truth is that almost no review sites have actually done this comparison, because in the case of every card that comes in both 2GB and 4GB variants, the 4GB is overpriced versus other cards that are on the market. Witness the 770 4GB that costs as much as a 290.

Anyway, 2GB is fine on a $200 card, and that's why I said earlier that this is the price the card should arrive at. There's a place for a 2GB card with 280X performance, specifically at $200 for 1080p gamers.

Well said and agree.

 

[toyota]

You havent showed me the compare between a 2 and 4GB card.

And no, I dont want to see VRAM usage numbers. I want to see actual FPS of the 2 cards. If its limited by the memory amount the FPS will plummet.

its been made pretty clear in reviews of Wolfenstien and Watch Dogs. and for Daylight its well known too. people with 770 2gb cards stutter like crazy on max settings where 4gb is fine. my 780 pegs the vram in that game. sit there in denial all you want but 2gb is a limitation in some cases and NO framerates dont always plummet. just like with lack of sufficient system ram there can be hitching as vram becomes maxed out.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

I seem to remember running Wolfenstein just fine maxed out even at 1440p with a 2GB 770. Though I bought it a few months after release so maybe they fixed the issues.

 

[toyota]

I seem to remember running Wolfenstein just fine maxed out even at 1440p with a 2GB 770. Though I bought it a few months after release so maybe they fixed the issues.

lol you dont remember correctly. you cant even select Ultra setting unless you have 3gb of vram.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

lol you dont remember correctly. you cant even select Ultra setting unless you have 3gb of vram.

Yeah, now I remember that was locked, I used a custom config to force some higher textures and better anisotropic filtering. Looks better then the in-consistent game textures.

 

[tviceman]

I know Maxwell is doing more work with less memory bandwidth, but I have a sinking feeling Tonga is going to be on average slower than Tahiti. And with the product name, that is a dumb dumb situation.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[lopri]

2 GB should be fine for Tahiti level performance. Power users may not be happy with the slow pace of progress but the truth is that for vast majority of gamers 4 GB will be simply wasted and wasting. (power/heat/etc.) And as we know, you can't tack extra gigabyte here and there when "power of 2" is the rule of computing. I suppose AIB's will introduce 4 GB versions if there is demand but those users are probably more attracted to 290/290x anyway.

This is better than another rebranding (lol) when everyone is still on 28nm. I am curious how much perf/watt improvement there will be and if AMD improved GCN's 2D performance.

 

[toyota]

2 GB should be fine for Tahiti level performance. Power users may not be happy with the slow pace of progress but the truth is that for vast majority of gamers 4 GB will be simply wasted and wasting. (power/heat/etc.) And as we know, you can't tack extra gigabyte here and there when "power of 2" is the rule of computing. I suppose AIB's will introduce 4 GB versions if there is demand but those users are probably more attracted to 290/290x anyway.

This is better than another rebranding (lol) when everyone is still on 28nm. I am curious how much perf/watt improvement there will be and if AMD improved GCN's 2D performance.

why are you saying that when we already have games NOW that use more than 2gb of vram on that level of gpu. really are some of you just going to keep claiming 2gb of vram is enough no matter what?

 

[Enigmoid]

Here: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...views/65636-pny-gtx-770-oc2-4gb-review-6.html

Some of these are clearly playable on the 770 4GB and not the 2GB model.

The truth is that almost no review sites have actually done this comparison, because in the case of every card that comes in both 2GB and 4GB variants, the 4GB is overpriced versus other cards that are on the market. Witness the 770 4GB that costs as much as a 290.

Anyway, 2GB is fine on a $200 card, and that's why I said earlier that this is the price the card should arrive at. There's a place for a 2GB card with 280X performance, specifically at $200 for 1080p gamers.

That, first of all, is overclocked vs stock (13% increase in avg core speed). Second of all NOBODY pays for a 4K monitor.....and plays at 37 fps avg (30 min). Playable settings ARE lower than benchmarked there where VRAM makes less of a difference.

2 GB is more than enough for 1080p assuming you do not go crazy on AA. Also remember that for 4K you need quite a bit less AA due to a higher pixel density.

 

[toyota]

lol again people are going to keep claiming 2gb is enough at 1080. get through your freaking heads that it is NOT if you want to run the full settings a card like this is capable of. you cant even select some settings in Watch Dogs and Wolfenstein. use some common sense and think about future games like Doom 4. I will just sit back and laugh over the next year as even more games need over 2gb of vram.

 

[tviceman]

2 GB should be fine for Tahiti level performance. Power users may not be happy with the slow pace of progress but the truth is that for vast majority of gamers 4 GB will be simply wasted and wasting. (power/heat/etc.) And as we know, you can't tack extra gigabyte here and there when "power of 2" is the rule of computing. I suppose AIB's will introduce 4 GB versions if there is demand but those users are probably more attracted to 290/290x anyway.

This is better than another rebranding (lol) when everyone is still on 28nm. I am curious how much perf/watt improvement there will be and if AMD improved GCN's 2D performance.

I'm not even talking about the vram configuration. I'm saying that unless the shaders, caching system, and ROPs have been significantly upgraded, I don't see how it's possible that Tonga will beat a 280x.

We could be looking at another 6870 < 5870 scenario, but this time the product names are even more confusing.

 

[blackened23]

It's fine for everything except Watch Dogs in full retard mode , since Watch Dogs has taken the title of worst console port known to man.

Look, you can find fringe cases where you can go above 2GB of VRAM with SSAA or Watch Dogs but that is the exception, probably 1-2 exceptions, and not the rule. I gamed on a 680 2GB for years on end with nearly everything maxed out with SLI at 1600p. I never, ever, had a single problem. I understand watch dogs is a piece of crap which was designed treating the VRAM of the video card similarly to the 8GB of unified system RAM on the consoles. Other words, CRAP console port.

Anyway, you can find fringe cases like that, but it's easily worked around. If you want to game in the event of a game being coded by idiots, ie, WATCH DOGS, simply lower the AA a tad or in the case of watch dogs don't use ultra. 2GB is more than fine if you don't go full retard with stuff like SSAA, which will increase VRAM consumption to stupid levels.

I also know guys still gaming on GTX 580s just fine. If there is an issue, it's as simple as lowering the AA a notch and that is that. I also will add that if you're judging VRAM requirements by starting at the afterburner VRAM usage chart, well, that's the wrong thing to do. A 2GB card will more quickly clear the cache/memory when needed whereas a 3-4GB card may not need to and won't. I remember going from the 7970 to 680, I noticed this - games that I *KNEW* didn't require more than 1.5GB of VRAM showed near 3GB of VRAM on the 7970. Yet the VRAM was always under 2GB on the 680. So do not judge VRAM requirements in that fashion, although ultra Watch Dogs will need 3GB. Most games are not crap like Watch Dogs.

But the beautiful thing here is that if you insist on setting every game to full retard mode, there are options for you. By all means go buy a 4GB card if that's what someone wants to do. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy 2GB. So go buy 4GB even though I would say unless you want to run full retard mode watch dogs, you'll be 100% fine with 2GB.

 

[toyota]

It's fine for everything except Watch Dogs in full retard mode , since Watch Dogs has taken the title of worst console port known to man.

Look, you can find fringe cases where you can go above 2GB of VRAM but that is the exception, probably 1-2 exceptions, and not the rule. I gamed on a 680 2GB for years on end with nearly everything maxed out with SLI. I never, ever, had a single problem. I understand watch dogs is a piece of crap which was designed treating the VRAM of the video card similarly to the 8GB of unified system RAM on the consoles. Other words, CRAP console port.

Anyway, you can find fringe cases like that, but it's easily worked around. If you want to game in the event of a game being coded by idiots, simply lower the AA a tad or in the case of watch dogs don't use ultra. 2GB is more than fine if you don't go full retard with stuff like SSAA, which will increase VRAM consumption to stupid levels.

I also know guys still gaming on GTX 580s just fine. If there is an issue, it's as simple as lowering the AA a notch and that is that.

But the beautiful thing here is that if you insist on setting every game to full retard mode, there are options for you. By all means go buy a 4GB card if that's what someone wants to do. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy 2GB. So go buy 4GB even though I would say unless you want to run full retard mode watch dogs, you'll be 100% fine with 2GB.

sigh NO. you are missing Wolfenstein too. and Daylight eats vram so that might be what to expect on some UE 4 games.

congratulations on playing in the past with 2gb but this is NOW and GOING FORWARD.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's fine for almost all games that are already out. What about in 6months... or a year when people are still able to rock their +3yr. old 7970's but this card is VRAM limited? This card had better be cheap. Cheap enough that they can do a 4gig version for less than $200.

 

[toyota]

It's fine for almost all games that are already out. What about in 6months... or a year when people are still able to rock their +3yr. old 7970's but this card is VRAM limited? This card had better be cheap. Cheap enough that they can do a 4gig version for less than $200.

yeah it hilarious that back when the 680 came out many were worried about 2gb not being enough when then it was not an issue for single card gaming at all or even SLI for the most part. now we actually have a few games that need more than 2gb for a card of that level or better and people are claiming 2gb is enough now and foreseeable future. lol

 

[blackened23]

sigh NO. you are missing Wolfenstein too. and Daylight eats vram so that might be what to expect on some UE 4 games.

congratulations on playing in the past with 2gb but this is NOW and GOING FORWARD.

Not sure about Daylight but Wolfenstein runs just fine on the 2GB 770. In the event of an issue, which, according to the hardocp review only happened at 1600p (IF IM NOT MISTAKEN): They had to use high instead of ultra. I don't believe this is the case at 1080p. But if it is? It's sad because devs are treating VRAM like unified memory in the consoles, but it's really not something that puts a stop sign in front of your 2GB card. In the event of an issue you lower 1 dial and happily game as you wish.

As I said though. There is consumer choice here. If you want 4GB, go for it. Who the hell cares. My opnion is, it doesn't matter, and in the event of a game coded by retards, lower the AA a notch or with Wolfenstein at 1600p lower it to high instead of ultra. I really don't get the wolfenstein thing because it looks worse than some 2011 DX9 games. That's the wonderful thing about console ports, regression. Devs are treating VRAM like unified memory on the consoles. But the main point here: I agree that 4GB should be baseline, but it isn't, and people have and will continue to game just fine with 2GB. Where there is an issue (and I don't see it as an issue at 1080p) just lower 1 dial and you'll be fine. Or if you insist on 4gB, by all means, buy 4GB. Jesus christ.

With the next gen maxwells likely being 4GB across the board, it'll become less of an issue down the road for new buyers (and the 700 series will go end of life and discontinued). And of course the 290 cards have 4GB as well. And if you want a 285. Well, vote with your wallet. If you want 4GB , go get 4GB. Personally I think 2GB is just fine for 1080p, where there's an issue with a game coded by idiots lower a dial. Let's face the cold hard truth here. Despite the stupid VRAM requirements of a game like Watch Dogs or certain situations in Wolfenstein, these games do not look better than older DX11 games that use FAR LESS VRAM. Hell these games look worse than some DX9 games from 2011. Witcher 2 comes to mind. SAD. That is IMO. You can just agree to disagree. For those buying high end down the road, it wont' even be an issue for a new buyer for the 870/880/290s. Unless the 860 is 2GB. Who knows.

 

[toyota]

Not sure about Daylight but Wolfenstein runs just fine on the 2GB 770. In the event of an issue, which, according to the hardocp review only happened at 1600p (IF IM NOT MISTAKEN): They had to use high instead of ultra. I don't believe this is the case at 1080p. But if it is? It's sad because devs are treating VRAM like unified memory in the consoles, but it's really not something that puts a stop sign in front of your 2GB card. In the event of an issue you lower 1 dial and happily game as you wish.

As I said though. There is consumer choice here. If you want 4GB, go for it. Who the hell cares. My opnion is, it doesn't matter, and in the event of a game coded by retards, lower the AA a notch or with Wolfenstein at 1600p lower it to high instead of ultra. I really don't get the wolfenstein thing because it looks worse than some 2011 DX9 games. That's the wonderful thing about console ports, regression. Devs are treating VRAM like unified memory on the consoles. But the main point here: I agree that 4GB should be baseline, but it isn't, and people have and will continue to game just fine with 2GB. Where there is an issue (and I don't see it as an issue at 1080p) just lower 1 dial and you'll be fine. Or if you insist on 4gB, by all means, buy 4GB. Jesus christ.

With the next gen maxwells likely being 4GB across the board, it'll become less of an issue down the road for new buyers (and the 700 series will go end of life and discontinued). And of course the 290 cards have 4GB as well. And if you want a 285. Well, vote with your wallet. If you want 4GB , go get 4GB. Personally I think 2GB is just fine for 1080p, where there's an issue with a game coded by idiots lower a dial. That is IMO. You can just agree to disagree. For those buying high end down the road, it wont' even be an issue for a new buyer for the 870/880/290s. Unless the 860 is 2GB. Who knows.

why are you claiming it runs good when i have already mentioned that you cant even select Ultra with a 2gb card? so again my POINT is that 2gb will already limit the settings NOW in a few games and that is only going to get worse.

 

[iiiankiii]

2GB only? What a waste. I guess these cards aren't meant for higher resolutions. I wouldn't want to crossfire them. I would imagine it would hit the VRAM limit at that point.

 

[3DVagabond]

2GB only? What a waste. I guess these cards aren't meant for higher resolutions. I wouldn't want to crossfire them. I would imagine it would hit the VRAM limit at that point.

Assuming Tahiti+ performance, maybe the 285X will be 4 gig. Face it, people haven't really had much of a reason to upgrade from the Pro to XT versions of AMD's cards for quite a while. Since the HD5000 series, when both models were O/C'd, there really hasn't been any game play advantage for the more expensive model.

 

[Silverforce11]

2GB only? What a waste. I guess these cards aren't meant for higher resolutions. I wouldn't want to crossfire them. I would imagine it would hit the VRAM limit at that point.

Certainly a waste for CF and longevity.

As we've already seen some recent games won't let you get the best textures without the vram, even-though the cards have the power to handle it, its limited by the vram. It's not a good situation for gamers.

As its been discussed, next-gen AAA console ports would be more likely to go down this route, since they can due to the high vram/system ram of the consoles.

Just think back, not long ago if you got a SLI 580 rig, if its the 3GB variant, you are still gaming very well at 1080 to 1600p. But if its the 1.5gb variant.. better turn down those settings.

I am assuming this card has 7970ghz or R280X performance or more (who knows tho!), if so, the 4GB model with a small premium is the wise choice.

 

[Silverforce11]

Assuming Tahiti+ performance, maybe the 285X will be 4 gig. Face it, people haven't really had much of a reason to upgrade from the Pro to XT versions of AMD's cards for quite a while. Since the HD5000 series, when both models were O/C'd, there really hasn't been any game play advantage for the more expensive model.

Actually this is a good point.

AMD have shot themselves for many generations, ever since the 4850 onwards, the Pro variant (5850, 6950, 7950) obsoletes the XT variant due to how close the performance was once you run them at similar clocks.

So it may be a differentiation based on vram quantity as well as the extra cores. If so, wise marketing move, but sucks for us gamers who chase bang for buck.

 

[ShintaiDK]

why are you claiming it runs good when i have already mentioned that you cant even select Ultra with a 2gb card? so again my POINT is that 2gb will already limit the settings NOW in a few games and that is only going to get worse.

How much benefit is there from ultra?
http://www.maximumpc.com/graphics_analysis_wolfenstein_new_order_2014
http://www.digitalstormonline.com/u...er-graphics-comparison-ultra-to-low-idnum267/
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Wolfe...enstein-The-New-Order-Test-Benchmark-1121737/

I mean I can make something need 500GB VRAM, it doesnt mean its good or needed still.

2GB is fine, also for future games. And its obvious since you have to pick some extreme cases, usually where the textures are in raw format to get over 2GB usage. But that doesnt mean its needed or worth the extra cost at all.

 

[RussianSensation]

Chances are AMD will have both 2GB and 4GB versions of these cards. For those looking to CF, they could just pay a little extra for the 4GB versions. When I recall AMD replacing 5850/5870 with 6870/6950, those cards cost substantially more for not much more performance. Since 285/X will be a new card meant to displace the more expensive to manufacture 280/X, AMD will need to clear existing stock. Those on sale 280/280X cards will be a better value until stock is cleared.

Frankly, it is hard to get at all excited about any card like 285 unless it comes priced at $199. R9 280 has been $180-210 for months and R9 280X regularly drops to $250-270. If 285 is $250 or something with performance in between, that's not really moving the price/performance curve much. 7970 is nearly 3 years old now. I remember 1.5 years ago 7970Ghz sold for $270-300! The best time to buy a new card passed a long time ago this generation. Now it is small price drops with incremental performance increases. Prices of cards such as 760/770/780/290 have frozen.

Until 300 and 800 series drop from AMD/NV, I don't see a breakthrough in price/performance. I think the main reasons AMD wants to discontinue the 280/280X is because those cards have more complex PCB, and more expensive coolers, which makes them less profitable. Perhaps AMD will test out new power states granularity on the 285 as a pre-test of sorts for 300 series.

 

[blackened23]

Certainly a waste for CF and longevity.

As we've already seen some recent games won't let you get the best textures without the vram, even-though the cards have the power to handle it, its limited by the vram. It's not a good situation for gamers.

As its been discussed, next-gen AAA console ports would be more likely to go down this route, since they can due to the high vram/system ram of the consoles.

Just think back, not long ago if you got a SLI 580 rig, if its the 3GB variant, you are still gaming very well at 1080 to 1600p. But if its the 1.5gb variant.. better turn down those settings.

I am assuming this card has 7970ghz or R280X performance or more (who knows tho!), if so, the 4GB model with a small premium is the wise choice.

So don't freakin' buy it. Who cares. If you want 4GB, get 4GB. (I assume the 285 will have a 4GB version) Aside from games coded by devs who can't be bothered to code properly for the PC, you won't have a problem. If you choose to play those games (Wolf at 1600p), then you lower 1 dial and you game just fine. All of these games run perfectly on 2GB. Some here are acting like a 2GB framebuffer will make your computer explode in some spectacular fashion. Give me a break please. What really happens is you lower 1 dial and game just fine in the ONE GAME that you need to do that at 1080p. (again, wolf was shown to be issue free until 1600p, and Dying light not sure) All other games will be just fine: as most games are not programmed by idiots treating VRAM like unified console memory.

There's like one game that can potentially use more than 2GB at 1080p, all of which are coded by idiots. There's Watch Dogs, which everyone should avoid anyway ... and According to H, Wolf is fine except at 1600p. Dying Light? Dunno. Thank the next gen consoles are PC gaming regression for treating VRAM like unified memory, they can't be bothered to properly code VRAM management in their games. Even more hilarious is despite the high VRAM requirements, these two games look worse than many top tier 2011 DX9 games.....anyway... even in this event...watch dogs ultra or Wolf at 1600p, lower 1 dial and game just fine.

These are low-mid range cards. These people aren't seeking ultra across the board, if they were, they would opt for a higher end card. But this is where consumer choice comes in,. If someone wants 4GB get 4GB and shut up with the complaining. It's so stupid. If you want 4GB get 4GB. I'd bet a pretty penny that the 285 will sell just fine for the intended audience and like the 760 and 770, the intended 1080p audience will like the card just fine. Hell I know people gaming on GTX 580s to this day and they DO NOT have problems even in watch dogs. What do they do? Lower a dial. Since the 580 is old, they don't play everything on ultra. In the 1-2 games where VRAM is an issue, oh my god, lower 1 setting and game. Jesus Christ. This is a 230-250$ card(i'm guessing) you're talking about, not something designed for people who want ultra with 4X SSAA. But if you really care, get 4GB. I don't see the issue, except complaining just to complain. The vast majority of 760/770 owners, from what I see, game just fine at 1080p with no complaints (per newegg/amazon reviews, and other people I personally know) and i'm sure this will be no different.