3gb should be the sweet spot for 99% of all titles today. this lesser vram saving will be welcome by many.
not - if you plannning to go tri-sli.
- Status
3gb should be the sweet spot for 99% of all titles today. this lesser vram saving will be welcome by many.
not - if you plannning to go tri-sli.
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
3GB is perfect for 1080p gaming. Exactly why I bought my 7950 and I only paid $260.
Really crazy how Nvidia is now Apple. 2GB was plenty for gaming and 3GB wasn't needed.. Until Nvidia invented the 3GB card and now it's needed for gaming.
notty22
Diamond Member
- Jan 1, 2010
- 3,375
- 0
- 0
Going back to a preview of K20, here at Anands, Nvidia stated they were getting good yields, better than (anticipated/worst case). As reported by Ryan , Anand in those articles.
The old 'what else are they going to say' can be countered with any response to yield issues, but that's what was put forth.
The issue was, they couldn't get enough wafers to meet demand.
Is TSMC still wafer constrained? I thought they ramped up just before rumors started to fly about K20 being produced?
as fx1 pointed out. a single gpu will choke before it ever fully uses 3gb vram.
even with surround gaming - 5760x1080. have yet to exceed 2.5gb vram.
prior gaming - 1920x1080. have yet to exceed 1.5gb vram
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
I've seen over 2GB on non modded skyrim 1080p. So I personally would not feel comfortable with less than 3. But of course now that Nvidia has brought 3GB cards to the market it's an absolute minimum.
I doubt the gaming companies would agree with you.
With the mainstream segment of graphics cards ($150 - $200) being 2 gB cards all around until at least 20nm gets here, game companies will not be upping the texture resolution in a meaningful artistic way above 2 gB @ 1080p until at least 20nm gets here. The 660Ti, 670, and 680 being 2 gB were just absolute guarantees for this scenario to play out this way.
Since the 760Ti and 770 are most likely going to be 2 gB still, this part of the equation has not changed for the game companies yet.
The advertised boost is pretty much a non-factor because they boost higher out of the box the majority of the time. It isn't a set clock or boost speed; the binning of the chip determines the final boost and that is variable. Fortunately, it is usually a lot higher than what the advertised boost speed is.
OILFIELDTRASH
Lifer
- May 13, 2009
- 12,333
- 612
- 126
I'm referencing the Nvidia fanboys. Watch now that Nvidia has a 3gb mainstream card. All of a sudden everyone here will be singing the 3GB praises when previously the 2GB 680 was the best.
Also remember that the boost is limited to keeping the card at 80c as well.
With a huge step up in default cooler in the form of the 770 (and perhaps a TDP bump), the actual boost speed will definitely be staying steadily far higher than 680 in pretty much all scenarios.
Well, that could certainly be considered a circular argument. The "Well you did this! No you did!" argument can go on forever, the fact of the matter is that both sides have hypocrites that will state things solely to bolster their argument in their view. It's really nothing new and not worth bringing up, it's just an endless circular argument. We all know it, we all see it from both camps, it's really not worth bringing up IMHO.
The reason I wanted a 3GB card so badly was for modded Skyrim. Any other games I play @ 1080P with high to max settings run under 2GB (1.4-1.6GB). I still think GTX 570's and 580's would be better performers if they had 2GB of vram.
I am kind of bummed the GTX 770 is supposed to only have 2GB of vram, but like other's have said the 4GB will be an option.
I am kind of bummed the GTX 770 is supposed to only have 2GB of vram, but like other's have said the 4GB will be an option.
Last edited:
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
2 gigs is fine for me still, but glad nVidia's partners offer more ram and go beyond reference for the potential gamers that desire more.
760ti SLI is going to epic performance. 690 GTX speeds for hardly any money. 400 euro Titan killer
Last edited:
Quite frankly you can get very close to Titan with just 660 SLI:
Unigine Valley
TITAN @ 1170/1563 - 2900
660 SSLI @ 1282/1650 - 2863
That's 99% of a Titan right there, for under $400.
Unigine Valley
TITAN @ 1170/1563 - 2900
660 SSLI @ 1282/1650 - 2863
That's 99% of a Titan right there, for under $400.
just about all synthetics have almost perfect SLI/Crossfire scaling and have hilariously low memory bandwidth and video ram requirements.
Use a real game please.
Actually the Valley benchmark makes great use of improved bandwidth. Adjusting memory clocks will greatly increase your score. But I do agree, that most games will be a different outcome vs. Synthetics.
Last edited:
Yes, Cry-engine 3 and Frostbite 2 are very scalable due to the almost entirely deferred rendering used.
Outside of those two engines would be a better indication of most PC games.
I do accept your evidence as very plausible though
http://www.techspot.com/review/644-nvidia-geforce-titan/page4.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/661-nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-sli/page3.html
It's technically from two different reviews, but the settings are the same and if you look at the 660 Ti it scores identically in the two graphs, so I figure it is valid.
You see a similar story in Far Cry 3, 660 SLI has 98% of the frame rate of the Titan @ 1920x1200 4xMSAA.
http://www.techspot.com/review/661-nvidia-geforce-gtx-650-ti-boost-sli/page3.html
It's technically from two different reviews, but the settings are the same and if you look at the 660 Ti it scores identically in the two graphs, so I figure it is valid.
You see a similar story in Far Cry 3, 660 SLI has 98% of the frame rate of the Titan @ 1920x1200 4xMSAA.
Yes, Cry-engine 3 and Frostbite 2 are very scalable due to the almost entirely deferred rendering used.
Outside of those two engines would be a better indication of most PC games.
I do accept your evidence as very plausible though
I don't think 660ti SLI coming close to Titan is an unreasonable statement - consider that Titan is roughly 15% short of the 690. With that in mind, 660 SLI can certainly come close. Now, Titan differentiates itself by being a far better card for surround and high resolutions due to the greater VRAM buffer, and being a single card solution without the added heat and noise of SLI.
OTOH, obviously, some feel that SLI has pitfalls but I've actually been really impressed with it - take for instance, frametime graphs of SLI configurations being awfully, awfully close to single cards as anecdotal evidence. Nvidia spent a lot of time implementing frame metering in the Kepler series and it shows, I've actually gotten quite fond of SLI over the past 8 months or so of using it. Because it works, it's smooth, and it's reliable. I won't bother you with linking graphs to frametimes but SLI is really really good in the smoothness department, it's almost the same as a single card with nvidia's frame pacing. That isn't to say that single cards will be better for some users, but SLI works very well.
Additionally, while scaling does vary from game to game, SLI more often than not scales very well. I haven't played a game yet that doesn't benefit greatly from it. So....I don't think 660ti coming close to titan is unreasonable at all in terms of raw performance, but you will have severe performance dropoffs at high resolutions and surround. In those cases Titan will be better.
Last edited:
Yeah, I can see 660ti coming close but not the 660. I always forget to add the ti suffix so perhaps wilomz did as well.
- Status
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