[ VC ] Exclusive: NVIDIA Maxwell GM206 pictured

[Erenhardt]

This article from last summer is the most comprehensive comparison I could find. Unless and until someone can produce similar data that actually shows that extra VRAM above and beyond 2GB more cost effectively increases performance (compared to simply increasing compute core count) I maintain my position that they are full of it.

Yep! 2GB was plenty for most 2013 and pre-2013 games.

Also, welcome to 2015! Happy new year!:whiste:

 

[exar333]

This is a huge fail. The performance between this and the 970 will be HUGE. NV is either crazy, or is afraid of cannibalizing their 970 sales.

An alternative theory is that NV is prepping for Big Maxwell and will be moving the 970 down to ~$279, 980 to $399 and the new '980Ti' to $599 or so...

 

[96Firebird]

I never had any problems with 2GB when I owned my 770...

 

[Deders]

I wonder if the compression will make 2GB more realistic on these cards. I still expect 128bit to be too thin.

 

[skipsneeky2]

This is a huge fail. The performance between this and the 970 will be HUGE. NV is either crazy, or is afraid of cannibalizing their 970 sales.

An alternative theory is that NV is prepping for Big Maxwell and will be moving the 970 down to ~$279, 980 to $399 and the new '980Ti' to $599 or so...

I only wish dreams like that could come true,i would hold off any upgrade if that got confirmed tomorrow! Hell with the 290/290x at that point at current msrp

Still buying in a few weeks so who knows,something like that could crop up.

 

[FX2000]

128-bit bus?
Wh-
AHAHAHAHAHHAHA
And people will still buy this!
Feels good when my 270X will beat this, man, Nvidia done wrecked themselves now. If people stay smart and wait for the 3XX AMD series, they will get way better cards..

 

[RussianSensation]

This article from last summer is the most comprehensive comparison I could find. Unless and until someone can produce similar data that actually shows that extra VRAM above and beyond 2GB more cost effectively increases performance (compared to simply increasing compute core count) I maintain my position that they are full of it.

Where were you in the last 6 months?

Titanfall
Wolfenstein The New Order
Dead Rising 3
Shadow of Mordor
Watch Dogs

Enable max textures and AA in those games and see what happens to a 2GB GPU. Some of those games will even block Ultra textures with such a GPU.

The recommendations also have to be made keeping in mind someone will keep a GPU for a minimum of 2 years:

2015-2017
2GB - budget / low end GPU
3GB - mid-range
4GB - High end
6GB - Ultra high-end

Also, given industry trends in the last 20 years of GPUs, next gen cards more often than not bring more VRAM at every level. Considering current "high-end" cards like 290/290X/970/980 have 4GB, and mid-range 3GB in 280X, where do you think a next gen $200 mid-range card lands with 2GB? You have to keep in mind that 970/980/290X are only high-end because GM200/390X aren't out yet. Games aren't expected to be at a stand-still for the next 2 years.

Further, as mentioned by so many posters here, when people are paying $80-100 more for a 970 with 6% more performance over a 290 at 1080P, why wouldn't a brand agnostic gamer pay $50-75 extra for a near 970 level of performance and 4GB of VRAM in a 290? Of course if 960 is a $159-169 card, it would be more acceptable for it to have 128-bit/2GB layout but 960Ti at $250 surely needs to have a much beefier memory bus/3GB-4GB setup.

128-bit bus?
Wh-
AHAHAHAHAHHAHA
And people will still buy this!
Feels good when my 270X will beat this, man, Nvidia done wrecked themselves now. If people stay smart and wait for the 3XX AMD series, they will get way better cards..

The leaked benches, if true, show performance closer to an R9 280, still a fail for a next gen $200 card though considering HD7950 sold for $280 about 1.5 years ago, had 30-50% overclocking headroom (depending if you consider 7950 V1 or V2) and 3GB of VRAM.

Perf/watt, noise level marketing and obligatory comparisons to another failed mid-range card - R9 285 - and using a reference 290 for noise/temperatures/power usage for comparison will go into overdrive mode to push this card

Normally I stay away from looking at the used card market as it's not a fair comparison but given NV's pricing this generation, it's hard to ignore powerhouse Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 going for $225, which is basically 95% of $330-350 GTX970 performance!

I would take a gamble on used R9 290 4GB with an awesome cooler such as the Tri-X before buying a new underpowered 128-bit/2GB $180-200 NV/AMD R9 285/960 card.

 

[bystander36]

This article from last summer is the most comprehensive comparison I could find. Unless and until someone can produce similar data that actually shows that extra VRAM above and beyond 2GB more cost effectively increases performance (compared to simply increasing compute core count) I maintain my position that they are full of it.

For the most part, this is pretty spot on, but there are some exceptions rolling in these days. Though to play them at good FPS, you have to reduce certain settings anyways unless you are playing in SLI.

Right now, I have one game where more than 2Gb would be a nice boon, and that is DA:I. I have to turn down a few settings to prevent choking on my 680 2Gb SLI setup. As a result, I get very high FPS and smooth game play, with very slightly compromised image quality. If I had 4Gb cards, I might play at slightly higher settings, but then again, the high FPS is something I prefer in most cases anyway.

 

[tviceman]

I'm shocked if the fully unlocked GM206 is only 128-bit bus. I still think the GTX960 is a cutdown 206, and one of the 960 TI variants will be a fully unlocked 206. 10 SMX's and 192-bit bus is what I think a full GM206 will be. Still, the fact that this particular card will have a 128-bit bus and 32 ROPs and will beat the GTX760's based GK104 on the same node is pretty astounding.

 

[AtenRa]

I dont believe 960 will have the performance to need more than 2GB or memory.

 

[Kenmitch]

I dont believe 960 will have the performance to need more than 2GB or memory.

Kind of looks that way so far.... Guess we'll see soon enough.

 

[Keysplayr]

I dont believe 960 will have the performance to need more than 2GB or memory.

Not enough info for you to have that belief. IMHO. Or any belief about the 960 or which version this is.

 

[Silverforce11]

I dont believe 960 will have the performance to need more than 2GB or memory.

Well either it lacks the performance, thus it shouldn't be $200. Or it has performance but crippled in newer games due to vram.. again it shouldn't be $200. Because around that price mark, you can buy cards that have the performance & vram.

We'll just have to wait and see!!

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Problem is I'm not sure if the extra VRAM is making the games look any better, feel like its laziness on devs part. Like Titanfall requiring that much VRAM and the difference is not even noticeable lmao. Or the HD pack for Shadow of Mordor requires 6 GB of VRAM which is BS.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Problem is I'm not sure if the extra VRAM is making the games look any better, feel like its laziness on devs part. Like Titanfall requiring that much VRAM and the difference is not even noticeable lmao. Or the HD pack for Shadow of Mordor requires 6 GB of VRAM which is BS.

Not buying my card for Titanfall but from Youtube videos i have seen a 970 at 1080p can still hit low 50s with 4x TXAA enabled with Insane Textures with under 3gb vram usage so i doubt i will be using anything outside of Insane and 2x MSAA.Game feels like garbage when you dip below 60 so you pretty much want your minimums to match the craptastic 60fps cap.

I am willing to bet GTA5 may be the game people will be wanting to ditch their 2gb cards for certainly this year.Performance recommended alone could be asking for 3gb 780s and well your not buying those anymore with 4gb 290 being their immediate replacements. It could ask for more but its the game of the year i bet will demand over 2gb and have something to show and one of the first games this year i intend on buying.

 

[tential]

Problem is I'm not sure if the extra VRAM is making the games look any better, feel like its laziness on devs part. Like Titanfall requiring that much VRAM and the difference is not even noticeable lmao. Or the HD pack for Shadow of Mordor requires 6 GB of VRAM which is BS.

The thing is, there is a growing trend among the PC gaming world that games utilize more resources. Many people want their high end purchase to be relevant, even if it doesn't bring an increase in quality.

Also people quite frankly don't care. Release an inefficiently made game that's insanely buggy and there is no drop in sales as long as it's a Triple A title people will STILL go purchase it.

I've seen tons of people rush out still to purchase Assassin's Creed Unity on Neogaf/Reddit, and have prefaced their post like "I knew this game had a ton of issues but I didn't realize how bad it was til I actually played it!" as if the tons of data that the game had issues wasn't enough and that they still had to experience it first hand.
Or I've seen posts like "I finished the game, there were lots of FPS drops, even times where the game completely ground to a halt for me, as well as a couple crashes to desktop, but I was able to finish the game. It was "Playable" and that's what counts."

My guess is that companies are realizing that as long as the game brand is strong, people will put up with poor development as long as they get to play their "favorite" series every year. I'm expecting development quality to slowly drop over the next 1-4 years until there is a MAJOR sales drop/backlash from the gaming community. That's going to take awhile though as the gaming community is quite meek and will continue to purchase things no matter how much they complain and will just purchase and grumble online rather than simply not purchase.

 

[Rezist]

Problem is I'm not sure if the extra VRAM is making the games look any better, feel like its laziness on devs part. Like Titanfall requiring that much VRAM and the difference is not even noticeable lmao. Or the HD pack for Shadow of Mordor requires 6 GB of VRAM which is BS.

Your probably right but if you don't play any console ports your not left with much AAA gaming left.

 

[iiiankiii]

Weak sauce.... 2gb lol. All that speed right into a wall.