When will we see Fury reviews?

[tviceman]

Its possible the sli review is 1/2 done and he basically already knows the results.

It's [H]. The crowd here either hates them or loves them depending on each and every individual review. They're either great at testing realistic situations or they're crappy because their particular card doesn't overclock well or their gaming experience opinion doesn't coincide with the beliefs of various flock. Right now since Nvidia is currently owning the high end market and is getting generally great reviews, they're hated around here. Lets see what happens to everyone's opinion about [H] when Fury reviews hit.

 

[xthetenth]

It's [H]. The crowd here either hates them or loves them depending on each and every individual review. They're either great at testing realistic situations or they're crappy because their particular card doesn't overclock well or their gaming experience opinion doesn't coincide with the beliefs of various flock. Right now since Nvidia is currently owning the high end market and is getting generally great reviews, they're hated around here. Lets see what happens to everyone's opinion about [H] when Fury reviews hit.

Maybe if the text weren't belied by the data, there wouldn't be complaints. It's not exactly a popular thing to go about making statements that very blatantly favor one party when they are in active contradiction to your data.

 

[happy medium]

Maybe if the text weren't belied by the data, there wouldn't be complaints.

I actually like when reviewers talk about what they see when playing the games or benchmarking. Most of the time numbers only tell half the story.
Mabe what they see contradicts the data?

 

[at80eighty]

nvidia is hated around here? lolk

 

[happy medium]

anyone spot a leaked review yet?

 

[Silverforce11]

It's [H]. The crowd here either hates them or loves them depending on each and every individual review. They're either great at testing realistic situations or they're crappy because their particular card doesn't overclock well or their gaming experience opinion doesn't coincide with the beliefs of various flock. Right now since Nvidia is currently owning the high end market and is getting generally great reviews, they're hated around here. Lets see what happens to everyone's opinion about [H] when Fury reviews hit.

It's actually not that at all. It's [H] saying one thing when their actual benchmark results disagree totally with what they said.

Until they show benchmark data that proof otherwise, their statement "At 4K, 6GB is the minimum" is plain wrong.

So, what would make a reviewer say such blatantly wrong statements with all their own evidence against them?

 

[2is]

I haven't read the [H] review. But there's a big difference between making a recommendation vs saying something is essentially required. So the real question is, how was this statement worded? If it's a recommendation, it's not a bad one.

 

[Silverforce11]

I haven't read the [H] review. But there's a big difference between making a recommendation vs saying something is essentially required. So the real question is, how was this statement worded? If it's a recommendation, it's not a bad one.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/12#.VYJu_fmqpBc

"At 4K though 4GB of VRAM is clearly not enough. At 4K you want at a MINIMUM 6GB. It is possible though that more may actually help as you start increasing the number of video cards in SLI. 6GB might actually not be enough for some games in 4K when SLI is involved, we will see."

They even go as far as saying 6GB may not be enough which is a joke considering their own testing show none of those GPUs and even in SLI is actually enough to game at 4K maxing.

See for yourself, using their OWN data:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37487718&postcount=2083

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37488175&postcount=21

RS went into more details, essentially VRAM matters at 4K for people who can max the games with AA and currently, you need a minimum 3 Titan X, but better with 4 to really max games.

What's really odd with their review is this statement in the conclusion:

"At 4K neither the 980 Ti or TITAN X is actually fast enough to truly enjoy the latest graphically demanding games at high IQ settings, so the VRAM point becomes moot. The main problem at 4K is just the sheer amount of GPU performance needed push all those pixels. You will need two GTX 980 Ti cards or two TITAN X cards in SLI to genuinely enjoy newer shooter games at high IQ settings at 4K. This is where the benefits of the 6GB of VRAM over 4GB on the GTX 980 will come in handy. It may though, actually not be enough at 4K, but we will test that when we test SLI."

It's definitely not an issue for single GPU, but their other tests also show its not an issue for 2 in SLI. The GPUs we have just lack performance to handle 4K maxed.

 

[sam_816]

But going by the current trend in the industry where almost all devs primarily design games while keeping ps4/xbone in mind, do you guys think that devs will actually make effort to design games to push vram requirements? What I am saying is hardware specifications of ps4 and xbone won't be changing or growing in coming years(not drastically anyways, maybe some firmware tweaks) these are the games which are released with 4k res resources /texture packs etc. For the PC.

Imo with fierce competition and ever more tighter deadline these devs will rather try to reduce their work rather than make it complex.

Every year we might see cards with 6-8-12-14-16 gigs vram but consoles will be primary concern always. :|

 

[xthetenth]

I actually like when reviewers talk about what they see when playing the games or benchmarking. Most of the time numbers only tell half the story.
Mabe what they see contradicts the data?

Maybe if what they see contradicts the data they could mention it literally anywhere in the reply rather than "lol on a card with more memory the game finds a use for more memory I can't believe I get paid for this level of and I quote 'insight'".

At least they could've given their audience some credit and ginned up some preposterous combination of settings to make 4 GB setups tank or something. We play 4K with 2x DSR and 8x MSAA, right guys? Right?

 

[2is]

But going by the current trend in the industry where almost all devs primarily design games while keeping ps4/xbone in mind, do you guys think that devs will actually make effort to design games to push vram requirements? What I am saying is hardware specifications of ps4 and xbone won't be changing or growing in coming years(not drastically anyways, maybe some firmware tweaks) these are the games which are released with 4k res resources /texture packs etc. For the PC.

Imo with fierce competition and ever more tighter deadline these devs will rather try to reduce their work rather than make it complex.

Every year we might see cards with 6-8-12-14-16 gigs vram but consoles will be primary concern always. :|

Except PS4 isn't the old PS3 and considering PS4 games can use somewhere between 3.5-4.5GB and combined with the fact that PC games almost always have enhanced visuals compared to their console counterparts even if console is the leading platform, I'd think that's more of a reason to want more VRAM, not the same amount we've had on high end cards for the last year.

 

[sze5003]

Have there been any reviews out yet?

 

[flopper]

Have there been any reviews out yet?

24 June

 

[sze5003]

24 June

Weird on the day of purchase. I thought they would get them before.

 

[jackstar7]

Weird on the day of purchase. I thought they would get them before.

It's standard operating procedure, hence why the 390X and the rest are being reviewed today, when they have hit the streets.

 

[xthetenth]

Gotta get people looking at the review and buying them before they have time to think.

I really should arrange to misplace my credit card on the 24th.

 

[sze5003]

Gotta get people looking at the review and buying them before they have time to think.

I really should arrange to misplace my credit card on the 24th.

I'm waiting on reviews anyway. Batman is coming out Tuesday so I was hoping they would throw it in as a free game. I haven't used my newegg preferred card in years either.

 

[sam_816]

Gotta get people looking at the review and buying them before they have time to think.

I really should arrange to misplace my credit card on the 24th.

You can send me the card details. It will be as good as misplaced lol..jk

I don't think it will be easy to find them in the 1st week esp. On online stores. There is a new trend of hoarding and then selling on inflated prices to make some quick bux these days. It was there earlier as well but now its very large scale. Started with ps4 basically. I hope fury x n 980 ti hybrid are available in good quantities by the 2nd week of July...

 

[destrekor]

You can send me the card details. It will be as good as misplaced lol..jk

I don't think it will be easy to find them in the 1st week esp. On online stores. There is a new trend of hoarding and then selling on inflated prices to make some quick bux these days. It was there earlier as well but now its very large scale. Started with ps4 basically. I hope fury x n 980 ti hybrid are available in good quantities by the 2nd week of July...

Started with PS2 if not earlier.

/OT

 

[Vesku]

It's also not practical when you're reviewing Fury, Titan X or 980Ti. That's my point. Unless you can come up with a practical way to test, then you're barking up the wrong tree when complaining about VRAM reporting.

Actually 290X 4GB vs 290X 8GB is the most practical way to explore any 4GB limitations as long as we are lacking in the availability of any other high end cards with a 4GB and >4GB model. The key isn't to worry about the specific FPS numbers but under what settings the 4GB version performs worse than the 8GB version with the same GPU and clocks.

Plenty of VRAM talk when the 980 launched without a 8GB option. This isn't a new argument, and we are now 9 months into the future from the release of the 980. So if it was talked about then, it's going to be a bigger deal now. Requirements go up, not down with time.

Can you provide a link to a long thread involving GTX 980 4GB limitations in any popular English tech forum? Let alone enough links to such threads as to be "plenty"?

 

[sam_816]

Started with PS2 if not earlier.

/OT

With ps2 I was still able to find that black weapon of self-defense after 40-45 days. With ps4, I had to buy it at 100$$premium as it wasn't available even after 2 months and I had my return flight. Same with 980 I stayed in the US for 30 days and went back empty handed. But because of better/safer packaging of gpus I was more comfortable with getting it shipped... But don't want to go through the same with my next card...

So, anyone see them on preorder anywhere in the U.S. please share.

 

[2is]

Actually 290X 4GB vs 290X 8GB is the most practical way to explore any 4GB limitations as long as we are lacking in the availability of any other high end cards with a 4GB and >4GB model. The key isn't to worry about the specific FPS numbers but under what settings the 4GB version performs worse than the 8GB version with the same GPU and clocks.

Most practical it is. Practical it is not simply due to the amount of time it would take. Like I said, you're tripling the time it would take to do each game review that reports >4GB of usage by having to test cards that aren't even part of the review. Sure it would be nice, and maybe someone will eventually do it right along side their Fury vs 980Ti review, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Can you provide a link to a long thread involving GTX 980 4GB limitations in any popular English tech forum? Let alone enough links to such threads as to be "plenty"?

I'm sure I can if I want to search back 9 months ago. I'll give you a hint, it was in this forum. That should give you enough info to find it yourself if you're genuinely curious about it. I'd also tell you which member made the biggest stink about it, but then I may get infracted for a member call out.

 

[RaulF]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015..._980_ti_video_card_gpu_review/12#.VYJu_fmqpBc

"At 4K though 4GB of VRAM is clearly not enough. At 4K you want at a MINIMUM 6GB. It is possible though that more may actually help as you start increasing the number of video cards in SLI. 6GB might actually not be enough for some games in 4K when SLI is involved, we will see."

They even go as far as saying 6GB may not be enough which is a joke considering their own testing show none of those GPUs and even in SLI is actually enough to game at 4K maxing.

See for yourself, using their OWN data:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37487718&postcount=2083

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37488175&postcount=21

RS went into more details, essentially VRAM matters at 4K for people who can max the games with AA and currently, you need a minimum 3 Titan X, but better with 4 to really max games.

What's really odd with their review is this statement in the conclusion:

"At 4K neither the 980 Ti or TITAN X is actually fast enough to truly enjoy the latest graphically demanding games at high IQ settings, so the VRAM point becomes moot. The main problem at 4K is just the sheer amount of GPU performance needed push all those pixels. You will need two GTX 980 Ti cards or two TITAN X cards in SLI to genuinely enjoy newer shooter games at high IQ settings at 4K. This is where the benefits of the 6GB of VRAM over 4GB on the GTX 980 will come in handy. It may though, actually not be enough at 4K, but we will test that when we test SLI."

It's definitely not an issue for single GPU, but their other tests also show its not an issue for 2 in SLI. The GPUs we have just lack performance to handle 4K maxed.

I have not read the article, but by going what you posted i am in agreement with [H]. While you might get away with 4GB, once you start to turn up settings that will go away pretty fast.

I will also say, that 4 is not enough for 4K, but at the same time by the time you push the settings high enough to use the memory you will be looking at multi card setups. And Nvidia has the upper hand with it's am mount of memory for the high end chips.

 

[2is]

I personally think Kyle was doing due diligence by his audience, much of which is very interested in the high end market. I know there are people here who swear 4GB if plenty even though some of those same people made a big fuss 9 months ago that there was no 8GB option for the 980 but really... Who wants to spend $650 only to have it crap out in a year? Also, while not everyone will buy two at a time, many will end up getting a second of the same GPU for CF/SLI down the line as a much cheaper option to gain an additional 80% performance and that's not going to happen if you need more than 4GB. Kyle should have been clearer with his reporting, but I don't think he was "wrong" to recommend >4GB. I know I would

 

[RussianSensation]

^ You clearly have no idea as to why people were upset that 980 didn't have 8GB option. A hint: it had nothing to do that 4GB wasn't enough. It was about the fact that NV jacked up the price of their 960Ti (aka 980) from $249-299 to $549 and didn't even bother to throw in "free" VRAM on top of 970, to justify the insane rip-off premium for such a small difference in performance it offered vs. a 970/290X. This has been explained to you more than once. At no point in time was it suggested that 980's 4GB is insufficient. Therefore, you trying to correlate the desire for 8GB on an overpriced 980 vs. 4GB HBM on a Fury today is completely missing the entire context of the discussion last September when NV launched the 980.

Also, as has been repeatedly stated, but ignored by you once again, if 980Ti OC is very close in performance to Fury X OC, then getting 6GB of VRAM is a nice bonus. A lot of objective gamers on this forum are waiting for reviews of Fury X, and Fury Vanilla in July before even determining which is the better card to recommend/buy. Secondly, another point you miss time and time again -- this is a stop-gap generation. No matter what you buy now, by Q4 2016, newer cards will beat Fury and GM200 and by July 2017, we will likely see cards 50% faster, if not more. Therefore, your constant desire to keep pushing 4-5 year future proofing with flagship GPUs contradicts how most high-end PC gamers who buy $1300-1400 flagship cards in pairs actually upgrade. In order to reduce the overall cost of ownership, most Fury X CF and 980Ti SLI gamers will resell these cards in 2-3 years.

Without benchmarks and overclocking results, it's pointless to discuss 4GB vs. 6GB as deal breakers. And considering you used VRAM gimped 680 2GB SLI for > 3 years and have not upgraded to date, despite so many games using more than 2GB of VRAM, VRAM bottlenecks must not be an issue for you or if they were, you would have sold those cards a long time ago, as there have been plenty of opportunities to get nearly 70-80% more performance in 980 SLI as of Sept 2014. It sounds completely contradictory how someone could game for 3 years on 680 2GB SLI when even Skyrim with mods would neuter this setup, but yet now a hypothetical 4GB VRAM bottleneck sometime in the future is a deal breaker?!!!

By far the more important factors for a buyer looking at Fury X CF vs. 980Ti SLI will be how these cards perform in modern games/games they play, frame times in FCAT, and overclocking performance. These factors alone matter way more than 4GB vs. 6GB but we can't answer any of these questions yet. Finally, since you already stated you play games Day 1 on release, including a large majority of GW titles, it's already obvious 980Ti SLI is the solution for you. So go buy 2 Gigabyte G1 980Ti and enjoy them. It's really that simple -- not buying a $100k car or a $1 million house.