-
Sapphire HD 7970 Toxic 6Gb
-
-
-
vga insane! eyefinity performance should be very good!
-
6 Gb it is only marketing and no more, but Vapor-X seems good for air overclocking.
-
Lol 6 Gb.
Check this out guys, 1 Gb Vram at 1920x1200 completely maxed out, yet smooth gameplay:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8308/19999524.png
But 1 Gb isnt enough for 1080p I keep on hearing? More like 4 Gb system ram isnt enough :D
Also 2 Gb on the GTX 680 is plenty for triple monitor gaming:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...d-7970/?page=4
OFC feel free to buy higher end graphics cards and more Vram if you want / need it, but dont come telling me that 1 Gb Vram isnt enough for 1080p or 2 Gb isnt enough for GTX 680 :p:
-
ok guys can we please not turn this into a dumb thing about how much memory is really needed.
if the company didnt think it could make money off of 6GB, it wouldnt have sold it. if some company showed us a highend 1GB card that performed great and for a lower price, id think we be seeing those sold very often.
-
Jeez 6GB, I wonder how much this thing will cost.
I hope they release a normal 3GB version for people that just want a fast card.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
N19h7m4r3
Jeez 6GB, I wonder how much this thing will cost.
I hope they release a normal 3GB version for people that just want a fast card.
If this commands a 700 price which I can easily see it doing, i see it selling poorly.
The 7970 is simply not a fast enough chip to turn it into a super flagship.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
N19h7m4r3
Jeez 6GB, I wonder how much this thing will cost.
I hope they release a normal 3GB version for people that just want a fast card.
I'd be happy with a 1.5 Gb version. If the price was right I'd prefer that over a GTX 680.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tajoh111
If this commands a 700 price which I can easily see it doing, i see it selling poorly.
The 7970 is simply not a fast enough chip to turn it into a super flagship.
I agree, that price would be unreasonable. The card is already selling slow now that the GTX 680 launched, and I don't see many of them being sold at a high price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bhavv
I'd be happy with a 1.5 Gb version. If the price was right I'd prefer that over a GTX 680.
A 1.5GB version would be very interesting alright, depending on price it would be very good.
I wonder if it'll have a similar performance ratio as the GTX 580 1.5GB had compared to the 3GB one.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Manicdan
ok guys can we please not turn this into a dumb thing about how much memory is really needed.
if the company didnt think it could make money off of 6GB, it wouldnt have sold it. if some company showed us a highend 1GB card that performed great and for a lower price, id think we be seeing those sold very often.
But 6gb is so stupid it SHOULD be the main focus. Its totally BS, and wasted memory chips.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bhavv
Lol 6 Gb.
Check this out guys, 1 Gb Vram at 1920x1200 completely maxed out, yet smooth gameplay:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8308/19999524.png
But 1 Gb isnt enough for 1080p I keep on hearing? More like
4 Gb system ram isnt enough :D
Also 2 Gb on the GTX 680 is plenty for triple monitor gaming:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...d-7970/?page=4
OFC feel free to buy higher end graphics cards and more Vram if you want / need it, but dont come telling me that 1 Gb Vram isnt enough for 1080p or 2 Gb isnt enough for GTX 680 :p:
to be fair on the vram, most games work fine with 1GB but some like BF3 need 1.8-2GB to be maxed out for 1080p and then with multi monitor u needed 2.5GB for bf3. as far as i know nothing else needed more than 1GB to run max settings unless the config is modded like rage to make it better than intended with 1080 or 1920x1200 (the higher rez that uses the same ram as 1080 since its horizontal based on ram use,) and modded bethesda games.
the 79xx cards are also really fast at direct compute so you can run them with bitcoin and game at the same time, that is the only thing that i can think of that would need more than 3GB of vram unless you have the largest ever scene scape in maya. we may see some better textures soon though since the wiiU is rumored to have 512MB of vram or shared system 2GB so there is a good chance that in a year or 2 when the wiiu, next and ps4 are running around using native 1080p for the 1st time in console history that textures might be large enough to need 2-3GB for a non streaming cashe and maybe the non compressed/resized high rez textures will take up 4-6GB if we are lucky.
-
BF3 does need more than 1 Gb Vram, but not that much.
At 1080p, you only need 1280 Mb vram but a minimum of SLI GTX 560 Ti 448s for ultra settings:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...yte-msi-7.html
Two of those cards wont have any Vram issues.
5760x1080 doesnt benefit from more than 2 Gb Vram:
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...d-7970/?page=4
But I saw elsewhere that triple 1440p monitors require more than 2 Gb Vram, because the GTX 680 suffers from much lower min and max FPS than a 7970 at that resolution.
I dont fully believe 100% that 1 Gb Vram cant run BF3 on Ultra, it could be that the fastest GPUs with only 1 Gb Vram (GTX 560 Ti, 6950) are too slow for the game, even with two of them, or simply bugged due to the poor MSAA implementation. I wont ever be able to find out for sure unless theres a faster 1 Gb card in the new generation thats coming out, but I dont think that a hypothetical 1 Gb GTX 680 would struggle in BF3 at 1080p ultra settings.
For now though, the minimum setup required to comfortably run BF3 at 1080p ultra settings is SLI GTX 560Ti 448, and 1280 Mb Vram on those is fine.
I really wouldnt stress out about needing any more than 1280 Mb up to 1920x1200 which is exactly what I'm looking forward to next on the GTX 660 cards, or with 2 Gb on GTX 680s up to 5760x1080. If anyone has triple 1440p monitors, then I'm certain that they are knowledgeable enough to already know that they need a minimum of 3 Gb Vram for that resolution.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Attachment 124998
FX8150- Moar cores! HD7970 More VRAM! Both- the biggest epeen in the cosmos!
SB and 680 - More performance......not the relevant buying metric these days.
Not that I blame AMD, you sell what you have, not what you don't. The only people I can conceive of needing 6GB VRAM are the 75X16 crowd with high AA. I don't think there are cards that can run this setting, VRAM or no. This is gimmick in the gaming world, might have GPGPU use I'm unaware of.
-
You got that wrong. Its not AMD its Sapphire....
-
damn so much ^ignorance^ the things that you can do on 6gb buffer.. jaw dropping
this is the 7970 to get! be long time till gk110 offers 6gb
-
-
keep mocking..
higher rez/higher rez textures/higher settings/higher caps/higher caches/higher everything
skyrim alone could fill up the 6gb buffer
but of course bf3 doesnt use more than 1gb 1.5gb because the game has to adjust according to your buffer
modded bf3/crysis2/others would welcome more than 3gb buffer
-
looks nice...but since its saphirre i will pass...(horrible support)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NapalmV5
keep mocking..
higher rez/higher rez textures/higher settings/higher caps/higher caches/higher everything
skyrim alone could fill up the 6gb buffer
but of course bf3 doesnt use more than 1gb 1.5gb because the game has to adjust according to your buffer
modded bf3/crysis2/others would welcome more than 3gb buffer
Seriously, like what?
Independent source that says 6GB worth of texture pack in Skyrim looks better than 3GB? or 2GB?
(I suppose not as there are no 6GB cards)
Verification Skyrim doesn't just allocate all the available VRAM rather than actually use it?
My thought is the only stuff that will use 6GB will be coded by a guy with a 6GB card and sell for $6.38 on the newsgroups....
-
Mocking? It was a genuine question.
What resolution are you talking about? I would think that you would run out of gpu power before needing more than 3gb ram. Also, even with 3gb ram the textures would be quite high resolution to fill it up, and would there bee any point... diminishing return and all that?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bhavv
Lol 6 Gb.
Check this out guys, 1 Gb Vram at 1920x1200 completely maxed out, yet smooth gameplay:
:
OMG, no matter what anyone shows you you stick to your opinion. I'm not even sure if you actually believe your posts or you're just trolling.
I'll just say this. With Fallout 3 with my modest list of mods would stutter like crazy on your GTX 560 1GB cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rollo
Verification Skyrim doesn't just allocate all the available VRAM rather than actually use it?
Play Fallout 3 with NMC's texture pack, FWE, Project Beauty HD, and MMM which are very popular mods on a 1GB card and tell me that the game doesn't stutter when loading cells or when NPCs come into view. That will go away with a card with more vram. Skyrim pretty much does the same. Never mind with AO or SGSSAA.
-
i just wish someone would make a game or at least a benchmark that uses 6g gpu memory at ultra detail settings 3-4g at 1080p high detail 2g medium 1g low detail
it could be a thing of beauty
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BababooeyHTJ
OMG, no matter what anyone shows you you stick to your opinion. I'm not even sure if you actually believe your posts or you're just trolling.
I'll just say this. With Fallout 3 with my modest list of mods would stutter like crazy on your GTX 560 1GB cards.
Play Fallout 3 with NMC's texture pack, FWE, Project Beauty HD, and MMM which are very popular mods on a 1GB card and tell me that the game doesn't stutter when loading cells or when NPCs come into view. That will go away with a card with more vram. Skyrim pretty much does the same. Never mind with AO or SGSSAA.
You dont even understand my point at all.
If you need more Vram for modded Fallout 3 / BF3, then buy a graphics setup that is suitable for that task. I dont play either game so why do I need to upgrade yet? Im far better off waiting until prices come down on the GTX 680 in a year or so and buying those then. Civ V actually uses a far more demanding engine than oblivion, fallout 3 or skyrim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BababooeyHTJ
Skyrim pretty much does the same.
No it definitely doesnt. I play that with the HD texture and beauty mods from Nexus, and it doesnt stutter at all with 4x MSAA. Sure if you keep turning the AA up its going to start stuttering, everyone knows that more AA = more vram and GPU use, which is exactly what every game needs more Vram for. I'd imagine that you are wrong about fallout 3 judging from Skyrim, but I dont have that game
If you dont mind turning the AA down or using FXAA, every game's ultra texture settings / texture mods will work on 1 Gb Vram. So basically you need more Vram for more AA, not for better textures.
Does anyone know any other programs that can monitor Vram usage and FPS that would work with modified Skyrim? I can put this to rest right now if I can find one. MSI Afterburner doesnt work once the game is modded.
