for this performance level is 3GB pretty enough
Printable View
for this performance level is 3GB pretty enough
Really? You need more? What for?Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedantOne
We'll see what is going to happen with next gen console ports. They will use a lot more memory for graphics than now. And if you have a high end PC you'll want to get higher levels of AA etc on top of that, which means even more memory.
one year and half, for get 4Tflops and got a card with the same spec of the 7970 .. damn. This card look like a copy cat on paper of the 7970 ...
- 384bits / 3gb
- Same SP performance
- nearly the same core speed of the 7970 ( 900 vs 925mhz))
12.5% more SP ... 17-20% more performance.
Well seeing as I've never gone past 1080p@120hz and I'm pushing for 1440p@120hz will 3GB be enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
-PB
for console ports obviously and basically any other current unmodded games yes it will be heaps since as far as i know there is still no games that make good use of a 64bit engineQuote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
games still use ~1-3g system ram just as they did several ago with small levels or on the fly loading of low quality textures
farcry 1 used more ram than farcry 3 although farcry 3 does use more gpu mem
but as mentioned above hopefully new consoles will force things to change for the better
Some day NVIDIA will catch up to AMD's superior tech Lanek, maybe in our life times. Intel has almost caught up to the Bulldozer, if NVIDIA works really hard and hires some of AMD's cast off engineers, they too may triumph. (by "triumph" I mean "almost catch up"- they could never be expected to equal AMD!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Until then we'll all keep buying our 7970s and Bulldozers, and thinking about the world that might have been if AMD had any competition.
Are you drunk ? or should i say " do you was drunk when you have write this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Nope, don't drink much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
My point was the 780 will not be a "copy cat of the 7970".
The 7970 was AMDs flagship part in 2012. The 780 will be NVIDIA's 2nd, and possibly 3rd, tier part in 2013.
My guess is the 780 will be quieter, cooler, and have a far superior stock HSF.
The 780 will launch with CUDA, PhysX, 3D Vision, forced ambient occlusion, FXAA/TXAA, adaptive vsynch, and superior multi GPU drivers.
So, while I have a GHz 7970 in one of my rigs and like it a lot, and think it was the best deal I've ever gotten on a high end card, the 780 doesn't look to be a "copy cat" of it a year and a half later as you said.
If both cards were priced the same, there wouldn't be many 7970s sold. And that is the problem. AMD needs to take my advice and start selling a closed loop water cooled 7970 if 7970s are what they plan on selling the rest of the year.
Because if they throw old school 7970s and 7990s up against Titans, 780s, 690s,and 770s, my hunch is it's going to be a blood bath this summer for AMD. If they don't have 8970s to sell they better come up with something.
You have to admit your words are at the same time, trying to slam on Nvidia and put AMD in a better light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Lets do the same thing with AMD 7970.
Sure this card cut down to hell is "only" 25 percent faster than a standard 7970, but fully enabled(2880 shaders) this chip is somewhere around 40 percent faster that a 7970 ghz edition(I think the reviews complilation got an average of 33% with one cluster disabled) or 50 percent faster than 7970.
Guess what the bigger the chip gets, the harder it is to get good yields and get everything enabled
Absolutely. Even with tons of mods.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulbagz
And while we can complain about so-called console ports, most games released for PC use their own set of larger textures.
Not to mention that no companies out there are going to shoot themselves in the foot by releasing a game that requires more VRAM than high-end cards can offer.
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/a31...8ccb08eafe.jpg
Real GTX 770 Device ID
http://www.coolaler.com/showthread.p...=1#post3156449
Clown -> Here
Thanks for the info, see I didn't know as I'm coming from Core2 + 480s on a 1080p monitor and now heading towards bigger and brighter things.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
I haven't had the money nor the tech to play with things that a lot of people have been using for the better part of the last 3 years.
-PB
Quoted for truth, taking up over 3GB in actual usage (not allocation) is tough and requires more horsepower than most people buy. I've had 2560x1600 for 4 years and a few months, just moved to 120hz 2560x1440 now (though I'll probably run it at 96hz), and VRAM has never been an issue, performance on the other hand :eek: ...Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Speaking of shaders, I find that the GCN uarch is not very optimized at high shader count. Compare 7870 and 7970 for example. The performance increase isn't much relative to the amount of shader power added. I'm not sure about current drivers though, it has been a while since I compared the 7870 and 7970. Sorry for the OT.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
I compared them some weeks ago, 7970 is a good ~50% faster than 7870 for a 60% increase in shader count. The problem is that the increase in power consumption is huge, specially when overclocked and/or overvolted. 7970 is a lot less efficient than 7870.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
No, it won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by nossy23
Once DX11 gets instituted into consoles, you will see a lowering of memory requirements as more developers will begin taking advantage of the API's native memory addressing space and other tools which are specifically designed to lower memory requirements.
The reason why we see ballooning memory requirements these days is due to the inherent inefficiencies of porting DX9-centric console games with their outdated memory management models over into the PC space.
As for 1440P @ 120Hz, don't expect any widespread availability of quality screens like that at moderately accessible price (ie; under the $1000 mark) for the next 14 months or so, long after Maxwell arrives. And plus, the refresh rate doesn't really matter in terms of memory usage unless you run 3D Vision or whatever AMD calls their stereo 3D these days.
Lol they contradict themselves totally between the article and this shot ...
Quote:
The GTX 780 would be the flagship product of the 700 series and would be based on a cut down version of the GK110 core codenamed “GK110-300-A2″. This core would have 2304 cores and a 3 GB GDDR5 memory which would operate along a 320/384-bit memory interface. The core is maintained at 863 MHz with Turbo boost of 902 MHz while the memory operates at the reference 1502 MHz or 6 GHz effective clock speed.
he pricing is suggested around the 500-600, some are pointing out to a $799 mark for GeForce GTX 780
600$ :) I hope so
http://abload.de/img/gk110-gtx7802au61.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img12/8425/gtx780sc.png
For reference their Titan is listed at $1055 for the superclock. :eek: Hopefully it is just a preorder high price.
Interesting, the bandwidths between the two GPU-Z screenshots differ by 0.1 GB/s. Maybe the memory on the first one is clocked at 1753 MHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
From the past... 680 pre-order @ $560 from same vendor. So, maybe there's a chance of 599 MSRP yet for 780...
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/3498/680preorder.jpg
Had my fingers crossed for a $499-549 USD MSRP but with the lack of other competitive options in that bracket I doubt this will happen... Until Maxwell I guess!
You can buy a QNIX QX2710 for $300 now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL