@ Vega-- Epic Fail is using quad 3gb 580s with only 6gb system ram....
Printable View
@ Vega-- Epic Fail is using quad 3gb 580s with only 6gb system ram....
Mr Vega doesn't run that system anymore, he just forgot to change his sig...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LexDiamonds
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
2GB ... come on, only reason I'm waiting now is there is probably going to be a response price drop on the 7950/7970's
was expecting at a minimum another 1GB over my GTX 580.
Yeah, I thought there were rumors of 4GB editions coming out. I'm tempted to wait for those... since I doubt they'll be here at launch :(. I "only" run 2560x1600 though so I'm hoping 2GB will be enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
Why does it smell like price fixing this generation?! Or is it just greed?
Another sign of a mid-range card...Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
They really haven't thought this through very well at all.
It's not like there won't be a 4gb version, maybe not a launch but just like there where 3gb 580's there will be 4gb 680's available.
/crosses fingers for "at launch". :p: Not sure I really need it for 2560x1600 but I wouldn't mind having it.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
My monitor is 2560x1600 and the only game that I actually play that even has a chance of pushing over 2gb would be skyrim, I know there are a couple other games that can use allot as well but they can probably all be counted on less than two hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Hype is reaching epic levels,
Attachment 124599
GeForce GTX 680 Up To 40% Faster Than Radeon HD 7970: NVIDIA
http://www.techpowerup.com/162305/Ge...70-NVIDIA.html
Compare:
http://h9.abload.de/img/220329m6tnt4axtfl8tni3zbek.png
:lol: :rofl:
oh what a shocker
LOL I know...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Haha, the new way of testing performance.... Note down Nvidia's official benchmark figures at a Nvidia presentation, test HD7970/7950 FPS numbers and apply the correct % to GK104. xD Only one prob, Nvidia's own numbers are always the "best case" scenario and won't reflect the truth. Oh well at least some1 wasn't sleeping at the meet at least.
http://img.parachan.net/mc/src/132943710997.gif
Starting the y-axis at 80% is simply dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dami3n
While I don't disagree, it's nothing new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andypro1
Starting the x-axis at 80% is the way it's meant to be played :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Andypro1
I think there is a subliminal message in the graphing, the graph is giving AMD the green middle finger, coincidental or planned hmmmmm. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dami3n
I apologize for getting off topic, but what monitor do you use? I'm looking to upgrade my current 24" lcd and frankly I don't want to downgrade to 16:9 from 16:10. I really like the full resolution Dell 27/30" but those cost a fortune lolQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Only looking on BF3 numbers should have give an hint.. +18% without AA, +42% with MSAA .... adding the result are based on the "slide" posted above.. should give the second.
i cant imagine AMD would just be sitting by with idle hands.
i would guess that AMD would drop their entire gpu line up ~$50 for every model, i figured they already incorporated this $50 buffer since they were the first to market.
i cant wait to see these gpu prices just start tumbling and totally re-structure the market.
If Kepler is truly 40% faster than the 7970, I would assume they would also release a 7990 immediately after it or as soon as they can. I personally would prefer for a 7980 type card where it's just a significantly more powerful single gpu setup, but that doesn't fit in with their current platformQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
From (ugh) facebook.Quote:
PC Perspective
11 minutes ago
Stay tuned, we'll have a quick preview of Kepler GPU performance on the mobile site coming later tonight!!
Thx!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
banana banana banana i was about to sleep lolQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger