Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
It surprises me that more people don't realise something very obvious regarding this vram issue:
AMD clearly have a policy of putting more vram on their cards than is necessary so that they can be SLI'd without problems, whereas Nvidia's strategy is to release a lower vram card for those wanting a single GPU setup and a higher vram card for those wanting to SLI. AMD didn't put 3GB vram on the 7970 or 2GB vram on the 6970 because they needed that much vram each. They put it on for SLI reasons.
3GB is overkill for 99% of situations 2GB will suffice, imo it would be a good idea for NVidia to release a 2GB and 4GB(?) so that those who don't run 3 screens and silly resolutions don't have to pay silly money.
It surprises me that more people don't realise something very obvious regarding this vram issue:
AMD clearly have a policy of putting more vram on their cards than is necessary so that they can be SLI'd without problems, whereas Nvidia's strategy is to release a lower vram card for those wanting a single GPU setup and a higher vram card for those wanting to SLI. AMD didn't put 3GB vram on the 7970 or 2GB vram on the 6970 because they needed that much vram each. They put it on for SLI reasons.
6GB are you freakin' kidding me! Maybe for a 3 monitor display option, but come on, who the hell can afford that!!!!!????
Well there trying to push 5x1 eyeinfinity with there new update can you imaging 5x 30" monitors how much vram they would need ?
There are peeps out there who can afford, & would get such a set up.
Most peeps now consider a 24"monitor as a minimum size of choice, but 27" & 30" monitors gaining popularity very quickly, & AMD are quick to realise this.
No idea atm what the specs are on their flagship card but everything seems to indicate this will be the top model for their mid-range lineup in the general Kepler series.
600 series tho seems to be designated for Fermi optical shrinks so if it actually is a "680" then it may be just a 28nm Fermi
Surely it's product positing will be based on it's TDP? If it's another 250 watt TDP model then this would the flagship high end 28nm card, I really can't see Nvidia breaking the 300 watt guide for a single card can you?
It's really quite a simple explanation why AMD uses 3GB VRAM on their 7970 cards. Having a 384bit memory (like the GTX580)! AMD had a choice of 1.5GB or 3GB. If they used 1.5GB, current 6970 owners would have seen it as a downgrade, and it may have struggled at super high resolutions.
The GTX680/780 on the other hand is widely expected to have a 512bit memory bus. This procvides Kepler with the opportunity to use 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB of VRAM. Clearly, 1GB is too small, 4GB will be too large for most applications and too expensive. That leaves 2GB which in my opinion is probably the sweatspot for the vast majority of users.
In a way, 2GB is much better than 3GB because it should allow NVidia to cut costs, and hopefully pass them on to the consumer. Very few people will make use of that extra 1GB anyway.
Last time I cheched it was the GTX570 that directly competed with the 6958/6970 cards, and still won with a paltry 1.25GB of VRAM. The 580 was as far above the 6900's as the 7970 is above the 580 (in price and performance).This is True but can you imagin the price that will come for th 4gb version
But look at the 580 1/4 less memory off the 6950 and also nearly double the price so i cant see them being cheaper due to there memory size
Last time I cheched it was the GTX570 that directly competed with the 6958/6970 cards, and still won with a paltry 1.25GB of VRAM. The 580 was as far above the 6900's as the 7970 is above the 580 (in price and performance).
Lack of VRAM is only a problem when you run out, and most cards run out of GPU grunt before VRAM becomes the issue.
Have you any evidence of what memory is actually used. I mean a definate answer that shows it without any sort of pre caching(Unless we are talking above 1080p)
Even at 1080p, BF3 utilises upto 2.5gb of vram on ultra settings on 64 player servers. So if the new 780 card only has 2gb, the game will use less (buffering) which will cause noticable fps dips.
Sorry, but if Nvidia only bring 2gb to their latest top card (that's not even out or confirmed!!) then it's game over. All those derping in the 7970@1080p thread about it being overkill will soon be eating their hats