Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,426
- Location
- UK.
Last edited:
-
Competitor rules
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.
AMD Talks Graphic Industry’s Trends – Radeon HD 7970 Still The King of $299 Price Segment
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,786
Me too, no way I would buy a card with less then 3GB of VRAM now.
2Gb is already not enough if you are using more than 1 monitor or really high res.
Well to me that smacks of a bit of desperation, with the 760 coming in a smidge cheaper and a tad faster than the stock 7950, maybe they can't drop the prices anymore? So lets just say that you need 2GB of ram instead. We all already know that it is not essential to have more than 2GB at 1080p or above, until you start to use more than 1 monitor or very silly resolutions' in which case then this card wouldn't be for you anyway.
Er, The various 670's and 680's I tried in Surround (3620x1920 Portrait Surround) were fine with only 2GB of memory. Unless you are running more than two cards you are very likely to run out of GPU grunt before you run out of required VRAM.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
+1
this advert is talking about a single card setup and there is no way that a single card could drive settings that would require 3GB of VRAM, so really what they are advocating is crossfire setups for 2560x1440... in which in their own advert they then admit that there is a glaring issue with their own drivers for crossfire
bit of an own goal that one "hey guys, I've got a great idea for a new advertorial where we push people to buy not one, but two of our products... of course we'll have to admit that for well over a year since release there's been a huge issue for some users with two card setups that Nvidia had to work with review websites to develop new tools specifically to show this so that we have to admit it and then start working on a fix after we belittled their frame metering tech and ignored everyone that tried to tell us that crossfire was not as smooth as SLI"
Er, I already tried 680, 7970 and 7950...
With 3 monitors on some games they use more than 2Gb.
And yes... for Sli/Xfire it's even worst because you can run the games on higher quality.
Last edited:
Well Nvidia has only Titan and 780 (costing a lot), the 770 and 760 are basically 600 series with higher clock.
I'm not AMD or NVIDIA fanboy...
I'm my money's fanboy, so what gives me better performance/cost is my favorite and for now still is the AMD 7950s
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,524
elaborate please
you mean you see higher than 2GB VRAM usage on the 7970 and 7950's ?
from various sources it has been shown that AMD cards show higher VRAM usage than Nvidia cards on the same settings
user testing has shown that 680SLI runs out of GPU grunt long before it runs out of VRAM, even at 3 screen settings, you would be needing 3 680's before you could put settings on that would require more than 2GB
usage and requirement are not the same thing, as cards will cache textures when they don't need to if they have spare VRAM
I can push 4GB+ of VRAM on crysis 3 on a single screen, it doesn't mean that is the required amount to run at those settings
I hope they do know, since they supplied GPU's for both consoles.
2GB is fine for most people running at 1080p, AMD marketeers are obviously doing what you would expect and trying to make their cards look as best they can in the face of stiff competition from Nvidia, exactly what the green team would do if the tables were turned.
Even if you run out of reported vram it doesn't necessarily mean there will be any performance degradation as the GPU will be caching lots of stuff in vram it probably doesn't need any more.
Even if you run out of reported vram it doesn't necessarily mean there will be any performance degradation as the GPU will be caching lots of stuff in vram it probably doesn't need any more.
And so have I.... (I currently run a clocked HD7970).
The 7970 reported higher memory usage in all games compared to the 670's/680's I tested (at the same settings), but that doesn't mean the game required more than 2GB of VRAM.
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,426
- Location
- UK.
^^ This.
From a non biased perspective Nvidia have a tight lineup now, from bottom to top a card for every segment. Although AMD have cards with similar performance for less money they have no answer to the GTX 780 or Titan, doesn't have to beat either but same ballpark / less cost would make things more competitive. New cards would generate more interest.. Hopefully AMD announce something soon..
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Guessing this thread will turn into another VRAM argument...
The people who go on about needing more, could you please back up your statement with hard data and not just hearsay BS.
We've had so many multi monitor users that have done countless tests using 2GB 680s, 670s and have found that the only games where you run out of VRAM the game was already unplayable (framerate was too low....) so you needed more cards or cards with more grunt to begin with, so it was a moot point.
The people who go on about needing more, could you please back up your statement with hard data and not just hearsay BS.
We've had so many multi monitor users that have done countless tests using 2GB 680s, 670s and have found that the only games where you run out of VRAM the game was already unplayable (framerate was too low....) so you needed more cards or cards with more grunt to begin with, so it was a moot point.