-
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.
Greggs just found a reason splash on even more GPU power!
- Thread starter oldestgregg
- Start date
Whats this...
Looks like a R9 290X getting beat by a Titan on a different Skyrim setup to the one where VRAM was measured.
Even more reason to get a Titan for 4K and Skyrim (better performance too).
There isn't a lot between them, the 290X is beat, but only by a small margin.
The difference is £830 vs £430 and you said the 290X could not run Skyrim at these resolutions when modded, lack of vRam, clearly it can.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
I don't play Skyrim, nor do I intend to. Don't intend to buy a 4k display in the next 12 months either but if I did, I don't think I would skimp on the GPU. I'd buy a set of titans especially given the demands of current games like Crysis 3 maxed.
What ever you buy you would need 2 GPU's, and i would rather spend £850 on two 290X than £1700 for two Titans.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/61629-amd-radeon-r9-290x-vs-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-4k/
There is no way a 290X can run Skyrim at the settings used for the VRAM graph unless you can squeeze 5.5gb into 4gb which is being silly. I would also remind you that the graph was produced at a lower resolution than 4K. This brings us back to my original point, 3gb and 4gb cards are not really appropriate for use at 4K.
You already know this but it really does need saying again, I own 4 Titans and 4 R9 290Xs so I would say I am pretty neutral on this and don't have a bias. What is your angle, as you repeatedly argue the indefensible and worse still someone could base their buying decisions on what you are saying.
You can't measure VRAM usage, maybe if someone wrote a tool that could sniff the framebuffer and identify contiguous blocks of memory as textures etc and check to see if they're actually in use or merely predicted to be needed, then you could but all you can see atm is how much is bagsied by the game engine, much like how Windows likes to call dibs on system RAM but not actually write anything to it.
What ever you buy you would need 2 GPU's, and i would rather spend £850 on two 290X than £1700 for two Titans.
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/61629-amd-radeon-r9-290x-vs-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-4k/
I would rather max Crysis 3 out @4K using four Titans, unfortunately all you are likely to get with 3gb and 4gb cards at that resolution doing the same is a blank screen.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2012
- Posts
- 1,737
That review is with "high" settings. On ultra I would imagine you need 3-4 cards and I would bet the 290X would start to fall behind titan. I am talking if someone wanted to buy this kind of setup right now and be playable.
20 fps isn't playable in my opinion.
Conjecture ^^^ Kaap tried that and was wrong. Actually the graph shows the higher the res the better the 290X does, i would argue the Titan may struggle more the more demanding it gets. with its 512Bit bus vs the the 384Bit bus.
Oh right, so the graphs, that you also linked to, showing the 290X running Skyrim heavily modded @ 5760 x 1080P are Bull Poo?
Are you not just calling even your own links a lie just to stick to your falsehood?
Oh right, so the graphs, that you also linked to, showing the 290X running Skyrim heavily modded @ 5760 x 1080P are Bull Poo?
Are you not just calling even your own links a lie just to stick to your falsehood?
Last edited:
I think you are defending the indefensible
Here is a picture of the memory usage on my Titans @1080p running Crysis 3, I think it would be very unwise for you to recommend using 3gb and 4gb cards to do the same @4K.
I remember a similar argument over the 670 not being able to run bf4 on ultra
Not that any of this matters because none of the current GPU's have the grrrrrrr to power 4K and Crysis 3 fully maxed would breach 4GB and the same with Skyrim and tons of mods, it will breach 4GB (you could breach 6GB if you wanted). The point is, you would need 4 cards to power games like Crysis 3 in full detail and then it would still be low fps.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,849
- Location
- Nottingham
Roll on 20nm
read that ^^^
I think you are defending the indefensible
Here is a picture of the memory usage on my Titans @1080p running Crysis 3, I think it would be very unwise for you to recommend using 3gb and 4gb cards to do the same @4K.
Lol, i don't need to defend it, I presented you with the evident facts and you blatantly dismissed them. its already proven that 4GB runs Skyrim modded and Crysis 3 at these resolutions.
Reality deals in acts, not willing conjecture, no matter how much you try and force conjecture, proven fact always wins out. surely you must realise that, or have you just reduced yourself to trolling?
Last edited:
hehe im supposed to wear glasses so playing at 1080P 27inch is perfect for me, its all bleary anyway, why spend more on GPUs
If you Sayso
The only time I see 4gb cards running Crysis 3 @4K, it is with reduced settings lol.
As to modding Skyrim that graph I produced shows it can use 5.5gb
I have not mentioned RTW2, this game uses over 3gb @1600p so goodness knows what it will use @4k. The only reason I did not mention it earlier is multi GPU support for it is busted but it is a sign of the amount of vram future games will need.
I most definitely am not trolling, what I am trying to do is make people aware that 4gb cards are unsuitable for 4K which is a more responsible attitude than AMD and some of their followers have been taking recently. I don't want to see someone spend money on a new 4k monitor in a year or two and then find out they can not run the latest games or even some that are out now due to lack of vram. If you want to tell people any different I hope they remember who told them.
You are one of the people who tell users to go for 3gb cards @1080p because of possible limitations with 2gb, yet @4k which is four times the pixels you are telling us that 4gb cards are ok. You can not have it both ways.
That graph shows it can use 5.5GB on a 4GB GPU but still work, really? Good Grief...
As Orangy said you can't Measure vRam usage, You keep citing it displaying 5.5GB on a 4GB GPU, the fact that you even use that to try and force your point is surreal, don't you get that 5.5GB does not go in 4GB?
Your reasoning is bonkers, utterly nuts. (which is why i'm struggling to work out what your trying to achieve here) You say your trying to make people aware that 4GB is not enough for 4K, while at the same time your dismissing the inconvenient facts that go against your conjecture.
What your actually doing (inadvertently or not) is telling people they have to spend £850 (or two or three times that for multi GPU grunt) on a GPU when the actually facts are they don't, all they actually need to do is spend £430 (or again two or three times that)
What 'i'm' trying to do is save people from bad advice that has them spending £400 / £800 or £1200 more than they need to.
Last edited:
Kaapstad is showing how it uses 5.5GB on a Titan... And at no time at all have I seen Kaapstad recommend buying a Titan. Did I miss this? Just calm down Humbug and stop getting yourself all hot and bothered over something about nothing.
Gregg is saying he wants to get a 4K monitor (I think) and he has a 290X and I don't think he is daft enough to think he has the power to run games like BF4 and Crysis 3 on full details
In truth, he will need at least 2 290X's to be able to run some high settings.
Gregg is saying he wants to get a 4K monitor (I think) and he has a 290X and I don't think he is daft enough to think he has the power to run games like BF4 and Crysis 3 on full details
In truth, he will need at least 2 290X's to be able to run some high settings.