/shrug, he asked a question so I answered it.
-
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.
Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
- Status
/shrug, he asked a question so I answered it.
Just out of interest, has anybody actually experienced any issue with the 970's memory yet, aside from running "that" synthetic memory benchmark or issues that are in line with 980 performance?
I seem to remember loads of raging at the time but nobody could actually find a real issue, including all the tech sites.
I know, wasn't having a go at you just pointing out that anyone can produce scenarios to suit their argument.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Good article, the follow up article is there also which is the same tests with 4xAA enabled, up to 8GB VRAM used in some games is insane.
Do you really need AA though, because as the frame rate climbs you get a temporal AA effect anyway. I certainly see no point for AA at 4K personally.
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,452
- Location
- UK.
I think the main problem that caused the 'raging' apart from misleading spec, less ROPs, weird mem config etc was stuttering once games reach that 3.5GB and had to go use the slower memory. There's tons of videos / user feedback on the internetz.
2160p multi 3 and 4 GPU setups
4gb 290Xs @2160p are better than 4gb 980s for speed and smoothness
8gb 290Xs are slower than 4gb 290Xs for benching but are faster in gaming when the memory usage gets close to 4gb. The difference can be quite large for gaming @2160p as the 4gb cards lose a lot of performance moving stuff into and out of memory even if they can run the game. This is a problem the 8gb cards don't have to worry about.
There are several reviews that support the above when comparing 4gb and 8gb 290Xs and also when testing my 4gb 290Xs against other peoples 8gb 290Xs.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 477
- Location
- Shropshire
Thing is if you only need 4Gb as thats what the FurryX or whtever its called will have (Not sure if there are 8Gbs coming later on?) at 4k why put 8Gb on the 390X? why not just put 4Gb and save themselves the extra cost if they really believe only 4Gb is needed
edit
I understand that HMB1 has limits but to me putting an extra 4Gb on your second tier card or 3rd which ever its going to be doesn't make sense
edit
I understand that HMB1 has limits but to me putting an extra 4Gb on your second tier card or 3rd which ever its going to be doesn't make sense
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,884
- Location
- Surrey
The amount of hitching I managed to find with high and above texture presets with the 980GTX at 1440p, I'd rather have more than less...
Besides, if it's such a non issue why equip the 390x with 8GB at all. [EDIT] As the gent above me has just said lol.
+1
When people talk about the Fury, memory usage and DX12 they tend to forget the 390X is also capable of using DX12.
If 8gb was not needed it would not be there.
If AMD are aiming FURY or whatever it will be called at 4K with only 4GB of vram, im guessing (and hoping) they have some technology to mitigate the vram limit of 4GB
like better texture compression or that having the massive bandwidth to the vram buffer (benefits of HBM) negates the stutter / lag involved with having to move data to and from the GPU memory.
To be honest the 2nd may be true, with HBM bandwidth there may be no need for the 8gb of vram (that older generations would need to play 4k games well)
like better texture compression or that having the massive bandwidth to the vram buffer (benefits of HBM) negates the stutter / lag involved with having to move data to and from the GPU memory.
To be honest the 2nd may be true, with HBM bandwidth there may be no need for the 8gb of vram (that older generations would need to play 4k games well)
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,452
- Location
- UK.
Maybe GDDR5 and HBM don't equate to the same thing, i.e the way a GDRR5 works might not be not quite the same as HBM??
I mean we literally know nothing at this point, HBM is completely new, this is the very first iteration. With only 1 day to go until we find out lol.
I will hold judgement until we actually see it in action. If it sucks I'll keep my Titan X if it's better I'll get a Fury X. What I won't do is moan and whine about something I haven't even seen yet.
Because they work differently?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,281
is there evidence suggest vram requirements will spike up specifically for dx12...
can dx12 make use of a higher frame buffer per gpu grunt, moreso than dx11?
can dx12 make use of a higher frame buffer per gpu grunt, moreso than dx11?
Can you explain this? as far as I know 1MB is 1MB in size regardless of whether it's FPM, EDO, SDR, DDR or Rambus...
Faster 4GB is still 4GB.
I think the issue is everyone is thinking that as you need >4GB GDDR5 for 4K you will need >4GB HBM. This is probably not the case when you take into account the width of the i/o bus and latency between GPU and memory being much improved on HBM vs the older GDDR5
- Status