AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

tommybhoy · 4 Feb 2016 at 12:53

I told him it was Kaap.

james.miller · 4 Feb 2016 at 12:55

tommybhoy said:
SOM, never ever went above 3.8Gb, now after rechecking again, it's using the whole lot, nearly every other game I've played before was >3.8Gb max and it didn't budge.

I will check earlier drivers. I had no problem hitting 4gb vram usage without stuttering in SOM but that's also the case for other games, even back to ac:unity when this all blew up.

?

The answer should have been along the lines of fair enough, not another OcUK sidestep, some did reward with a 980 purchase which is completely and utterly unarguable.

Sorry for not giving you an answer that fits your argument? :confused:

Silent_Scone · 4 Feb 2016 at 12:56

The real performance penalty is the two way cache but they've probably found ways of better handling data stored. The real problem is people never forget, and more importantly don't know what they're talking about.

tommybhoy · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:07

What argument?

Someone says rewarded, you disagreed, pointed out otherwise, move on mate.

Just because you don't see something, others did/do, it's subjective to individual tolerance.

james.miller · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:12

tommybhoy said:
What argument?

Someone says rewarded, you disagreed, pointed out otherwise....

Argument. A set of reason given in support of an idea.

Just because you don't see something, others did/do, it's subjective to individual tolerance.

Just because you think you do see it, doesnt mean i have to accept it. do you really think anybody thought well done nvidia, i'm going to splurge more money as my way of saying thanks? no. Well nobody sane, anyway. The (few) people who did upgrade did so because they jumped at the chance for a cheap upgrade to a 980. Or perhaps they wanted 980's anyway and would have made the move sooner or later? Whatever the case the number is insignificant, so no i dont think nvidia have been rewarded out of any of this in any significant way and no i dont think the number of people who did upgrade is even worth discussing. If you're not understanding the point then let me restate it; When people say things like 'nvidia were rewardard' in such an absolute fashion, they are inferring that that was the majority viewpoint. It was not in any way close to being anything like a majority view, which makes the statement a fallacious argument.

move on mate.

Quite!

Gregster · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:23

fs123 said:
The 3.9Gb at the beginning is during a cutscene where frametimes may not be critical so the extra 0.5Gb may be used. As soon as actual gameplay starts it drops to 3.55GB. The game will most likely use lower quality textures/assets in realtime gameplay to stay below the 3.5GB driver imposed limit.

The drivers have worked around the issue but still it is false advertising.

My review from way way back see's VRAM going well over 3.5GB time and again and no problems.

Can we move on now guys please? We have done this silly nonsense to death!

tommybhoy · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:28

james.miller said:
Stuff

Just checked the 970 vram thread, 200+ posts probably arguing that nothing was wrong James, I'm out./

james.miller · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:31

tommybhoy said:
Just checked the 970 vram thread, 200+ posts probably arguing that nothing was wrong James, I'm out./

So now you're inferring i did nothing but try to cover up the situation?

Where's that slow clap gif?

Well you're out, anyway, so back to polaris!

maonayze · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:42

Gregster said:
No they didn't receive applause, they got lambasted for not giving the exact specs of the memory but it was still the same card that ran fine before the ramgate and still runs fine now.

Not much of a lambast when those same users then went out and bought a 980. LOL

Great marketing though, you gotta give them that. I wish AMD could turn the gaffs into gold....they would be top of the tree by now.

tommybhoy · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:49

maonayze said:
Not much of a lambast when those same users then went out and bought a 980. LOL

Great marketing though, you gotta give them that. I wish AMD could turn the gaffs into gold....they would be top of the tree by now.

james.miller · 4 Feb 2016 at 13:58

Yeah i mean, going by percentages if AMD made that mistake with fury then they might have gained another 5 sales at least. maybe 7 or 8!

tommybhoy · 4 Feb 2016 at 14:02

Gregster said:

Cheers G, that vid shows usage<3.8Gb(then), exactly what I've been saying all along.

Gregster · 4 Feb 2016 at 14:04

maonayze said:
Not much of a lambast when those same users then went out and bought a 980. LOL

Great marketing though, you gotta give them that. I wish AMD could turn the gaffs into gold....they would be top of the tree by now.

Some looked at it as a cheap upgrade and when you looked back at the competition back then, I think it was only the 290/X that was available to them from AMD in the top tier, so I can't really blame them for going for the faster 980.

tommybhoy said:
Cheers G, that vid shows usage<3.8Gb(then), exactly what I've been saying all along.

TheRealDeal · 4 Feb 2016 at 14:09

Gregster said:
Some looked at it as a cheap upgrade and when you looked back at the competition back then, I think it was only the 290/X that was available to them from AMD in the top tier, so I can't really blame them for going for the faster 980.

The funny thing is the competition is still pretty much the same 2 Gpu's with extra Vram. Apart from fury non X

Insanties_birth · 4 Feb 2016 at 15:01

Kaapstad said:
Sales may not be an indicator of quality but the GTX 970 is fit for purpose or people would be RMAing them.

If Humbug is quite happy to use one they must be fit for purpose !!!

Moss people happy to plug on with whatever there favourite brand plugs up anyway

still I'm not alighting the 970 but it's a bit of an odd one with the 390 being a better overall card but then it's not by any big leap so I understand why people can opt for it anyway.

queamin · 4 Feb 2016 at 15:03

For me 970 and 390 both have plus and minuses, i do think if you favour one brand over another then fine really as they are so close.

For me I favour Amd now but I would more likely choose the 390 anyway as I would keep it a long time as I don't play to many new games now the only game i ordered in the last month is xcom2.

Shockwave · 4 Feb 2016 at 18:15

Gregster said:
Some looked at it as a cheap upgrade and when you looked back at the competition back then, I think it was only the 290/X that was available to them from AMD in the top tier, so I can't really blame them for going for the faster 980.

This. I traded in my 970 SLIs and got a 980ti later. I never had any issues with the 970s and memory, but I wanted a single card solution.

flopper · 4 Feb 2016 at 22:55

since Polaris is the best card and cards coming this generation from the world class leader Nano I understand that people are afraid that thought they did a good buy with the 980ti or the 970 but now they know they didnt.

The future is brighter with Polaris, HDR enabled screens is now becoming a reality with AMD Technology with AMD Sync and DX12 games thanks to AMD´s work with Mantle anyone with half a brain knows who the world leader is in graphics.

Better faster cooler and brighter, Polaris GPU
The brighter option

Ayahuasca · 4 Feb 2016 at 23:02

Embarrassing ^

Even if you were getting paid.

Mei · 4 Feb 2016 at 23:20

lol does lambchop get paid for it too?
i dont think so i just think they been watching a lot of wrestling or something