Is that actually committed VRAM though? there aren't a lot of games which actually use more than about 2.5-2.8GB most just cache or have lazy garbage collection for a tiny, usually zero noticeable and hence insignificant performance/smoothness benefit. nVidia cards also tend to use a bit more VRAM due to their more advanced shader caching algorithms.
-
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 VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
- Status
Dont both vendors have compression now?. What a card actually needs Vram vs what its using because available is hard to measure tbh until you run out on one since some cache stuff.
It really isn't complicated. 4GB isn't enough vram for a card that has the muscle and it is that simple.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I bought a Fury pro just after release, I had a 1080p monitor at the time and at the time the Fury cards 1080p performance was less than it should have been. Almost 18 months later that's no longer the case. I used to use vsr to run my games at 1440p on my 1080p monitor as it was basically another image quality setting. I now have a 3440x1440 monitor and it performs surprisingly well, I initially went with a 2560x1080 ultrawide but realised it did that as easily as 1080p so when I had to return that monitor I looked for a higher res model to replace it. For me memory overclocking provides no advantage over stock clock memory so I don't bother overclocking the memory most of the time when benching.
I've only experienced a handful of games where the memory size affected gameplay with the biggest title being Rise of the Tomb Raider and turning the texture quality down one removed the problem for no real loss in image quality.
The 16 or so months with the Fury have not been perfect software wise but they have been excellent, so good in fact that it gave me the confidence to buy a freesync monitor and wait for Vega instead of moving to Pascal and G-sync.
Fiji's 4gb memory limit is not an issue unless you make it one, that said I would not buy a 4gb card today. If I was buying a new card today it would be an 8gb 480 from AMD or a 1080 which is what I'll probably get if Vega is a no go but I can't see why it would be.
I've only experienced a handful of games where the memory size affected gameplay with the biggest title being Rise of the Tomb Raider and turning the texture quality down one removed the problem for no real loss in image quality.
The 16 or so months with the Fury have not been perfect software wise but they have been excellent, so good in fact that it gave me the confidence to buy a freesync monitor and wait for Vega instead of moving to Pascal and G-sync.
Fiji's 4gb memory limit is not an issue unless you make it one, that said I would not buy a 4gb card today. If I was buying a new card today it would be an 8gb 480 from AMD or a 1080 which is what I'll probably get if Vega is a no go but I can't see why it would be.
Last edited:
Not sure on that - can't rule out some of it being due to the differences in shader caching between AMD and nVidia but you can see at times stutter on the Fiji cards especially for instance if a new big boss spawns into the middle of a scene you'll see frametimes spike with a couple of noticeable stutters and bus utilisation jump up which suggests they are either having to aggressively manage memory or need to work on shader caching or both. While its pretty minor and only lasts for like 300-500ms here and there the equivalent nVidia cards don't exhibit it.
4GB is more than enough if used right, just look at GTA 5 on the Xbox 360 and that’s only got 512MB of shared DDR3 for the complete system. Texture streaming seems to be something that PC games don’t bother with much which is why PCI-e speed (8x vs 16x) has very little effect on performance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 12,228
- Location
- UK.
Using an EVGA GTX 780 Classified with only 3GB of vram and that copes fine for me in my games. I play at 1080P / 1440P depending on the game. I guess it depends whether you need every single setting maxed or can live with lowering something, like shadows etc, from ultra to high and maybe bump down AA, and voila playable xD
4GB of HBM is a decent amount, 8GB HBM 2.0 will be even better. Looking forward to seeing what VEGA can do, when it eventually launches ... Come on AMD hurry up now
4GB of HBM is a decent amount, 8GB HBM 2.0 will be even better. Looking forward to seeing what VEGA can do, when it eventually launches ... Come on AMD hurry up now
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
I managed to pick up an XFX Fury Triple Fan for £175 (cheers to Mark for the heads-up on it) and tbh it's been bloody good even at my taxing 3840x1600 res. Clocked it as much as I can and tbh it just needs a *tad* more oomph to get those minimums up a little more but saying that I'm more than happy with it.
If I could get a FuryX for £240ish then I'd switch and then I'd know I wouldn't have to rush for Vega
If I could get a FuryX for £240ish then I'd switch and then I'd know I wouldn't have to rush for Vega
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2016
- Posts
- 543
I managed to pick up an XFX Fury Triple Fan for £175 (cheers to Mark for the heads-up on it) and tbh it's been bloody good even at my taxing 3840x1600 res. Clocked it as much as I can and tbh it just needs a *tad* more oomph to get those minimums up a little more but saying that I'm more than happy with it.
If I could get a FuryX for £240ish then I'd switch and then I'd know I wouldn't have to rush for Vega
Have you tried to unlock your Fury? It is very easy following this guide: http://cxzoid.blogspot.com/2015/09/r9-fury-unlocking-simplified.html
I've not heard about unlock rates in the XFX Furys, or if they have a dual bios to save trouble on failed flash.
My Tri-X Fury unlocked to 4096 and runs amazingly well, such a great card for high resolution! Admittedly pretty average at 1080p.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Yeah, first thing I checked and it's a no 
Clocks to 1100 on the core though so at least that's something...
Clocks to 1100 on the core though so at least that's something...
Don't think was the case with GTA5, but what's even crazier about big open world games on previous gen consoles including 360 is that they couldn't even rely on there being a hard drive on every model. So, everything streamed off of optical media in realtime! Think of the latency!
I agree with Gregster on the VRAM one however, I need to give AMD a pass for having the courage to go HBM1 as we will surely benefit from their experience when Vega hits.
Boom, I generally agree with what you are saying, everything is just fine on a mid-range GPU until you boot up Elite Dangerous with a VR headset, reach for the over-sample slider to sharpen things up and then realise you need a GPU the size of a block of flats to maintain 90fps. More is now going to be better until we get over the VR sized performance gap that Oculus has nicely given us.
Boom, I generally agree with what you are saying, everything is just fine on a mid-range GPU until you boot up Elite Dangerous with a VR headset, reach for the over-sample slider to sharpen things up and then realise you need a GPU the size of a block of flats to maintain 90fps. More is now going to be better until we get over the VR sized performance gap that Oculus has nicely given us.
To their credit they did much better with "only" 4GB than I was expecting - partly helped I guess due to how many devs are lazy when it comes to memory management and/or at the mercy of higher level APIs that can duplicate data and then holds it "just in case its needed" that the developer doesn't have access to so can't free up if they know its not needed which is possible to do at driver level.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,241
- Location
- Cornwall
Just thought, H1 2017 could mean they're released as late as June right?
That'd mean it was 13 months after Nvidia released the 1080. Very high expectations for these cards with that in mind.
That'd mean it was 13 months after Nvidia released the 1080. Very high expectations for these cards with that in mind.
True, though I still think it's very foolish to spend £250-£300 on a 4GB Fury card at this point.
Anyways, roll on new Vega news!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I thought the wait from the 980 to the Fury X was bad but this time it's a real long one. I hope big Vega comfortably out performs the 1080 as I imagine Nvidia will be ready with a Pascal refresh or whatever it's going to be not long after the vega release, That or the Ti will appear..
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Same here, I simply wouldn't buy a Fiji card new this late in the day unless it was under 200, The 8gb 480's a much better option today especially considering the sale price on the GTR XXX.True, though I still think it's very foolish to spend £250-£300 on a 4GB Fury card at this point.
Anyways, roll on new Vega news!
- Status