-
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.
GTX680 to arrive at the end of February!
- Thread starter CinderzFTW
- Start date
It surprises me that more people don't realise something very obvious regarding this vram issue:
AMD clearly have a policy of putting more vram on their cards than is necessary so that they can be SLI'd without problems, whereas Nvidia's strategy is to release a lower vram card for those wanting a single GPU setup and a higher vram card for those wanting to SLI. AMD didn't put 3GB vram on the 7970 or 2GB vram on the 6970 because they needed that much vram each. They put it on for SLI reasons.
AMD clearly have a policy of putting more vram on their cards than is necessary so that they can be SLI'd without problems, whereas Nvidia's strategy is to release a lower vram card for those wanting a single GPU setup and a higher vram card for those wanting to SLI. AMD didn't put 3GB vram on the 7970 or 2GB vram on the 6970 because they needed that much vram each. They put it on for SLI reasons.
For AMD dude it is "CROSSFIRE" - SLi is what Nvidia call it...
For 1080 i agree 2gb should be enough but ATI are planning a 6gb 7970 from what i read for the stupidly high res's
So for NV to compete they need to at lease match or beat this
6GB are you freakin' kidding me! Maybe for a 3 monitor display option, but come on, who the hell can afford that!!!!!????
The amount of vram for sli/Crossfire isnt an issue its how much ram the game needs regardless of power it just makes it more future proof
For example my 3x470 will out perform 580 sli but due to only 1.2gb vram they give up when a game needs more vram than what they have talking 10-20 fps is more to future proof than to compete as such
Well there trying to push 5x1 eyeinfinity with there new update can you imaging 5x 30" monitors how much vram they would need ?
Soldato
Nvidia is panicking, 7970 is better than what they expected, & the 7990 will cause them even more trouble, so they have to appease their users.
GTX680 most likely a rebadged GTX 560,with a few tweaks, haven't we seen all this before!
I thought I read somewhere the GTX680 was being bypassed & the GTX780 was taking over.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks, months.
GTX680 most likely a rebadged GTX 560,with a few tweaks, haven't we seen all this before!
I thought I read somewhere the GTX680 was being bypassed & the GTX780 was taking over.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the coming weeks, months.
Last edited:
Soldato
There are peeps out there who can afford, & would get such a set up.
Most peeps now consider a 24"monitor as a minimum size of choice, but 27" & 30" monitors gaining popularity very quickly, & AMD are quick to realise this.
Last edited:
True where 1.5gb of vram is for 1080p at higher res's you want a minimum of 2gb
It's really quite a simple explanation why AMD uses 3GB VRAM on their 7970 cards. Having a 384bit memory (like the GTX580)! AMD had a choice of 1.5GB or 3GB. If they used 1.5GB, current 6970 owners would have seen it as a downgrade, and it may have struggled at super high resolutions.
The GTX680/780 on the other hand is widely expected to have a 512bit memory bus. This procvides Kepler with the opportunity to use 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB of VRAM. Clearly, 1GB is too small, 4GB will be too large for most applications and too expensive. That leaves 2GB which in my opinion is probably the sweatspot for the vast majority of users.
In a way, 2GB is much better than 3GB because it should allow NVidia to cut costs, and hopefully pass them on to the consumer. Very few people will make use of that extra 1GB anyway.
The GTX680/780 on the other hand is widely expected to have a 512bit memory bus. This procvides Kepler with the opportunity to use 1GB, 2GB, or 4GB of VRAM. Clearly, 1GB is too small, 4GB will be too large for most applications and too expensive. That leaves 2GB which in my opinion is probably the sweatspot for the vast majority of users.
In a way, 2GB is much better than 3GB because it should allow NVidia to cut costs, and hopefully pass them on to the consumer. Very few people will make use of that extra 1GB anyway.
Soldato
No idea atm what the specs are on their flagship card but everything seems to indicate this will be the top model for their mid-range lineup in the general Kepler series.
600 series tho seems to be designated for Fermi optical shrinks so if it actually is a "680" then it may be just a 28nm Fermi
Surely it's product positing will be based on it's TDP? If it's another 250 watt TDP model then this would the flagship high end 28nm card, I really can't see Nvidia breaking the 300 watt guide for a single card can you?
Pointless speculation, the source is about as credible as Labours deficit reduction plan and it amazes me just how a random news item based on nothing can get people biting.
Last edited:
Not after the slating they got for the 4XX series .....Well i wouldnt think so
This is True but can you imagin the price that will come for th 4gb version
But look at the 580 1/4 less memory off the 6950 and also nearly double the price so i cant see them being cheaper due to there memory size
Last time I cheched it was the GTX570 that directly competed with the 6958/6970 cards, and still won with a paltry 1.25GB of VRAM. The 580 was as far above the 6900's as the 7970 is above the 580 (in price and performance).This is True but can you imagin the price that will come for th 4gb version
But look at the 580 1/4 less memory off the 6950 and also nearly double the price so i cant see them being cheaper due to there memory size
Lack of VRAM is only a problem when you run out, and most cards run out of GPU grunt before VRAM becomes the issue.
Last edited:
Understandable i'am in that stuation right now got as much grunt as over clocked 580's in sli but the vram brings it all crashing down at times
Soldato
Even at 1080p, BF3 utilises upto 2.5gb of vram on ultra settings on 64 player servers. So if the new 780 card only has 2gb, the game will use less (buffering) which will cause noticable fps dips.
Sorry, but if Nvidia only bring 2gb to their latest top card (that's not even out or confirmed!!) then it's game over. All those derping in the 7970@1080p thread about it being overkill will soon be eating their hats
Soldato
Something to look forward to ... i'll take 3 
Even at 1080p, BF3 utilises upto 2.5gb of vram on ultra settings on 64 player servers. So if the new 780 card only has 2gb, the game will use less (buffering) which will cause noticable fps dips.
Sorry, but if Nvidia only bring 2gb to their latest top card (that's not even out or confirmed!!) then it's game over. All those derping in the 7970@1080p thread about it being overkill will soon be eating their hats
As I said in another thread, I've never seen over 1.8gb on my 7970 in bf3/64 player servers
7970 definitely isn't overkill though at that res, however the vram is a bit. I can't max everything out and maintain +40fps in all instances on a B2K/64 player server @1080p (particularly gulf of oman).
I agree that Nvidia need a 3gb flagship card minimum to stay in the high res game though, that much is clear otherwise it'll be AMD all the way.