The 980 non Ti is barely any better than the 780Ti
-
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.
Nvidia: Order of 10?
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
The 980 non Ti is barely any better than the 780Ti
It would be wise of you to preface all your posts with the caption below
**All comments related to VRAM are assuming one is running at 4k resolution with 16X TXAA**
Incase you didn't understand, you are the 0.0001% of the PC gaming community that runs such AA setting's at 4K resolution.
Man of Honour
The Titan hate is strong with this one.
I don't hate the titan - it was and is a fantastic card (until Polaris/Pascal release at least).
I simply think it's worth pointing out that your VRAM quibbles are completely unfounded and bordering on total lunacy.
As I said, preface your VRAM posts with the following:
**All comments related to VRAM are assuming one is running at 4k resolution with 16X TXAA**
Then 99.9% of forum members will rightfully ignore your ramblings, as it doesn't relate to the experience they get when gaming on lower VRAM cards.
Man of Honour
What settings people use is entirely up to them.
If I do post memory usage figures I always state that I am using max settings.
Look at any of the top reviewers of GPU's - whether it be written or video reviews. None of them run 4K , max settings with MAX AA - as it's simply not feasible for 99.99% of their audience.
Max settings for 4k is usually 0-2XMSAA, no more.
Even on these forums, when people say they run X game 'maxed' out, they usually mean everything set to max apart from AA, with AA at 2x, 4x, depending on resolution.
The fact that you are ignorant to this simply shows how delusional your 4K resolution 16X TXAA settings are.
Well the fact that you seem to think that max settings means max but a few settings turned down in my opinion delusional.
whether Kaap is right about future memory requirements or not is up for debate, but max settings is surely max settings, not max but a bit less.
Associate
From what I've just checked the 980ti seems about 33% better, which is somewhat better than barely any better.
Last edited:
Associate
He meant GTX 980 not 980Ti
Associate
Sorry, yes, I see that now, brain too tired.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2016
- Posts
- 34
What's interesting there is that Memory Usage as reported by graphics cards simply tells us how much data has been copied into the VRAM.
It does not tell us if that data is being used, or having any impact whatsoever on performance.
As anyone qualified should be able to tell you, 3D applications like to copy more data into VRAM than they are necessarily going to use, and how much more can vary quite drastically.
You can quite easily see this on comparisons of the same GPU with different VRAM amounts (e.g. 770 2GB vs 4GB, 960 2GB vs 4GB) - it's easy to find games that have "used", for example, 3GB of VRAM on the 4GB card, but then turned in identical performance to their 2GB sister, which clearly undermines your suggestion that "10.5gb [sic]" Memory Usage is necessarily important.
tl;dr: the VRAM "Memory Usage" metric has very little to do with performance.
While i dont personally see the need for x16 TXAA if its a option in the game then yes thats max setting.. Max settings isnt what is allowed by game - a few.. Thats custom not Max
Man of Honour
I am aware of the above.
When I post memory usage it is just that, what the card does with it is another matter.
Having said that @2160p a game like XCOM 2 can use 10.5gb but even allowing for not all of that being needed a Fury X or 980 Ti (or several of them) can not run it without it being a slideshow.
I'm having the same thought, maybe order of 10 is just polaris 10 as enlightened, space and so on also fits to polaris, would be pretty funny.
I'm definitely with Kaap on the used Vram issue.
Think of it this way, after you installed the a game the info sits on the HDD the moment you start a game the system starts copying data into Vram, in my opinion that is the moment it is being used.
Think of it this way, after you installed the a game the info sits on the HDD the moment you start a game the system starts copying data into Vram, in my opinion that is the moment it is being used.
LOL it would be cool if it was, but then all the clues would be about stars not scientists.
and using the GeForce font for the number 10?
Also, in terms of marketing, the AMD cards wont be the "polaris" range. That is just the internal name for the chip architecture. "10" is the 10 in 1080/1070 etc.
Soldato
I am aware of the above.
When I post memory usage it is just that, what the card does with it is another matter.
Having said that @2160p a game like XCOM 2 can use 10.5gb but even allowing for not all of that being needed a Fury X or 980 Ti (or several of them) can not run it without it being a slideshow.
True but regardless a single 980Ti or TX will surely be a slideshow of frames anyway with 16x AA.
Unless 20fps is playable