Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)

Ayahuasca · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:16

I'd be perfectly fine with it, no interest in going 4k any time soon and by the time I do we'll need more raw power anyway not just memory.

whyscotty · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:19

No one should be, only having 4GB on new high end cards is pointless IMHO

Tonester0011 · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:21

Would be wrong for me to say no, as i stated i would be happy to buy a 970 with 2gb, lol.
I'm the wrong man for VRAM debates. I do get why they should have more than 4GB though, as people have stated 4GB isn't enough for 1080p (Boom) so these people should be critical of this card.

win8.1 · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:25

I would probably get a 8gb as it would be maybe be useful for vsr but if I did get another 4GB Amd card at least it would have 4GB.

(Sorry I know its been said before but I could not resist

)

TNA · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:32

lol at all these posts. So entertaining

I myself am on 4k and not too bothered about if 8gb is available or not on the new cards. Would be nice, but if not I am happy to own and test new tech like HBM. Not going to miss out because a hand full of games may need more than 4gb from now until next year when the true beast of cards come out on 16 nm

By then 8GB on cards on high end will be standard anyway.

Besides, I am happy gaming between 30-60fps depending on the game, so I just stick to one card and avoid all the hassle of sli/crossfire. Crank everything to max and enjoy

It's all a personal preference really. That is what I find right for me. I love 4k, other prefer 144mhz and rather play on a god awful tn panel. If it makes them happy then they are right in their choice.

That said there are plenty fan boys in the graphics section. They won't buy from AMD or Nvidia for purely for fanboy reasons. That is fine to as that's what makes them happy. What I find entertaining/annoying at times to read is the reasons they give/mis information they spread.

flopper · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:33

4gb faster than a bazzoka, people dont buy that are called insane

Boomstick777 · 8 Feb 2015 at 12:48

It's got to be a decent amount of vram for me, good core performance and the memory to back it up. Maybe they are thinking tiled resources etc will alleviate memory causing stutters fps drops etc..

A few months back I thought 4GB would be enough, but now I understand how the memory allocation works and we've seen games like Shadow of Mordor / Wolfenstein running so much better with the extra vram. Games are only going to get more demanding.

Anyone on 1440P / 4K should really be looking at cards with more than 4GB. Maybe we will see an 8GB version of this and maybe even 8GB 980. There is definitely a market there..

Either way I think I'm going to be waiting a long long time for my next upgrade.. This 290X 8GB might be a keeper for a while.. The original Titan / Titan Black also have longer legs than the other Nvidia cards at higher res imho. Yes the 980 has higher peak FPS but with the extra vram you don't get the drops / stutters.

FoxEye · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:03

Boom can you fix your sig? The jpg artefacts are driving me insane

You could have used a nice, clean PNG file!

Tonester0011 · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:08

old gamer · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:08

mabe but i need to see hbm in action, if quality can make up for quantity then i may just go for it

Nutella33 · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:10

I would, I'm not going 4k, I just want extra grunt. People are still quite happily buying 290x's and 980's with worse 4GB RAM so why not?

Orangey · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:21

We have next gen img formats now too. BGP etc

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:31

What games are using so much VRAM? "4gb not enough for 1080P" what?!

I've just run Metro LL almost maxed (normal tess and no SSAA) @ 1440p and VRAM usage was 1.2GB in the bench and 1.7GB in game.
Elite dangerous maxed @1440p was just over 1.6GB
Grey Goo maxed at 1440P was 2.5GB after 3 hours of gaming...

Seems to me like some people are taking the most extreme cases of high VRAM usage in games and then making a general rule.
I'm going to test some other games aswell...

Bonjour · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:34

It's generally the console ports that are using ridiculous amounts of VRAM.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:41

TIFF FTW!!

se_vietboi · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:42

And here I am with a 2GB card at 1440p.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:48

Well Shadow of Mordor seems to be one of the worst offenders, if you believe the hype but even that runs fine on a 3GB 780 at 1440p...

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/shadow-of-mordor-pc-testing-1080p-1440p-4k/3/

"Judging from our testing, its safe to say that you can ignore that 6GB ‘requirement’ for Ultra textures at sub 4K resolutions, the game is perfectly playable with a 3GB GPU"

Maybe other ports require more VRAM than SOM that I don't know about...

Bonjour · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:52

I have SoM. It constantly sits at 3.8GB+.

Tonester0011 · 8 Feb 2015 at 13:56

Ask Boom, he's the one who has touted that some games use more than 4gb @1080.
I'd be happy with 2gb, yet to find a game that uses more than that @1440, was briefly using a 570 @1440 running CoD:AW 90fps constant.

iB CoMpL3XiTy · 8 Feb 2015 at 14:02

Ok, but does that actually negatively effect the performance / game play experience?

In that review I linked their 3GB 780's VRAM was maxed even at 1080P, BUT they said they didn't notice any negative performance impact.

Similarly at 1440P using ultra textures they said "Additionally, while playing the game I didn’t notice any severe frame drops, slow down or stutter".