-
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.
whY?
- Thread starter sin
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,215
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Because you don't need it and it costs more.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Considering epic have been using nvidia hardware for demos, i doubt it
AMD Cards have 3GB firstly as a check box feature, but also to accompany the fact that they're pushing multi monitor set ups with their cards, which is where you'll get the benefit from.
Additionally, it's also down to the technology used. AMD cards are using 384bit memory buses, whilst nVidia are using 256bit memory buses. They will facilitate different amounts of RAM.
PhysX is a non-issue really. You're not gonna get many people around here recommending anything but a 7950 at the moment because you can't beat its value for money.
AMD's lack of PhysX has no bearing on the price of their cards, they price to sell. They were horribly overpriced when nVidia didn't have anything out, now they do they've dropped them to sensible prices.
Additionally, it's also down to the technology used. AMD cards are using 384bit memory buses, whilst nVidia are using 256bit memory buses. They will facilitate different amounts of RAM.
PhysX is a non-issue really. You're not gonna get many people around here recommending anything but a 7950 at the moment because you can't beat its value for money.
AMD's lack of PhysX has no bearing on the price of their cards, they price to sell. They were horribly overpriced when nVidia didn't have anything out, now they do they've dropped them to sensible prices.
Last edited:
The unreal 3 engine has built in MSAA support, so I wouldnt mind betting it could get close to 2GB usage or above depending on other factors.
I just wish nvidia had gone for 3GB as standard too so game developers would be more inclined to put better textures in their games.
@spoffle:
Physx may be a non issue to you and many other people but to some it is an issue and some people like it.
Power consumption is also a small issue in my mind, theres two levels of power consumption: acceptable and not acceptable. But some people see power consumption as an issue. Personally I would rather just have the faster card and put in a low energy light bulb somewhere.
I just wish nvidia had gone for 3GB as standard too so game developers would be more inclined to put better textures in their games.
@spoffle:
Physx may be a non issue to you and many other people but to some it is an issue and some people like it.
Power consumption is also a small issue in my mind, theres two levels of power consumption: acceptable and not acceptable. But some people see power consumption as an issue. Personally I would rather just have the faster card and put in a low energy light bulb somewhere.
It was implied that "PhysX" had a bearing on price, it is a non-issue when it comes to price. AMD don't price below nVidia because nVidia ha PhysX, and nVidia don't price above AMD because they have PhysX.
I also think people don't quite realise that there's a difference in "PhysX" and "Hardware PhysX". Quite a few games use "PhysX" but very few actually use hardware assisted PhysX.
More RAM is most definitely better, but 3GB wouldn't have been realistic, it had to be either 2 or 4GB. I think 6XX cards are costing nVidia quite a bit, because people will say GDDR5 is expensive, but it's not really *that* expensive. The price difference between 2-4GB would be negligable really, but I think they are pushing the limit in terms of costs.
I also think people don't quite realise that there's a difference in "PhysX" and "Hardware PhysX". Quite a few games use "PhysX" but very few actually use hardware assisted PhysX.
More RAM is most definitely better, but 3GB wouldn't have been realistic, it had to be either 2 or 4GB. I think 6XX cards are costing nVidia quite a bit, because people will say GDDR5 is expensive, but it's not really *that* expensive. The price difference between 2-4GB would be negligable really, but I think they are pushing the limit in terms of costs.
Nvidia must charge for physx as part of their revenues must go towards physx driver development etc. Im sure their employees arent working for free.
I havent seen any links for an accurate price of GDDR5 so I cant really comment, but both companies are charging about £30-£35 per gigabyte as a premium for their cards with increaded vram.
I havent seen any links for an accurate price of GDDR5 so I cant really comment, but both companies are charging about £30-£35 per gigabyte as a premium for their cards with increaded vram.
They won't really charge for PhysX development, it'll be part of R&D as well as the TWIMTBP programme.
Additionally, since so few games actually use hardware PhysX, there's not much they really have to have hands on input in.
However, when they do have hands on input, it's often dubious, but that's not for this thread.
As for the RAM, you have to consider everything, manufacturing profits, distributor profits, retailer profits. Break it all down and there's quite a negligible difference in price between 2-4, or 3-6GB of GDDR5.
The higher prices for graphics cards with larger amounts of RAM have always been done to give the illusion of a premium product, and because they are made in smaller numbers.
It's probably done for a few reasons, as there are still people out there that think the amount of RAM determines how fast a graphics card is.
Additionally, since so few games actually use hardware PhysX, there's not much they really have to have hands on input in.
However, when they do have hands on input, it's often dubious, but that's not for this thread.
As for the RAM, you have to consider everything, manufacturing profits, distributor profits, retailer profits. Break it all down and there's quite a negligible difference in price between 2-4, or 3-6GB of GDDR5.
The higher prices for graphics cards with larger amounts of RAM have always been done to give the illusion of a premium product, and because they are made in smaller numbers.
It's probably done for a few reasons, as there are still people out there that think the amount of RAM determines how fast a graphics card is.
Last edited:
I got 2GB card. In skyrim + HD pack, I see very often mem usage >1.5G
Urgh not the Skyrim modded argument again.
Its ALL pure economics. NV and AMD are businesses.
NV and AMD do not directly compete with as near as possible identical configurations, as each company tries to use their own strengths to their maximum benefit. Why would they deliberately compete on an equal footing? That would be best for the consumer, and worst for them.
Think about it. In each gen a company has strengths so they use them to their benefit to maximise sales and profit.
No two competing companies will EVER create identical specifications unless regulation forces them to do so. Why would they?
AMD have played the value card in the past. Pop more RAM on there and it sounds good no? But is it always needed? Its a great sales ploy. The card may be inefficient using that RAM, but more "sounds" better eh?
From what i have heard NV cards are more efficient using the RAM they have so you cannot directly compare 2GB on NV being worse than 3GB on AMD. Indeed sometimes cards with more RAM are sometimes slower!
NV and AMD do not directly compete with as near as possible identical configurations, as each company tries to use their own strengths to their maximum benefit. Why would they deliberately compete on an equal footing? That would be best for the consumer, and worst for them.
Think about it. In each gen a company has strengths so they use them to their benefit to maximise sales and profit.
No two competing companies will EVER create identical specifications unless regulation forces them to do so. Why would they?
AMD have played the value card in the past. Pop more RAM on there and it sounds good no? But is it always needed? Its a great sales ploy. The card may be inefficient using that RAM, but more "sounds" better eh?
From what i have heard NV cards are more efficient using the RAM they have so you cannot directly compare 2GB on NV being worse than 3GB on AMD. Indeed sometimes cards with more RAM are sometimes slower!