Alright ill start the fire, but you got to keep putting some coal to keep it on. So yea i guess you are right about the gtx 780 ti and that could too happen to maxwell. As far as benchmarks and reviews show, you can see the r9 290 aka r9 390 is already ahead of the gtx 970. And the r9 290x aka r9 390x is very close to the gtx 980. I mean who knows, in less than year, we might see the r9 290 coming ahead of the gtx 980 like the hd 7970 did with the gtx 780
Kinda trollish from some of the people in this thread tbh. You understand that most of the 'issues' we're seeing with Kepler based cards are fixed the moment Nv adds the option to change the level of tessellation? That's literally the main problem, in Witcher 3 it's way overblown as proven by the fact AMD users can do that with little visual loss and massive performance gains. It's not just with Hairworks either, the standard game is overly heavy.
780ti is going on 2 years old, nvidia actually prefers to release new architectures as opposed to the many rebrands, not only the 300 series either, how many versions of the 7000 series has been rebranded? Lost count myself. Releasing all these retreads and still using gcn after all these years, amd has had the chance to optimize gcn to death.
Nah, proved you wrong enough times already. Those who know what you're trying to start are aware of you being wrong every time so I'll just laugh and move on.
Well optimized, and rebranded more than once or not, i take that as a good thing for the person who purchased the card. He can keep it longer and not have to spend money for an upgrade. For an hd 7970 to come close to the gtx 780 at the end of its life cycle is something i praise. And for old cards to be able to come a head of newer cards with slight modification shows how well the cards were made in the first place. The gtx 780 ti was released after the r9 290/x cards and for it to age quicker dissatisfies the customer.
With games already eating as much as 4 to 6 gb vram @1080p, wouldnt it be more future proof going for the 8gb card? I mean, textures make a big difference (I have 5870 CfX able to pull bf4 at high/ultra settings but w medium textures and they look sucky x.x) Any comments on that thought? im really really confused and not knowing what to do!
Lol it is too late to ask for an honest answer in this thread. My sincere apology to you mate. :flame: Look going with a cross fire setup, the r9 390x cards with 8 gb vram will serve you will beyond 1080p. For a single card and more future proof the card will do its job, but no one can guaranty how will the card hold up for the next 2 or so years. If you had asked between a gtx 970 and r9 390/290, i would till go with the r9 390 in a heart beat. But your budget allows for more enthusiast level cards. The r9 390x comes close to the gtx 980, but when both cards oc'd the gtx 980 will pull ahead at 1080p. The 8 gb vram is a plus, but at the same price and as of now, you going to have to make the decision on your own. Add a poll to this thread and add the choices gtx 980, or r9 390x and see how many clicks either cards get and then decide.
Single 290X(390X) have not enough raw power to properly use the 8 GB VRAM, they maybe have some use for graphic mods (Skyrim HD textures). CFX and QUAD is a little different but then you need 32 GB of DDRAM and a powerful CPU like the 5960X and a nice OC on it (IMHO mandatory in QUAD setup...). As i said before if you have a 980 for 450 bucks, get it! It performs better at 1080p.
Same goes for upcoming Fallout 4, people will mod the hell out of it, 8GB should be usefull. Both GTA and Shadows of Mordor can use more than 4GB on 390X while keeping 60fps. Card powerful enough to use atleast 5-6GB vram effectively.
Come on man. That doesn't for a moment mean that those games require that much memory, it's called allocation. You should know better.
my "3.5gb" 970 has no issues with Mordor and GTA V at 1440p. In GTA V I have to lower certain settings, but that's because the advanced staff and the grass can be demanding. Nothing to do with VRAM.
I've lost respect for some members in this thread tbh, lapsing into the VRAM argument to argue a cards merits with games that don't actually require that sort of memory? I'm insulted to have read it.
Doesn't mean a damn when we have benchmarks providing evidence that it runs just fine with maxed out textures on 3gb cards, let alone 4gb. It's USING that much because a chunk of it is ALLOCATED, not REQUIRED. http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/shadow-of-mordor-pc-testing-1080p-1440p-4k/ I'm sick of saying it, Shadows of Mordor is a terrible test for VRAM requirements. It allocates bucketloads of memory, we've seen it countless times on multiple reviews. At this point any long term Guru that claims otherwise is wilfully ignoring the plethora of data that's been available to them for a long period of time. PS: Better sources than a piss poor online gaming mag in future please.
With "Eurogamer" as a source no less. What the hell is going on with this forum? Isn't it school time yet?
My 11 year old is still with me for the summer so I'm sure other 11 year Olds are still on summer break. Though I find my boy a bit more intelligent though.
is eurogamer/digital foundry a bad source? can someone objectively tellme like the pros an cons and futureproofness between them? how better is the 980 perf wise? is that perf better than the extra vram? TK Darkest or anyone mind giving me your objective opinions on this? i got like 12 hrs to decide lol xD
