I've my doubts about 3gb being future-proof. i'd take me a titan black any day, perhaps i'll get one in summer. but sure this particular card in OP is dreamy.
From what I understand, there's only like 30 cards being made. And none will be available for retail purchase. Galaxy is doing what MSI did with the 780 TI Lightning. Make a few and give them away to some top people on HwBot.
well you can get a non Ti HOF for 499.90€ xD http://geizhals.eu/kfa-geforce-gtx-780-hof-78xnh5dv8pxv-a992636.html
I think it's NVIDIA and their Green Light initiative which is hampering partners introducing just any voltage/power within GPU design.
According to comments under that article, Galaxy is pulling out of N/A.... Shame really. Galaxy cards are usually reasonably priced....
ya...a month or so old news. I had to google who owns Galaxy - PNY or Palit. It's not even close. PNY is US based, 500+ employees. Palit is HUUGE.
It's only going to be good for SLI. If people are going single cards at 1440p+ resolutions, I recommend 4-6 GB for sure. One Titan Black would do great, or R9 290x whichever camp you prefer.
They could not do much with this card A few months back was not really good sub zero and had other issues. They even had to use the 760 card in place of these at the big galaxy overclock event. Glad they got the issues all taken care of.
i'm not in the overpopulated camp that believes only uber demanding games will require uber amounts of vram. and that only uber amounts of gpu cores will be able to run games with uber vram requirements. for ex. I can see me in future using more than 3gb and keeping 60 -75fps with my current card at 1080.
may be poor but it's the second I've given so at least you can't say i'm not being helpful trying to explain. one more: bioshock infinite (lovely looking game) uses only around 50% of my GPU's OCed power but at same time I've seen it use 2.5gb of vram. bf4 there's another: not demanding in the least but it uses lots of vram hovering around 2gb. **basically i'm separating textures which the vram handles with all the other crap that the cpu /gpu cores handle. same as system ram tbh, if you got chit loads browser pages open you'll see over 5gb ram used, however not much cpu power is needed.
I have both those games BF4 plays fine with my 670's at ultra and 135 res slider yes I am at my 2GB limit but the game is not very demanding as you said. I need to play BS:I as I have it installed just have not started it up. But I remember your thread about it. And most everyone on 2GB cards had no issue running it. I'm not saying that 2GB is future proof as nothing is. Just saying that 2GB is adequate 99.9% of the time at 1080.
ever since crysis2 I've been interested in cards with more than enough vram and i'd hate to be in that position again of seeing stutters once my vram is full. and I know some feel that vram being full isn't such a biggie but I disagree, it's like a flatlining cpu /gpu core imo. or other words bottleneck.
I can see your reasoning but there will always be a bottleneck either CPU, GPU core or VRAM. Once you free one up the next weakest will become apearent. BTW I played Crysis2 on a pair of 6970's all I wanted at the time was a card that could handle tesslation. lol Guess if you played with the Maldo mods you needed more than 2GB.
how about this: 1 witcher3 is released, it's the most freaking out of this world visual experience folks can remember, it's all due to the textures they're incredible 2 in the witcher3 settings we can disable all the AA and post effects but keep those insanely well done textures at Ultra. 3 we're running witcher3 on our 4gb - 6gb card at 75fps using at times 3.5gb+ of vram ------- obviously with titan black you can keep the PhysX, prolly give the 680 that to do.
And Fudzilla reviewed it- KFA2 variant http://fudzilla.com/home/item/34413...kfa2-gtx-780-ti-hall-of-fame-reviewed?start=3 some nice pics inside:nerd: lol