Nope.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14 Wolfenstein 2.75-2.8gb - Maxed settings, except DOF medium looks ugly at max. Watch Dogs runs fine too now, at least so they say. COD Ghosts can use more then 3gb, but that doesnt mean it will stutter or lag to 0fps @ 3gb vram buffer, far from it I own the game and I know very well. Again, guess you need to read this at least 5x more times to really understand how memory allocation works and why it can use more if it wants with certain engines. http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/TextureStreaming.html#Pre-streaming Textures You memory whoe upgrade to 16gb system ram, 8gb is for pussies
And once again it comes down to a vram discussion. Well I hope AMD is fast with it's 390X, competition is always good for a business. Either we get a true competetive GPU against the green ones, or they might want to drop prices on the green side. Either way, only good can come out of this!
Single GPU's always come with enough VRAM, period. Of course you can force it out of its boundaries with huge mods and whatever, but then you're just asking for it. Of course it's a matter of opinion, but paying 50-300 bucks for high end parts with more GDDR? I'd just save that for the next card and have better performance and a newer card faster than you
As far as this rumor goes, 390x was originally planned for Q4 2014, therefore some delay in factories can make for 1H 2015 prediction. So it may be based on something. One should not forget that if maxwell can at 256bit bus pull same effective bandwidth like 384bit bus before it has around 50% better effective compression for textures therefore 4GB acts close to previous 6GB. People waiting for 8GB GTX 970 are wasting their time and if they come at high premium, then they are wasting their money too. (price drops after 980Ti gets out not included, because 4GB version will still be considerably cheaper then 8GB)
yeah, like when you laughed when Bioshock Infinite used more than 2gb vram? And every gtx 680 out there was maxing the game out and running it just fine? Not to mention those with 680 sli, 670 sli etc, all of them were running the game with insane fps. Can you please stop talking about vram? Your input seems to be vram this, vram that, 4gb, 8gb etc. It's wearing really thin because it's nonsense. You're predicting something that isn't here. Wolf using over 3.5gb at 1080p no AA? What a poor attempt at trying to justify your 760 4gb purchase. If you ever had any credibility on this forum, you are losing it with each post, recently. EDIT: Here's Wolf, at 1440p, all maxed out, after about 20 minutes of gameplay. Hasn't even gone over 2gb. Sure, it would maybe go a slight bit up in a longer session, maybe even close to 2.5gb. But this is 1440p. You said 1080p uses 3.5gb, joker.
yeah, you just go ignore facts, why don't you? Go laugh it off. You really are putting yourself down more and more each time you post. Go buy yourself 8gb whatever and watch your fps plummet way before you get anywhere over 4gb vram usage.
I didn't attack anyone, I just proved you wrong. I "attacked" your statement of 4gb not being enough and "attacked" your post saying you need 3.5gb in Wolf at 1080p. I stand behind everything I said, including you losing all the credibility on here. Your vram posts are clear flame bait. It's too obvious. I'm sure most on here will agree with that.
im fine another infraction yay. for what defending against a personal attack, fine. well done clappy you hater.
nobody attacked you. I questioned your nonsense posts claiming something that just isn't true. go play victim somewhere else.
