Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by goat1, Sep 24, 2014.
sure, that's why you got rid of the 780 6gb, right?
No, that was due to them being a fair bit slower than a 780 ti. Ideally i would have gotten a pair of titan blacks, but the price of those are ridiculous.
So which bottleneck is more important and at what price/performance. Ram or performance? Looks like you decided
I told you in that 780 6gb thread you made not to buy them. The 3gb ti is faster than a 6gb in all situations. Company's like putting oc models on double vram cards than testing reference clocked regular vram cards.
Well, ideally they are proportional to each other, so that there is no "bottleneck".
But almost double price for double vram is insane.
This is not entirely correct - while the 780 ti will indeed have higher average fps, it will in certain cases have a noticable lower minimum fps (aka stutter), due to the lower amount of vram.
Never heard of hot rod hardware. Any well known sites corroborate that statement?
I just looked at that review where is a 6gb 780 even posted? Let alone having higher minimum fps than a ti.
I ran the Hitman Absolution benchmark, 3840x2160, Ultra preset, and 4x MSAA to mirror those benches, and found something interesting.
Towards the end of the benchmark, the minimum FPS my current 2Gb GTX 680 was able to pull was around 8.5 FPS. However, as soon as the results posted on screen, the minimum FPS tanked to 2.75. Those results from hothardware can be quite misleading, since it does not say -where- the FPS dropped. If it dropped somewhere during the actual rendering process of the benchmarked scene, then yes, that could be a problem. However, if like my system, the frame rate dropped and was counted just as the benchmark results populated on the screen, then there shouldn't be any issue.
As you can see, these results were snapped using FRAPS just as the scene faded to black, just before the benchmark results populated.
But as soon as the benchmark results populated....
(put in spoiler since it's 3840x2160)
I got a question for you guys. Many of you said the 4gb was unusable on the 770 because of the 256 bit bus,the 970/980 has the 256 bit bus. I know they tweaked something ,but does the 970 have the horsepower to use it? I don't understand why they didn't go to the 384 bit bus like on the 780/790 ti. Maybe it doesn't have that much of a difference. It seems like these are geared for the 1440p crowd. You should be able to run these at 4k without AA and be ok..
There isn't a single GPU in existence that can effectively utilize 8GB never mind 16GB for gaming. Right now, the top end single GPU can effectively utilize 3-4GB. SLI increases this a bit for maintaining frame rates. Nvidia isn't that stupid. There are too many review sites out there now that would literally rip Nvidia or AMD a new one for such a obvious bone head move. Even the 4GB on the GTX 680 was given a lot of grief for being essentially a gimmick unless you were running SLI at 1440p or higher resolution.
The gpu itself was not strong enough coupled eith the 256 bit bus didn't help any with gk104. Maxwell made some improvements to the gpu so it would help out like bigger cache size and some other stuff too. Maxwell at that 7ghz 256bit bandwidth is pretty amazing beating gk110 with that huge memory bandwidth lead. And the fact that gm204 absolutely spanks gk104 in gpu power. 64 rops on gm204 is double of gk104 32 rops.
A 256bit bus being unable to utilize 4 GB of memory is not entirely true. There are more factors that come into play as to whether or not a GPU can utilize all of its memory than just bus width. How the architecture handles the memory allocation is very important. Graphic settings are also important. Remember that Nvidia increased the L2 cache and improved the color compression with Maxwell, and the results show if you compare a GTX 780 to a GTX 980. Even at 4k, the GTX 980 is consistently ~30% faster than its predecessor, even though the bus width is 128 bits smaller and memory bandwidth is 64 GB/s slower.
Generally speaking, both AMD and Nvidia almost always give their cards a higher horsepower-to-memory ratio. So, to answer your question, a GTX 970 is likely not fast enough to take full advantage of the 4 GB of memory it comes packaged with. The only real way you will exceed the memory limit of a GTX 970 while trying to maintain as close to 60 FPS as possible is by increasing the settings that are loaded into memory but otherwise cost little to no FPS, such as textures and, in some cases, shadow resolution (I'm looking at you, Skyrim).
Oh god here goes the bull**** again. I'm running away as fast as I can uke2:
Now, I'm gaming with solid 60 fps using all the vRAM god gave me.
Soon I will be gaming at 60+fps with my new two babies at 1440p, muhahaha :banana:
Most of the bs comes from you, you cant run from yourself.
Recommended PC specs for The Evil Within
64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8
i7 with four-plus cores
4 GB RAM
50 GB of hard drive space (50 GB needed for install, but game will actually only take up around 41 GB of hard drive space, Bethesda says)
GeForce GTX 670 or equivalent with 4 GB of VRAM
High-speed internet connection
People that think a 670 doesn't have the power to use 4gb of ram don't know what they are talking about. Having over 2gb of vram has been useful in Watch Dogs, Skyrim with mods, Minecraft with Mods, Fallout New Vegas with mods, Wolfenstein running ultra settings, and now The Evil Within and other upcoming games.
In my modded games I like to replace every texture with 2k-4k textures.
I bought my 4gb 670 new for cheaper than the 2gb version.
You must love playing at 30fps and under.
Thread is obvious troll bait tbh.
All those games I mentioned run at 60fps, cept for Watch Dogs which is around 40-60fps on average.
max the textures and scale everything else ..
done wolfenstein with 3gb+ (max i seen was 3.8gb) using only around 60-70% card's power (gtx 760).
Most of those games you mentioned are modded, ie not the released product. There are a few exceptions, nobody is denying that. Watchdogs 40-60 fps at what settings? Minimum framerate?
True that the extra VRam helps with games with modded textures. But still Watch dogs is still a poorly optimized game though even though the extra VRAM helps. With the newer games depending on the graphical settings you set it to it to the 670 will run out of GPU power before using up all the VRAM.