Lel, I own a Titan X. Before that, a 970, before that, 3x680's. I have to go back to a 5870 for AMD.
So ah, Try again.
But hey, if you don't believe me, you only need to see the Fury's benchmarks @ 4k. They mostly don't choke.
4GB was never a choke point for a 980 either, but that didn't stop the AMD fans from crying foul about it. Do games suddenly use more texture memory with an NVidia card? What you're saying still doesn't make any sense.
Let me clear it up since you're talking about benchmarks... Why is 4GB enough for a Fury X but not enough for a 980? "because it's HBM" makes no sense. You need what you need.
Can you link me to these documented facts? Im quite interested because ive stayed away from this whole GW debacle. But to actually say something, one must understand it.
From my minimal knowledge, normally a "GW" title adds one or two visual features e.g. hairworks or VXAO etc. Now these will run better on nVIDIA GPUs (well duh?) but won't be optimised for competing products. Also most of the time, these features can be turned off (need citation - correct me if I am wrong) or there is an alternative option that produce the same or similiar effect e.g. SSAO. Also GW features aren't the core of the engine itself but like a small extension that could be bypassed if the developer wants to produce similiar visual effects(?).
Now unless the game cannot have these turned off and the features are forced to run on the GPU (or are just purely built from ground up to work better with a particular architecture), are they really gimping the performance of their competition or are they just providing more features/options for their customers?
Ive always assume that most games (and most of them are ported from the console) just have a few tagged on GW visual features that if turned off will just result in the game being in a vanilla state. Is this a correct assumption?
Please provide a post from someone who posts here frequently that proves your stance of "AMD fanboys say 4gb isn't enough"
Please provide a post from someone who posts here frequently that proves your stance of "AMD fanboys say 4gb isn't enough"
Ive always assume that most games (and most of them are ported from the console) just have a few tagged on GW visual features that if turned off will just result in the game being in a vanilla state. Is this a correct assumption?
Member call outs aren't allowed. Not that it matters, the guy I'm debating with isn't denying that happened, he in fact acknowledged it, but saying "hbm is the reason" which does not make any sense.
Let me make it simple for you since reasoning and logic fails you
When your coming to market with twice the memory bandwidth, your less likely to heap shit on it.
If I remember correctly however, many reviewers did comment on release however that the 4GB limit with how they felt that it did limit the card slightly at 4k res, but wasn't overtly noticeable.
Let me make it simple for you since reasoning and logic fails you
When your coming to market with twice the memory bandwidth, your less likely to heap shit on it.
If I remember correctly however, many reviewers did comment on release however with the 4GB limit they felt that it did limit the card slightly at 4k res, but wasn't overtly noticeable.
I'm not even saying 4GB is or is not enough. I'm pointing out the argument bias and goal post shifting and using the 4GB debate that happened with the 980 then again with Fury X as an example of it.
I'm not even saying 4GB is or is not enough. I'm pointing out the argument bias and goal post shifting and using the 4GB debate that happened with the 980 then again with Fury X as an example of it.
Yes but you've still shown nothing to backup that "AMD fans" here said that the 980's 4GB was insufficient or a bottleneck. You said the person you were debating agreed with you but I can't find any post of his in this thread where he states that. It would be hypocritical but I don't recall it happening.
Just link the thread and page if you are worried about calling people out. If there was a 980 "debate" (and I certainly don't want to imply that I've read every thread on here) around 4GB then that should be simple.
C@mM!'s very first reply to me in this thread was stating why people didn't make the same arguments with Fury X having 4GB. You haven't found it because you didn't look.
lol you baited him into an argument that doesn't exist!
C@mM!'s very first reply to me in this thread was stating why people didn't make the same arguments with Fury X having 4GB. You haven't found it because you didn't look.
Namely because most people understood that with HBM1, it wasn't possible to cram more on, and the bandwidth gain minimised the impact of 4GB at 1440p+.
And people bitched about the 970 due to 512mb of that 4GB buffer dropping to a 64 bit bus due to the way Nvidia sliced the die.
Probably my fault. The Fury's 4GB buffer and negligible performance difference stopped me switching from a Titan X to a fury, so my own preconceived bias in memory amounts whilst trying to be nuanced led me down a shit parade.
GG 2IS, well trolled.
Hey, look on the bright side. Now you know where HBM's bandwidth advantage is applicable and where it is not.
No, you still can't wrap your head around a buffer that empties faster can fill sooner, but whatever.
No, it's generally wrong. Games with GW tend to run badly at release and well into its lifespan. If it was something that could have been turned off like that, there wouldn't have been this much grief over it ya think?
You completely ignored my reply to your FC question. The facts are right there. FC4 was the poster child for GW. FC Primal is FC4 w/o any GW. FC4 ran like total ass at release and for months. AMD could not even get a handle on it for like a year lol. You realize the code is a black box, so the dev could not even help AMD. Is this good for gaming and consumers? FC Primal on the other hand runs fantastically on all gpus.
What's the difference? Is it still just the developers fault? You seem to circle around to that same assumption every time. Are you playing possum here?
Yeah? and where is it going to refill it's buffer from? we will take this one step at a time for your benefit.
This would make sense if you were dropping the buffer fully.
However it usually doesn't work like that, and will only drop what isn't needed for the coming pipeline. So the faster your card feeds the pipeline, faster it can clear the buffer, to start streaming new data in.
Otherwise your example would mean there's no difference if you cut a 4GB 980 down to a 64 bit bus.
And just so you don't try to keep twisting this (and as mentioned earlier), I am well and truly aware that having to drop back to system ram, or gasp, hard drive is slower. However you keep ignoring that the cards are not having to dump full buffers with today's workloads, and thus the bottleneck isn't as severe (which with the Fury, is to the point of being negligible).
And at that, I'm done.
So, about that pascal and async compute huh?
It doesn't affect the gaming experience, but affects reviews. People use reviews and performance indexes to make purchasing decisions. You can take it from here.I keep hearing nonsensical stuff about GW causing bad performance and bugs yet I see many cases where you can just turn them off.. regardless of being black box or not, if you don't use the feature then it shouldn't affect the rest of the game.
It's not a strange thought process: if you can turn off said features, you can compare performance in both cases (on/off) and evaluate their impact. Or do you reckon the game/driver bug manifests itself only with GW features turned off?Plus how do we know it aint a game/driver bug? Benefit of the doubt because it uses GW? Its a very strange thought process.
When you're having to rely on a 30-40GB/s pipe (along with much much higher latency) for your texture data instead of 224GB/s (980) or 512GB/s (Fury X) the benefits of HBM over GDDR5 that you're mentioning are going to range from virtually non-existent to non-existent. Both HBM and GDDR5 cards are going to just sit there waiting for more texture data. It's only "negligible" because luckily 4GB has proven to be enough for now
And yes, it's a damn shame about that async compute. NVidia has it's work cut out for it if true (which it appears to be) it's still rumors now, but there's too many of them to ignore at this point.
Let's make this painfully simple. Let's say you're in Whiterun both FuryX and 980ti are going to load the city in it's entirety the only difference is the 980ti loaded textures all the way to Paarthurnax and the FuryX only loaded textures to the lookout where you fight the first dragon. Both load what's needed just fine, the 980ti just loads more of what's not needed.