AMD is probably going to wait and see the reaction/acceptance of Fury to decide on market pricing. That's what I would do anyway.
When the Hell is dual Fury coming, I'm already getting 5fps out of VRAM slow downs in Arma 3 and I'm not waiting 6 months as the next generation will then be just around the corner. I don't want to go 980Ti but need more VRAM today not 'sometime soonish'. I don't see why they have to launch dual GPU card so much later, it can't be that difficult to design can it?
AMD is probably going to wait and see the reaction/acceptance of Fury to decide on market pricing. That's what I would do anyway.
And such a niche market, far more niche than even the average SLI/Crossfire buyer is..dual GPUs on a single PCB are now in that insane $1500 price stratosphere, which is a tough sell versus the more common "well I'll just buy one card now and if it gets slow later I'll buy a second card" cop-out that budget limited gamers do.
You don't want all that tdp running through a single slot anyway...plus the cooling, even if AIO, will likely not feature dual rads and be as efficient as a two card AIO solution is.
Not worth waiting for IMO, better to Crossfire now instead.
Not to insult, but that is nonsense. Stop it.
AMD has already said, as has Nvidia, that HBM offers no extra storage, capacity, or usage, at the same size level.
4GB is 4GB, regardless of whether it's GDDR or HBM. Period, end of story. So for those of us at 4k now, who will be running Crossfire setups with ALL settings maxed, 4GB is a massive limiting factor.
For those of us who desperately need higher VRAM counts, the Fury X is a dangerous buy. I'm sure AMD would have preferred to ship 8GB SKUs with the X of course, it just wasn't possible.
The ONLY hope for this particular scenario is that MS isn't bullshitting when it comes to DX12's "stacked vram" capability (2 x 4GB cards would equal a true 8GB of framebuffer). But that's a hell of a gamble to bet on.
•Physically, a GDDR5 controller/IC doubles the I/O of DDR3 - With DDR, I/O handles an input (written to memory), or output (read from memory) but not both on the same cycle. GDDR handles input and output on the same cycle.
I think that you are certainly correct in theory. The consoles have 4GB VRAM, so if you are running higher resolutions than the consoles can drive or using modded textures, surely you'll run low with only 4GB VRAM on any port designed to take maximum advantage of the consoles. Whether that has any impact in practice depends on how fast the card can move data in and out of VRAM though, right? As long as needing more VRAM doesn't actually slow the game to an unacceptable amount, 4GB might well be enough considering that people who buy $500+ video cards probably don't keep them all that long.For right now maybe. I had the exact same thinking when I bought a 2 GB 680 three years ago; when would I possibly need more than 2 GB of VRAM when current games weren't hitting anywhere near that at 1080P? Fast forward a couple years and I can't run max texture settings in Shadow Of Mordor or GTA V because despite the card having plenty of headroom in the processing department to maintain high framerates, it lacks the VRAM needed to use those higher resolution textures without stuttering. So if you only care about buying a card to run games that are out now, yeah, 4 GB VRAM is plenty @ 1080P. But for people who are thinking a card might last them a few years, VRAM is actually pretty valid concern. Increasing texture resolution has a nominal impact on performance while drastically improving IQ, so developers will probably start taking advantage of higher resolution textures. The only thing that really matters there? VRAM. I was hopeful that AMD would be pushing 6-8GB cards out for that reason; looking at 4 GB as "plenty" makes me nervous.
Vram is too low, like 3.5GB? Something which people here are still recommending, and were still recommending 980 which also has only 4gb. For what it is worth, AMD since HD6xxx (iirc even before) have fared better at higher resolutions. They have been gearing this at 4k, and if that screenshot of FC4 at 4k with ultra settings and getting 40+ minimum is anything to go by, the card will not be lacking.All the SKUs are set for 2015, any fresh high-end SKUs would be a Q1/2016 target at a minimum.
But who knows, you would think that if Fury X cards are sitting on the shelf due to feedback of "vram is too low", and 980 Ti is outselling it 2:1 despite being slower, it would definitely spur AMD's management to rush/fast-track an 8GB version to market.
Would gladly pay $749 each for two Fury X 8GB cards with AIO hybrid coolers, perfect dream setup really.
Prefer that you are right and the rest of us are wrong, hopefully the case for sure.
Frustrated that the Fury X is only 4GB, it's almost a non-starter for those of us at 4k right now.
You need to educate yourself and stop spouting stuff that are blatantly wrong, proven wrong with cold hard facts:
Read & learn:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37488175&postcount=21
Measuring with AB to show vram usage, does nothing to indicate whether the game actually needs that vram or it just allocates it.
And no. Titan X SLI isn't enough to max 4K with MSAA, it isn't even enough with FXAA maxing:
This doesn't even have HairWorks on, forget about maxing! The AA used in Witcher 3? A derivative of FXAA/TXAA. NOT vram intensive or performance crippling MSAA.
You need to rethink your logic.
Proving at the current time that 4GB is perfectly sufficient does not mean that 4GB will be fine a few years down the road.
Buying a Fury now means keeping it until at least midrange GPUs appear on 16nm, something that will probably take ~12-18 months (mid to late 2016). And these midrange GPUs will likely perform similarily to fury (maybe 10-20% faster) meaning for a meaningful upgrade one will wait even longer
The question is if 4GB will be sufficient for games in 6-12 months and possibly 18 months.
Will game be playable? Sure, certain settings can be turned down. This is however, a $649 card and a lot more is expected from it.
You need to rethink your logic.
Proving at the current time that 4GB is perfectly sufficient does not mean that 4GB will be fine a few years down the road.
Buying a Fury now means keeping it until at least midrange GPUs appear on 16nm, something that will probably take ~12-18 months (mid to late 2016). And these midrange GPUs will likely perform similarily to fury (maybe 10-20% faster) meaning for a meaningful upgrade one will wait even longer
The question is if 4GB will be sufficient for games in 6-12 months and possibly 18 months.
Will game be playable? Sure, certain settings can be turned down. This is however, a $649 card and a lot more is expected from it.
Capiche?
IF you guys want to rephrase that and say "4GB vram may not be enough for QuadFire or Quad SLI", then I will fully agree with you. Only then will you have enough processing power to max 4K.
Can someone post 980s in SLI and 295x2 hitting the VRAM wall in someone's article/testing vs a 980ti and or Titan X?
Certainly there are texture-mods and such that can demonstrate this scenario, right?
I think that's what's missing here is the examples/data.
You need to rethink your logic.
Proving at the current time that 4GB is perfectly sufficient does not mean that 4GB will be fine a few years down the road.
Buying a Fury now means keeping it until at least midrange GPUs appear on 16nm, something that will probably take ~12-18 months (mid to late 2016). And these midrange GPUs will likely perform similarily to fury (maybe 10-20% faster) meaning for a meaningful upgrade one will wait even longer
The question is if 4GB will be sufficient for games in 6-12 months and possibly 18 months.
Will game be playable? Sure, certain settings can be turned down. This is however, a $649 card and a lot more is expected from it.
4GB will be enough for 1 and 2 GPU at 4K in the next 2 years
When you look at various benchmarks around the web you really don't see vram limits affecting the numbers, even at 4k.
Meaning a 980 versus a 980 Ti and Titan X doesn't show a different scaling at 4k than it does at lower resolutions...they're about 35% apart regardless of rez, even with GTA V and Shadow of Mordor.
So far that demonstrates that 4GB may be enough for 4k with AA, for now. Optimistic for Fury X in other words.
Even the 3.5GB 970 doesn't drop off much at 4k versus lower resolutions, which was a similar debate when that controversy hit.
The most you can do is look at trends and project from the past. The problem with this is it won't allow for disruptive changes. The history of tech is new solutions break the limits of the past.
Is this the case now? None of us know enough now to make an educated guess. We will have to wait and see the tests to see if a new paradigm has arisen.
Why would you buy 2 gpu's for 4k? You said it yourself "even Titan x falls on its face @ 4k"
You will buy 3 gtx980ti's or 3 Fury's and then when you have 50/60 fps you crank up the settings and the Fury will fall on its face.
I think that's the point. Why would you buy 2 700$ cards and a 800$ 4k monitor to play games at lower setings because you only have a 4gb card?
How about next year ? are vram requirements going to go down?
Its just not very smart Silverforce.
No offense "Silverforce" but you sound a bit too worked up to have an adult discussion as we have today. We're all in the market for this card and actually want it to succeed as its one hell of a bargain. We're working out the issues and determining if there's merit to the 4GB limitation fear.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that, and if you can't sit at the adult table without letting some nvidia "shills" get you upset, then I'll have to send you to the corner for a timeout at the kiddie table.
Caprice?
According to a poster at the TechSpot forums, GDDR5 allows simultaneous read/write:
Source
I'll look for a better source, if I get time.
4K is a trade off with settings unless you have Quad GPUs
I think I seen a witcher 3 benchmark around maxed @ 4k with 2 overclocked gtx980ti's doing 40fps average. I would think 3 gtx980ti's can handle any game with the right cpu pushing them.
I think its about upcoming games though,todays games you might get away with it.
People buy 1500$ in video cards to play tomorrows games not just todays.
There is no cpu that can properly push 4 gtx980ti's. I've seen that video , I think RS showed me.