Is that so? Nvidia and AMD when they talk about their memory compression algorithms, they clearly say the benefits are in bandwidth savings, not in space savings as in compressing data for storage. I realise you can save bandwidth by transferring less data, but then you have both sides talking about bandwidth savings...
Anyway, both brands started way back with the bandwidth saving efforts (HyperZ on RV100, LMA on NV20) and have been improving their "secret sauces" for generations. That in this generation in particular that area has been a target for optimization to the point of having it advertised on both sides, might be just a coincidence.
If you are leaving just because of the ram issue, that is silly. It shows how out of touch with graphics you are. heh
It was not a big deal at all.
Still, your argument on nvidia's side is as valid on AMD's side, and both have been since the RV100 and NV20 days, both are doing their thing to presumably compress data with the goal of reducing memory footprint and therefore increase effective bandwidth. Be it the 970's useful 3.5GB or the 285's 2GB, it's the same end result.
False advertising, however, is a huge issue, and if you keep defending them it's going to keep happening and getting worse. If you like being walked all over just to maintain your brand loyalty, that's your problem.
False advertising, however, is a huge issue, and if you keep defending them it's going to keep happening and getting worse. If you like being walked all over just to maintain your brand loyalty, that's your problem.
Proof please?What people don't seem to realise is that you can fit more data into 3.5GB using the 970's data compression than you could in a 290's 4GB.
If you are leaving just because of the ram issue, that is silly. It shows how out of touch with graphics you are. heh
It was not a big deal at all.
deders, are you aware in the cite you quote concerning data/memory compression they use a GTX 980, not a GTX 970.http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.p...nd-970-with-maxwell-architecture.html?start=2
The areas in pink in the comparison screens show where compression is being used.
Although it would be good if someone could actually test the Vram usage between these cards, it's something that no one seems to have tried yet.
I'm not picking sides here, it just seemed like common sense when they are saying that their new compression ratios are around 30% more effective than previous gens, it's something that people seem to have overlooked in the furore.
deders, are you aware in the cite you quote concerning data/memory compression they use a GTX 980, not a GTX 970.
This all is so...DEPRESSIVE...
The R 290X is depressive since it looks like SHIATE to me, look at this picture, it looks like old tech or something.
The latest Omega Drivers have been rock solid for me. What AMD should be doing is having the game developers give them a week or two early access to their games so they can issue hotfixes for said game at or prior release. (I watch u Dying Light).
My point is that although it's a clever marketing ploy from AMD, people who return their 970's to take advantage of these deals will end up with less usable Vram real estate.
Still the same algorithms used
http://international.download.nvidi...nal/pdfs/GeForce_GTX_980_Whitepaper_FINAL.PDF
"Thanks to the improvements in caching and compression in Maxwell, the GPU is able to significantly reduce the number of bytes that have to be fetched from memory per frame. In tests with a variety of games, Maxwell uses roughly 25% fewer bytes per frame compared to Kepler."
I see no reason to doubt the above given the performance of 256-bit Maxwell 970/980 vs 384-bit 290/290x. Or 128bit 960 vs 256 bit R9 280/280x for that matter.
The 290x presumably already does the same, to a lesser extent than the 285... yet has 4GB of memory properly connected to its memory controller, with uniform bandwidth available to the entire 4GB "block". Now, are those 4GB of physical ram capable of holding as much data as the 970's effective, physical 3.5GB, taking into account all the bandwidth savings on both sides? You can't quantify or prove what you're saying, none of us can. That would probably be nvidia's marketing on Maxwell's memory compression capabilites you're citing here.
Why don't we use these things called real life tests?
Why do you even bother looking at benchmarks if you guys just quote material directly from Nvidia? Don't even need third party sites anymore, we'll just use numbers direct from corporations from now on!
It is a good thing AMD changed leadership, I just hope it isn't too late. I want AMD to live forever. I really don't want to imagine how bad the price to performance it will be if AMD is gone from both cpu and gpu markets.Remember the press sample scandal? And it is what AMD supplied.
Those benchmarks haven't changed. Debating little understood highly technical internal design decisions by laymen is highly questionable, I would agree.
However it would seem that many insist on it.....