You are comparing different timelines. Do you think 4GB is enough 2-3 years from now? 4GB was fine, 2 years ago. 4GB is unlikely to be fine 2 years from now.
AMD sold 8GB 390/390X next to 4GB Fiji. 2 tunges
Useless comparison. Even ROTTR uses dynamic VRAM allocation. 780Ti 3GB does just fine in reference to an R9 290 4GB in this game.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1080_gaming_x_8g_review,13.html
Considering your vicious defending of 960/950 2GB cards against R9 380 4GB/R9 280 3GB/R9 280X 3GB/R9 380X 4GB, your opinion about 4GB not being sufficient for 2016-2018 for 1080p 60Hz gaming is laughable all things considered. This is how it's going to go in the real world:
$199 RX 480 4GB = perfect for 2 years @ 1080p 60hz for the vast majority of i3/i5/FX users. If they have fear, they will have access to pay $30 more for the RX 480 8GB if they so desire.
vs.
$379 GTX 1070 8GB = spend $179 more, be CPU bottlenecked in many games unless one has i7 4790K/Skylake @ 4.5Ghz.
The RX 480 4GB user can sell the card for $100 in 2 years, take $179 savings and buy him/herself a $279 card in 2018 that smashes 1070.
Right now, there isn't a single game I am aware off that is 4GB of VRAM bottlenecked at 1080p. Chances are that by the time such game comes out, RX 480's performance won't be fast enough. I can totally back 1070/1080 having 8GB of VRAM since they are aimed at 1440p and when in SLI great for 4K gaming.
I can already see why the usual suspects are crapping on the 4GB model since it's just justification right now to discredit the amazing value this card has. The reason we recommended R9 390 8GB over 970 3.5GB wasn't because of 8GB of VRAM but because it was as fast or faster at 1440p (better longevity), had superior DX12 architecture and had
at least 4GB of fast GDDR5. If R9 390/390X was available with only 4GB of VRAM, I'd recommend people save their $ and get that over the 8GB model.
What's going to happen is predictable. NV fans will attack 4GB cards but once 1060 6GB comes out, suddenly it'll be the sweetspot for 1080p 60Hz?
This is you and your crew from 2012-2016:
2012 = 670 2GB / 680 2GB vs. 7950 /7970 3GB = no, no 2GB, it's FINE! Don't get AMD cards they suck.
2013 =
770 2GB vs. R9 280X 3GB = 2GB is fine!
780 3GB vs. R9 290 4GB = 3GB is fine for 1440p
780Ti 3GB vs. R9 290X 4GB = 3GB is fine for 1440p
Don't get AMD cards they suck.
2014 =
970 3.5GB vs. R9 290 4GB = 3.5GB is fine for 1440p
980 SLI for 1440p/4K 4GB = 4GB is fine even in 980 SLI
Don't get AMD cards they suck.
2015 =
960 2GB vs. R9 380 4GB/R9 380X 4GB/R9 280/280X 3GB = 2GB is fine for 1080p!!!
970 3.5GB vs. R9 390 8GB = 3.5GB is fine for 1080p
980 4GB vs. R9 390X 8GB = 4GB is fine for 1440p
970 SLI 3.5GB = 3.5GB is fine for 1440p!
Then, Fury X 4GB comes out vs. 980Ti 6GB. Overnight = 6GB = perfect for 4K but 4GB not enough. Still no one is discussing how 3.5-4GB isn't enough for 1440p. Not a single benchmark online showing Fury X being bottlenecked by 4GB HBM at 1440p while having sufficient GPU horsepower to get playable FPS.
Your tune: Don't get AMD cards they suck.
2016 =
No announcement from AMD repeat everything from 2015 regarding VRAM requirements = 4GB not enough for 4K, 3.5-4GB is enough up to 1440p, 2GB still defended for 1080p. 6GB is now a sweetspot for 4K since 980Ti has it!
Don't get AMD cards they suck.
BAM, Pascal comes out with 8GB cards. All of a sudden 8GB is the minimum for 1440p. Ok fair enough for 2016-2018, I can roll with that if someone is spending $400-700 US. :thumbsup:
BAM, weeks later RX 480 comes out with 4GB/8GB models and suddenly:
RX 480 4GB isn't enough for 1080p 60Hz gaming!!! Wait for 1060 6GB or pay $180 extra for 1070 8GB, it's well worth it, you'll want it!
Don't get AMD cards they suck.
----
Same tune, year after year, goal posts shifting. Whatever it takes to recommend NV over AMD. How about recommending $280 after-market R9 290 4GB over 960 2-4GB for the entire 2015? No? Why do that when like a
good NV customer one can buy a $200 960 2-4GB, then throw it into the garbage in 2016 and get a $200 1060 6GB? Everyone is happy (NV shareholders are for sure!). What kind of an idiot would pay $50-80 more for an R9 290 when it's better to enjoy a 960 and spend yet another $200 just to get a card slightly faster than a 290 in 2016 and pay another $200? What kind of an idiot would pay the same price for a faster R9 280X/380X 3-4GB over a 960 4GB when those cards require a 600W PSU to run them? VRAM future-proofing, stupid! That's YOU literally for all of 2015.
$199 RX 480 4GB is the best card for $150-300 mainstream/performance gaming and NV has nothing out to counter it. No, $379 1070 isn't the answer at all.
Plus, keep evading how $379-449 1070 is still a massive 52-80% more expensive than a $229-249 RX 480 8GB. Keep digging as your reputation on these forums is more or less equivalent to a non-paid NV focus group member. Fact is you NEVER recommended any AMD cards that had more VRAM in 2012-2016 until RX480 laid the smack down on NV's entire line-up right now. So it's impossible to take anything you say about VRAM recommendations seriously since you showed blatant BIAS for 4 years straight. Oh, and BTW, how are those 680 2GB and 980 4GB cards you bought doing nowadays? Both are garbage relative to their competitors. Just more proof you can't even provide good graphics card advice for gamers in the first place; so why should anyone listen to you? :sneaky: