Polaris 10 benchmarks...

[Vaporizer]

Not sure why you skipped the important part. It was mention twice and you even axed the first one.




Or if you want it simplified. The GTX680 isn't fast enough to use more memory.

Not to mention we are entering a time where VRAM is available in great volume. And that will be used and abused. Would I buy a 4GB card in 2016? Nope.

2012 2GB
2014 4GB
2016 8GB

But you do not have to spend 200$ more to get 8GB. Its just ~30$ for the 480 8GB.

 

[Ma_Deuce]

http://videocardz.com/60253/amd-radeon-r9-480-3dmark11-benchmarks

That's what this thread is based on.

Link does not show that the tests were on highest binned polaris...

Looks to me like the author actually suggest there is probably a faster uncut chip on polaris 10

 

[thilanliyan]

Not sure why you skipped the important part. It was mention twice and you even axed the first one.

I didn't skip it, it was right there in the part I quoted but mentioned in a different way to your other posts. In the same vein as "playable settings for its performance", I said "why won't 4GB be enough on a RX480 for the next couple of years?". I agree 4GB probably isn't enough for a 1080 or Vega or other high end cards, but its plenty for midrange and lower cards, which is what the 480 is.

Would I buy a 4GB card in 2016? Nope.

Of course not, but you're not the target market for the RX480.

 

[Thinker_145]

Why are we discussing this? If the 8GB 480 is indeed $230 then you will have to be really stupid to buy the 4GB no offence.

 

[Enigmoid]

I doubt you will be getting a 4 -> 8 GB upgrade for $30. That is basically at cost for the manufacturer (fast GDDR5).

Vram increases typically carry a bit of a premium.

 

[swilli89]

We all know FuryX has been equal to a 980ti so which is it people?

Does the 480 perform under Fury X levels and thus couldn't use 8gb anyways?

Or does 480 perform at least as well as Fury X and thus needs 8gb?

You can't say that the 480 both performs less then Fury X AND benefits from 8GB.

 

[crisium]

Sure you can. Fury cards are very driver dependent for a lot of games as AMD has to use a lot of system memory and cache with it in some titles, like Rise of the Tomb Raider.

AMD already sell cards weaker than the Fury line with 8GB - the 390 series. 4GB is largely fine as long as the driver team does its work. But 8GB should still be relatively better since even if the driver does a good job that system memory is just not gonna be as fast for games as VRAM.

 

[swilli89]

AMD already sell cards weaker than the Fury line with 8GB - the 390 series.

I think we all know this was a marketing ploy as 290X cards keep up with 8GB 390x cards just fine in every scenario.

4GB is largely fine as long as the driver team does its work.

Which based on the RAM limits in the consoles affecting design targets along with the fact just about every game is going to be GCN optimized I think this is a very safe assumption.

 

[crisium]

Also VRAM is not inherently tied to how demanding a game's visuals are otherwise. Some developers are careless and let it run amok, sure, but otherwise VRAM requirements go along with the cards of the time. Until 980 Ti launched nearly a year ago, no one had cards with more than 4GB. Titan OG, Titan X - ultra rare. 8GB 290X was made in very low quantities. Any developer utilizing more than 4GB before a year ago was surely led by fools.

So cards with performance like 970-980, or 290-Fury right now are fine with 4GB. But as 8 becomes the standard this will rise, and those users may be forced to lower textures.

1070+ makes 8GB standard. 1060 may have 6GB minimum on its cards. Polaris will have 8GB options. VRAM requirements will creep up as developers know more people have 6-8+.

We have games that tie textures to VRAM already. IIRC, Hitman requires 4GB for the top. 280X, even 780 Ti, out of luck.

Even as most developers do not use a hard lock, you will hit stutter and be forced to use lower textures. I used a 675M 2GB until a year ago - this is an under-clocked 560 Ti that basically has identical performance to a desktop GTX 460. Almost no one bought the rare 2GB GTX 460, or even the faster 560 or 560 Ti 2GB. 1Gb was mostly fine in 2010-2011. But as someone who played games from 2013+ on it I used more than 1GB on it, and that was with only the second highest texture settings usually. In 3 years 1GB went from being enough for Ultra textures to not being enough for High textures.

This will repeat.

 

[SimianR]

I personally think 4GB cards will be fine for a long time in resolutions below 4K. Of course people will dig up random scenarios where more VRAM is used, but I don't think you'll be able to find many situations where performance actually tanks if you are using a 4GB card (again, below 4K res). An RX 480 4GB card at $199 seems perfectly fine.

 

[Olecki]

And what about highest settings in DOOM requiring 5+ GB VRAM? Maybe there will be more games like that?

 

[tonyfreak215]

Also take into account AMD cards' lifespan. (look at the 7970/290X) The 480 will be more relevant in 2-3 years than the 1070/1080. Having only 4GB might matter by then.

 

[MrTeal]

And what about highest settings in DOOM requiring 5+ GB VRAM? Maybe there will be more games like that?

Since when does max settings on Doom require 5GB of VRAM?

 

[n0x1ous]

Since when does max settings on Doom require 5GB of VRAM?

There are 2 settings (texture and shadow I think?) that have a "nightmare" quality option which is above ultra. These settings require 5GB of VRAM and if your card does not have that and you try to enable nightmare quality, you will get a message explaining that the setting will be turned off for performance reasons.

This is regardless of the resolution the game is being run at.

 

[crisium]

I personally think 4GB cards will be fine for a long time in resolutions below 4K. Of course people will dig up random scenarios where more VRAM is used, but I don't think you'll be able to find many situations where performance actually tanks if you are using a 4GB card (again, below 4K res). An RX 480 4GB card at $199 seems perfectly fine.

It may overall, but just expect more games that otherwise run just fine to need to be lowered a texture setting to avoid a bit of stutter. Not many in 2016, but a few more in 2017 and more yet in 2018, and if you still have the card in 2019 many.

Increasing textures usually only affects performs rather moderately. People say the card runs out of juice before using more VRAM (GTX 680, 960, defenders), but they forget this fact. I.e., the lower VRAM card will run a game at all Medium settings. Same card but with double VRAM would be able to run at High textures, all Medium everything else. I'm only guessing this, as I obviously don't have a video card with multiple VRAM variants to test. But you can change texture settings in your games and monitor the FPS change and it's usually not drastic, although it can very with the game of course.

Ex. http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-raider-texture-quality-performance-640px.png

Not a huge deal and saving the cash for the 4GB if it means a lower texture setting in a few games is fine, so I mostly agree that 4GB 480 will be fine. But don't underestimate creeping VRAM requirements especially in 2018+ if you want longevity. I can tell you a cutdown midrange Fermi could benefit from 2GB, but it took a few years.

If I had the time I'd love to do a 7850 1GB vs 7850 2GB vs 370 4GB at equalized clocks to really test this. Obviously cutdown Pitcairn can't run Ultra in newer games, but what about Medium + Ultra textures vs Medium all? Maybe Ryan Smith can get a good article going, though he might have to buy his own cards!

 

[topmounter]

The good news is that the difference between the 4 an 8GB models is (reported to be) only $29.

 

[stuff_me_good]

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:

Hear hear! Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[JDG1980]

If I had the time I'd love to do a 7850 1GB vs 7850 2GB vs 370 4GB at equalized clocks to really test this. Obviously cutdown Pitcairn can't run Ultra in newer games, but what about Medium + Ultra textures vs Medium all? Maybe Ryan Smith can get a good article going, though he might have to buy his own cards!

Are you kidding? The way things are going now, Anandtech isn't ever going to run a discrete GPU review again at all - let alone a retrospective that would require them to get out their own wallets.

 

[SimianR]

Not sure why you skipped the important part. It was mention twice and you even axed the first one.




Or if you want it simplified. The GTX680 isn't fast enough to use more memory.

Not to mention we are entering a time where VRAM is available in great volume. And that will be used and abused. Would I buy a 4GB card in 2016? Nope.

2012 2GB
2014 4GB
2016 8GB

People are still buying 2gb 960's in 2016 sadly. Just because NVIDIA has 8GB cards available doesn't suddenly make every 4GB card out there useless. The sky isn't falling and frankly this idea that every game is going to be pushing 4GB+ at 1080p/1440P is pretty far from reality.

 

[cytg111]

Are you kidding? The way things are going now, Anandtech isn't ever going to run a discrete GPU review again at all - let alone a retrospective that would require them to get out their own wallets.

Reminds me, anyone know if IDC posts anywhere else?

 

[Thinker_145]

It may overall, but just expect more games that otherwise run just fine to need to be lowered a texture setting to avoid a bit of stutter. Not many in 2016, but a few more in 2017 and more yet in 2018, and if you still have the card in 2019 many.

Increasing textures usually only affects performs rather moderately. People say the card runs out of juice before using more VRAM (GTX 680, 960, defenders), but they forget this fact. I.e., the lower VRAM card will run a game at all Medium settings. Same card but with double VRAM would be able to run at High textures, all Medium everything else. I'm only guessing this, as I obviously don't have a video card with multiple VRAM variants to test. But you can change texture settings in your games and monitor the FPS change and it's usually not drastic, although it can very with the game of course.

Ex. http://images.nvidia.com/geforce-co...-raider-texture-quality-performance-640px.png

Not a huge deal and saving the cash for the 4GB if it means a lower texture setting in a few games is fine, so I mostly agree that 4GB 480 will be fine. But don't underestimate creeping VRAM requirements especially in 2018+ if you want longevity. I can tell you a cutdown midrange Fermi could benefit from 2GB, but it took a few years.

If I had the time I'd love to do a 7850 1GB vs 7850 2GB vs 370 4GB at equalized clocks to really test this. Obviously cutdown Pitcairn can't run Ultra in newer games, but what about Medium + Ultra textures vs Medium all? Maybe Ryan Smith can get a good article going, though he might have to buy his own cards!

^This.

Textures are basically a "free" setting as long as you have sufficient VRAM. And it is one of the most important graphical settings at least to me.

Also note that once you run out of VRAM the performance literally tanks just like running out of system RAM. You no longer have the "option" to play at lower framerates with higher settings you HAVE to lower the settings. With most other performance bottleneck scenarios you can choose to tolerate lower FPS for higher settings if you so wish to play like that. Like how I played the original Crysis because VRAM was not my bottleneck.

My first GPU was a 640MB 8800GTS. Most people were of the opinion that the 320MB 8800GTS is more or less the same thing at a significantly lower price because at that time the benchmarks yielded the same results. I fortunately didn't pay heed and bought the 640MB which a year later was crushing the 320MB in many games.

Then I bought a GTS 250. Again the opinion was 512MB is more than enough but I couldn't imagine downgrading the VRAM so I had to go with the 1GB and once again that proved to be a great decision. I haven't looked back since, I would NEVER want system ram or VRAM to be a bottleneck in my system.

 

[MajinCry]

More VRAM is good VRAM. Unless you're on an old 5450-class card, but 'ey.

Aren't there games out that just run like a dead dog unless you've got an 8GB card? Couple of them were Fallout 4 and Shadow Of Mordor, IIRC.

Play Fallout 4 with less than 8GB of VRAM, and you're going into stutter city, LOD town and framerate hell, as it resorts to system RAM for the rest of the game's graphical resources. Wasn't that the reason why testers found the game's performance scaling leaps and bounds with RAM overclocking?

Was a similar gig with SOM; it was just a janky ass, stuttery-mess of a game if you didn't have the VRAM for it.

 

[flopper]

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:

None does.
Nvidia focus group ppl are easy to spot.

 

[ctk1981]

More VRAM is good VRAM. Unless you're on an old 5450-class card, but 'ey.

Aren't there games out that just run like a dead dog unless you've got an 8GB card? Couple of them were Fallout 4 and Shadow Of Mordor, IIRC.

Play Fallout 4 with less than 8GB of VRAM, and you're going into stutter city, LOD town and framerate hell, as it resorts to system RAM for the rest of the game's graphical resources. Wasn't that the reason why testers found the game's performance scaling leaps and bounds with RAM overclocking?

Was a similar gig with SOM; it was just a janky ass, stuttery-mess of a game if you didn't have the VRAM for it.

Can't speak for everyone, but I ran fallout 4 with a 290x 4GB @ 1440p. No stutter city here.

 

[selni]

More VRAM is good VRAM. Unless you're on an old 5450-class card, but 'ey.

Aren't there games out that just run like a dead dog unless you've got an 8GB card? Couple of them were Fallout 4 and Shadow Of Mordor, IIRC.

Play Fallout 4 with less than 8GB of VRAM, and you're going into stutter city, LOD town and framerate hell, as it resorts to system RAM for the rest of the game's graphical resources. Wasn't that the reason why testers found the game's performance scaling leaps and bounds with RAM overclocking?

Was a similar gig with SOM; it was just a janky ass, stuttery-mess of a game if you didn't have the VRAM for it.

Uh, fallout 4? That's playable just fine on 2GB cards at ultra texture etc settings.