Are you trying to be deliberately inflammatory?
4 GB vram on a titan x class gpu isn't sufficient. Nobody is trying to spin anything. Its the simple truth. And if you check post history you will see that one of the strongest '4 GB is enough for the 390X' supporters went and blasted the 980 because it only had 4 GB. Now all of a sudden 4 GB is plenty on a card with 30-50% more performance than a 980.
I think his point is that when AMD were more power efficient but not ahead in performance, performance was the most important metric. When AMD was ahead in performance then efficiency became the most important metric. And he is assuming that if they launch an R9 390X that trades blows with the Titan-X, if it only has 4GB of memory, everyone will say its crap because now 4gb of vram won't be "enough". I do sort of agree with him though, launching this late you sort of hope they have most of the bases covered or it will be a hard sell.
You made this reference before and I already responded to your assertions but you keep repeating the same thing. Ok, once again:
#1. The reason I wanted 980 to have 4 and 8GB versions is given its price at the time and that it was a mid-range chip I didn't think a $550 price was warranted. First of all, the card was barely faster than a 970 but cost nearly $200 more. It was only logical that at least NV threw a bone and offered 8GB version to help justify the price. Otherwise, it had
little to do with a single 980 requiring 8GB for the performance as it was obvious it would hardly benefit from 8GB because the card wasn't fast enough. I didn't like the idea of NV raising prices yet again from 680's $499 level and excluding the 8GB version altogether, which meant for 980 SLI owners keep their setups > 3 years, this wasn't great. After all, I am sure some 980 SLI users wouldn't have minded paying $50-100 more per card for 8GB of VRAM considering they were already spending $1100.
I repeat this point for you 1 more time: never was it stated that 980 was a 'worthless' or 'pointless' product just because it lacked 8GB of VRAM. That is the exact position being reiterated today with R9 390/390X for 1080P-1440P gamers, interested in buying just 1 of those cars.
In that sense, the position is exactly the same as was on 980's launch => have 4GB and 8GB versions, rather than 4GB is now preferred to 8GB as you are trying to spin it....
#2. At that time, I made the incorrect prediction that PS4/XB1 games would start using a very high amounts of VRAM at 1080P or even 1440P very soon and that those users going 980 SLI should probably want 8GB if they intended to keep their cards for > 3 years. A lot of game developers kept stating at the start of the PS4/XB1 generation that the more VRAM, the better. That made me nervous and I assumed that 4GB might not be enough in a very near future. However, looking at what has happened since PS4/XB1 and 980's launch, this isn't really happening. The VRAM increases are very slow and we have hardly reached a point where even 3.5GB of VRAM is a problem as 970 SLI is fine in 99.9% of games at 1440P and blow. Most games have increased VRAM requirements from 2GB to 3-4GB, but not beyond that. PC games have basically leveled off at the 4GB mark. 4GB isn't a bottleneck for even 980 SLI at 1440P. As far as I've read, no professional review site shows 4GB to be an actual bottleneck at playable frame rates and 980 SLI when scales outperforms the Titan X in
every benchmark at 1080P or 1440P. If you have data to the contrary, please provide it.
And finally, under no way am I 'supporting' 4GB > 8GB scenario. You are just putting words into people's mouths. You clearly cannot grasp the concept being discussed here:
> Buy a much cheaper R9 390, save $200-300 from expensive flagships, resell it next year and get a next gen card with 6-8GB of VRAM that will be faster and have more advanced features. Alternatively, for those users who do plan to keep their cards for 3+ years OR are 100% gaming on 4K-5K monitors (or similar), then yes they should get 6-8GB cards. So no, absolutely there is no promotion here for 4GB > 8GB.
What's being debated here is that an R9 390 non-X priced at $450-500 with only 4GB of VRAM would be an awesome sweet-spot should it have 85-88% of the Titan X performance for gamers on 1080P-1440P monitors. So next time,
please pay attention to what's actually being debated.
Also, your implication that if R9 390X is 30-40% faster than 980 so it MUST have 8GB of VRAM or it's a fail is 100% unsubstantiated unless you can provide real world data where 980 SLI 4GB actually runs into major VRAM bottlenecks at 1440P and below. Secondly, as already discussed it completely misses the entire discussion -- R9 390 4GB for $450-500 and R9 390X 8GB for $600+. To imply that all R9 390 series cards must have 8GB of VRAM is ludicrous considering millions of PC gamers purchased 970 SLI and 980 SLI or a single 980 for 1440P gaming for the last 8 months. If you make the assertion that 4GB of VRAM makes 390/390X irrelevant for PC gaming, then I guess all those NV users should throw their 970 SLI and 980 SLI setups into the trash? Games determines VRAM amount, not just GPU speed increase over the 980.
Considering not even the might Titan X (by itself) today shows tangible benefits of 12GB of VRAM over 980 SLI, the assertion that > 4GB of VRAM is required for gaming has no merit unless data is provided to back this up.
If its limited to 4gb, its a bit of both Vagabond. Rushing out while its premature offers some advantages but also disadvantages. Hopefully the 4gb rumors are crap because I look forward to a nice upgrade & a nice 4K monitor.
Silver, I think the 4GB vs. 8GB got way to your head and you are just following the hype.
Answer these basic questions:
1) If a gamer wants to buy just 1 card (no SLI or CF), would an AMD card 15-20% faster than a 980 priced at $449-499 be a fail?
2) Since 980 SLI beats the Titan X in all scenarios where SLI scales and 4GB of VRAM is not a problem for 980 SLI in those cases, what makes you think 4GB makes cards like 390/390X obsolete? You keep saying how 4GB of VRAM is really beneficial for VSR/DSR at 1440P but have you actually tried playing games with super-sampling at 1440P? From HardOCP's review, they couldn't even max out GTA V on a Titan X at 1440P, what super-sampling are you talking about? You think a card even 30-40% faster than a 980 can suddenly handle insane amounts of super-sampling? It might if you play OLD games at 1080P, but those titles are not VRAM heavy.
3) If 4GB of VRAM is a fail on paper, are you suggesting 98% of all PC gamers should stop playing PC games because if you assert that 4GB of VRAM for a card slower than 980 SLI (which R9 390X certainly will be) is a fail, then what should most PC gamers do, buy a $700-1000 GM200 6GB or Titan X, if not buy a console or stop playing PC games?
I think his point is that when AMD were more power efficient but not ahead in performance, performance was the most important metric. When AMD was ahead in performance then efficiency became the most important metric. And he is assuming that if they launch an R9 390X that trades blows with the Titan-X, if it only has 4GB of memory, everyone will say its crap because now 4gb of vram won't be "enough". I do sort of agree with him though, launching this late you sort of hope they have most of the bases covered or it will be a hard sell.
Yup, that's the expected response and I know that's what NV PR will try to spin.
However, let's all go on record and admit that the same posters bashing the 4GB VRAM scenario not once brought up VRAM bottlenecks in these situations:
GTX470/570 1.2GB vs. Unlocked HD6950 2GB
GTX480/580 1.5GB vs. HD6970 2GB
The entire forum basically bashed 7970 for delivering only "30%" stock performance increase over a 580 1.5GB but almost NONE talked about 7970 doubling the VRAM of a stock 580.
670 2GB vs. 7950 3GB
680 2GB vs. 7970/7970Ghz 3GB
770 2GB vs. 7970Ghz 3GB/280X 3GB
670/680 2GB SLI vs. HD7950/7970/7970Ghz 3GB CF
780 3GB vs. 290 4GB
780Ti 3GB vs. 290X 4GB
780/780Ti SLI 3GB vs. R9 295X2 4GB
Normally, it was gamers who acknowledged that AMD cards had superior price/performance and they said: "Oh, and btw, you get extra VRAM as a bonus."
Do you honestly remember people recommending against buying a 570 1.28GB vs. unlocked 6950 2GB or a GTX680 2GB vs. 7970Ghz
just because of the VRAM differences? That never happened on AT.
But now, the minute the discussion entered the possibility of R9 390 non-X 4GB having 87-88% of the Titan X's performance priced at $450-500, it's a fail.
so 970/980 are trash, glad we got that clear up
12 pages and I also learned that 970 SLI, 980 SLI, R9 295X2, R9 290X CF, 780TI SLI are all trash now for 1080P-1440P gaming. Who would have thought. Poor gamers with those setups, how in the world are they playing games? Poor lads. Apparently everyone in the world now has a 4K monitor too and if you aren't using super-sampling at 1440P, you are gaming wrong.
Also, if MSI after-burner shows VRAM usage, that's apparently required, not dynamic. If an NV card uses 5-6GB of VRAM, then surely the game requires it or it will run at 15 fps or crash.
But you know what's the most amazing part? 970 SLI that's a whopping
75% faster, and 980 SLI that is
96% faster than R9 290X at 1440P but both have either 3.5GB or 4GB of VRAM were perfectly fine options purchased by tens of thousands of PC gamers since September, but apparently a 390/390X duo that will be slower than 970 SLI and
way slower than 980 SLI are a fail without 8GB. The bullet-proof logic is Nobel Prize worthy on this one. But hey, because GM200 will have 6GB and Titan X has 12GB, all cards without 6-12GB are a fail. Darn it, time to donate my 7970s to a retirement home so that they can play 1999 PC games.