Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet

[I/O]

Where did I say it made it faster? Now you're just making stuff up. You didn't correct anyone.

Once again I will even reiterate .... Vram will absolutely never make a GPU faster.Will a 6GB 780 version let the card stretch it's legs out in certain scenarios sure it will but it will not make the GPU core or memory subsystem faster.. .

[BiG StroOnZ]

Once again Vram will absolutely never make a GPU faster.Will a 6GB 780 version let the card stretch it's legs out in certain scenarios sure it will but it will not make the GPU core or memory subsystem faster.

 

You're just deflecting the question. The question was who said it made it faster. You said I did. I asked you when did I say it made it faster. Now you are just repeating what you said before: 

 

 

Vram will absolutely never make a GPU faster.Will a 6GB 780 version let the card stretch it's leg out in certain scenarios sure it will but it will not make the GPU core or memory subsystem faster.

[I/O]

You're just deflecting the question. The question was who said it made it faster. You said I did. I asked you when did I say it made it faster. Now you are just repeating what you said before: 

The graph you linked to were intended to make it seem like the extra Vram made the card faster. I and other sources that i have provided from the likes of TH do not agree.

[BiG StroOnZ]

The graph you linked to were intended to make it seem like the extra Vram made the card faster. I and other sources that i have provided from the likes of TH do not agree.

 

The graph that I posted was intended to show that the extra VRAM made the card be able to play at higher settings (as proven by the benchmarks). Not once did I state that the extra VRAM made the card faster. What I did say is that the extra VRAM in certain scenarios allows the card to perform better than its counterpart with less VRAM. Which is no different than what you are saying, "a 6GB 780 version let the card stretch it's legs out in certain scenarios." 

 

The source you provided proved exactly what I was trying to say, as you didn't read the entire quoted text where at the end the author says, " so long as the settings you're using to game with don't consume all of it."

 

This is what the extra VRAM addresses in current games that are starting to utilize more VRAM. 

 

So I really don't know what you are talking about or who you are arguing with, because it's not me. 

[I/O]

The graph that I posted was intended to show that the extra VRAM made the card be able to play at higher settings. Not once did I state that the extra VRAM made the card faster.

To play the game at higher setting would take more GPU grunt. Vram did not make the GPU perform better.

[xAcid9]

Which one ?

 

780 Ti. If you concern about VRAM, 290x. 

[BiG StroOnZ]

To play the game at higher setting would take more GPU grunt. Vram did not make the GPU perform better.

 

No, not in this case. While in most cases you need more GPU horsepower to perform better, in the scenarios that were tested this wasn't the case. Attempt to read more and troll less:

 

 

 

In Watch Dogs the new ASUS STRIX GTX 780 OC 6GB offered a better gameplay experience at 1600p and 1080p. Thanks to the added memory we were able to run at "Ultra" textures all the way up to 1600p without issue. This made the game run smoother indoors and especially outdoors as you drive through the city with fast loading of textures. With the standard GTX 780 we had to use the lower setting of "High" textures which were noticeably inferior. 

[I/O]

No, not in this case. While in most cases you need more GPU horsepower to perform better, in the scenarios that were tested this wasn't the case. Attempt to read more and troll less:

More textures, more resolution, more AA = a need for more Vram. The settings were skewed. 2x MSAA @ 1600P does not ever necessitate 6GB Vram in any game on the market today. This is why the charts are bunk and why it has already been refuted by almost all other legit sources.

[BiG StroOnZ]

More textures, more resolution, more AA = a need for more Vram. The settings were skewed. 2x MSAA @ 1600P does not ever necessitate 6GB Vram in any game on the market today. This is why the charts are bunk and why it has already been refuted by almost all other legit sources.

So your only argument is Hard OCP isn't legitimate. Good one. Keep on trolling.

[nick99n]

I love you. You didn't shove the R9 290x down the OP's throat. You actually answered his question, without creating a flame-war between AMD and Nvidia. You deserve a crown.

we can still start another war ahahhahahahahahah 

on topic i would buy the 780 6 gb it seems like the vram is exploding and games in the next 2 years will fill 3gb at ultra like they do 1gb now 

[I/O]

So your only argument is Hard OCP isn't legitimate. Good one. Keep on trolling.

You said that not I ... nice try though.

[BiG StroOnZ]

You said that not I ... nice try though.

 

Nope you did (nice try though):

 

This is why the charts are bunk and why it has already been refuted by almost all other legit sources.

 

Keep on trolling. 

[I/O]

Nope you did (nice try though):

 

 

Keep on trolling. 

Vram you dont have a clue

[BiG StroOnZ]

Vram you dont have a clue

 

Incomplete sentences don't make sense.

 

Keep on trolling. 

[I/O]

Incomplete sentences don't make sense.

 

Keep on trolling. 

"So, a graphics card with more memory allows you to:

1. Play at higher resolutions
2. Play at higher texture quality settings
3. Play with higher render-based antialiasing settings"

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html

[BiG StroOnZ]

"So, a graphics card with more memory allows you to:

1. Play at higher resolutions
2. Play at higher texture quality settings
3. Play with higher render-based antialiasing settings

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-myths,3694-5.html

 

Whats your point, that's what the benchmark proves. 

 

You keep on arguing with yourself, still not sure why. Seems kind of nonsensical.

[I/O]

Whats your point, that's what the benchmark proves. 

TH proves that the Vram capacity does not increases performance. Contrary to your limited view ...

[BiG StroOnZ]

TH proves that the Vram capacity does not increases performance. Contrary to your limited view ...

 

The only one with a limited view is yourself. You are all over the place with your replies, and every time you post something  you only further approve what I say as correct. When you get corrected after you make a mistake, you change your tune to another subject that is mostly irrelevant; by either flat out lying or using some straw man argument not related to the topic. 

 

The 6GB 780 performs better than a 3GB 780 as proven in the benchmarks in many scenarios. This is a result to having extra VRAM. Which addresses everything you just posted:

 

So, a graphics card with more memory allows you to:

1. Play at higher resolutions
2. Play at higher texture quality settings
3. Play with higher render-based antialiasing settings

So in essence it increases performance due to the the standard 780's VRAM becoming a bottleneck in specific scenarios. The 3GB of memory in these scenario chokes the cards performance. As everyone knows what happens when you run out available VRAM. The outcome most often found is you have to lower settings to address this problem. Whereas a card with more VRAM doesn't have this problem, the card allows you to crank the settings up higher. It also won't suffer the performance losses associated with running out of VRAM. Which will result in better performance. Your problem is you seem to be ignoring the underlying data that is important to understanding why the 6GB card performs better than the 3GB card. You ignore this data, and use a generalized statement like "Vram capacity does not increases performance." This statement is not valid, and doesn't explain why a card with more VRAM would perform better than a card with less VRAM under certain scenarios. Again though, you are incorrect with your statements. After this reply you are going to make another dissuasive reply that isn't relative to the topic or it will further verify what I have been saying or you will deflect and continue on with your trolling some more. 

[I/O]

The only one with a limited view is yourself.

Once again you are wasting words ......

[BiG StroOnZ]

Once again you are wasting words ...... and more importantly you are wasting internet bandwidth.

 

I already addressed this expected comment here:

 

 

 After this reply you are going to make another dissuasive reply that isn't relative to the topic or it will further verify what I have been saying or you will deflect and continue on with your trolling some more. 

 

[I/O]

I already addressed this expected comment here:

 

You did not. You state that Vram improves GPU performance ... This is a common misconception as proved by links I already provided.

[BiG StroOnZ]

You did not. You state that Vram improves GPU performance ... This is a common misconception as proved by links I already provided.

 

Again, you are deflecting once more after you already been proven wrong about this statement you are making. You can read the reply here:

 

 

 

The 6GB 780 performs better than a 3GB 780 as proven in the benchmarks in many scenarios. This is a result to having extra VRAM. Which addresses everything you just posted:

 

So, a graphics card with more memory allows you to:

1. Play at higher resolutions
2. Play at higher texture quality settings
3. Play with higher render-based antialiasing settings

So in essence it increases performance due to the the standard 780's VRAM becoming a bottleneck in specific scenarios. The 3GB of memory in these scenario chokes the cards performance. As everyone knows what happens when you run out available VRAM. The outcome most often found is you have to lower settings to address this problem. Whereas a card with more VRAM doesn't have this problem, the card allows you to crank the settings up higher. It also won't suffer the performance losses associated with running out of VRAM. Which will result in better performance. Your problem is you seem to be ignoring the underlying data that is important to understanding why the 6GB card performs better than the 3GB card. You ignore this data, and use a generalized statement like "Vram capacity does not increases performance." This statement is not valid, and doesn't explain why a card with more VRAM would perform better than a card with less VRAM under certain scenarios. 

[BiG StroOnZ]

Also, taken from your link:

 

 

We tested Skyrim with the official high-resolution texture pack enabled. As you can see, 1 GB of graphics memory is barely enough to play the game at 1080p without AA or with MLAA/FXAA enabled. Two gigabytes will let you run at 1920x1080 with details cranked up and 2160p with reduced levels of AA. To enable the full Ultra preset and 8xMSAA, not even 2 GB card is sufficient.

 

Bethesda’s Creation Engine is a unique creature in this set of benchmarks. It is not easily GPU-bound, and is instead often limited by platform performance. But in these tests, we newly demonstrate how Skyrim can be bottlenecked by graphics memory at the highest-quality settings.

[I/O]

Again, you are deflecting once more after you already been proven wrong about this statement you are making. You can read the reply here:

I am not. I am saying that 1600P and 2x MSAA will not make a GTX 780 6GB perform better than a GTX 780 3GB. Just not reality bro . The settings are skewed .... LOOK AT OTHER BENCHMARKS

[BiG StroOnZ]

I am not. I am saying that 1600P and 2x MSAA will not make a GTX 780 6GB perform better than a GTX 780 3GB. Just not reality bro . The settings are skewed .... LOOK AT OTHER BENCHMARKS

 

How are the settings skewed? The 6GB card allowed them to play at higher settings (with better framerates). Which is the point of the benchmark to prove whether or not 3GB of memory is a bottleneck in certain scenarios.