2 gpus?

[gylmir]

@Lays still you say only 3GB i see for titan it is 3.6GB and yes 3GB because the cards only have 3.

because why would you buy an overpriced card of 1000$ and not putting AA on.

 

BUY 290x or 295x if you already want to game on high res and games are only going to need more vram in future you better go with solutions with 4GB or more 3 is the minimum but this will limit you faster in time than a 4GB card.

amd does a great work on scaling and higher res gives higher avg fps every time you go up the % of loss is smaller than on the green team.

 

Go for the best price/performance card of 4GBvram is my opinion.

[Lays]

@Lays still you say only 3GB i see for titan it is 3.6GB and yes 3GB because the cards only have 3.

because why would you buy an overpriced card of 1000$ and not putting AA on.

 

BUY 290x or 295x if you already want to game on high res and games are only going to need more vram in future you better go with solutions with 4GB or more 3 is the minimum but this will limit you faster in time than a 4GB card.

amd does a great work on scaling and higher res gives higher avg fps every time you go up the % of loss is smaller than on the green team.

 

Go for the best price/performance card of 4GBvram is my opinion.

 

This is not an AMD vs Nvidia argument, it's a general argument about everything about vram usage and GPU horsepower.

 

You're still not understanding my point at all, the point is these cards CANNOT maintain PLAYABLE fps with those VRAM usages unless you have more than 2 cards.

The GPU is not strong enough to continously render that many textures and maintain playable FPS unless you're buying 3-4 cards.

[Faa]

@Lays still you say only 3GB i see for titan it is 3.6GB and yes 3GB because the cards only have 3. BUY 290x or 295x if you already want to game on high res and games are only going to need more vram in future you better go with solutions with 4GB or more 3 is the minimum but this will limit you faster in time than a 4GB card.

The extra 600MB just contains cached resources, they don't have an impact on your performance. Just like Lays said the core(s) will just struggle BEFORE the extra 1 or 2GB has been useful. Extra vram would only provide performance if you're running literally out of vram and if the GPU starts to use the storage drive as a swapfile -> SSD's will make GPU's wait like fuck = bottleneck. If you have your gpu's maximized out that would mean extra vram is literally pointless. Illustration: http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/stories/galleries/reviews/2012/palit-gtx680-4gb/bench/ssaa-4.jpg

Vram usage does mean fuck, don't bother monitoring them. Titanfall here uses 3GB at ultra settings@1080p and going with your logic; a 670 is not capable of producing 10 frames per hour so 670's cant run titanfall?

 

It's kinda obvious, many reviewers don't post vram usage on purpose or they all would have bought a 7970 over a 680.

Keep in mind the cores of a 780/290x are already struggling with 2.5-3.0GB (lets say no cached resources) so there's not much of a point having 4GB over 3GB anyways just like Lays tried to say and he's right about everything what he posted here.

[LawrenceBarnes2013]

GTX 780 or R9-290 Non reference

[Jodomcfrodo]

How is 1 GPU better? There are literally so little issues with SLI that I doubt you would notice it. 

SLI might have had issues in like 2007 but this is 2014. Every person that I talk to that has SLI says every issue they've ever had with SLI is

1: Games from like 2005 not supporting it

2: They forgot to enable SLI

3: Beta drivers. But, Beta is Beta for a reason. 

 

But, in THIS case 1 GPU is better because of the budget. Just trying to clear up the cloud of smoke in most peoples mind that SLI is horrible. 

Most cases one gpu is better. It's like buying two 760's instead of a 780. 

[MattDaemontools]

Get an R9 290, best in class performance for 400$.
Nothing even comes close the to the 290.

[gylmir]

@Lays en @Faa read before you quote and comment on the bottom i said

Go for the best price/performance card of 4GBvram is my opinion.

 

its not about an argument of green and red

[Folix]

Another issue of going for a Crossfire/SLI setup is feeding the additional card power. so the overall cost might have to include a new PSU that has enough wattage to feed both cards

[Lays]

@Lays en @Faa read before you quote and comment on the bottom i said

Go for the best price/performance card of 4GBvram is my opinion.

 

its not about an argument of green and red

 

 

Nowhere are we arguing over AMD vs Nvidia lol.  We're simply stating, GPU's aren't fast enough to utilize that kind of VRAM yet.

 

If a 780 is cheaper, get it.  If the r9 290/x is cheaper, get it.

[SYX_Gaming]

gay

[Joshua Ondangan]

get whichever you can find cheaper between these 2

 

gtx 780 reference or non reference.

r9 290 (non reference only) unless you gonna water cool this hot fuck then why not?

 

sli'd 760's might be a better deal for most since "normally" when people say they sli in the future = no sli yada. single card ftw.

 

so if you're gonna buy the 780 and add in a 2nd one in a month or two (if you're sure you could) I'd advice the 780. but in the end I'd still advice the 780 for resale value.

[Sonefiler]

Anyways, $550 is exactly enough for a R9 290X stock, although I do NOT recommend this card. I recommend a R9 290. http://www.amazon.com/PowerColor-290-DisplayPort-AXR9-4GBD5-PPDHE/dp/B00I0K670E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398964480&sr=8-1&keywords=PowerColor+r9+290x