Cool video from JayzTwoCents on CPUs

[patrickjp93]

dont bother. he is a troll that knows a few words and then goes shitting on everyone... youre the one speaking sense here, he is oversimplifying everything (coming from a game developer, as well as a physics student, light is taxing)

Coming from someone who has spent the last year mastering and applyingn parallel and approximation algorithms, you are out of your league. Lighting is easy if you plan your deployment accordingly.

[7850OC]

VRAM and Memory frequency are two different things.

 

I overclock my memory frequency, not my VRAM.

 

and cats and dogs are two different things lol  :lol:

 

- - - - 

 

we can overclock our Vram (let me give you an example)

 

i have 1250 mhz of Vram GDDR5 = 5000 mhz of eVram

 

and i OC "my Vram" to 1300 mhz GDDR5 = 5200 mhz of eVram

 

 

 

is so easy to understand 

[Faceman]

 

 

and cats and dogs are two different things lol  :lol:

 

- - - - 

 

we can overclock our Vram (let me give you an example)

 

i have 1250 mhz of Vram GDDR5 = 5000 mhz of eVram

 

and i OC "my Vram" to 1300 mhz GDDR5 = 5200 mhz of eVram

 

 

 

is so easy to understand 

 

Look at the EVGA GTX 980 Product Page. Go to Details

Another Source: EVGA GTX 980 on Newegg.com

Memory Size = 4GB

Effective Memory = 7010Mhz.

There is Effective Memory which is the frequency, it shows 7010Mhz. This is the part that you can overclock.

Then there is the 4096MB of GDDR5 Memory Size(VRAM)

 

When you overclock the memory, you are increasing the frequency, not the size of the VRAM.  Overclocking the frequency does not mean you are increasing the VRAM.  You don't gain 500MB of VRAM by adding +250Mhz in Afterburner.  You are increasing the frequency.

 

VRAM and eVRAM are two separate things.  eVRAM is overclockable, VRAM is a finite amount that you don't get more of.

 

Also, your math is wrong.

 

eVRAM is halfed, its Double Data Rate(DDR).  7010Mhz eVRAM shows up as 3505Mhz.

[7850OC]

Look at the EVGA GTX 980 Product Page. Go to Details

Another Source: EVGA GTX 980 on Newegg.com

Memory Size = 4GB

Effective Memory = 7010Mhz.

There is Effective Memory which is the frequency, it shows 7010Mhz. This is the part that you can overclock.

Then there is the 4096MB of GDDR5 Memory Size(VRAM)

 

When you overclock the memory, you are increasing the frequency, not the size of the VRAM.  Overclocking the frequency does not mean you are increasing the VRAM.  You don't gain 500MB of VRAM by adding +250Mhz in Afterburner.  You are increasing the frequency.

 

VRAM and eVRAM are two separate things.  eVRAM is overclockable, VRAM is a finite amount that you don't get more of.

 

Also, your math is wrong.

 

eVRAM is halfed, its Double Data Rate.  7010Mhz eVRAM shows up as 3505Mhz.

lol  :lol: oh man

 

now people know you don't know what youre talking about 

[Faceman]

 

lol  :lol: oh man

 

now people know you don't know what youre talking about 

 

[vitor_cut]

Look at the EVGA GTX 980 Product Page. Go to Details

Another Source: EVGA GTX 980 on Newegg.com

Memory Size = 4GB

Effective Memory = 7010Mhz.

There is Effective Memory which is the frequency, it shows 7010Mhz. This is the part that you can overclock.

Then there is the 4096MB of GDDR5 Memory Size(VRAM)

 

When you overclock the memory, you are increasing the frequency, not the size of the VRAM.  Overclocking the frequency does not mean you are increasing the VRAM.  You don't gain 500MB of VRAM by adding +250Mhz in Afterburner.  You are increasing the frequency.

 

VRAM and eVRAM are two separate things.  eVRAM is overclockable, VRAM is a finite amount that you don't get more of.

 

Also, your math is wrong.

 

eVRAM is halfed, its Double Data Rate(DDR).  7010Mhz eVRAM shows up as 3505Mhz.

 

Reallyl!!

What is you defenition of OC?

Then by your logic i can not OC my ram or my cpu, because im not  expanding their number, im just increasing their speed!!!???

WTF dude!!

[Faceman]

Reallyl!!

What is you defenition of OC?

Then by your logic i can not OC my ram or my cpu, because im not  expanding their number, im just increasing their speed!!!???

WTF dude!!

When you overclock your RAM, you are increasing the speed, not the size of RAM. 

 

For example: Overclocking 8GB of 1600Mhz RAM to 1866Mhz.  You still only have 8GB of RAM.

[vitor_cut]

When you overclock your RAM, you are increasing the speed, not the size of RAM. 

 

For example: Overclocking 8GB of 1600Mhz RAM to 1866Mhz.  You still only have 8GB of RAM.

 

yes and so what?

 

in gpu memory(vram) gddrX  is the same thing you OC it by increasing the speed, i dont understand what is your point

[Faceman]

yes and so what?

 

in gpu memory(vram) gddrX  is the same thing you OC it by increasing the speed, i dont understand what is your point

SPEED AND CAPACITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

[vitor_cut]

SPEED AND CAPACITY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

 yes they are, and overclock only refers to speed, you know the "clock" part in overclock

i still dont understand here did you get the idea that Jay said that you can OC the max amount of memory that you have, you must see the video again dude, you miss read something it can only be 

[7850OC]

 

for the people who read your false arguments "do not get confused", i will reply this friend 

 

xxxx mhz of GDDR5 = "4x" of xxxx mhz of eVram (this is not the same that DDR3 and DDR2)  B)

[Faceman]

for the people who read your false arguments "do not get confused", i will reply this friend 

 

xxxx mhz of GDDR5 = "4x" of xxxx mhz of eVram (this is not the same that DDR3 and DDR2)  B)

Its x2. Not x4. Your math is wrong.

 

Go into MSI Afterburner, pull up RivaStats, Go to Monitoring and in On Screen Display, enable Memory Clock.  Memory clock refers to eVRAM.  Memory Usage refers to VRAM, which is the finite amount of VRAM your card has.

 

Overclocking increases the speed(eVRAM), not the capacity(VRAM).

 

 yes they are, and overclock only refers to speed, you know the "clock" part in overclock

i still dont understand here did you get the idea that Jay said that you can OC the max amount of memory that you have, you must see the video again dude, you miss read something it can only be 

In his video, he constantly refers to increasing the VRAM.  You cannot increase the VRAM.  You can increase the speed of the eVRAM, but not the capacity(VRAM).

[vitor_cut]

 

Overclocking increases the speed, not the capacity.

 

In his video, he constantly refers to increasing the VRAM.  You cannot increase the VRAM.  You can increase the speed of the RAM, but not the capacity.

you did not understand the video!

when he says to increase vram he is saying to buy a card with more vram not to had vram to the gpu pcb,

really !!

[Faceman]

you did not understand the video!

when he says to increase vram he is saying to buy a card with more vram not to had vram to the gpu pcb,

really !!

He is using the wrong terminology in the video.  It is a misleading title, and wrong terms used.

 

I don't understand your last sentence.

 

@7850OC

You realize how you're wrong about the way Memory Speed is calculated yet Mr. Don't Know What I'm Talking About?

[connorpiper]

I really don't care about the brand. I just have Intel because I like power efficiency rather than performance. 

[7850OC]

He is using the wrong terminology in the video.  It is a misleading title, and wrong terms used.

 

I don't understand your last sentence.

 

@7850OC

You realize how you're wrong about the way Memory Speed is calculated yet Mr. Don't Know What I'm Talking About?

 

i think @LinusTech need fo a Techquickie video on this  :lol:

 

- - - - 

 

but to make this more tech, i will quote this guy dividebyzero (from another forum)

 

"DDR3 runs at a higher voltage that GDDR5 (typically 1.25-1.65V versus ~1V), DDR3 uses a 64-bit memory controller per channel ( so, 128-bit bus for dual channel, 256-bit for quad channel), whereas GDDR5 is paired with controllers of a nominal 32-bit (16 bit each for input and output), but whereas the CPU's memory contoller is 64-bit per channel, a GPU can utilise any number of 32-bit I/O's (at the cost of die size) depending upon application ( 2 for 64-bit bus, 4 for 128-bit, 6 for 192-bit, 8 for 256-bit, 12 for 384-bit etc...). The GDDR5 setup also allows for doubling or asymetric memory configurations. Normally (using this generation of cards as example) GDDR5 memory uses 2Gbit memory chips for each 32-bit I/O (I.e for a 256-bit bus/2GB card: 8 x 32-bit I/O each connected by a circuit to a 2Gbit IC = 8 x 2Gbit = 16Gbit = 2GB), but GDDR5 can also operate in what is known as clamshell mode, where the 32-bit I/O instead of being connected to one IC is split between two (one on each side of the PCB) allowing for a doubling up of memory capacity. Mixing the arrangement of 32-bit memory controllers, memory IC density, and memory circuit splitting allows of asymetric configurations ( 192-bit, 2GB VRAM for example)

 

Physically, a GDDR5 controller/IC doubles the I/O of DDR3 - With DDR, I/O handles an input (written to memory), or output (read from memory) but not both on the same cycle. GDDR handles input and output on the same cycle.

 

The memory is also fundamentally set up specifically for the application it uses:

System memory (DDR3) benefits from low latency (tight timings) at the expense of bandwidth, GDDR5's case is the opposite. Timings for GDDR5 would seems unbelieveably slow in relation to DDR3, but the speed of VRAM is blazing fast in comparison with desktop RAM- this has resulted from the relative workloads that a CPU and GPU undertake. Latency isn't much of an issue with GPU's since their parallel nature allows them to move to other calculation when latency cycles cause a stall in the current workload/thread. The performance of a graphics card for instance is greatly affected (as a percentage) by altering the internal bandwidth, yet altering the external bandwidth (the PCI-Express bus, say lowering from x16 to x8 or x4 lanes) has a minimal effect. This is because there is a great deal of I/O (textures for examples) that get swapped in and out of VRAM continuously- the nature of a GPU is many parallel computations, whereas a CPU computes in a basically linear way."

 

:rolleyes:

[Faceman]

 

 

i think @LinusTech need fo a Techquickie video on this  :lol:

 

- - - - 

 

but to make this more tech, i will quote this guy dividebyzero (from another forum)

 

"DDR3 runs at a higher voltage that GDDR5 (typically 1.25-1.65V versus ~1V), DDR3 uses a 64-bit memory controller per channel ( so, 128-bit bus for dual channel, 256-bit for quad channel), whereas GDDR5 is paired with controllers of a nominal 32-bit (16 bit each for input and output), but whereas the CPU's memory contoller is 64-bit per channel, a GPU can utilise any number of 32-bit I/O's (at the cost of die size) depending upon application ( 2 for 64-bit bus, 4 for 128-bit, 6 for 192-bit, 8 for 256-bit, 12 for 384-bit etc...). The GDDR5 setup also allows for doubling or asymetric memory configurations. Normally (using this generation of cards as example) GDDR5 memory uses 2Gbit memory chips for each 32-bit I/O (I.e for a 256-bit bus/2GB card: 8 x 32-bit I/O each connected by a circuit to a 2Gbit IC = 8 x 2Gbit = 16Gbit = 2GB), but GDDR5 can also operate in what is known as clamshell mode, where the 32-bit I/O instead of being connected to one IC is split between two (one on each side of the PCB) allowing for a doubling up of memory capacity. Mixing the arrangement of 32-bit memory controllers, memory IC density, and memory circuit splitting allows of asymetric configurations ( 192-bit, 2GB VRAM for example)

 

Physically, a GDDR5 controller/IC doubles the I/O of DDR3 - With DDR, I/O handles an input (written to memory), or output (read from memory) but not both on the same cycle. GDDR handles input and output on the same cycle.

 

The memory is also fundamentally set up specifically for the application it uses:

System memory (DDR3) benefits from low latency (tight timings) at the expense of bandwidth, GDDR5's case is the opposite. Timings for GDDR5 would seems unbelieveably slow in relation to DDR3, but the speed of VRAM is blazing fast in comparison with desktop RAM- this has resulted from the relative workloads that a CPU and GPU undertake. Latency isn't much of an issue with GPU's since their parallel nature allows them to move to other calculation when latency cycles cause a stall in the current workload/thread. The performance of a graphics card for instance is greatly affected (as a percentage) by altering the internal bandwidth, yet altering the external bandwidth (the PCI-Express bus, say lowering from x16 to x8 or x4 lanes) has a minimal effect. This is because there is a great deal of I/O (textures for examples) that get swapped in and out of VRAM continuously- the nature of a GPU is many parallel computations, whereas a CPU computes in a basically linear way."

 

:rolleyes:

 

That doesn't explain anything pertaining to what I'm talking about.  Also, it explains my point which I was trying to make to you.  "The GDDR5 setup also allows for doubling or asymetric memory configurations."  The Speed is doubled, not quadrupled.  Your math is wrong, and your understanding of the subject matter is not sufficient.

 

Of course increasing the frequency, the speed of the memory is going to improve performance.  It does not increase the CAPACITY.

[Faa]

 

BF4 is a terrible game overall. BF2 and BF3 was much better designed.

Not that this matters a lot but BF3 is a lot more CPU bound than BF4, so I wouldn't say BF3/2 are better designed.
 

 

Back to the Video...

 

Jay is wrong.  This is the 2nd video I have seen of his that has very wrong content, he is turning from respected reviewer to not-so-respected.

Hmm while I'm typing I'm listening to what he's saying, in the first video he made claims that the phenom x4 is even better for gaming than a 8150 and that you should get the 2500K if you have the money while admiting its much better for gaming. 2nd video he claims that there's no fps difference between AMD & Intel.

This video now; CPU's are hard to chose because lots of reviewers are biased. Wait. We've only had one reviewer that separated themselves from the world aka Teksyndicate, any other source pretty much disagreed with them. You're pretty much biased if you claim a 8350 is better than the 4670K for gaming, speaking the truth doesn't make you biased, lying about it makes you biased. I thought he dismissed Teksyndicate in his video why he chose the 3770K instead of the 4770K? Claims now Intel is better in every aspect? Ah something new this time. Whats next? 

"You should put most of your money into a GPU", ermz no especially not for mmo games, going with a 4300 & gtx 780 for WoW will get totally wrecked by a G3258 & gtx 750 at 1/4th of the price. Probably next time he'll say all you need is a 4300 and a pair of 780's for best gaming experience, then we all should keep our old 8 years old Qx9650.

Since when is AMD cheaper when you take the board/cooler costs in account? That's something new, we got for each of their CPU's a Intel equivalent priced almost the same for up to twice as much fps.

"8350 is still a strong CPU considering its 2 years old". Earlier he mentioned the 4300 is somewhat shitty, well he might as well consider that every game out there the 4300 performs literally the same as the 8350, then the 8350 is by his logic shit too. Not sure why this guy is using excuses that Intel came up with 2 newer architectures to minimize how bad Piledriver actually is. A 2500K rips it completely apart which is even 2 years older than Piledriver, 2500K at 4.8GHz is equal to a 4670K at 4.2GHz which is equal to a 3570K at 4.5GHz (average overclocks).

Fock you can't be kidding me, "the 8350 at 200$ is still the way to go", seriously 200$ isn't cheaper than 200$. That thing at suicide clocks can't even touch a 2500K at stock, a 4430 which is currently 20$ cheaper is even better and the boards are like 100$ more and take the costs of cooling you're already paying twice as much. Dude needs to do some research, horrible advice. We only have like 2 games atm that can fully saturate a 8350's corecount, like 5-6 are taking advantage of 6 cores, half of the 8350s potential in lost in other games which makes its performance equal to a 4300. Lets pay twice as much for 4300 performance, way to go yolo.

"Devs are biased to Intel because they are singlethreading", lol doesn't make any sense.

"Moving from 8350 to a 3770K was the most mistake I've ever made, seen no gaming performance or even rendering performance" - Then you're an idiot tbh, rendering performance is probably around 30% better at best.

Right lets listen to his older video quickly http://youtu.be/iHQqpIEw7jk?t=6m5s

"There was no difference between my 8350 overclocked at 4.8GHz orsomething and my 3770K at stock". Well thanks for proving me why the 8350 is a shitty choice over a locked i5 for gaming. Few secs later; "The moment I bumped this up to 4.7GHz blabla THIS THING BLEW MY AMD OUT OF THE WATER when it came to rendering". 

Continuing from his 3rd video, "little rendering difference". Awesome. The 4th video would be something like "8350 is better than the 3770K/4790K".

"4790K tends to be sometimes better than [x99 cpu] in some games". "Games are sometimes tailored to a certain function". Not really sure how this makes sense? Simple answer is that most games do not take advantage of 2/4 more cores/threads and that the 4790K has a higher clock speed so unless there's no gpu bottleneck the 4790K will be better.

If the 8350, the chip with its 8 cores, is a useful purchase for gaming, then the 5960x is a useful purchase too - his statements above are contradicting this. 

I criticized him months ago for his 2nd video, same BS again; http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/116639-how-much-of-a-boost-will-i-get/page-3#entry1616499
 

 

Every game can be played on AMD even MMO´s.

Yeah when leveling etc which is mainly although to a certain point GPU bound. Once youre in a raid with a shitload of people going nuts on a boss with lots of adds spawning, if you're tanking you want the nameplates up which tanks your fps further down and you want to use addons which chunks your fps as well. With a 4670K at 5GHz you're looking around 30-35 fps, AMD at stock will be at 15 fps which isn't considered playable especially if you need to move a lot. You have to be quick at aggro'ing adds or it's just a wipe, you can't afford having low fps there.

In some scenario's like healing at the back, if you don't need to move at all, 10 fps is okay as long as the health bars of other people are updating on time. 
 

[7850OC]

That doesn't explain anything pertaining to what I'm talking about.  Also, it explains my point which I was trying to make to you.  "The GDDR5 setup also allows for doubling or asymetric memory configurations."  The Speed is doubled, not quadrupled.  Your math is wrong, and your understanding of the subject matter is not sufficient.

 

Of course increasing the frequency, the speed of the memory is going to improve performance.  It does not increase the CAPACITY.

hey i did it easy for you (GDDR5 = 4x Vram = eVram) and you still do not understand  :lol:

 

i am not wrong (you are wrong friend) 

[Faa]

hey i did it easy for you (GDDR5 = 4x aVram) and you still do not understand  :lol:

 

i am not wrong (you are wrong friend) 

DDR is double pumped in terms of data rate, frequency is quad pumped on DDR3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_data_rate

GDDR5 afaik is just a modified version of DDR3, so 1250MHz becomes 5000MHz although you could note this as 2500MHz but since the data rate is double pumped you could say 5GT/s or 5000MHz.

 

[7850OC]

this may help a bit

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2621/geforce-gtx-980.html

 

GTX 980

 

Memory Clock: 1753 MHz

 

7012 MHz effective (do the maths here lol)  :lol:

[Faceman]

 

 

Jay Contradicting Himself

 

 

Yup, Jay has lost a lot of respect from me.  His "advice" seems to change constantly, and he doesn't remember what he says in videos that are a year old, and he doesn't know that Intel > AMD for the vast majority of games, and he completely disregards MMOs.

[Faceman]

this may help a bit

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2621/geforce-gtx-980.html

 

GTX 980

 

Memory Clock: 1753 MHz

 

7012 MHz effective (do the maths here lol)  :lol:

Ok, my mistake.  It is still shown as half in every other single thing I've seen.  From MSI Afterburner to GPU-Z.  This is the first time that I'm seeing it as 1/4th.  My bad.  Still doesn't change that overclocking the speed doesn't increase the capacity, you need to get that through your head.

[Faceman]

hey i did it easy for you (GDDR5 = 4x Vram = eVram) and you still do not understand  :lol:

 

i am not wrong (you are wrong friend) 

VRAM is not = eVRAM.  They are two different values. Speed vs. Capacity.

[7850OC]

VRAM is not = eVRAM.  They are two different values. Speed vs. Capacity.

yeah... i need use less words for you :lol: (mister 1 x 4 = 2 lol)