4gb vram

[zedselder]

i was watching a video by maingear on the 4k quad fury x vs 4 way titan x vs 4 way 980 ti and i wondered how did the fury x manage to get that 4k res on ultra with only 4gb, i know they are hbm but still i wanna know how coz i watched another video on a fury x vs 980 ti on 1080p and the fury x was using about 3.8gb of vram so how is 4k on 4gb manageable? 

[othertomperson]

i was watching a video by maingear on the 4k quad fury x vs 4 way titan x vs 4 way 980 ti and i wondered how did the fury x manage to get that 4k res on ultra with only 4gb, i know they are hbm but still i wanna know how coz i watched another video on a fury x vs 980 ti on 1080p and they fury x was using about 3.8gb of vram so how  

 

Because 4GB GDDR5 is still absolutely fine for 4K Ultra in 99.9999% of cases. It's the GPU that's the important difference in those cards, not the vram.

 

Personally I think AMD putting so much marketing into vram was silly*. It literally makes zero difference until you start looking at 5K and above.

 

*I should point out I know exactly why. They got to make people think there was something wrong with the 970 while simultaneously advertising their own HBM and 8GB 390/390X. All of their marketing this past year has been about deceiving their consumers, rather than making something better than the competition. I've found them rather unpalatable of late.

[Godlygamer23]

VRAM does not stack currently with Crossfire and SLI. A single Fury X will consume the same amount of VRAM as two way, three way, or four way Fury X's. The texture amount does not increase and all cards hold the same information.

[zedselder]

Because 4GB GDDR5 is still absolutely fine for 4K Ultra in 99.9999% of cases. It's the GPU that's the important difference in those cards, not the vram.

 

Personally I think AMD putting so much marketing into vram was silly. It literally makes zero difference until you start looking at 5K and above.

ok, so what you're saying is that since the fury x has water cooling, more cores, supports more APIs and also has hbm memory then its better or what?

 

VRAM does not stack currently with Crossfire and SLI. A single Fury X will consume the same amount of VRAM as two way, three way, or four way Fury X's. The texture amount does not increase and all cards hold the same information.

i know that part, i was asking if the 1080p took 3.8 what will the 4k take then?

[othertomperson]

ok, so what you're saying is that since the fury x has water cooling, more cores, supports more APIs and also has hbm memory then its better 

 

I'm saying that right now if you're trying to drive 4K it's the GPU performance that you are going to need, not vram. If you put a 390X up against a Fury X the Fury X will win, in spite of having half the vram. If you put a 390X against a 980 they will do about the same, regardless of vram, because the GPUs at stock speeds are roughly equal.

 

At the point in which you are going to need all of the vram the 390X has the GPU is going to be woefully inadequate. Right now 4K very, very rarely needs more than 4GB vram so vram is kind of irrelevant, HBM or otherwise.

[Godlygamer23]

ok, so what you're saying is that since the fury x has water cooling, more cores, supports more APIs and also has hbm memory then its better or what?

 

i know that part, i was asking if the 1080p took 3.8 what will the 4k take then?

According to this performance preview from Extremetech, the Fury X consumes 3.8GB of VRAM at 4K. http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/208874-amds-radeon-fury-x-previewing-performance-power-consumption-and-4k-scaling/2

[zedselder]

I'm saying that right now if you're trying to drive 4K it's the GPU performance that you are going to need, not vram. If you put a 390X up against a Fury X the Fury X will win, in spite of having half the vram. If you put a 390X against a 980 they will do about the same, regardless of vram, because the GPUs at stock speeds are roughly equal.

 

At the point in which you are going to need all of the vram the 390X has the GPU is going to be woefully inadequate. Right now 4K very, very rarely needs more than 4GB vram so vram is kind of irrelevant, HBM or otherwise.

so i guess amd did win this time around with the fury x?

 

According to this performance preview from Extremetech, the Fury X consumes 3.8GB of VRAM at 4K. http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/208874-amds-radeon-fury-x-previewing-performance-power-consumption-and-4k-scaling/2

thats strange coz this benchmark over here 

shows 1080p on 3.8gb as well!

[itachipirate]

According to this performance preview from Extremetech, the Fury X consumes 3.8GB of VRAM at 4K. http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/208874-amds-radeon-fury-x-previewing-performance-power-consumption-and-4k-scaling/2

That's Shadow of Mordor, It's known to take up crazy amounts of VRAM. VRAM used is different for each game or set of textures

[Godlygamer23]

That's Shadow of Mordor, It's known to take up crazy amounts of VRAM. VRAM used is different for each game or set of textures

I know that, but they're the only numbers I have. No review I found shows VRAM consumption.

[othertomperson]

so i guess amd did win this time around with the fury x?

 

What do you mean "win"? Against the 390X?

[zedselder]

That's Shadow of Mordor, It's known to take up crazy amounts of VRAM. VRAM used is different for each game or set of textures

yup i've noticed that in games like tomb raider where it never gets to the 2gb mark. 

[Godlygamer23]

so i guess amd did win this time around with the fury x?

I don't really think AMD "won." They're competing with NVIDIA's 980 Ti but it wasn't the game changer AMD claimed it would be. They exaggerated their numbers - people can bring up drivers all day long, but the fact is AMD still claimed to achieve much higher performance than the 980 Ti. They didn't. They're close and they sometimes win, but that's about it.

[zedselder]

What do you mean "win"? Against the 390X?

nope against nvidia 

[zedselder]

I don't really think AMD "won." They're competing with NVIDIA's 980 Ti but it wasn't the game changer AMD claimed it would be. They exaggerated their numbers - people can bring up drivers all day long, but the fact is AMD still claimed to achieve much higher performance than the 980 Ti. They didn't. They're close and they sometimes win, but that's about it.

in single gpu i would say the titan x and the 980 ti wins by a long shot but in 4way as i have seen in maingear benchmark the fury x on normal clock speed and oc mode in 4 way wins by a mile long in terms of fps against the titan x and 980 ti 

[Godlygamer23]

in single gpu i would say the titan x and the 980 ti wins by a long shot but in 4way as i have seen in maingear benchmark the fury x on normal clock speed and oc mode in 4 way wins by a mile long in terms of fps against the titan x and 980 ti 

I do believe scaling is better on the Fury X compared to NVIDIA's offerings. But because of AMD's cooling solution, it could be difficult to implement the cards in a case due to the radiator.

[zedselder]

I do believe scaling is better on the Fury X compared to NVIDIA's offerings. But because of AMD's cooling solution, it could be difficult to implement the cards in a case due to the radiator.

i agree on that, thats why i want to wait for the fury x2 it will still use the same cooling solution as the fury x

[othertomperson]

nope against nvidia 

 

It's the same price as a 980 Ti and performs almost as well. If you exclusively play AMD-sponsored games it might win... that's the only scenario I can think of.

[sheepsies]

in single gpu i would say the titan x and the 980 ti wins by a long shot but in 4way as i have seen in maingear benchmark the fury x on normal clock speed and oc mode in 4 way wins by a mile long in terms of fps against the titan x and 980 ti 

 

AMD generally has better multi-gpu scaling then NVIDIA. As others have stated most games won't need 4gb even in 4k.

 

so i guess amd did win this time around with the fury x?

 

thats strange coz this benchmark over here

shows 1080p on 3.8gb as well!

 

How much is vram being used isn't always how much it needs - there can be unused assets sitting in vram that it can cull if more space is required. You only see a performance impact once the scene being rendered requires more data then can be stored in the frame buffer and the gpu has to swap assets in real time to complete frames.

[zedselder]

It's the same price as a 980 Ti and performs almost as well. If you exclusively play AMD-sponsored games it might win... that's the only scenario I can think of.

its water cooled, it supports more APIs and its smaller in size. for me that's a win  

[zedselder]

AMD generally has better multi-gpu scaling then NVIDIA. As others have stated most games won't need 4gb even in 4k.

 

 

How much is vram being used isn't always how much it needs - there can be unused assets sitting in vram that it can cull if more space is required. You only see a performance impact once the scene being rendered requires more data then can be stored in the frame buffer and the gpu has to swap assets in real time to complete frames.

 

 

It's the same price as a 980 Ti and performs almost as well. If you exclusively play AMD-sponsored games it might win... that's the only scenario I can think of.

 

 

I do believe scaling is better on the Fury X compared to NVIDIA's offerings. But because of AMD's cooling solution, it could be difficult to implement the cards in a case due to the radiator.

 

 

That's Shadow of Mordor, It's known to take up crazy amounts of VRAM. VRAM used is different for each game or set of textures

i wanna know if 4gb is enough then why do cards with 12gb like the titan x or like the upcoming GPUs from amd and nvidia with 16gb 

[don_svetlio]

Because the memory TYPE is different. 4 GB HBM is enough for 1440p/4k
4 GB GDDR5 is definitely NOT enough for 4k. Probably good enough for 1440p but not 4k.

[sheepsies]

i wanna know if 4gb is enough then why do cards with 12gb like the titan x or like the upcoming GPUs from amd and nvidia with 16gb 

Cause gaming isn't the only use case for a gpu. Titan x makes little sense though as its double precision is low

[zedselder]

Because the memory TYPE is different. 4 GB HBM is enough for 1440p/4k

4 GB GDDR5 is definitely NOT enough for 4k. Probably good enough for 1440p but not 4k.

So i guess when the Pascal and Greenland GPUs come out in 2016, the 16GB HBM will be enough for literally everything.

Not to mention the 1TB/s bandwidth and the 5000~6000 cores with the unified memory option enabled.  

 

Cause gaming isn't the only use case for a gpu. Titan x makes little sense though as its double precision is low

That's what i had in mind, the Titan X and the 980 TI are gaming GPUs.

[sheepsies]

Because the memory TYPE is different. 4 GB HBM is enough for 1440p/4k

4 GB GDDR5 is definitely NOT enough for 4k. Probably good enough for 1440p but not 4k.

Capacity is capacity regardless of VRAM type. While 4GB is enough in most cases there are scenarios it won't be.

[othertomperson]

its water cooled, it supports more APIs and its smaller in size. for me that's a win

 

AMD have discontinued Mantel, which is the only API it supports that the 980 Ti doesn't, so that's not much of a selling point really. And there are water cooled 980 Tis on sale too if that's your thing. EVGA make one, and given that you can actually overclock the 980 Ti decently (unlike Fury X) there's actually a point in water cooling it.

 

 

4 GB GDDR5 is definitely NOT enough for 4k. 

 

Wrong

 

 

i wanna know if 4gb is enough then why do cards with 12gb like the titan x or like the upcoming GPUs from amd and nvidia with 16gb 

 

4GB is absolutely fine.