This is why I don't recommend buying a 4GB vram card in 2015.

[othertomperson]

I laughed so hard. Do it with Pong next!

 

 

Sure, you win. If you crank up the resolution to 8K and the framerate down to single digits, you've possibly found the limits of 4 GB, 6 GB, or more. You've also found the limits of every GPU available today, which makes this entirely pointless. Find us a situation that is unplayable with 4 GB that would otherwise have been playable with 6 GB, and you may actually have a point.

 

We still live in a world where Crossfire/SLI is a requirement of ensuring 60 FPS gameplay across the board at 4K. 8K is years away from gaming viability.

 

Worked for AMD and Sapphire when they decided to stick 8GB on a 290 and sell it to the gullible.

[TheConverter]

Sure, you win. If you crank up the resolution to 8K and the framerate down to single digits, you've possibly found the limits of 4 GB, 6 GB, or more. You've also found the limits of every GPU available today, which makes this entirely pointless. Find us a situation that is unplayable with 4 GB that would otherwise have been playable with 6 GB, and you may actually have a point.

 

We still live in a world where Crossfire/SLI is a requirement of ensuring 60 FPS gameplay across the board at 4K. 8K is years away from gaming viability.

 

No it's not. Battlefield 4 is playable with two 980Ti's at 8K @ 40-45FPS

 

2014 was the introduction of 4K Gaming, 2016 will be the year of 8K.

 

[Midnitewarrior4]

I laughed so hard. Do it with Pong next!

dude minesweeper

[SeanBond]

No it's not. Battlefield 4 is playable with two 980Ti's at 8K @ 40-45FPS

 

2014 was the introduction of 4K Gaming, 2016 will be the year of 8K.

 

This shoots a big whole in your stupid arguement. If you honestly think that vram is the limitation of these games bf4 at 8k wouldn't scale with sli at all. Memory speeds don't double with sli. Computational power does. This is some of the worst shit posting I think I have seen on the forum. Why don't you stop playing games at 8k and trying you hardest to max out vram. And play games like a normal person with playable frame rates. 

[typographie]

It's completely rediculous you think games actually need that much vram. People need to learn a little bit about games if they are to invest that much into pc gaming.... even if you could find a modern game that uses more than even 3gb which there is only about 3-4 until you get into 4k gaming it's still under 4gb. Not only that if you run out of vram well made games will pour over into system memory, some people say that causes stutter, which it can if you use way too much system memory. But for example, here is me playing shadow of mordor perfectly fine stutter free with nearly 5gb of vram used on my 3gb card...

 

Exactly. A perfectly acceptable and increasingly common strategy among developers lately has been to just assume they have complete access to all of the system's dedicated video memory, because we aren't going to be running two games at once or something. So many games just simply fill it up with whatever it's got, regardless of how much of that data is immediately crucial for performance. Often some of that data could reside in system memory instead if necessary without causing a noticeable performance problem.

 

I've had similar experiences with Shadow of Mordor. It crams my 4 GB of VRAM full, and then runs fine regardless.

[Sorfex0]

 

No it's not. Battlefield 4 is playable with two 980Ti's at 8K @ 40-45FPS

 

2014 was the introduction of 4K Gaming, 2016 will be the year of 8K.

 

 
There are no cards that can do stable 4k and u want 8k. No .

[goldfries]

Off-topic : What's the software used in 1st post to show all those readings?

[TheConverter]

This shoots a big whole in your stupid arguement. If you honestly think that vram is the limitation of these games bf4 at 8k wouldn't scale with sli at all. Memory speeds don't double with sli. Computational power does. This is some of the worst shit posting I think I have seen on the forum. Why don't you stop playing games at 8k and trying you hardest to max out vram. And play games like a normal person with playable frame rates. 

 

What do you mean playable framerates? Most Wanted 2005 was running at 90FPS. It dips when you take the Fraps screenshot which is 100MB 

[SeanBond]

 

 

 

 

There are no cards that can do stable 4k and u want 8k. No .

 

He wants 8k on his 4k so he can win his own pissing contest for internet. 

[TheConverter]

 

 

 

 

There are no cards that can do stable 4k and u want 8k. No .

 

 

MRW:

 

[TheConverter]

Off-topic : What's the software used in 1st post to show all those readings?

 

Msi Afterburner: http://gaming.msi.com/features/afterburner

[Midnight]

I ain't trolling. Wanted to show that "more then 4GB is not useless* on the 980Ti, R9 390 and Titan X.

 

And playing at a whopping ~10FPS. How masochistic.

[hak4fun]

Oh god... just buy a console and be done with it.

 

 

Seriously though. Vram doesn't really matter... The GPU makers do all the math and esting, and figure out how much each card just get. So buy a card on its performance, not the amount of Vram.

[SeanBond]

What do you mean playable framerates? Most Wanted 2005 was running at 90FPS. It dips when you take the Fraps screenshot which is 100MB 

Congratulations, you can play a 10 year old game with playable frame rate at a resolution you won't be able to utilize properly for years. Unless your 4k monitor is 50" dsr is not going to make you image smoother. 4k with maybe 2xmsaa is way more than enough.

[TheConverter]

And playing at a whopping ~10FPS. How masochistic.

 

That's because it's Witcher 3 Ultra with Hairworks On.

[TheConverter]

Congratulations, you can play a 10 year old game with playable frame rate at a resolution you won't be able to utilize properly for years. Unless your 4k monitor is 50" dsr is not going to make you image smoother. 4k with maybe 2xmsaa is way more than enough.

 

Stop trolling. I imagine somebody posting questions about 4K in 2012, everyone would laugh at him. 8K hype is real and it's coming in 2016, with reasoable < 1000$ screens in 2017. LG actually leaked that they are working on a 8K panel for a 8K Imac scheduled for fall 2015. 

 

 

 

Apple's suppliers take a $50 million blood oath on new model secrecy, but it looks like someone from LG didn't get that memo. In a press release explaining why 4K is now passé (really?), the company's display division inadvertently leaked an iMac with an incredible 8K screen. While discussing its own 98-inch 8K TV, it said "Apple has also announced that they will release the 'iMac 8K' with a super-high resolution display this year." Unfortunately for LG, Apple announced no such thing, meaning the Korean company may have revealed information meant for its eyes only.

 

An 8K iMac is far from implausible, as Apple already has a 27-inch 5K retina iMac with 5,120 x 2,880 pixels. On top of that, VESA's new DisplayPort 1.4a standard now allows 7,680 x 4,320 8K displays. (That's an eye-popping 33-megapixels if you're keeping score at home.) However, we're taking all the information with a certain amount of salt, since it could just be a simple mistake or misunderstanding. That said, LG is the manufacturer of record for Apple's 5K iMac and has since taken down the post. We've reached out to LG and Apple for comment, but at this point we're not holding our breath.

 

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/07/lg-leaks-8k-imac/

 

 

[typographie]

No it's not. Battlefield 4 is playable with two 980Ti's at 8K @ 40-45FPS

 

2014 was the introduction of 4K Gaming, 2016 will be the year of 8K.

 

 

Introduction and adoption are two completely different things. 2560x1440 has been around long enough that it actually originated as a 16:10, 2560x1600 version. Yet we're finally at the point where a relatively affordable high-end card can deliver good gaming performance at 1440p by itself.

[Sorfex0]

MRW:

 

I guess u made a point. normal settings everything mostly off fps is 20-40 is quite stable.

[Midnight]

That's because it's Witcher 3 Ultra with Hairworks On.

 

Still masochistic.

[Sorfex0]

Stop trolling. I imagine somebody posting questions about 4K in 2012, everyone would laugh at him. 8K hype is real and it's coming in 2016, with reasoable < 1000$ screens in 2017. LG actually leaked that they are working on a 8K panel for a 8K Imac.

 

If palying with 20 fps is fine for you then yeh its nice. I preffer playing 60 fps without any extra problems and monitor with gpu that costs my whole pc.

[TheConverter]

Still masochistic.

 

In what way? That people actually have the GPU power to run games at 1440P or 4K or 8K with their 970's/R9 390's? But instead they put the resolution on 1080P.

[TheConverter]

If palying with 20 fps is fine for you then yeh its nice. I preffer playing 60 fps without any extra problems and monitor with gpu that costs my whole pc.

 

That's why Nvidia is working on Pascal and AMD on arctic islands. I bet two of those cards would have no problems running games at 8K.

Personally, 60 fps feels like a slideshow for me, that's why I will be returning this monitor and stick with my Acer XB270HU.

[Sorfex0]

In what way? That people actually have the GPU power to run games at 1440P or 4K or 8K with their 970's/R9 390's? But instead they put the resolution on 1080P.

Cuz most ppl preffer to play with 60-144 fps and ultra preset.

[SeanBond]

Stop trolling. I imagine somebody posting questions about 4K in 2012, everyone would laugh at him. 8K hype is real and it's coming in 2016, with reasoable < 1000$ screens in 2017. LG actually leaked that they are working on a 8K panel for a 8K Imac scheduled for fall 2015.

Yeah.... im the troll. You are the one sitting here playing games at 10fps at 8k to satisfy your need of how cool you think you are. Your whole argument is a non issue. I already showed you, you don't need that much vram and even if it gets used it's not being the game wouldn't run fine without it. Between compression and use of system memory 4gb is good enough, 6gb is even crazier. Amd pretty much went nuts with 8gb and those cards can't even drive resolutions that large. And the fact bf4 scales with sli at 8k shows that it's not a memory limitation. 

[TheConverter]

Cuz most ppl preffer to play with 60-144 fps and ultra preset.

Yes but in some games it's actually perfectly playable, I used to play Witcher 3 on a 1080P screen with the option set to 1440P