nVidia has a GTX1060 with only 3GB of VRAM, but that's not all

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

GTAV dipshit.

What about it.

 

Seriously, i'm only asking the "3GB is not enough" camp to provide evidence, and i'll i'm getting are circular reasoning, insults and one cherrypicked example that is no longer relevant.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

I'm not the one making the claim, disingenuous much?

Arkham Knight required 16GB of RAM because it was a poorly optimized piece of shit. So now all PC's built with 8GB are irrelevant? Are you saying that every unoptimized AAA release we face today is sufficient justification to upgrade your system? This is utter fucking cherrypicking. There is absolutely no plethora of evidence to suggest 3GB would be a serious issue in running current games.

 

This is LTT in a nutshell, "it is true because I say so". And then it becomes a doctrine added to the list of "below 80 degrees is fine" bullshit.

You know, I was just trying to explain Thermal Runaway to someone on this forum for the past 2 days now, and I still don't think it registered with them. 

 

On a side note: your analogy would mean Ubisoft is responsible for pushing PC hardware advancement forward. 

 

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

my bad, was thinking of the normal 780

Great. You went and got my hopes up, just to destroy them. Was really hoping for a 6GB GK110B on the cheap x.x

[Hunter259]

Just now, Majestic said:

What about it.

 

Seriously, i'm only asking the "3GB is not enough" camp to provide evidence, and i'll i'm getting are circular reasoning, insults and one cherrypicked example that is no longer relevant.

Black Ops 3, Arkham, GTA V, BattleField 1, Rise of the Tomb Raider, etc. 3GB is not enough for max at 1080p with upcoming and even current titles.

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

On a side note: your analogy would mean Ubisoft is responsible for pushing PC hardware advancement forward. 

Those scheming bastards! :')

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Majestic said:

cherrypickig

you mean actual evidence that your claim is bull?

 

here, and this is 4GB vs 8GB, not 3 !!!!!!

[captain cactus]

Just now, MageTank said:

Great. You went and got my hopes up, just to destroy them. Was really hoping for a 6GB GK110B on the cheap x.x

290X 8GB exists.

[Hunter259]

Just now, lots of unexplainable lag said:

290X 8GB exists.

Which is really just a 390X. 

[don_svetlio]

3 minutes ago, Majestic said:

 

Translating:

"I'm not wrong, the world is wrong!"

[Majestic]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you mean actual evidence that you claim bull?

 

here, and this is 4GB vs 8GB, not 3 !!!!!!

You do realise the 480 4GB version has 7gbps memory? That easily explains the performance delta. If the system starts swapping to systemmemory, the 0.1% lows would be much more terrible.

 

Just now, don_svetlio said:

Translating:

"I'm not wrong, the world is wrong!"

TIL, asking for evidence triggers people. GG millenials.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

290X 8GB exists.

Yeah, but that's not GK110B. I had some shenanigans planned if a 6GB 780 Ti existed. Involving me trolling a friend. Now I can't. 

[aisle9]

12 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

@Majestic I heard you like Nvidia, I think you would like this card also look at this

Go home, fanboy. You contribute nothing.

6 minutes ago, lots of unexplainable lag said:

How can you call it a 1060 if it isn't a 1060.

 

nVidia's crack marketing team at it again. inb4 lots of not-so-tech-savy people suddenly discover their 3GB "1060" is missing CUDA cores (thus lower performance) even though they saw reviews of the 1060 doing x fps in x games, only to discover that it's not just VRAM that's cut in half.

 

So what's this going to compete with, RX470?

RX470 is more or less a cheaper 480 in terms of performance. No, seriously, it's that close. GG AMD releasing a cheaper card that performs damn near equal to the flagship.

 

I'm thinking this is NVIDIA's shot at the budget/e-sports 460 territory. I still really think they should've just called it the 1050. This thread wouldn't exist...

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Majestic said:

You do realise the 480 4GB version has 7gbps memory? That easily explains the performance delta. If the system starts swapping to systemmemory, the 0.1% lows would be much more terrible.

 

TIL, asking for evidence triggers people. GG millenials.

Majestic, get yer head outta' yer arse and accept defeat. Tis' all me'll say.

[Starelementpoke]

[Hunter259]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

You do realise the 480 4GB version has 7gbps memory? That easily explains the performance delta. If the system starts swapping to systemmemory, the 0.1% lows would be much more terrible.

 

TIL, asking for evidence triggers people. GG millenials.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When was the last time memory speed really affected performance that significantly? 3GB is not enough and 4 is borderline. The second you start swapping in and out from system memory game performance goes to shit. Not the damn speed of your vram.

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Majestic said:

You do realise the 480 4GB version has 7gbps memory? That easily explains the performance delta. If the system starts swapping to systemmemory, the 0.1% lows would be much more terrible.

O'really!?

so how about the rest of the games that doesn't show same behavior? http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2503-amd-rx-480-4gb-vs-8gb-benchmark-is-it-worth-it

 

we are done here

[Majestic]

4 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. When was the last time memory speed really affected performance that significantly? 3GB is not enough and 4 is borderline. The second you start swapping in and out from system memory game performance goes to shit. Not the damn speed of your vram.

Indeed, it goes to shit. Not mildly drop in performance. And when has memory bandwidth NOT affected performance. You think a 14% increase in bandwidth does nothing to performance on ultra settings? Stop embarassing yourself.

 

Just now, zMeul said:

O'really!?

so how about the rest of the games that doesn't show same behavior? http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2503-amd-rx-480-4gb-vs-8gb-benchmark-is-it-worth-it

 

Because not every game scales with memory bandwidth. You guys are really making yourself look like idiots at this point.

 

 

[Hunter259]

Just now, Majestic said:

Indeed, it goes to shit. Not mildly drop in performance. And when has memory bandwidth NOT affected performance. You think a 14% increase in bandwidth does nothing to performance on ultra settings? Stop embarassing yourself.

I didn't say it doesn't affect performance so stop twisting my words. That performance delta is NOT COMPLETELY DUE TO MEMORY BANDWIDTH.  You will not get that performance back with memory clock and you know it.

[Majestic]

3 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

I didn't say it doesn't affect performance so stop twisting my words. That performance delta is NOT COMPLETELY DUE TO MEMORY BANDWIDTH.  You will not get that performance back with memory clock and you know it.

Yeah it does if the game is very heavy on memory, which AC Unity is. Especially if you're using a 256bit memory bus. The performance delta is roughly the same as the difference in memory bandwidth, that's no coincidence.

 

Other games are less stressful on memory and the delta is less severe.

 

Again, if the GPU starts choking for memory, you don't get a linear drop in performance.

[VagabondWraith]

I really don't get this card. 3GB is too low in this day and age with games becoming more demanding each release. I get why they're releasing it, they're trying to compete with the RX 470. But I can't recommend this card over a 470 that has 4GB.

 

Why couldn't they keep the 6GB and just cut down the shaders even more? And call it a 1050? This is like a 960 type card with 1 less gig of VRAM.

 

Pretty dumb iyam.

[Hunter259]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Yeah it does if the game is very heavy on memory, which AC Unity is. Especially if you're using a 256bit memory bus. The performance delta is roughly the same as the difference in memory bandwidth, that's no coincidence.

 

Other games are less stressful on memory and the delta is less severe.

Proof please.

[Majestic]

1 minute ago, Hunter259 said:

Proof please.

Of what specifically?

[Hunter259]

Just now, Majestic said:

Of what specifically?

Of what you just said. Don't act stupid.

[Prysin]

21 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Those scheming bastards! :')

yes, how horrible

 

These games will use above 4GB VRAM at 1080 and cause stutter when using maximum settings (my own testing with a 295x2. WHich has only 4GB VRAM per GPU)

Rainbow Six Siege

RIse of the Tomb Raider

Metro Last Light

Far Cry 4/Primal (same game engine behind both)

Assassins Creed Syndicate (although that may just be the game too)

 

Rainbow Six Siege can EASILY get over 4GB, and when the games in-built VRAM "meter" says you are going over then trust me, it lags. It visibly lags even in the benchmarking tool.

 

But, to appease you:

http://imgur.com/a/R2OZ6

[Dackzy]

13 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Go home, fanboy. You contribute nothing.

 

 

It is against forum rules to call people fanboys. Did you not see the screenshot I put up? It is of a 290x were all 4gb is used at 1080p, so yeah I contribute, to debunk this 3gb is enough BS. Further more I am in no way a fanboy, I buy the GPU that is best for my needs, I could not care less if it was AMD or Nvidia that makes it.

[Majestic]

4 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

Of what you just said. Don't act stupid.

I was seriously asking, be specific about what evidence you want. You want proof of memory bandwidth affecting certain games?

 

EDIT; and how did this turn from me asking for evidence, to you asking me for evidence? I'm still waiting on your results.