I still never went over 3 GB on a game except for GTA V (not sure on Witcher 3, might wanna check) on my R9 390.
I'll give you that. Assassin's Creed? the most recent ones that had came out recently were horrendous. Unity was a massive turd. and Syndicate was meh. Watch Dogs 2 just was recently released so let's see how that plays out.
You do realize there is like 3 products out that use the Tegra X1? 2 of them are used by Nvidia. one by Google. and it's been out for a year and some change.. that says enough. the Pascal chip is going to be used by Nintendo I would expect them to cash out on it.
They are making a new Volta-based Tegra chip. The Xavier or sth...
and let's see who adopts it. there are miniscule companies that adopts these chips.. Google loves Tegra cause it blows out other snapdragon chips in terms of performance. however Google puts massive batteries in their products to remedy the power draw.
yes but it also makes no sense to spend the money to design an entire new product last minute when things outside their control limits the production of their actual design. i.e. hbm2, they would have had to try to design a new product as fast as they possibly could as soon as they had any idea about the availability, to try to make a temporary flagship for like 6-9 months that being honest no one will buy anyways.
instead of the like ~4 year design lead they'd have to have switched 1 maybe 2 years ago to making this intermediate flagship thats entirely different when gddr5x would have been known to be relevant and hbm2 being too far out
Considering the issues with HBM at the moment being difficult to produce I would have been much more surprised if they threw in some GDDR5X in the product line-up. The Fury line was meant to compete with Nvidia's Titan (even though it was not even close) let the RX 490 have GDDR5X and let the Fury Successor have HBM2.
i dont think nvidia failed, i mean, they pulled in 2 billion dollars last quarter, 2 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS
whatever you perceived as fails, was just the cost of business to them.
Agreed. Nvidia is a business first, gaming company second. Making a profit trumps all other smaller failures you guys are pointing out. And that's all the stockholders care about.
1 Like
furyx easily out mines a titan/980ti lol. they've had the fastest mining card since 4 or 5xxx cept this year cause they couldnt launch the actual high end card. vega probably wont have any gddr5x would have to change the gpu, pcb power design/delivery etc probably would have already launched if they could have.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-doom-vulkan-patch-shows-game-changing-performance-gains example, the performance is obviously there it just doesnt get utilized even remotely close to ideally in most games. vega will probably fair better in the garbage dx11 titles as it will bring similar improvements like polaris had which brought better utilization in general in garbage software.
even in dx11 titles if you look at 4k, the 1070 cant even always beat a 980ti, and furyx even gets wins when the memory doesnt hamstring it, the 1080 is not that far off at all all it would need is like ~1300mhz and 8gb>
On Witcher 3 I'm using 7GB vram (granted, I have some mods installed) and I think Shadow of Mordor uses up to 6GB.
I believe that dinscurge means that Fiji Cards are getting driver improvements for memory utilization. Will that be enough for the next 1-2 years for 1440p/60FPS+ gaming at very high or high settings? I don't know. Will Pascal's improved scheduler be enough? I don't know. Both companies offer cards in the above 300$ category that, to me at least, have longevity issues.
The Fury 2 cards next year will likely be around 16TFLOP for a single card. I dunno what NVIDIA will release but they generally respond to competition pretty fast, unfortunately if no competition exists prices can remain artificially high for quite some time for a new product launch.
The 490 card from AMD will likely be a 12TFLOP card, I'll probably get one, undecided yet. Maybe I should wait until Fury 2. Only concern for me is if AMD is serious enough to release a competitive card at reasonable prices or not, they can't price gauge customers like what NVIDIA does, window is LONG gone for that sort of thing!
nah vega from the linkedin whatever leaks from forever ago with, vega basically being fury but with architectual improvements(like in polaris, scheduling, geometry processing, primitive discard etc) and hbm2, but still same amount of shaders. and the 1080 being the small/medium die not the large die like the titan x(pascal), is not the flagship, if amd gets 40-45% with the vega, then the ti emerges and all the 1080 chumps will upgrade again, and that will be the card most people want/get
Well, I should check my VRAM usage on that game though. Not sure how, GTA V tells me how much but most games don't.
I'm using MSI Afterburner to measure VRAM usage - I'm also using it to undervolt my card.
what's wrong with the 970? lol i got two and i'm not completely disappointed however I'm also not completely tech savvy so please explain besides it not having 4gb ram.
I just want to point out that Nvidia has spent a lot of money elsewhere to make sure that they have long term relationships/deals with their vendors, as well as investments in outside technologies like driverless cars. At the end of the day, this means increased stock value, investors, etc- that translates to bigger deals, more vendors, more tech investments. I don't think AMD is incapable of making things like better mobile chipsets- I think they are honed in on another market.
I watched the first part of the video, and it makes sense, but I just want to point out that these outside factors like the stock market can play a huge factor on a company's value and overall sales. Nvidia has more money to dedicate to multiple avenues, IMO
1 Like
Kind of related...
I honestly think the 970 is going to tank VERY hard once nvidia drop driver support
at present games see the memory as unified, its only nvidia driver manipulation which stops the game from trying to use the 0.5gb of slow vram... once that driver manipulation stops.. tanky framerate (even more than usual when a card is dropped - planned obsolescence).
now puts on tinfoil hat
was the main reason that memory arch done that way so that 970 users would be FORCED to upgrade once driver support was dropped and they hit this wall?
feeds the trolls and runs away :D
1 Like
Let me point out that the 970 isn't directly a bad card, the problem is that Nvidia lied. First it does not really have 4GiB VRAM but 3,5GiB + 512MiB, the latter beng hardly used as has already @flazza mentioned. The other problem is that they also lied about the speed this RAM can be addressed with. It clearly shows Nvidia does not care about their customers (nor any open standards, but that's unrelated). Aside from that, 4GiB aren't that much to begin with.
I also believe that as soon as driver support is stopped, which will happen sooner than later, 970 customers are going to have performance related issues. A while ago
I watched a video that compared older Nvidia cards with older AMD cards and for some reason AMD cards got faster, while Nvidia cards got slower. I don't know if this happened on purpose in order to force the customers to buy new cards, or if it was an incident.
Concerning 4GiB on Fury: Even though I mentioned above that 4GiB aren't much to begin with, I think the Fury line is fine due to HBM.
@Atatax: Ok, i think there were a couple of months in 2014 when a 970 seemed like a decent choice.
I wouldn't call these "failed products" I own a Shield TV and a Gsync monitor and they're both excellent products; well worth what I paid for them IMO.