Support NeoGAF

[Momentary]

If there is another series for maxwell I see it landing in September sometime. With Pascal hitting Around Oct/Nov of next year.

 

[wachie]

If there is another series for maxwell I see it landing in September sometime. With Pascal hitting Around Oct/Nov of next year.

Yeah, I think Pascal is still a year plus away and this is a long time for Nvidia to not fill with new (named) products.

 

[JaseC]

Titan X cards are retailing for 1600 AUD right now new, and that's based off a 999 USD price tag which technically converts to ~1260 AUD. I think 950 is optimistic. 900 would be unexpected. I'd love that, but I'm not expecting it, by any means.

The Titan X is supposed to be a rip-off, though. Reference models of the 970 and 980 launched at ~$420 and ~$670 here, respectively, which at the time was a premium of $50~$60. That being said, the Aussie Dollar fares a little poorer now, so, yeah, Nvidia may use that as an excuse to jack up the Aussie Tax. I could justify $949 since selling my 670s and current 980 would yield around $900, but $999 or, dare I say it, higher would be a tough pill to swallow.

 

[Red or Alive]

Question from a layman: is 6 GB enough for this generation?

From a layman's perspective, you'd want 8 GB VRAM for parity with the PS4, but, considering the relative age and weakness of the PS4's GPU, is it even possible for that system to (for want of a better word) push a game that would use the full 6-7 GB available to it?

So, even given the laziness we've come to expect from console ports, is there any real reason to believe that a purported 980 Ti couldn't handle any multiplatform titles at 1080p throughout this console generation?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Question from a layman: is 6 GB enough for this generation?

From a layman's perspective, you'd want 8 GB VRAM for parity with the PS4, but, considering the relative age and weakness of the PS4's GPU, is it even possible for that system to (for want of a better word) push a game that would use the full 6-7 GB available to it?

So, even given the laziness we've come to expect from console ports, is there any real reason to believe that a purported 980 Ti couldn't handle any multiplatform titles at 1080p throughout this console generation?

The PS4 doesn't use all 8 GB of it's memory to do nothing but store framebuffer and textures, that's shared space with everything else the game puts in memory plus the OS itself uses a big chunk. The PS4 has something like 6.5 GB of it's 8 GB available to games, and of that it's not like game code + audio + everything else uses 0.1 GB and the game's framebuffer and textures use the other 6.4 GB.

That being said, if you bought a 980 Ti to play games in 1080p you really just pissed away your money. A 970 can handle anything available today just fine at 1080p unless you're trying to use DSR in which case you're actually running the game at higher than 1080p anyways. The 980 Ti and Titan X are cards for people pushing the bleeding edge with 1440p and 4K UHD resolutions.

 

[cyberheater]

I hope it comes out soon. So I can get a cheaper 970.

 

[Inuhanyou]

PS4 doesn't have 6.5 gigs for games. Its just about 5gigs last we knew, according to Naughty Dog.And that amount is further sliced up between actual GPU rendering and game logic, so say 2.5 to 3.5 gigs at the very most for VRAM usage. Sony may lessen the OS footprint as time goes on as they are doing for Vita, but not yet.

 

[magnumpy]

Question from a layman: is 6 GB enough for this generation?

From a layman's perspective, you'd want 8 GB VRAM for parity with the PS4, but, considering the relative age and weakness of the PS4's GPU, is it even possible for that system to (for want of a better word) push a game that would use the full 6-7 GB available to it?

So, even given the laziness we've come to expect from console ports, is there any real reason to believe that a purported 980 Ti couldn't handle any multiplatform titles at 1080p throughout this console generation?

hell, even an older 760 2GB card could handle anything throughout this console generation. that is assuming you have say 16GB of main memory. PCs have a memory hierarchy, where the specifics of said memory are obfuscated. that's why said card can play GTA5 at 60fps, while the PS4 is stuck at 30fps, in spite of its 8GB of memory.

 

[Cassius]

Ugh, these prices. Please AMD save us from this gouging and give Nvidia some decent competition.

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

Sell your current card (970?). Should be able to get at least 1/2 back what you paid no? Put some cash away every check until 980Ti releases. I doubt it's in a few weeks, should be plenty of time. Then sit back and rek this:



worth it breh. listen to me i am the voice of GPU reason

Smokey would you change to 980ti surely the titans will be better?

 

[cyberheater]

hell, even an older 760 2GB card could handle anything throughout this console generation. .

I don't think that's true. Aren't there quite a few PC games that exceed 3Gb of VRAM at 1080p.

 

[Dictator93]

Smokey would you change to 980ti surely the titans will be better?

There is no technical way a 980 Ti could be better unless it somehow held overclocks better.

I imagine the 980Ti will be a partially cut down core as well. Missing one SM cluster.

 

[magnumpy]

I don't think that's true. Aren't there quite a few PC games that exceed 3Gb of VRAM at 1080p.

well I guess we'll see what the actual case is. it would actually be great if PC games started requiring a 980 with 8GB of VRAM. but as I said before: 760 2GB runs GTA5 at 60FPS, PS4 runs GTA5 at 30FPS. draw your own conclusions.

 

[elelunicy]

well I guess we'll see what the actual case is. it would actually be great if PC games started requiring a 980 with 8GB of VRAM. but as I said before: 760 2GB runs GTA5 at 60FPS, PS4 runs GTA5 at 30FPS. draw your own conclusions.

My conclusion is that GTA V is a last gen game that was originally made with PS3's 256MB vram in mind; it's not indicative of anything.

We already have games where 2GB is not enough for 1080p, let alone through the entire console generation. The 2GB 760 cannot maintain 30fps whatsoever in AC: Unity, a current gen only game, when the texture is set to anything higher than low.

Here is a 2GB vs 4GB GTX 960 benchmark for AC: U. The 4GB 960 stays above 30fps at all times while the 2GB version just manages a measly 5fps.

 

[axb2013]

Those that haven't already locked themselves into the nvidia ecosystem via pricey G-Sync monitors, should wait for the 390x, even if they (irrationally) refuse to buy AMD. If for no other reason, wait for 390x's impact on 980ti pricing. 3 out of 4 gaming PC's run NV's cards already, very little motivation to shake things up from NV's perspective. I'm guessing 980ti launches with a ~$750 price tag but the 390x may force it down closer to $600.

I'm in for 2 of whichever card turns out to be the better deal, first to go nuts with MSAA @1440p and then go 4K. Hopefully the price wars drive the cards down to the $600 range, that would leave just enough room in my budget for a 32" 4K monitor. While NV has proven in the past that they don't really care about upsetting Titan owners with better value cards, I wouldn't expect miracles from the 980ti. AMD hate is strong yet it's AMD's offering that may help save hundreds in terms of GPU purchases.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

If so I'll wait and buy a 4gb 980 for a slightly more palatable price than today's

 

[kinggroin]

I think people making a case for 2/GB cards still being enough at 1080p are using the consoles as benchmarks - not other high end PCs.

With the exception of the broken Mortal Kombat X, isn't the 670 2GB besting the PS4/Xbox One multiplats in performance AND visual fidelity?

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

[xJavonta]

There is no way AMD cards are this bad, is there? Seems like hyperbole to me.

First card was an AMD card. I'm still using it because my second card (also an AMD card) is fucked and AMD won't rma it. Gonna buy something from nvidia in the next build for sure.

 

[magnumpy]

My conclusion is that GTA V is a last gen game that was originally made with PS3's 256MB vram in mind; it's not indicative of anything.

We already have games where 2GB is not enough for 1080p, let alone through the entire console generation. The 2GB 760 cannot maintain 30fps whatsoever in AC: Unity, a current gen only game, when the texture is set to anything higher than low.

Here is a 2GB vs 4GB GTX 960 benchmark for AC: U. The 4GB 960 stays above 30fps at all times while the 2GB version just manages a measly 5fps.

that image shows the GTX960 2GB at 33 FPS and the GTX960 4GB at 39 FPS.

 

[Dictator93]

that image shows the GTX960 2GB at 33 FPS and the GTX960 4GB at 39 FPS.

The minimums... the 2GB card is stuttering.

 

[witchedwiz]

will this be 6gb or 5gb+1?

 

[kinggroin]

The minimums... the 2GB card is stuttering.

So do console versions with a thousand gigs of vram at 900p and low IQ settings. And notice there is both an average fps and 1% low.

 

[Dictator93]

So do console versions with a thousand gigs of vram at 900p and low IQ settings. And notice there is both an average fps and 1% low.

That is a different type of stuttering (vsync induced low fps due to going above the threshold of 33.3 MS).

This is arguably more atrocious as the game is coming to a completely stand still with 200ms pauses. VRAM wall stutter are, IMO, much worse than vsync problems or an unevenly paced framerate.

 

[Jimrpg]

The PS4 doesn't use all 8 GB of it's memory to do nothing but store framebuffer and textures, that's shared space with everything else the game puts in memory plus the OS itself uses a big chunk. The PS4 has something like 6.5 GB of it's 8 GB available to games, and of that it's not like game code + audio + everything else uses 0.1 GB and the game's framebuffer and textures use the other 6.4 GB.

That being said, if you bought a 980 Ti to play games in 1080p you really just pissed away your money. A 970 can handle anything available today just fine at 1080p unless you're trying to use DSR in which case you're actually running the game at higher than 1080p anyways. The 980 Ti and Titan X are cards for people pushing the bleeding edge with 1440p and 4K UHD resolutions.

You can't really max out everything at 1080p with a 970. On GTA V I haven't even got everything turned up and it's pushing the 3.5gb limit.

6gb would be ok, but you'd really want 8gb if you want to future proof it a bit more. Still if the specs and prices are to be believed, I'd rather get a Titan X than a 980 Ti, spend a little bit more and don't have to worry about turning stuff down.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is simply inaccurate, even at 1080p with new releases a 970/980 struggles to maintain 60fps at Max settings and stay under the vram limit.

Now if you are willing to drop a few graphics options down then yes you could maintain 60fps but people don't buy high end cards and expect to compromise visual quality (apart from things like MSAA which would kill any card)

Saying that people are "Pissing their money away" because it is your belief that a 970 can somehow magically run all games at 1080P 60fps is either you trying to convince yourself you don't need an upgrade or you being naive.

If you own a 970/980 now would be the perfect time to sell because you will get a nice return on your card when you sell it and paying a few hundred more will get a significant upgrade.

Also I can imagine in terms of performance the 980TI will likely match the Titan X in terms of framerate in most games and have better overclocking potential, the only thing that will drop it's price is the cut down vram.

If people want to wait to upgrade and get less value for their current card when selling that's up to them, I personally prefer to sell my cards and get maximum profit instead of paying nearly full price for a GPU every year.

I never specified 60 fps with all settings maxed in my post. Please don't set arbitrary goalposts for me to use as a basis for an argument I wasn't trying to start.

I have a 970 now but I am seriously considering a 980 Ti if it can give me better performance in 4K. I would not be able to care even a tiny bit about performance difference in 1080p between a 970 and a 980 Ti.

 

[cyen]

I never specified 60 fps with all settings maxed in my post. Please don't set arbitrary goalposts for me to use as a basis for an argument I wasn't trying to start.

I have a 970 now but I am seriously considering a 980 Ti if it can give me better performance in 4K.

As a titan x owner, 4k performance is subpar on single card if you want to max out some games even aiming for 30fps (Crysis 3, GTAV) so 980ti will not be any better (latest rumours even point to a cut down gm200).

For 4k i would wait on 390X with HBM since it will probably be the fastest card for 4k until 14nm Finfet GPUs arrive in Q2/Q3 2016.

 

[kinggroin]

That is a different type of stuttering (vsync induced low fps due to going above the threshold of 33.3 MS).

This is arguably more atrocious as the game is coming to a completely stand still with 200ms pauses. VRAM wall stutter are, IMO, much worse than vsync problems or an unevenly paced framerate.

No I get that, its happened to me with Mordor on everything set to Ultra. Painful.

What I'm saying is that I had drops to the single digits for 1% moments of time in the console version as well. So I was comparing performance to that (since folks are saying these older cards won't handle the multiplats as well as the 8GB PS4 and Bone).

Also, is there a link to the full settings used in that benchmark graph?

 

[blankempathy]

You were implying that the 970 could handle "anything" today at 1080P which is simply not true unless you are willing to sacrifice things that most who spend that much on a GPU would not be willing to sacrifice.

I have seen numerous posts in this thread from the "You don't need to upgrade" brigade, it happens time and time again when new hardware is released people warning others not to upgrade because it's not needed and then less than 6 months down the line the same people are wishing they had upgraded.

Hardware moves fast and if you want the best experience possible then you upgrade, VRAM will be a limiting factor moving forward even at 1080P.

If people want to remain on older GPU's that is fine but they need to have realistic expectations of what those GPU's will achieve now and 6 months down the line even my overclocked 980 struggles with games at 1080P and I can only assume the majority of PC gamers are not happy capping their frame rate at 30fps for the majority of upcoming titles?

If you have Gsync then a 970/980 would have more leg room going forward and maybe an upgrade would not be as important right now but if you lack Gsync and expect to be able to max games out and keep them anywhere close to what a typical PC gamer would consider to be an acceptable frame rate then it's not going to be possible.


I just take issue with false information and bad advice when it comes to upgrading, I am not attacking you personally I am simply stating that what you wrote was incorrect and bad advice for anyone who is thinking "Do I really need to upgrade if I only play at 1080P?"


The real answer to that question would be "No you do not have to upgrade if you are willing to make pretty big sacrifices in visual quality to maintain a solid framerate at 1080p, if that is not the case then yes, upgrading is recommended"

I just don't like the blanket statement of "It can handle anything at 1080p"

Curious what the definition of "my overclocked 980 struggest to run games at 1080p" is. My 680 was running modern games at high settings at 1080p at 60fps with dips depending on the optimization job. Of course we had some horrible unoptimized nightmares like the assassin's creeds games.

 

[icecold1983]

The PS4 doesn't use all 8 GB of it's memory to do nothing but store framebuffer and textures, that's shared space with everything else the game puts in memory plus the OS itself uses a big chunk. The PS4 has something like 6.5 GB of it's 8 GB available to games, and of that it's not like game code + audio + everything else uses 0.1 GB and the game's framebuffer and textures use the other 6.4 GB.

That being said, if you bought a 980 Ti to play games in 1080p you really just pissed away your money. A 970 can handle anything available today just fine at 1080p unless you're trying to use DSR in which case you're actually running the game at higher than 1080p anyways. The 980 Ti and Titan X are cards for people pushing the bleeding edge with 1440p and 4K UHD resolutions.

at 30 fps, and even then you might not necessarily be able to run max settings

 

[0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55]

I read $800 to $1000.... Seems steep, was hoping for $700 reference, $750 custom.

 

[kinggroin]

at 30 fps, and even then you might not necessarily be able to run max settings

What kind of shitty 970 cards you guys buying? ;-)


(Or what kind of astronomical image quality settings are your running at 1080p)


Look, there's definitely disconnect in this thread and unnecessary argument as a result. Let's just understand that "handles every game at 1080p" means something different to each of us.

For me, its - matches or bests console version gfx and performance at 1080p

For others - runs well enough a d looks good enough to not get in the way of their enjoyment

And then there are some still that feel it means every slider and switch in a game's gfx options being on or maxed while being LOCKED at 60fps or higher in their display's native resolution.


So depending in the group you're in, you're going to be right with your POV.

 

[napata]

I don't think that's true. Aren't there quite a few PC games that exceed 3Gb of VRAM at 1080p.

So far there's only been two situations where a lack of vram was a problem for my 2gb card. And both times the textures I couldn't use because of it were higher than the ps4/xbone anyway. 2gb is still fine if you want to match ps4 textures. At least for now.

 

[Auto-Reply]

If you always drop MSAA and go with smaa/fxaa and run 1080p.... how many games are hitting 3 GB with these settings? Mordor Ultra and Unity Ultra?

 

[napata]

By matching PS4 settings isn't maxing the settings is it? If you are happy with matching console settings then by all means that's fine, I just don't like people telling others they don't need to upgrade because their own expectations are lower.

If you really want to max settings at 60fps you're going to have to upgrade like smokey does. And what is maxing anyway? You can always push for higher settings in the form of aa and downsampling. The "I want to max everything" is such a stupid mentality anyway

 

[dEvAnGeL]

I read $800 to $1000.... Seems steep, was hoping for $700 reference, $750 custom.

link?

 

[blankempathy]

By matching PS4 settings isn't maxing the settings is it? If you are happy with matching console settings then by all means that's fine, I just don't like people telling others they don't need to upgrade because their own expectations are lower.

I feel like people that need to ask if they need to upgrade generally aren't the ones trying to push for maximum settings. By max I mean msaax6 and all the bells and whistles that aren't going to make the game look as much different from ultra to max as a game typically looks from low-ultra.

 

[icecold1983]

4xmsaa should be the baseline for max settings if a game supports it through ingame options. anything above 4xmsaa is a waste of power.

edit - referring specifically to higher sample count msaa as a waste of power. the level of quality increase is minuscule after 4x.

 

[Smokey]

Smokey would you change to 980ti surely the titans will be better?

Nah I won't be switching. I am a Titan guy.

I probably won't upgrade again until late 2016 (Pascal).

 

[Durante]

If you [...] expect to be able to max games out [...] it's not going to be possible.

People should just keep this simple point in mind, and fully internalize that it's a good thing, and they'd be much happier.

It is not a stupid mentality to want to maximise every other graphical setting besides AA

I want developers to push the boundaries

These statements are in conflict with each other.

 

[Tenebrous]

Might be my next card, if true. SLI 780s are lovely but the 3GB buffer at 1440p is going to turn out a disaster for me, eventually. 4GB doesn't seem like a worthwhile upgrade, despite the 980 being 20% faster or so than a single 780.

But a 6GB card... I'll never have to worry about being memory limited. Well, not until the card is irrelevant (to me) from a horsepower POV, anyway.

 

[kinggroin]

So should we be recommending that other people shouldn't upgrade components based on our own acceptance of lesser graphical fidelity for performance?

I don't people should be trying to give people advice and say it's a bad decision to upgrade and that cards dont need upgrading because they themselves are willing to trade graphical fidelity for performance by lowering settings.

I agree the 970 can "handle anything at 1080P" if you are willing to make sacrifices, but the statement seemed to imply that there is no need to upgrade and it's pissing money away to do so because the 970 is sufficient for anything at 1080P which simply is not the case.

When I purchased my 690 people were telling me "2GB of VRAM is plenty, no way will we use more than that in the foreseeable future at 1080P even with max settings" and now here we are a few years later and that seems like a very unrealistic statement doesn't it?

You are a very hard person to talk to. There's nothing implied in what I wrote other than what you're bringing to it. Its all on the face.


I'm not telling people they should NOT upgrade, I'm saying the dire need to do so, the "when" depends on which category you find yourself in. Its why folks are still content with 2GB cards they ALREADY OWN, and why they find a 970 to be absolutely fine for all games even in the near future.

You're coming at mine and other's post with the mentality of MAX this and MAX that as a benchmark for what's acceptable - then you argue because of it.

You mentality is absolutely fine, but so is sticking with a 2GB 670 for a little while longer or buying a 970 in a couple months. THAT'S the point.

 

[kinggroin]

4xmsaa should be the baseline for max settings if a game supports it through ingame options. anything above 4xmsaa is a waste of power.

edit - referring specifically to higher sample count msaa as a waste of power. the level of quality increase is minuscule after 4x.

Never set baselines or fixed targets. This isn't console gaming. Better to set your own personal baselines to target and accept that everyone else will do their own.

This is PC gaming, so flexibility and range is the greatest strength here

 

[Sid]

Nah I won't be switching. I am a Titan guy.

I probably won't upgrade again until late 2016 (Pascal).

You spend $1000 on GPU(s) every year?

 

[kinggroin]

You spend $1000 on GPU(s) every year?

Is that a problem?

 

[desu]

You spend $1000s on GPU(s) every year?

Fixed that.

 

[kinggroin]

You are saying there is nothing implied and then you say people are stupid for wanting maximum settings?

I think that speaks for itself doesn't it?

You are implying that it is stupid for people to upgrade because you are content with lowering settings.

I am not coming at anybody with any mentality, I accept others are happy with what they are happy with, I take no issue with that, what I take issue with is people using statements such as "It can handle anything at 1080P" or "don't bother upgrading" because it's OK for them.

It paints a false picture for people who are on the fence about upgrading, makes them probably feel like the gains they will get from upgrading are minimal at best which is simply not the case.

Sticking with a 670 or a 970 might be fine for you but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to dictate or try to influence other peoples purchasing decisions based on what you find acceptable.

Anyway we are going to go around and around in circles here so let's just leave it here.

No. I'm not leaving it here because you're misrepresenting my posts. I'm someone who before getting married and having kids, would spend $600-$700 a year on GPU power.


I want you to point out where I said anywhere, that going for max settings is stupid. Please, find that quote.

Or you can read my replies to others besides you and realize I'm actually on your side, but take issue with anyone who says a 670, 780, or 970 can't handle all games released today just fine. Literally that's my only argument.


Edit: Thanks for the apology


"Don't bother upgrading" CAN be a stupid statement, sure. Not inherently stupid though. It really depends on what a person is looking for out their games and hardware.

"Can handle anything at 1080p" is perfectly fine to say because "fine" varies from person to person. You really need to not get hung up in that line. It does not imply you are stupid for disagreeing with what is fine and what isn't.

That's why PC gaming is awesome. It can cater to all demands.

 

[Smokey]

You spend $1000 on GPU(s) every year?

I usually get two at a time, so yes

 

[kinggroin]

I am sorry, it was another poster that said that so again I apologise (difficult when numerous people are in the conversation to keep track lol)

I take issue with people saying they can handle "Anything at 1080P" which I don't believe they can unless you are willing to make big sacrifices in terms of visual fidelity or framerate.

If that is acceptable for some then that is OK I have no issue with that I just don't want people who are on the fence about upgrading getting the wrong impression about handling anything at 1080P.

In other words I wish when people gave their argument against upgrading they would express it in a more detailed fashion.

If anything is implied, is that whenever someone says "perfectly fine" it meana "to me" (to them). So yes, turning some things down usually...making compromises.

Trust me homey, its better to let that sentence go or you will be stuck arguing like me for hours on here, ha!

If someone says don't bother upgrading, however, I would ask the person first what they find acceptable. Then tell them if upgrading is worth it or not. Make sense?


Edit: Does make sense, since your last sentence means you agree :-D

 

[Korezo]

Every time I see new gpu news, the regret of purchasing these 2 crap 970s come back. I hate these dame cards. I'll never go for anything below a 80 again. If I didn't have 2 I would of got rid of it right away. Because I've yet to be satisfied with these. Hard to maintain anything at 60fps.

 

[Smokey]

Every time I see new gpu news, the regret of purchasing these 2 crap 970s come back. I hate these dame cards. I'll never go for anything below a 80 again. If I didn't have 2 I would of got rid of it right away. Because I've yet to be satisfied with these. Hard to maintain anything at 60fps.

60fps is not hard to hit especially at 1080p (not sure what your res is ).

pls explain