Read more.Meanwhile Nvidia is boasting about large supplies of GTX 10-Series GPUs arriving.
Read more.Meanwhile Nvidia is boasting about large supplies of GTX 10-Series GPUs arriving.
So going from 4 0.5GB chips to 3 1GB chips? Higher numbers are better, but the cut to bandwidth isn't worth it IMO - unless nvidia have managed to source some faster chips to make up for it, I expect this to be slower than the 2GB 1050
I guess at current RAM prices every GB you can shave off helps the price, but at the expense of making the ram narrower? I have to wonder if that is going to be any better than a 2GB card in performance.
Nice of them to save the world with their large shipment of graphics cards, but *cough*GPP*cough*, they aren't the messiah they are just very naughty boys.
I'm expecting another GTX 970 debacle with faster and slower memory. Although the 1050 probably is so slow to begin with that it won't matter as much.
My reading of the story is that it's not yet confirmed whether the card will be 128bit or 96bit - if it's the former it wouldn't be the first time NVidia have done asymmetric capacity (i.e. 2 1GB chips and 2 0.5GB chips). Whether 0.5GB chips are sufficiently cheaper to make that worthwhile, OTOH...
Also aren't there some games now that flat refuse to run unless the GPU reports > 2GB of VRAM?
Hitman refuses to run at ultra setting with <4GB VRAM, which rules out this card (and 3GB 1060s):
https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graph...-devil/?page=9
Of course, that just supports the old adage that <4GB might as well be 2GB, as textures either get compressed to fit 2GB VRAM or 4GB*. IMO, nvidia would be better off making this new 1050 a 4GB card - it'll still be slower than the 1050ti with its reduced processing width.
* The ethereum mining thingy is the only application coming to mind that would benefit from 3GB VRAM
Uh, all of the memory was usable the first time around, just ignorant people reported fake news. They had also already done this before and are clearly good at fixing "CORNER CASES" as even anandtech couldn't find any issues even though they hate NV and are an AMD portal site...LOL. Please quit creating fake news As long as nobody can prove it's a hindrance even in a corner case, buzz off If you have to put the card into a situation that is NEVER the case in actual game play (meaning some simulation crap or synthetic useless case just to show it ignoring the slower portion)...again, buzz off. The only thing that counts in gaming, is well, GAMING.
The bandwidth and how that works out is a whole other issue, but actual available ram...fake news. It's 3GB. PERIOD. Or the games that require it wouldn't start correct? Maybe some is a little slower (again, done before by both sides), but it's 3GB at the end of the day correct? Nuff said. You act as though NV is attempting to screw the customer by adding more ram (which admittedly probably only helps a few "corner cases" LOL)...ROFL. OK. IF someone can prove the card is worse than the 2GB card in PERF, then ok, you have an argument that this was stupid. Otherwise, I'm guessing there is at least a few games that will NOW launch fine, that you couldn't before with the 2GB card. IE, they're doing something FOR the customer, not against us. Haters gonna hate I guess?
I'm not sure what the point is of a 3GB 1050. Might as well buy a 4GB 1050TI, I can't imagine there will be a massive saving to be made.
The problem is not the memory itself. The reason why people got pissed at Nvidia seems to have eluded such a great mind such as yourself. The reason is that the card was sold under a specific set of specifications just to, later on, be discovered that it was a fallacy. It is the non-disclosing of all the information that got Nvidia in hot waters, not the memory itself.
Back to reading more articles that represent a collection of points of view, instead of trying to defend your preferred GPU manufacturer.
Btw, they are doing something for the people, yes, the shareholders.
As an engineer, I only hate poor engineering.
There is a chance that this is a stonking product. Perhaps this is a 3GB 1060 with half the shaders disabled to sell off some poor yield silicon at 2GB 1050 money? It's just that somehow I doubt Nvidia are going to give us a bump in ram and bandwidth without taking something away.
You are quite right that funky memory asymmetry tricks have been pulled in the past without issue. If those tricks were used to turn the 3GB 1060 into a 4GB 1060 then I'm sure there would be a big cheer as it would push that card from a dubious purchase into quite a decent product.
So to re-use your emphasis, GAMING needs another 3GB card like a hole in the head. There just isn't a case for it, PERIOD. Slow cards can't pull that level of texture so will stick with lower settings and 2GB, faster cards will be expected to have 4GB and games tuned accordingly. For non-gaming use, 1GB would be fine.
But I guess we just need to wait and see benchmarks, where Nvidia will tell reviewers which games to benchmark so we see it in the best light, unless they don't get sent to reviewers which is more likely.
The specific set of specifications never mentioned the bandwidth of the individual modules, non-disclosure of information isn't a crime or lying. That's not to say i agree with Nvidia's apparent selective amnesia with the 970 but if you're expecting companies to be honest with you then you only have yourself to blame (imo), it's why tech sites are so important as they allow like minded people to come together and test, verify, and investigate the products we all buy.
It's why Nvidia's recent claim of wanting to be transparent with customers rings so hollow with me, it's not that they have mislead their customers in the past as like i said every company is guilty of that, it's that they're acting all innocent despite evidence to the contrary.
AMD seems to still be having trouble making the Vega cards; supplies are very tight and thus the high prices. Sources are saying we're not going to see Vega graphics cards using the new 7nm process (they're being reserved for machine learning cards) but perhaps we'll see a refresh using the 12nm process that is in Zen+. If so, the supply shortages probably won't resolve until those are released.
If NVidia's 1100 series is really great, AMD will probably just stand pat (and watch their market share shrink) rather than investing in a die shrink of Vega that would still be lagging well behind the competition, and wait until Navi is ready next year to get back in the game.
This will be dead on arrival! Desperate attempt to flog a low/mid-end product against the AMD Ryzen APU and the Intel Core-Radeon products which are far smaller and power efficient! So much for the GPP bullying tactics!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)