Read more.Quote:
The new mainstream champ is here?
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The new mainstream champ is here?
Look at how hard the stock 7970 trounces the OC'd 680. More needs to be made about Nvidia's lack of longevity in these cards with pathetic memory buses.
Looks like I've found my new card for basic gaming machines. Damn what a potent little bugger
ohhhhh 950 right? I need an AMD card that is more powerful but costs same to a 950
Need to sort the label out on the OC page on the 3dMark graph you call it a 960.
Maybe I just wasn't paying attention, but I really didn't expect so much performance from these cards! :surprised:
Is there any plan for a 950ti? If so it might be my next card - never bought anything from that low down in the range before!
any chance we'll see a previous generation AMD card, like the 265 or 270(x) on these graphs?
Looks useless to an extent
A single DisplayPort and only 2GB of memory on a £160 graphics card? Isn't that a bit 2012? I'd much rather they hiked the price by a tenner and added an extra 2GB and a swapped that second DVI for a couple of extra DisplayPort sockets.
Only 2GB?? 2GB is tons. You're not seriously advocating going back to the daft situation of a low end card with RAM figures just for marketing reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by EndlessWaves
The 950 is essentially a part-disabled version of the same die used in the 960, so the 960 already fills that segment really.Quote:
Originally Posted by CK_1985
I would have liked to see a comparison to the 270x, it was a similar price.
That argument would have been fine a few years back but 2GB is a genuine limitation these days for a lot of games. High resolutions are to 'blame' however, games from 2011 are easily capable of draining a card of VRAM (STILL looking at you Skyrim).Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnielOnly 2GB?? 2GB is tons. You're not seriously advocating going back to the daft situation of a low end card with RAM figures just for marketing reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by EndlessWaves
That depends if you're using graphic visual modsQuote:
Originally Posted by Luke7That argument would have been fine a few years back but 2GB is a genuine limitation these days for a lot of games. High resolutions are to 'blame' however, games from 2011 are easily capable of draining a card of VRAM (STILL looking at you Skyrim).Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnielOnly 2GB?? 2GB is tons. You're not seriously advocating going back to the daft situation of a low end card with RAM figures just for marketing reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by EndlessWaves
2GB is absolutely not enough. The first game I noticed needing more was Unity, then more and more games would max out my VRAM on high, now some even do it on normal. At 1080p, 2GB is good for medium quality gaming, if you're lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by PuremasterZ
Maxing out VRAM doesn't mean it's not enough though - there's a lot of games which will make use of all available VRAM e.g. for caching stuff. It doesn't mean they actually need it. Unused RAM is wasted RAM.
Unity was/is a pretty terrible PC port so isn't a great example.
That's right I was able to play Fallout New Vegas in 1440p resolution on my R9 270 maxed outQuote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tunnah
Indeed. I've not had to drop a single game I play down to medium settings yet for 1080p. Even behemoths like The Witcher 3 I run at high texture quality. Shader/geom/etc. power is going to be a limitation on my 7870 before the 2GB RAM is.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
--o--