Any word on a 290 version with a smaller price tag? As for 8GB, I am glad that it is available in 4GB as even 4K doesn't use up that much vram.
As an aside Sapphire reports the card to be running at 1030mhz not 1080mhz...
http://www.sapphiretech.com/presentation/product/?cid=1&gid=3&sgid=1227&pid=2167&psn=&lid=1&leg=0
Any word on a 290 version with a smaller price tag? As for 8GB, I am glad that it is available in 4GB as even 4K doesn't use up that much vram.
Any word on a 290 version with a smaller price tag? As for 8GB, I am glad that it is available in 4GB as even 4K doesn't use up that much vram.
You say that, but you're super wrong. Consoles have 3.5GB of available VRAM to play with, so you can bet your ass most console ports (i.e. 99% of mainstream PC releases) will poorly scale down to a lack of VRAM at 1080p.
We've already seen it with Titanfall. 3GB of VRAM is the new /baseline/ for a smooth experience. You sound like everyone who has ever said "you'll never need 256MB of VRAM" and substitute 256MB for anything else, and back then we were gaming at about 1080p as well.
I remember when the 570GTX came out and people said 1.25GB of VRAM was more than enough for 1080p at high settings, then BF3 came out and it easily bottlenecked and lead to crashes from simple memory leaks (which are insanely common in all PC games).
So shut up, fool.
Any word on a 290 version with a smaller price tag? As for 8GB, I am glad that it is available in 4GB as even 4K doesn't use up that much vram.
You say that, but you're super wrong. Consoles have 3.5GB of available VRAM to play with, so you can bet your ass most console ports (i.e. 99% of mainstream PC releases) will poorly scale down to a lack of VRAM at 1080p.
We've already seen it with Titanfall. 3GB of VRAM is the new /baseline/ for a smooth experience. You sound like everyone who has ever said "you'll never need 256MB of VRAM" and substitute 256MB for anything else, and back then we were gaming at about 1080p as well.
I remember when the 570GTX came out and people said 1.25GB of VRAM was more than enough for 1080p at high settings, then BF3 came out and it easily bottlenecked and lead to crashes from simple memory leaks (which are insanely common in all PC games).
So shut up, fool.
4k resolution is only 8,294,400 pixels. 4GB VRAM therefore would give >500 bytes of VRAM per pixel. You're talking about doubling that to an entire kilobyte. Why do you need so much?
Any word on a 290 version with a smaller price tag? As for 8GB, I am glad that it is available in 4GB as even 4K doesn't use up that much vram.
You say that, but you're super wrong. Consoles have 3.5GB of available VRAM to play with, so you can bet your ass most console ports (i.e. 99% of mainstream PC releases) will poorly scale down to a lack of VRAM at 1080p.
We've already seen it with Titanfall. 3GB of VRAM is the new /baseline/ for a smooth experience. You sound like everyone who has ever said "you'll never need 256MB of VRAM" and substitute 256MB for anything else, and back then we were gaming at about 1080p as well.
I remember when the 570GTX came out and people said 1.25GB of VRAM was more than enough for 1080p at high settings, then BF3 came out and it easily bottlenecked and lead to crashes from simple memory leaks (which are insanely common in all PC games).
So shut up, fool.
Thanks for heads up on Amazon.com, I have been checking ALL the big hardware sites I could think of and I guess that one slipped by me.available for pre-order with Amazon.com.
Thanks for heads up on Amazon.com, I have been checking ALL the big hardware sites I could think of and I guess that one slipped by me.available for pre-order with Amazon.com.