64KSomewhere in one of these GM200 threads a member here listed the value of 12 GB VRAM for various uses other than gaming even without DP. I don't keep up with using a video card for work so I don't know but maybe the Titan X with 12 GB will still be relevant to those customers even after the 980 Ti drops.

Tsukiyomi91but for general gamers who plays games at Maxed out settings (without texture mods), I think it wouldn't be a beneficial thing of having too much VRAM coz according to TPU, the most for COD:AW is ~7.3GB VRAM used, in which an 8GB variant of any high end card would do. 12GB is too much for me anyways & usually I would only buy & use a card to play games that don't require crazy stuff. Maybe there is a small reason why some would willing to buy the Titan X, but for what reason I don't know. Well, by the time the 980Ti comes out, I wonder what will current 970, 980 & Titan X owners will say about it. Just my opinion.

64KI think the 980 Ti with 6 GB VRAM will be plenty for almost everyone for gaming for a couple of years. Even people on 4K with two of these if DX12 works the way they are saying it will with Split Frame Rendering. 6 GB + 6 GB will no longer equal 6 GB as it does now with Alternate Frame Rendering.

Tsukiyomi91but for general gamers who plays games at Maxed out settings (without texture mods), I think it wouldn't be a beneficial thing of having too much VRAM coz according to TPU, the most for COD:AW is ~7.3GB VRAM used, in which an 8GB variant of any high end card would do. 12GB is too much for me anyways & usually I would only buy & use a card to play games that don't require crazy stuff. Maybe there is a small reason why some would willing to buy the Titan X, but for what reason I don't know. Well, by the time the 980Ti comes out, I wonder what will current 970, 980 & Titan X owners will say about it. Just my opinion.

xenocideThe CoD:AW stats were an outlier. It ran just as well with a 4GB limit, it's a wasteful game. Realistically like 4-5GB is the most any game uses.

xenocideThe CoD:AW stats were an outlier. It ran just as well with a 4GB limit, it's a wasteful game. Realistically like 4-5GB is the most any game uses.

HumanSmokeMore a case of AMD sell cheaper because they are not in a dominant position. Selling cheaper then impacts ASP's and ultimately revenue, which leads to less resources available for R&D, which translate to longer product cycles - and old product is a tough sell when you don't have top of the mind branding. The latest R&D figuresreflect those companies leading their respective markets, and carrying little or no debt burden to drain funds away from their product cadence. AMD are caught in a brutal economic cause and effect situation.


AMD paid $5.4bn for ATI, which was twice what it was actually worth. AMD sustained a couple of hefty write-downs - a $1.68bn impairment chargein Q4 2007, and a further $880m in Q2 2008- basically half ATI's sale price. Covering that loss has meant AMD carrying debt (currently at $2.04bn) to the current day and for some years to come.
AMD would undoubtedly be a vastly different company had Ruiz paid closer to ATI's actual worth, or worked out a deal to licence ATI's graphics IP.

The first order of business is to be competitive performance wise. AMD will incur higher costs - an AIO, HBM + large interposer aren't cheap in comparison to GDDR5's commodity pricing and the now-standard Nvidia blower shroud. Estimates seem to put HBM alone at twice the relative cost per bit of LPDDR3/LPDDR4(which is fairly pricy in itself)

...but at this point, AMD has little option if they want to make a run at maintaining a viable halo product and its trickle down marketing effect on the rest of the product stack.

As for the GTX 980 Ti - It is nothing less than expected. Hopefully the 390X lives up to its billing and both cards allow the enthusiast to actually be enthusiastic for a change.