The cards aren't "stock to stock", they were all overclocked to their highest maximum stable frequencies,
as was stated in numerous forums. If you're looking at taking clocks out of the equation then this is the chart you should be looking at since it compares framebuffer and core count.
Ok stop right there, ive seen the link and the video where they show these benchmarks states at the beginning the Titan Blacks core clocks are the default 889 base...
But ill just pretend what you said is true for the benchmarks listed, 1 card would not randomly scale that much better on one random game. All the games except for Crysis 3 have very consistent scaling and performance increases.
And we've come full circle. I never said that you couldn't find a situation where the larger framebuffer wouldn't provide better numbers - a juggling of full screen AA and texture settings could easily manufacture that scenario. My point is that the GPU runs out of processing power before the vRAM limitation becomes the limiting factor- unless you see sub-30 f.p.s. as indicative of real world usage in Crysis 3. Do you?
The single GPU, not the DUAL GPU and beyond. If people are gaming at 4k, they are grabbing a pair of GPU's at least to try and run on a 4k display. They are not spending 700+ bucks on a monitor to only then spend 700 bucks on a single GPU to run a game at this stage, they are going to buy a couple and try to up the performance in which case 3GB limits the scalability. If your hitting the max VRAM with 1 card, your already hitting a wall (unless it magically requires right at the max to run) which indicates adding a second card is going to have some limiting factor in it. Also juggling settings??? You mean cranking them up to max? So why on Earth am I spending a close to 2 Grand on graphics cards to play at a low quality setting. If people are spending the money no matter if its AMD or Nvidia on the top tier GPU's, they want to crank the settings up.
unless you see sub-30 f.p.s. as indicative of real world usage in Crysis 3. Do you?
Well there are 30hz 4k monitors, and still a performance difference is still a performance difference.
And you see this future arriving before the next series of cards which will undoubtedly be better suited for this exact scenario ? Given that Pirate Islands and GM 204 are slated to arrive in around six months, and GK110's successor will be taped out in the next couple of weeks or so, that seems like a very optimistic viewpoint- more so given that a 4K adopter probably won't have any qualms about upgrading to the newest and most powerful boards.
Just because you buy a new GPU every year does not mean that everyone does. Are you saying that spending 1400+ dollars just to have it perform poorly at the resolution both companies seem adamant to advertise is ok. That could almost be labeled as false advertising. If they come out in the next few weeks, well then more power to them but having to upgrade after spending possibly 1400+ dollars because of something as small as a VRAM limitation feels stupid.
And I've yet to see any actual proof to back up the assertion.
What needs to be shown is the same GPU using two different frame buffer capacities (say 3GB and 6GB) being benchmarked at playable framerates - at least for the larger frame buffer card....and in more than a single benchmark. I doubt very many people buy a 4K screen and multi high end GPUs for a single title.
At the moment it isn't really anything more than the occasional outlier result....if that.
Ill name 3 games that hit the 3gb wall, BF4, Crysis 3, and Rome Total War 2 just off the top of my head. You want that your going to have to dig for an hour but either way there are enough points that have provided that the VRAM limit is hit at 3gb on the 780/ti in some games which still indicates theres a small wall. You wanna see, that your going to have to wait since all that are up are the basic Palit Jetstream reviews right now.
Well, marketing saw the need for it if nothing else. Strange that Nvidia OK'd 6GB 780's the moment that
Sapphire's 8GB 290X showed up at CEBIT don't you think? Sapphire announce a 8GB 290X on the 13th March,
EVGA announce their 6GB 780 eight days later. Odd that 4K gaming has been a widespread talking point for some time, yet it suddenly became imperative to have 3GB+ from both IHV's and premiere single-vendor AIB's within days of each other.
Which I knew would happen, AMD has been pro 4k for awhile and Nvidia jumped on the same bandwagon. Only difference if that 3gb is right on the edge and not enough for all games which makes 4k gaming bad on its 3gb counterparts. Multiple companies from Nvidia have announced 6gb edition cards yet only sapphire has announced an 8gb R9 290X card setup. Probably has something to do with the fact that 4gb has not been limited nearly as much as 3gb has been.
So, feel free to post links to any gaming benchmark that highlights the difference between frame buffer only (say, 3GB vs 6GB, or 4GB vs 8GB) using the same GPU at the same clocks. A comparison should eliminate as many variables as possible. Anything else comes under the heading of opinion - and while your welcome to air yours as is everyone else, it hardly constitutes proof.
Opinion??? I just showed games using up the 3gb Frame buffer in my first posted video which means its not enough...Whatever im done here and won't read whatever is posted next. I have already shown my point...
In the video (Digital Storm Titan Black 4k), 3 games and a benchmark are used to show the relative performance of the 3 cards in both single and multi-card systems.
The order for all single GPU configs in terms of performance for the games are as follows.
Titan Black
780ti
Titan
Now the Order for the multi-GPU's are as follows until Crysis 3
Titan Black
780ti
Titan
On Crysis 3, the Order changes on the Multi-GPU side to
Titan Black
Titan
780ti
Titan Overtakes the 780TI in a multi-GPU setup when it was behind in a single GPU config. This is obviously indicative of something either going horribly wrong or something holding it back. The logical is that the game exceeded something the 780ti does not have, but since the GPU and generally the core clocks are lower on a Titan (Unless they overclocked it a lot further, but it still shows in everything else to be lower on the FPS in games) then the only major contributing factor left is the difference of 3gb on the card.
This indicates a need for more ram...
