No offense
@newtekie1 but, you seem to get super defense whenever someone makes the comparison. I wouldn't call 30 FPS or under "no issues." If you're going to make claims like that, stick with numbers, not subjective experience.
Maybe you should look over at my system specs...I have two GTX970s, which is why I have no issues playing any of those games at 4k. Maybe we should try paying attention.
I am looking at the GPU history and how the cards age. Even 1 year down the road cards change positions that used to be pretty much on equal grounds and have grown farther and farther apart in many tiers. Look at the 280X and 770 which are essentially a GTX 680 and HD 7970(Ghz), the gap was 1% in favor of the HD 7970 and now the gap at 1080p is now 12% (In favor of it). Look at the 290X versus GTX 780ti, the gap used to be 12% in favor of the GTX 780ti, now its 1% in favor of the R9 290X. Unless you upgrade every year, generally its shown that the cards with more ram seem to scale better over time especially with how games evolve. Not every card is going to make that huge a difference and low cards will not benefit much, but on the high end its better to have more and not need all of it than less and suffer for it.
That has nothing to do with the amount of memory and everything to do with the change in games used in benchmarks and optimization of the drivers over time.
Did you ever happen to notice that the Fury X went from being 1% below the 980Ti in Sept 2015 to 4% better in Oct 2015? I guess the gaming industry changes super fast...or maybe W1z just changed up the benchmarks adding in a few more AMD friendly ones...
Extra performance and extra vram for same price, so why not ?
Indeed, the 390 is a good buy, I never said it wasn't.
Wrong. No HD texture pack installed on Shadow of Mordor and running at highest settings and I regularly was hitting between 3.6 and 3.8GB VRAM. I regularly wondered if I was going to exceed the 4GB and get some stuttering.
Again, there is a system in place for that. In fact, if you were that high in VRAM, you were likely already using it. The reason the issues only happen with the HD texture pack is because the textures are so large, they take up so much space, that the ones that are close to the player and actually needed for rendering don't fit in VRAM. So to render the current scene the GPU has to wait for the call out to system RAM to load the texture. With the non-HD texture pack, SoM packs every texture possible into VRAM until it is full, and likely over filled actually. But it doesn't matter because it makes sure the textures need to render the current frame are in VRAM. And the texture needed to render the area around the player easily fit in VRAM. So the game runs smoothly. This is the lazy way of loading textures, but meh, it works. This is also why the HD Texture pack recommends at least 6GB of VRAM.
Lots of people still play Skyrim. Just because you attribute a game being 4 years old as not worth playing doesn't mean those values can be placed on others.
It was more of a joke, but like I said, if that is important to you then the 390 is a good bet.
My point is that he is demonizing the 390 when it's honestly just as capable as the 970 in most instances (particularly at higher resolutions.) Benchmarks show that.
Demonizing? Saying 8GB isn't beneficial, which is exactly what W1z said in his review, is demonizing? I never said it wasn't just as capable as the 970, I never said buy the 970 over the 390. My one and only statement was the 8GB isn't beneficial. You freak out over that, and go off the wall claiming I'm demonizing the card...wow...
