The waiting game... 290X over 390X?

4GB is perfectly fine. I have zero issues and I'm only working with 3GB. Highest I've ever seen was 2.8GB of vram being used with the ultra textures with Shadow of Mordor, but that game uses 6GB with ultra.. On high textures it didn't go past 2.2GB.

And at what resolution was that?
 
And at what resolution was that?

1080p. Moving up to 1440p won't really change that much either considering even some games at 4k are fine running with 4GB. The only games that you will run into issues are few and far between. If a 970 has zero performance loss even with 3.5GB and people going out of there way to make it hit a memory limit and still have trouble doing it, then I don't see why a more powerful card with 4GB of memory will have an issue either. People are just blowing it out of proportion.
 
I personally will wait to see the reviewer's opinions before I part with some dosh

Same here.

I've also managed to use 3gb very quickly at 1080p on GTA. Other games 3gb is OK for 1440p so I'd say fury is fine for 1440p for the time being. We don't know how well this bandwidth improvement will affect things as 4GB is 4GB.
 
Same here.

I've also managed to use 3gb very quickly at 1080p on GTA. Other games 3gb is OK for 1440p so I'd say fury is fine for 1440p for the time being. We don't know how well this bandwidth improvement will affect things as 4GB is 4GB.

They improved their color compression algorithms which will help ease up on memory consumed. Nvidia have been better at that past few years than AMD.

Pretty sure I will be getting a Fury if it's just a normal Fury X but air cooled. I hope it's not cut down or anything. The Nano looks interesting as well. Should start trying to sell my 7950 I suppose.
 
Back
Top