Undisclosed sources within NVidia revealed today that the company is indeed working on a “Ti” version of the powerhouse GTX 980 graphics card. Speaking with videocardz.com, these sources have outlined the bullet point features for the new card.
Time to sell my 970 before the price drops.
I'm in serious need of an upgrade. Debating waiting for this one or trying to find something a little cheaper...might look into the used route myself.
Would it drop though? I'm thinking this card might occupy the price bracket in between the 980 and Titan X (which is pretty wide).
Hopefully I can sell my 780 Ti sc for around $400. These damn cards depreciate in value so quick. I don't think the power of the Titan X justifies having 12GB of memory. Seems like just yesterday the 5970 and 580 were insane. Then the 7970 and 680 came and so on in a flash. Every time the hype and price is though the roof.
The power of the Titan X most definitely justifies the VRAM amount. Anyone who's extensively used the card can attest to this. Issue is price, and when I say that, I mean out of reach for most gamers. The 980 Ti looks to rectify the situation, given the (rumored) specs.
No way. 3- 4 GB is completely safe right now for 1080p. 4 -6GB is a nice sweet spot for 1440p gaming. Even at4k, 12GB doesn't make much sense. The Titan X still isn't enough to play demanding games like Crysis 3, DA:I, AC: U maxed out at 4k 60fps. Even if it could max them out at 60fps, none of them come close to reaching 12GB of VRAM. Tech Power Up's March 2015 review of the Titan X clearly illustrates why 12GB in the Titan X is overkill. It's out of proportion to the power. http://www.techpowerup.com/...
To a degree, I can see where you're coming from, but the 12GB of VRAM is definitely NOT overkill for demanding games like Crysis 3 in 4K (a res that I run). In fact, it's just what the doctored ordered. That said, I'd agree that it's overkill for many other things, but as mentioned, it's all about perspective and usage. 12GB leaves a lovely cushion for future stuff, particularly DirectX 12 applications.
I don't know why you're using Crysis 3 as an example for high Vram usage. Even at 4k, at most it uses just under 4GB of vram with 4xMSAA as shown here: http://www.digitalstormonli... Even then, no single card can run it at 60fps. So future proofing, if 4k and 60fps is the goal, isn't even an option right now unless you go SLI or Crossfire. The doctor sucks at his job then, becuase what he ordered only gets you 28 fps at 4k with no AA. And I repeat, the game hits nowhere near 12GB of Vram at 4k with or without MSAA: http://www.digitalstormonli... http://www.techpowerup.com/... I'm not saying 12GB is overkill in general. It's only overkill in relationship with the GPU's ability to render games that will use more than 4GB of vram at 60fps. Which it just can't do. There is no future proofing there. GTA 5 completely maxed out at 4k with 8xMSAA is the only game that even comes close to 12GB vram, and in fact surpasses it at 14GB. But good luck running it at 60fps at those settings with one card: http://i1.someimage.com/87n...
@Eyesoftheraven The question isn't really whether 12GB is overkill for the rendering power of a Titan X. The real question is whether 12GB is overkill for the rendering power of 4x TitanX cards. The original Titan held it's value for years and years, because the seeming excess of video RAM made quad SLi setups a top-end contender for years after release. And yes, some people do buy 4 TitanX cards. You are right that Crysis 3 and other current games aren't going to use it, but these cards might still be relevant when Shadow of Mordor 3 comes out asking for 11.5GB RAM for the ultra textures :)
you don't need AA in 4K just saying.
The only thing I don't get is why you're continuing to argue an experience with me that I've had and you have yet to have. You've not had the experience. I have. Agree to disagree. It's a stalemate.
I'm citing links where they have thoroughly tested 4k gaming performance. You are just saying you've had an experience but provide no proof that you need 12GB of Vram. And what exactly is your experience? That somehow your copy of Crysis 3 requires 12GB of Vram? The links I shared clearly show that Crysis 3 at 4k at most uses 3.6GB of Vram. Where is your evidence? You haven't succeeded in countering my argument that a Titan X is not powerful enough to game at 4k and 60fps whether the 12GB Vram limit is reached or not. How is the Titan X future proofed when it struggles with 2-year-old games at 4k that only use 3.6GB of Vram? Personally, I have a 780 Ti 3GB and game at 3440x1440. I also have a 1080p 144Hz monitor. With Nvidia DSR, I can scale the 1080p image to 4k and experience this mysterious experience you mention for myself.
This is pretty old news, we've known for a while now that the Ti was in works and also had a planned release.
they say it comes out may sometime now lol and this says its in the works lol
Two words "No shit".
GTX 980 Ti vs R9 390X is going to be interesting. I guess NVIDIA's real answer is coming in 2016 when first Pascal cards are going to be released. Anyway, great time for PC gaming. Additionally Vulkan and DX12 will push things even further. Unfortunately most of the AAA games are still made in consoles in mind and it shows.
Why is everyone upgrading from their 980's or 780 ti's or 970's. I still have my 560 ti 448 and its nearly 4 years old. I'm still debating on whether I should upgrade or not
Because selling a year old card for $350 - $450 and buying the absolute latest one for the $200 - $300 difference feels better than waiting another 1 - 2 years and spending full $500 - $700 on the latest at that time.
Guys - I need (want) a new GPU to go with my new CPU. I plan on running 1080p at 60 for a few years. What is more than enough to run Ultra most games? 970? or should I just SLI my 760 from ebay?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.