Posts by Kimberly Gomez34

Sean Garcia3 said:,or are we back to you claiming I'm some famous clone just because I hit the report button like I did with Timothy Kim60 recently?

I see that went well 🙂

Obviously, we won't be seeing a slideshow here; this card is an absolute beast. Like I mentioned earlier:

Timothy Kim60 said:That doesn't mean performance isn't still stellar... I'm just pointing out that modern games CAN cross that 3.5 GB threshold at 1080p without even touching DSR technology.

The real question is whether utilizing that extra 0.5 GB actually impacts performance (considering those modules run at about 1/7th the speed), and if it does—by how much.

It’s a bit murky when exactly a GPU "allows" itself to exceed that 3.5 GB (3584 MB) mark. For instance, looking at that clip from the 8th regarding Dying Light upscaling to 4K, the game never crosses 3.5 GB. Yet, in the video I linked featuring the GTX 980, usage hits 4 GB even at 1080p. You can see it here.

Furthermore, this other video from the 8th is equally confusing: in Assassin's Creed Unity, usage reaches 4 GB with a GTX 970 at 1080p, whereas here it never goes above 3.5 GB. Meanwhile, here (Assassin's Creed Unity 1.1.0) exceeds it at 1080p, but then later, from the same user in even more demanding scenes using DSR at 1440p here it stays under 3.5 GB (Assassin's Creed Unity v1.2.0). Obviously, since the game lacks an in-game benchmark, these aren't 100% representative, but the variance in VRAM consumption is glaring. Either the 1.2 patch fixed something (which really highlights how unoptimized the initial release was), or it comes down to NVIDIA drivers (though there was talk about how you can't simply "block" that 0.5 GB via drivers).

It remains unclear whether it's better for performance to utilize that meager 0.5 GB or to avoid crossing the 3.5 GB threshold entirely. In the first scenario, you're dealing with 1/7th the speed; in the second, if you stay under 3.5 GB, you have potential overhead that could be leveraged for better performance 🤷

Regardless, there's no debating that this card is a monster. This is mostly a "what if" kind of technicality.

Larry Ortiz5 said:Dead Rising 3 is hitting 30 fps simply because the game is hard-capped at 30 frames.

Where are you getting that from? Did you forget to turn off Vsync?
Over here, the average is 70 fps.

Check out this

Apparently, NVIDIA depth of field and huge view distances are messing with this title. You might want to look up a tweak guide or something.

By the way, what a ridiculous game—you just leap three feet into the air and bash brainless zombies over the head with a lead pipe.🤣

It's also been right here for a few months now

When they aren't fundamentally optimized for PC, it ends up feeling almost as demanding as running an emulator 🤣

BTW, I wouldn't say anything is actually "stuttering" on a GTX 970

Of course not. Until about a year ago, VRAM wasn't even a factor. But once those resource-heavy titles start dropping—and honestly, we’re already seeing it in the games mentioned—you'll see the gap between an 8GB R9 290X and a beefier GTX 980 with only 4GB.

Just take a look at how they stack up right now on 1440p and 4K resolutions.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...rmance-Testing

The 8GB model might actually pull even further ahead. Though, if you check that Tom's Hardware test, the 6GB version of the R9 290X (which was likely an 8GB mistake in their report) is only marginally faster than the GTX 980 in Shadow of Mordor.http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3996-4.html

Larry Ortiz5 said:Well, if you crank everything up to the absolute max, then yeah, the game is just incredibly demanding. Besides, PC Gamer published an article a couple of days ago about having 3.5GB of VRAM and said they didn't run into any issues at that resolution. Honestly, I haven't even encountered a game that stutters on my end yet.

Have you actually looked at which games they’re testing? Reviewers consistently refuse to, don't know how to, or simply don't dare to test things properly. Take this other Dying Light video, for example—around the 3-minute mark, the gtx 980 pushes past 4000MB...

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor with the texture pack enabled at 1080p breaks the 3700MB barrier on a gtx 970. That obviously doesn't mean performance isn't still great—in this specific clip, it is (even if jay2cents hit a few drops)—but I'm just pointing out that modern games CAN exceed 3.5GB at 1080p without even needing DSR technology.

We might see games popping up soon that pull way more than 4GB (assuming you've got every setting maxed out). The real issue is how these multi-platform titles are optimized for consoles, given they have access to fast, unified 8GB DDR5 memory shared between the GPU and CPU. In my opinion, developers aren't even optimizing correctly for consoles because they're squeezed by tight deadlines to chase the money, so imagine how little they care about the PC port (if you played Dying Light, you'd see what I mean, since I've been reading it's a total disaster).

Roger Mitchell4 said:I honestly think the monitor is included too!

If the monitor were part of the deal, they would have explicitly stated that in the description. Don't let the photos fool you—read the actual text.

crimsonstag84 said:It looks like the R9 285, R9 290, and R9 290 x are essentially getting a refresh—think higher clock speeds paired with slightly more efficient power consumption. Meanwhile, we have two enthusiast-tier models on the horizon (the R9 390 and R9 390 x), which preliminary data suggests will offer a massive 40-60% performance jump over the R9 290 x. We’re looking at the refined GCN 1.3 versions of the R7 260X, R9 270/270X, and the R9 280/280X series.

It’s still too early to call this one, but all signs point toward Trinidad being the next big chip architecture. If the rumors hold up, it looks like we're finally moving past the era of Pitcairn and Tahiti.

AMD is reportedly working on some serious next-gen hardware, specifically focusing on a brand-new chip that could shake things up in the market. It looks like they aren't just sitting idle; they're actively pushing the envelope to stay competitive. If the rumors hold water, this move could be a massive leap forward for their architecture. It’s a bold play, much like when a tech giant pivots its entire strategy to reclaim the throne. We'll have to see if this new silicon delivers the performance punch everyone is expecting.
Word on the street is that AMD might be cooking up something interesting regarding their upcoming hardware architecture, specifically involving a 256-bit memory bus. If these rumors hold water, it could represent a significant shift in how they balance bandwidth and efficiency in their next generation of GPUs. Think of it like upgrading a highway from four lanes to six; you aren't just adding more space, you're fundamentally changing the flow of traffic to prevent bottlenecks during peak hours. While we're still waiting for official confirmation from the folks over at AMD, this move suggests they are looking to fine-tune the sweet spot between cost-effectiveness and high-end performance. It’ll be fascinating to see if this helps them close the gap in the enthusiast market.

So, it looks like only the latest generation chips are getting a rebranding for the new series.

The R9 380/X is essentially just an R9 290/X in a different outfit.
It’s essentially an R9 285 in a different outfit.

Larry Ortiz5 said:If you manage to pull more than 3.5GB of VRAM at Full HD resolution, I’ll run straight onto the field and score a touchdown. 🙄

i

😬

Unfortunately, because developers are focusing so heavily on optimizing games for consoles, we're going to see more and more titles hitting the PC market in this exact same state.

Seriously? That's way overpriced. Just hop online and check the actual retail sites if you want to see what things cost

1 x AMD Kaveri Athlon II X4 860K Processor 3.70GHz 4cores,cache : 4MB
1 x Asrok FM2A78M-HD+, Socket FM2+ 95W / FM2 100W processors
2 x DDR3 4GB (1x4GB) Crucial, 1600MHz CL11
1 x Spire Kepler Rev.2 ,hladnjak, 1156/775/FM1, 96.5×51×125 mm ,92mm
1 x XFX R7-265A-CNF4, Core Radeon R7 265 925M Boost 2GB DDR5 Display
1 x TOSHIBA 1TB, 7200rpm, SATA 6 Gb/s, 32MB, DT01ACA100
1 x FORTRON 400W Power Supply, HEXA Plus 400, 12cm ventilator
1 x Spire Ridge 6601, ATX/ Micro ATX

$1297 - adm

If you build a rig in this same style but swap in a slightly better, newer CPU, a higher-tier graphics card, a 1TB HDD, and an aftermarket cooler (which this build is missing), you’d end up with a setup that's newer and more powerful for the exact same price—the only downside would be a slightly weaker power supply, though the motherboard and case would remain the same

Back in the day, AMD actually had a noticeable edge when it came to IPC (instructions per clock). Nowadays, the tables have turned. At the end of the day, you can't draw any solid conclusions just by comparing raw clock speeds between different manufacturers—or even between different generations from the same brand. It’s just not how it works. You really need to dive into professional reviews, benchmarks, and performance tests for specific CPUs based on what you actually care about. That's where you look at the price-to-performance ratio to get the full picture, and that's really all there is to it.

Check out this video

This is also a handy site for comparisons. For more specifics on a particular CPU, I'd recommend reading deep-dive reviews or Googling benchmarks for specific software

Alexander Moore67 said:In the US, the price is roughly 81 miles around $173 and you don't need to worry because it features a 4+1 phase design that supports up to 125W.

Honestly, you can even overclock it—just keep it reasonable, of course. Having a 4+1 setup isn't a dealbreaker, especially since this one actually includes a VRM cooler. There is a massive difference between various 4+1 configurations. Even a DS3P uses a 4+1 layout, and I've seen several people on this forum hit about 4.6 GHz with an FX-8320 or 8350 completely stably (provided they have top-tier cooling, obviously). That might be an extreme case, but the point stands: it's doable. An FX-6300 is even less demanding on the motherboard.

The reason I don't recommend budget boards for AMD CPUs isn't because they aren't built for overclocking, but rather because those cheap models are just too poor for them (usually 3+1 phases with no VRM cooling).

You can find some shops carrying the Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 (rev. 5.0)—it’s a perfectly decent board if you're looking to save some cash.

Watch Dogs doesn't have an in-game benchmark, so you can't just compare two random YouTube videos—heaven knows how different the scenes and settings might be between them. It’s much more logical to simply look at the graphics cards and processors listed in a professional review. Besides, we're arguing over nonsense when none of this hardware even fits your budget anyway.

Don't let the label fool you—this isn't just any basic dual core. Because it features Dual Core + Hyper-Threading, you're effectively getting four virtual cores under the hood. In most gaming scenarios, you can count on it outperforming a quad-core AMD Athlon II X4 860, though it does come with a higher price tag. Plus, you actually have some room to upgrade later on. It’s also capable of handling all those titles that previously demanded a true quad-core setup.

Roger Mitchell4 said:With an AMD Athlon II X4 860, I'm essentially stuck; there isn't much room to move up to a better processor. That’s why 😉

If you're aiming for an upgrade, if I recall correctly, we've gone through about 17 pages of suggestions involving the Intel Core i3. If upgrading is actually on the table for you, just jump straight to an i5 or even an Intel Core i7.

Also, Smartic put together a pretty solid build for you featuring an AMD FX-4300, but who knows if that setup will even be relevant in three months.

They aren't compatible. The AMD FX uses the AM3+ socket, while the 860K is on an FM2+ socket.

You're spinning your wheels here. Honestly, check back in three months; until then, you're just going to end up frustrated. You're also trying to push the AMD FX too hard for nothing—if the hardware won't cooperate, it simply won't work.

Gary Anderson38 - I'm with you there. Regardless, the card is still hitting the exact performance levels seen in all the reviews and benchmarks. No reviewer seemed to catch that issue with the memory. You might be right that future titles could pose a "problem," but let's face it—by the time those games drop, this card won't be touching Ultra settings anyway, especially when it comes to MSAA.

Gary Anderson38 said:And what about the people who went out and built SLI rigs just to run everything at Ultra HD? They basically got ripped off.

glasina : Both Mantle and DX12

Both Mantle and DX12 can combine video memory

It’s going to be a tough sell for anyone looking at the GTX 1080 right now (assuming their power supply can even handle it). When you look at the high-end models—say, an ASUS versus an ASUS—the GTX 1080 ends up being roughly $167 +/- more expensive than the R9 390 XFX, all while people are rightfully worried about memory limitations when it comes to upcoming game releases.

Yes