Originally Posted by Masta Squidge
The point is you are trying to insist that devs care about 5% of gamers.
And you are still bringing up the only two games that exist that even come close to 3gb of vram on 2560x1440, let alone 1080p.
And let me get this right... You said:
Then you said, that isn't what you are saying, even though you just agreed with me, and then you said:
Do you agree with me or not, which is it?
You are saying that no games in the next couple years will need the vram, which is agreeing with me, and
you are saying that current games will push cards to their limits, which has very little to do with vram, and in that case... it makes the Titan even more silly.
Those two statements basically make a strong case to avoid the Titan entirely. If games A: don't need more than 3gb of vram and B: push current cards to the limits... Then why would you buy one Titan when you can get 75-80% better performance with only 30% more money spent on two 780s?
BF4 might push current cards to their limits, but that doesn't mean it will need more than 2-3 gb of vram to do it, a statement you just agreed with by saying games in the next 2-3 years wont require that much vram.
If you DON'T need more than 3GB of vram, which you just agreed to, then the concern is over raw power. We already know that a 780 is only a couple percent behind the Titan, so it makes a HELL of a lot more sense to spend $1300 on two 780s than $1000 on one Titan.If
the statement about vram is correct, then
a Titan only makes sense when you intend to run 4 of them, as the 780 "can't" run quad SLI. Again, this is assuming games designed for 3gb (which you agreed with) and single monitor resolutions, 2560x1600 or less.
Obviously we can all agree that running 1440p surround (hell, even 1080p surround), or 4k, is simply going to require more vram, and there is no arguing that.
What are you trying to argue here? You just shot your entire argument in the foot.