Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
Ah ethernum and Zcash showed up so i don't think prices are going down at all until 2018, october or 2019 january.
Aahah same unluckily :(
i know what you posted here is old but the one thing you forget about the GTX 970 is that it actually shows you 3.5GB of Vram.
GTX 1060 3 GB.
1060 is faster than 970 and the 970 only have 3.5 GB of fast RAM so the VRAM is pretty much the same size. The GTX 1060 6 GB is a better card though but if one have money limits it is what it is. 1060 6 GB is a better buy but _NOW_ both are very old cards but back then the thread was started they weren't and the 970 should had been avoided.
The 10 series also offer newer HDMI and DisplayPort standards, new delta color compression, 10 and 12 bit HEVC as well as VP9 video decoding, HDCP 2.2 4K DRM support, HEVC main10 video encoding, simultanous multi-projection, better asynchronous compute support, fast sync, instruction-level preemption and new cuda compute capability.
So GTX 1060 3 GB was the correct answer.
4096 Megabytes is 4GB and I happen to own a GTX970. And no the RAM clock of the "missing" 512MB is merely "slower" due to placement on the board.
https://imgur.com/a/0EY7fDh?desktop=1
Coming back to 1060 3gb vs 970, I'd take the 1060 any day. More efficient, newer tech. 500mb of vRAM difference isn't much. You can fine tune the 1060 to not run out of vRAM. It's an OK card for 1080p, not as bad as people make it out to be, because they try to run a load of crap that consume vRAM on it.
And no the GTX 970 isn't faster:
https://youtu.be/9JAjRJjvq-Q?t=51s
https://youtu.be/w7LIENYNZI8?t=32s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvAuRLY2jQ
But the difference isn't large. GTX 1060 3 GB was more modern anyway. But the thread is one year old.
http://www.hwcompare.com/31385/geforce-gtx-1060-vs-geforce-gtx-1060-3gb/
Unified Shaders: 1280 vs 1152
Texture Mapping Units: 80 vs 72
the 970 is closer to the 3g ver of the 1060
the 1060 is liighter on power and a newer gen gpu
if you have the 970 and its working fine, its not worth the upgrade to a 1060 3g
the 512mb of 'slow' ram on the 970 is a non issue, its still alot faster than system ram, and only used when the 3.5g of 'fast' ram is full
Warning...old fart's computer timing math ahead:
(1/8x60)x100=750
The idea being that 1/8 of a second delay for the 512MB portion to be used is 1 second divided by 60 frames at a time per one second.
Thus 60Hz monitor at 750 frames a second. It's even higher of a frame rate to be noticed for 144Hz monitors.
Of course as long as you just use 0-3.5 GB VRAM it's all fine.
I don't understand what you are supposed to calculate there.
I have no idea where you got 1/8 of a second delay from and what you are trying to calculate.