General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: sizzle22 on May 19, 2015, 08:59:54 PM
Title: Full graphics settings
Post by: sizzle22 on May 19, 2015, 08:59:54 PM
I like eye candy! I'm sure most of you do as well. .. in one form or another ;) question is what does it take to tick all the boxes plus run "full updates" slider all the way to the left? Currently I have gigabyte 970A-UD3P motherboard with a fx 6350 cpu, 8gb ram, gtx560ti gpu and 1050 watt corsair psu (over kill I know) monitor is an acer GN246HL 144hz monitor. The current setup does pretty well. The only things not checked are shadow on others, building shadow, bump map others, bump map buildings, local water reflections update slider to the far right. Shadow textures are set at highest setting and I'm running the high resolution package.
The card I'm looking at is---- EVGA 04G-P4-3966-KR GeForce GTX 960 4GB 128-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 SLI Support SuperSC ACX 2.0+ Video Card
I know there are a lot of variables to consider but I'm wondering if anyone here has this card and if so how does it do?
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: guncrasher on May 19, 2015, 09:04:18 PM
I suggest you wait till the new release then get a vc better than the 960.
semp
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: save on May 20, 2015, 05:33:54 PM
agree with semp, wait until ah3 is released and you get a better product for same price.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: ebfd11 on May 20, 2015, 06:38:07 PM
Whats wrong with the 960??? I have 2 running just fine on my rig...
LawnDart
It's a low-end but current gen card. Whoever advised you to SLI two 960's didn't know their business.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Mister Fork on May 21, 2015, 12:34:51 PM
I think you should buy a GeForce GTX 970. Mid-range performance. And if you cannot afford one now, wait until next month when the new generation of video cards get released. Right now a good GTX 970 is ~$300 - but in a month or two it may be in the $200 range.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: TequilaChaser on May 21, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
I'm currently using the following videocard,
Radeon R9 270X 4GB GDDR5 DVI-I/DVI-D/HDMI/DP Dual-X with Boost and OC version PCI-Express Graphics Card
moved up to it over my older XFX 6950 2 GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI-E videocard.......
what would one compare the Radeon R9 270X 4GB GDDR5 DVI-I/DVI-D/HDMI/DP Dual-X with Boost and OC version PCI-Express Graphics Card with or to? on the Nvidia side?
just curious....
TC
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: sizzle22 on May 24, 2015, 01:41:14 PM
I think im gonna just keep saving until i can get a higher end card, thank you for the advice!
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: save on May 24, 2015, 06:25:49 PM
Radeon R9 270X 4GB GDDR5 DVI-I/DVI-D/HDMI/DP Dual-X with Boost and OC version PCI-Express Graphics Card
moved up to it over my older XFX 6950 2 GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI-E videocard.......
what would one compare the Radeon R9 270X 4GB GDDR5 DVI-I/DVI-D/HDMI/DP Dual-X with Boost and OC version PCI-Express Graphics Card with or to? on the Nvidia side?
just curious....
TC
I woud say its close to a 760 gtx or 660TI
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: ebfd11 on May 26, 2015, 12:17:18 PM
It's a low-end but current gen card. Whoever advised you to SLI two 960's didn't know their business.
the max resoulution for a single card wasn't up to what I wanted so I used the knowledge I have. Yes they may be lower end but running triple screen it is easier with 2 cards. In the current game I have no problems with Framerates no matter where I go. I wish I could have gone with dual 980's but my budget was limited and am happy.
Its not at the high side on the comparision charts but its in the range I need it... http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
the max resoulution for a single card wasn't up to what I wanted so I used the knowledge I have. Yes they may be lower end but running triple screen it is easier with 2 cards. In the current game I have no problems with Framerates no matter where I go. I wish I could have gone with dual 980's but my budget was limited and am happy.
Its not at the high side on the comparision charts but its in the range I need it... http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
For high resolutions you should pick a card with a high video ram and as fast as you can afford. SLI is limited to the ram of a single card so it is really far from optimal when using low end cards, even if we disregard the scalability problems. For the price of two 960's you would have got a better single card just for the extra 1-2Gb or ram you would have got with it.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: guncrasher on May 26, 2015, 12:36:09 PM
ripley forgets the #1 rule. if you are happy and you can afford it then do it. after all he did spend several hundred euros to buy stuff that in the eyes of others dont really help.
semp
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: guncrasher on May 26, 2015, 12:36:43 PM
and ripley he bought those 2 cards when they were top of the line.
semp
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Skyyr on May 26, 2015, 12:39:58 PM
yup but when you compared them to what was offered at the time, they were top of the line. just ask him how much he paid for those "budget" cards.
semp
"Top of the line" implies that they were among the best-performing cards that best money could buy at the time. The 960 is specifically the lower-end offering of the GTX 900-series, of which the 980 currently tops. Further, the 960 was released after the 970 and 980; therefore, it is literally impossible for it to have ever been top of the line, as it was released as a lesser-performing card after it's better-performing siblings were already available.
Perhaps you meant they were one the best budget cards for performance vs. cost available at the time? Because that's what the card has been marketed as from day 1.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on May 26, 2015, 12:48:48 PM
ripley forgets the #1 rule. if you are happy and you can afford it then do it. after all he did spend several hundred euros to buy stuff that in the eyes of others dont really help.
semp
What he did is a done deal. However advising someone to repeat his trick, whole other ballpark. I would not advise to do that.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: ebfd11 on May 26, 2015, 01:54:34 PM
OK what card would you have recommended that can run triple screen, thats not an ATI, that can still run at 5760X1080 Ripley???
LawnDart
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Skyyr on May 26, 2015, 01:57:04 PM
OK what card would you have recommended that can run triple screen, thats not an ATI, Ripley???
LawnDart
Just out of curiosity, why not AMD? I'm unbiased, but, historically speaking, AMD has the market relatively cornered for high resolution multi-screen setups.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: -ammo- on May 26, 2015, 02:31:39 PM
These are my settings and I never go under 59 FPS which is my monitor's refresh rate. My monitor is a VP2770-LED and run AH at 2560x1440.
I run an I7-4790K at 4GHz and a GeForce GTX 980. I can max the object detail and ground detail range but have to back off the other settings to keep at 59 FPS. I have seen some stutters with EVERYTHING on and sliders pushed to the left.
Just out of curiosity, why not AMD? I'm unbiased, but, historically speaking, AMD has the market relatively cornered for high resolution multi-screen setups.
I have run both and with my current monitor configuration, I don't have top of the line high dollar monitors, with AMD you generally have to use the display ports on the back and I am not in the market for changing my monitors out just yet. I have 2 running off DVI and 1 running off HDMI.... simple setup a couple of clicks and its running.
LawnDart
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: guncrasher on May 26, 2015, 04:44:06 PM
"Top of the line" implies that they were among the best-performing cards that best money could buy at the time. The 960 is specifically the lower-end offering of the GTX 900-series, of which the 980 currently tops. Further, the 960 was released after the 970 and 980; therefore, it is literally impossible for it to have ever been top of the line, as it was released as a lesser-performing card after it's better-performing siblings were already available.
Perhaps you meant they were one the best budget cards for performance vs. cost available at the time? Because that's what the card has been marketed as from day 1.
semp back then there were hundreds of video cards and those were in the top 10. When first came out.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Skyyr on May 26, 2015, 07:41:29 PM
That's just taking 4 minutes to go from recent memory and not covering 3rd-generation cards (such as the GTX 580, which is still faster than the 960) or non-reference card options.
The point is that the 960 was never a "top" card nor was it ever intended to be, and it's definitely not in the top 10, either when it launched or now. It is specifically made by Nvidia to meet mainstream gamers needs within a specific price range. The "60" in 960 in its name denotes its placement as a mid-level card, and as such it's slower than even previous generation cards of an equivalently-higher tier. It's roughly equivalent to a GTX 760 (and that's not coincidence, given the naming convention). Notice that even previous "700" series cards with higher numerical naming conventions outperform the 960 (such as the 770, 780, etc.) - yet again, not coincidence.
That said, the 960 remains a great option for mainstream 1080p gaming. However, it was designed as a mid-level product and performs as such.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on May 26, 2015, 11:15:49 PM
That's just taking 4 minutes to go from recent memory and not covering 3rd-generation cards (such as the GTX 580, which is still faster than the 960) or non-reference card options.
The point is that the 960 was never a "top" card nor was it ever intended to be, and it's definitely not in the top 10, either when it launched or now. It is specifically made by Nvidia to meet mainstream gamers needs within a specific price range. The "60" in 960 in its name denotes its placement as a mid-level card, and as such it's slower than even previous generation cards of an equivalently-higher tier. It's roughly equivalent to a GTX 760 (and that's not coincidence, given the naming convention). Notice that even previous "700" series cards with higher numerical naming conventions outperform the 960 (such as the 770, 780, etc.) - yet again, not coincidence.
That said, the 960 remains a great option for mainstream 1080p gaming. However, it was designed as a mid-level product and performs as such.
Totally accurate assessment . The 960 is a good card for the money , but it's almost the same price as the faster 280x ( $189 after rebate.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202137 ) ,which has an extra GB of Video ram. If you have enough PSU , the 280X would be pretty tempting IMHO.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: guncrasher on May 28, 2015, 07:47:47 PM
Totally accurate assessment . The 960 is a good card for the money , but it's almost the same price as the faster 280x ( $189 after rebate.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202137 ) ,which has an extra GB of Video ram. If you have enough PSU , the 280X would be pretty tempting IMHO.
back then it was going for well over 300 bucks. not really a budget card as he wants to prove, was it worth the money? well it was worth to lawndar as he's happy with it. I traded 2 465's for a single 770. I spent 380 and something on my fist 465's and about 120 on my second one. the 770 cost me around 400 bucks. didnt see an improvement.
but after all I am happy with my 770. will be trading it later this year when I upgrade to a faster cup and mobo. and a 9xx something vc. it wont really make the game faster or better than what I have, but heck it makes me happy :aok.
semp
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Masherbrum on May 28, 2015, 08:48:52 PM
back then it was going for well over 300 bucks. not really a budget card as he wants to prove, was it worth the money? well it was worth to lawndar as he's happy with it. I traded 2 465's for a single 770. I spent 380 and something on my fist 465's and about 120 on my second one. the 770 cost me around 400 bucks. didnt see an improvement.
but after all I am happy with my 770. will be trading it later this year when I upgrade to a faster cup and mobo. and a 9xx something vc. it wont really make the game faster or better than what I have, but heck it makes me happy :aok.
semp
But Skyrr is correct, it was never a top end card, regardless of the cost when released. I run three monitors and saw a significant increase of FR's when I went from a 770 GTX Classified to the 780 Ti that I have now. A significant increase.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Skyyr on May 28, 2015, 08:50:44 PM
back then it was going for well over 300 bucks. not really a budget card as he wants to prove
It was only ever a mainstream budget-focused card. And it was never $300 (unless one simply chose to overpay for it due to ignorance or you were a non-US buyer in which case all cards would be more expensive). Its MSRP from day 1 was ~$200.
And the discussion isn't about it being a budget card, but rather the fact that it was never a "top of the line" card, as you claimed. It simply isn't. Read the article linked above and you'll see it doesn't even qualify as an "enthusiast" card, which is a group all "top of the line" cards would belong to.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: mikev on May 28, 2015, 10:16:03 PM
well im not going to mess around with my next graphic card . i got the money so its going to be the titan x . the only problem im having is finding a builder who will work with me . seems every builder keeps building what he wants to build and forgets im the customer . so far i have tried NCIX and the IT guy and the local builder here in town. fustrating :bhead
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: TequilaChaser on May 28, 2015, 10:46:13 PM
well im not going to mess around with my next graphic card . i got the money so its going to be the titan x . the only problem im having is finding a builder who will work with me . seems every builder keeps building what he wants to build and forgets im the customer . so far i have tried NCIX and the IT guy and the local builder here in town. fustrating :bhead
send me your parts/components and I'll build whatever you want free of charge, you just pay for parts and shipping......... I don't want no money for building it, I don't mind helping fellow AH Community members... don't think I've had any complaints ever ( only have put 5 or 6 together and gave them to people playing AH, built many others for other people though ), only recall one time I inquired about an item in the classifieds and a member got a little upset when I inquired again 3 months later having forgot all about the first time I inquired about the item... honest slip of the ole mind it was...heh
I don't care too much to mess with ECS, MSI MB's,.... WD or Seagate HD's ( hoping WD gets better since they bought out HGST/Hitachi HD's ),
would even register all your components for you for warranty purposes under your name, or give you details on how to follow through doing it, I think I am up to 63 computers built from scratch and/or upgraded......
but in any case wish you best of luck
TC
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: mikev on May 28, 2015, 11:17:50 PM
send me your parts/components and I'll build whatever you want free of charge, you just pay for parts and shipping......... I don't want no money for building it, I don't mind helping fellow AH Community members... don't think I've had any complaints ever ( only have put 5 or 6 together and gave them to people playing AH, built many others for other people though ), only recall one time I inquired about an item in the classifieds and a member got a little upset when I inquired again 3 months later having forgot all about the first time I inquired about the item... honest slip of the ole mind it was...heh
I don't care too much to mess with ECS, MSI MB's,.... WD or Seagate HD's ( hoping WD gets better since they bought out HGST/Hitachi HD's ),
would even register all your components for you for warranty purposes under your name, or give you details on how to follow through doing it, I think I am up to 63 computers built from scratch and/or upgraded......
but in any case wish you best of luck
TC
this is what i have so far http://pcpartpicker.com/user/MAVADAKIN/saved/#view=RB248d but its been said i would be better off with this cpu Intel i7 4790 CPU 4.0 GHZ. other things like the case , the mother board for the Intel i7 4790 CPU 4.0 GHZ and so forth im leaving the door open. want the 16 gigs of ram but upgradable to 32 at my convience . if someone has use a case they like better that is fine by me as well . i store very little data on my system itself easier for me to save it on external HDs . the goal here is to build a system i wont have to worry about major overhauls any time soon. i spent $1000 just on upgrades for the current system i have and by the time AH3 comes out i will be stressing that system to its limit. so phooy on doing more upgrades lets go big and bad so i can concentrate on learning this game, run all the eye candy to max and have some FUN. then when you all shoot me down i wont have any excuses.lol
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on May 29, 2015, 12:13:50 AM
well im not going to mess around with my next graphic card . i got the money so its going to be the titan x . the only problem im having is finding a builder who will work with me . seems every builder keeps building what he wants to build and forgets im the customer . so far i have tried NCIX and the IT guy and the local builder here in town. fustrating :bhead
I hope you realize that a titan x is not good for games, price per dollar. You're going to be better off waiting for the next generation of GTX 980 if that's not fast enough for you. The Titan series cards are meant more for CUDA based calculations than gaming.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Masherbrum on May 29, 2015, 12:22:13 AM
well im not going to mess around with my next graphic card . i got the money so its going to be the titan x . the only problem im having is finding a builder who will work with me . seems every builder keeps building what he wants to build and forgets im the customer . so far i have tried NCIX and the IT guy and the local builder here in town. fustrating :bhead
Get a 980 and save about $400.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: mikev on May 29, 2015, 12:47:19 AM
1 thing you are all missing is i dont want to deal with any issues on graphics. good is good but best is the direction im heading for years to come
Yeah but a Titan X is a false move. While it performs much better than the old Titan and seems to beat the 980 with a good margin, chances are that when 980 will be updated that margin will be slim. Of course if 400 bucks is peanuts for you, go for it. You probably would benefit more from 980 SLI at this point though. Too bad AH doesn't work well with it.
Yeah but a Titan X is a false move. While it performs much better than the old Titan and seems to beat the 980 with a good margin, chances are that when 980 will be updated that margin will be slim. Of course if 400 bucks is peanuts for you, go for it. You probably would benefit more from 980 SLI at this point though. Too bad AH doesn't work well with it.
thats part of the problem there is no "best performer" each card has its flaws . my point is get the best now so i dont have to do it again 5 years later. computers can nickel and dime us trying to keep up. i want something that i will not have to keep up till AH 4 or 5 comes out. now if anybody can come up with the answer to that im listening
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: TequilaChaser on May 29, 2015, 11:42:17 AM
i want something that i will not have to keep up till AH 4 or 5 comes out. now if anybody can come up with the answer to that im listening
honestly, I doubt even HTC could answer this , because right now, they are suggesting to wait just "2 weeks" ( <--- tongue in cheek: hehe ) on upgrading or building a new PC, until Aces High (3) is released.... AH2 was called AH 2 for just a few years then HTC went back to calling it "Aces High" dropping the "2 nomenclature" part of the name..... even though people still refer to it as AH2 these days......
I'm finishing up on 2 full AMD cpu & gpu builds for my parents who wanted this to be their last computers they need ( they both are 69 yrs old and poor health ), and in my research the (2) AMD FX4350 factory overclocked & unlocked 4.2 Ghz quadcore cpu's, showed to be better than nearly all other AMD processors performance wise in differing games, outside of that most expensive FX9590 (<--- think that is the model, dang thing is a 220watt cpu, beat that cpu could heat a house )....always when looking at all those benchmarks on paper Intel will nearly always be at the top.... anyways.... they wanted performance but wanted to be reasonable on the cost of building...... but I am betting these 2 AMD computers will be right on par with if not better than that i5-4790? intel cpu.......
done this Intel vs AMD comparison before back in 2011..... my AMD Q975 3.6 Ghz quadcore cpu and AMD XFX6870 1 GB gpu was just as good if not better in some areas as an identical Intel build only difference being the Intel i7-2600K 3.4 Ghz quadcore & XFX6950 2 GB gpu verse the AMD components........ same amount of Ram 16 GBs, same Crucial m4 SSD's, etc.... the better XFX 6950 did allow me to have just a bit better in video tweaking ability, but heck both PC's ran dang near identical, ran under 38 degree C or lower on MB and VC and CPU, and the AMD system still kicked the intel systems arse in autocad where as the Intel system beat the AMD system in video editing...... game wise one could not see any difference in how they performed, one could not tell what system they was using if they were never told and was testing them out..... my personal view of the Intel vs AMD debate anyway........ the intel system did cost an extremely significant amount more to build though.....
sorry for the wall of text....... one just needs to pair up the right components, do their research, and properly tweak/adjust their OS and computer to run the most efficiently.......... something I bet probably 90% of the AH Player base does not do or do correctly...... again, my personal view
TC
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on May 29, 2015, 11:43:49 AM
thats part of the problem there is no "best performer" each card has its flaws . my point is get the best now so i dont have to do it again 5 years later. computers can nickel and dime us trying to keep up. i want something that i will not have to keep up till AH 4 or 5 comes out. now if anybody can come up with the answer to that im listening
With the new AMD wide memory bus cards coming your titan x may be antiquated in 2 years. Buying premium usually doesn't pay out very well in computer world.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Chalenge on May 29, 2015, 02:44:35 PM
May be? In two years everything will be antiquated.
When you can find one, the 980 Ti will be worth every dollar. Or, you can wait on the next AMD card. It only makes sense that the fastest card will give you the better performance, but with AMD poised to release a new card (Fiji/Fury) you may want to wait to see how that goes.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Pudgie on May 29, 2015, 02:48:48 PM
honestly, I doubt even HTC could answer this , because right now, they are suggesting to wait just "2 weeks" ( <--- tongue in cheek: hehe ) on upgrading or building a new PC, until Aces High (3) is released.... AH2 was called AH 2 for just a few years then HTC went back to calling it "Aces High" dropping the "2 nomenclature" part of the name..... even though people still refer to it as AH2 these days......
I'm finishing up on 2 full AMD cpu & gpu builds for my parents who wanted this to be their last computers they need ( they both are 69 yrs old and poor health ), and in my research the (2) AMD FX4350 factory overclocked & unlocked 4.2 Ghz quadcore cpu's, showed to be better than nearly all other AMD processors performance wise in differing games, outside of that most expensive FX9590 (<--- think that is the model, dang thing is a 220watt cpu, beat that cpu could heat a house )....always when looking at all those benchmarks on paper Intel will nearly always be at the top.... anyways.... they wanted performance but wanted to be reasonable on the cost of building...... but I am betting these 2 AMD computers will be right on par with if not better than that i5-4790? intel cpu.......
done this Intel vs AMD comparison before back in 2011..... my AMD Q975 3.6 Ghz quadcore cpu and AMD XFX6870 1 GB gpu was just as good if not better in some areas as an identical Intel build only difference being the Intel i7-2600K 3.4 Ghz quadcore & XFX6950 2 GB gpu verse the AMD components........ same amount of Ram 16 GBs, same Crucial m4 SSD's, etc.... the better XFX 6950 did allow me to have just a bit better in video tweaking ability, but heck both PC's ran dang near identical, ran under 38 degree C or lower on MB and VC and CPU, and the AMD system still kicked the intel systems arse in autocad where as the Intel system beat the AMD system in video editing...... game wise one could not see any difference in how they performed, one could not tell what system they was using if they were never told and was testing them out..... my personal view of the Intel vs AMD debate anyway........ the intel system did cost an extremely significant amount more to build though.....
sorry for the wall of text....... one just needs to pair up the right components, do their research, and properly tweak/adjust their OS and computer to run the most efficiently.......... something I bet probably 90% of the AH Player base does not do or do correctly...... again, my personal view
TC
Thank you TC for causing me to suffer for the next 2 hours rehashing to my self why I don't need to build a AMD-powered box.........cause I WANT to build 1 sooo baaddd........... I am wanting to go w/ the FX-9570 on an Asus Crosshair 990X ROG mobo using 16Gb AMD Radeon DDR3 2666Hz mem but I just can't justify gutting out my current box to use the same case, I already have a...............hey I just had a thought.....................
I do have my old Intel C2D gaming box still.........I could gut it's case (CM 690 Nvidia sers), pull all out of the CM Storm Scout case & put the Intel 2011 stuff in sig below in it then build out this AMD build in my CM Storm Scout..........but I got a TON of perfectly good computer components that are rendered surplus & I have nowhere else to put any more perfectly good components that hardly no one else wants as I already have surplus tech that goes all the way back to 2001 era...............but I have a very hard time just parting w/ all this stuff as it brings back sooo many good memories...............
See, I'm blaming you for resurrecting the sentimental side in me....................................
:D :aok
But you can bet your hiney that as soon as I can come up w/ justification that I can live with I WILL be building 1................
:salute
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on May 30, 2015, 02:38:37 AM
May be? In two years everything will be antiquated.
When you can find one, the 980 Ti will be worth every dollar. Or, you can wait on the next AMD card. It only makes sense that the fastest card will give you the better performance, but with AMD poised to release a new card (Fiji/Fury) you may want to wait to see how that goes.
Not necessarily. I know many people who were extending the life of their 680/780's way past 2 years. Heck, many people still use them today. Performance has not taken great leaps between generations.
With the wide memory bus things can change drastically however. Even the very first revisions offer 10 times the memory bandwith compared to traditional GDDR. That's a serious game changer.
Title: Re: Full graphics settings
Post by: Skuzzy on May 30, 2015, 09:24:20 AM
That "10 times" bandwidth number they are tossing about is the theoretical maximum increase in bandwidth.
A lot of the performance increase will be tied to how well the data is organized in memory. In reality, the performance increase will be much less, but more than what is currently available. What the "real" increase will be is a best guess, at the moment.
Still, it is a nice idea and will save a ton of real estate and power, while offering an easier method to increasing the amount of memory on the card. Good stuff.