>GTX 950 slower than R7 370
>GTX 960 just as fast as R9 270X and way slower than R380/380X
>GTX 970 slower than R9 290X (sadly no R9 390, but from previous reviews it's just as fast as the 290X)
WOW, Nvidia is shit.
I suppose if you're one of the few people who pay $400 or more for GPUs it's ok because the 980 kinda competes with the 390X (a bit faster, but costs more) and the 980 Ti is obviously better than the Fury X, but on the mainstream market Nvidia is completely BTFO.
Why do they even sell anymore?
>Why do they even sell anymore?
Because they work, unlike AMD which had troubles with every AAA game released this year.
>inb4 but AAA games are shit, why did you buy a gaming gpu if youre not gonna play games?
>>51471219
>AMD which had troubles with every AAA game released this year
Citation needed, faggot.
>>51471248
Do you even own an AMD card?
>>51471248
This.
AFAIK, both teams have had problems on release with AAA games, it was just a matter of who got new drives out first.
>>51471219
>every AAA game this year
Ebin meme.
>>51471219
what?
I have a 380 and the only title I had issues this year was arkham knight, where nvidia users had the same ammount of issues
even fallout 4 runs perfectly with godrays on medium, just by limiting tesselation to 8x in CCC, run way better than for kepler users
>>51471283
>I have a 380
Then why are you trying to say AMD's cards work better than Nvidia's when is not true?
>>51471191
because people like >>51471219
would buy any shit thrown at them as long it has NVIDIA/INTEL sticker on it
>>51471256
>Do you even own an AMD card?
OP here, yes, 280X.
Only issues I had were in Arkham Knight (not AMD's fault) and PCars (where Nvidia paid to have the developers deliberately fuck AMD users with PhysX). Fallout 4, Witcher 3, GTA V, MGS V and Inquisition ran without a hitch.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
Err no, GTX 950 is much faster than R7 370 and GTX 960 is equal to 380x in performance
TPU is smoking crack.
>>51471191
I love how the stock 980 ti is only 20% away from the 295x2. A non reference one will blow the 295 away while consuming 1/3 the power.
Nvidia always finds a way.
>>51471378
>TechPowerUp makes a summary with all games they tested
>"no anon, TPU is wrong, because the results are different in this ONE game I cherry picked"
Are you retarded?
Also, this is from TechPowrUp's 380X review, which is their most recent one and uses updated drivers. Which is very likely to not be the case on the image you just posted.
Been reading about GPUs the past couple of days.
Seems to me that AMD releases absolutely trash drivers for year and then year later releases proper drivers.
Also with Fury X seems like that shit wont overclock, costs the same as 980TI here, has the same performance in 1440p 2160p resolutions.
Does anyone have experience with Fury X in >>51471430 1440 resolutions and gaming?
I guess I'm better off with the 980TI.
Does the Direct X 12 support mean much (only thing edging out the 980TI as far as I can see?)
>>51471430
>and then year later releases proper drivers.
Only because they weren't able to release anything new for the past 3 years. People are mistaking their incompetence as long term support. Back when AMD had a rapid release cycle they they toss their old cards in the trash.
>>51471430
>>51471449
>http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/R9_380X_Strix/23.html
Fury X is faster at 4K, a little slower at 1440p.
>>51471430
Never had any issues with my 280X, what you read sounds like fearmongering to me.
Even if it were true, that would mean the 370, 380 and 390 today are all better than the Nvidia alternatives even with shit drivers, and it's going to get even better later.
>>51471520
Read about the bad support from AMD on here, overclock net, then some tests pages like Techpowerup where new AMD cards sucked ass until 6 months later they got actual drivers etc.
I'm going to get 1440p screen so if 980TI and Fury X cost the same and have same performance, I really should get 980TI considering it overclocks way more?
>>51471543
980 TI overclocked is at least 30% faster than a Fury X.
Check out this review, skip to the 10 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc2TdXC4iKE
I am going to buy a 960 over the equally priced AMD model, simply because of the power consumption and me wanting to test an nvidia card
>>51471614
I know, but how does it work at 1440p? Does it hog more power than Fury X? How is its min. performance in comaprison to X's min performance etc.
and I'd like to see how they both look when playing back blurays. I consume them quite a bit.
>>51471543
That's bullshit. You can see in the review I linked, the 380 just launched a few months ago in june, and is a new chip (Tonga), so by that logic it should have "shit drivers" still. yet it consistently beats the 960 at the same price range. This is just FUD.
I could spin the same thing the opposite way. Nvidia stops providing driver optimization for old cards sooner than AMD, AMD supports them for longer, which is why you see the 270X as fast as a 960 now, and how the 970 used to be way faster than the 290 and 290X and now is slower than the 290X and not much faster than the 290. By that logic, AMD releases shit drivers and later releases good ones, Nvidia releases shit drivers and never release good ones.
And yes, get the 980 Ti. It's a better choice regardless of resolution (even at 4K I'd take the 6 GB of RAM over the performance increase). It also overclocks much better, if that's your kinda thing.
>>51471342
You got it backwards fucboi, what is best for the consumer is what actually works.
>inb4 but big bad evil nvidia boogeyman
Yes, blame Nvidia for AMD's incompetence despite the fact that this is the year 2015 they can't do tessellation properly even though it has been heavily used since 2009, not to mention countless of software problems they face(BF4 Mantle was unplayable until recently)
They had their chance with 200 series and now the 300 series and they didnt even try to put any effort on it.
>inb4 but muh monopoly and Nvidia fucking over costumer
AMD has demonstrated that they are willing to fuck consumers with lies and economically too, they are no better than Nvidia, AMD is better off dying so a big company can buy Radeon and make good GPUs that can compete with Nvidia's, that would actually be better for the consumer than just having AMD around trying to play catch up with Nvidia.
>inb4 but muh 300 series
cards released just now beat cards that are more than 1 year old what a surprise, as if Nvidia couldn't release the 980 with bigger memory width to destroy the 300 series.
>inb4 but 300 series is just old 200 overclocked series
No they are not, the memory chips used are physically different and the chipset is higher quality, you are lucky to get a 290X overclock to 390X stock, not to mention even AMD itself considers the 300 series a brand new card and not a rebrand like with the 200 series.
also what does Intel has to do with this?
I hope you are not suggesting people should buy AMD's CPU instead of Intel, because that would be really silly considering how a 2500k still beats everything AMD has.
>>51471665
>Nvidia stops providing driver optimization for old cards sooner than AMD
This meme again?
>>51471665
How do you explain Fury X that went with terrible drivers until now?
Basically od you want to have gimped GPU early on (AMD) or later on (NVIDIA)
>>51471665
im looking for longetivity so
if 980 ti clocks better
and i get watercooling
it will last longer in my use (granted i dont overlock it at day 0, but later on)
thanks anon!
>>51471657
Sounds like you're the prime candidate for AMD products.
>>51471428
>your cherry picking is less valid than my cherry picking
Tech powerup is well known to slant the selection in order to alter final data. Given, it is a better metric than a single gpu impartial game, but not by much.
>>51471727
I just want some reviews written about the two GPUs and comapring their every day use and gaming use AND ESPECIALLY movie use.
>>51471838
Nvidia uses less power when watching blurays though they have a bug in the driver where they use more power if you are running 144hz but it should be addressed soon.
>>51471666
>AMD's incompetence
You mean AMD, which has the better card offering throughout the entire mainstream segment? If that's AMD being imcompetent, I pity Nvidia when AMD is competent.
>AMD has demonstrated that they are willing to fuck consumers with lies and economically too
>released mantle as open source, became vulkan
>pushed for an open dynamic sync display standard, made freesync, which nvidia refuses to use even though it would be good for everyone
>make tressfx, makes source available to nvidia so they can use and optimize for it too
Nice try, Nvidia shill. Your employers are still fucking the market with their proprietary standards which makes everyone but their pockets lose (including their own customers).
>cards released just now beat cards that are more than 1 year old what a surprise
You Nvidia faggots love to say how the 300 series is rebranded and AMD doesn't release anything new. Now, when Nvidia gets BTFO by AMD's rebranded cards (Tonga is new, but the 280 and 280X still wipe the floor with the 960, 290X faster than 970) sudden it becomes "released just now". Are you retarded or something?
>as if Nvidia couldn't release the 980 with bigger memory width
First, they couldn't, because it would require manufacturing a whole new chip, it would be very wasteful and come with the usual yield issues that come with new chips.
Second, it wouldn't even help at all, because the 980 is not a bandwidth starved GPU. A wider bus would make practically zero difference.
>>51471191
750ti master race reporting
I got if for 100 bucks so fuck you all, best bang-for-your-buck card ever
I prefer Nvidia bc I have a 3DTV and AMD's 3D support sucks balls compared to 3D Vision.
>>51471283
you should check out this mod.. fallout 4 is a piece of shit when it comes to optimisation
http://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/1822/?
If I didn't get a deal today of a GTX 970 for 280€, I would have bought a R9 390 too.
>>51471219
>>51471256
My HD 7870 ran the shit decent enough for a 3 years old mid-range card.
>>51471838
>AND ESPECIALLY movie use
I thought you were being sarcastic. Why would a GPU matter for movie use?
>>51471913
>I got if for 100 bucks so fuck you all, best bang-for-your-buck card ever
The 750 Ti has always been slower than the 260X for the same price. It does consume less power though.
>>51471909
>released mantle as open source,
Mantle is not open source.
don't bother responding you are obviously oblivious to everything.
I hope the Radeon department is split off again.
Fuck APUs, fuck that shit so fucking much.
>>51471975
If the dude watches really a lot of BRs each week, it could make a difference, but I doubt he's watching that many movies.
Unless he does it because it's his job somehow.
>>51471979
Fallacy-naming faggots, what's the name of that one where people dismiss and entire set of arguments just because they found one innocuous incorrect point in a single one of those arguments?
Also, yes, it's not open source, my mistake. AMD did share pieces of code with Khronos though.
nVidia is literally the Apple of video cards. Shit just works and usually provides a higher level of performance albeit you have to pay more. Why begrudge people who choose this option?
>>51472004
what's wrong with APUs?
aside from the fact that the CPU part of them is based on bulldozer and therefore shit, there's nothing wrong with the idea. zen-based ones should be better
>>51472095
>there's nothing wrong with the idea
There very much is if you don't give a shit about the GPU part of it.
It's a waste of money, space and energy for me and many others.
>>51472069
>nVidia (...) provides a higher level of performance
>OP's graph shows Nvidia proviidng a lower level of performance on all price points below $400
>Nvidia becomes even worse as resolution icreases, and has worse performance on all price points at 4K
Are you blind?
>>51472119
I have an a10-5800k and it kicks ass considering I got it for shit money, about 80 bucks
>>51472148
Well, that's nice for you, but clearly I am not talking about people like you.
>>51471191
I like how excited you sounded when you typed this post. It's commonly known that if you're looking for a good price/performance product, you'll go with AMD. However, Nvidia cards blow out AMD cards when it comes to high end.
I think Nvidia just tries marketing their cards to people who have money. They may be overpriced, but the best Nvidia cards are better than the best AMD cards. So for someone as fortunate as myself, since I don't really need to worry about money that much, I'd rather pay a little extra and get the highest quality possible than get a more fair deal.
>>51472119
you don't have to buy an APU, you idiot, you can just buy a FX one without a GPU instead... or in intel's case, a Xeon E3 without the GPU
>>51472176
I bought an i5.
Also, Xeon E3 won't roll anymore in the future and will become severly overpriced.
>>51472203
I don't know in the future, but the Skylake-based E3 v5 series is already launched and should become available soon. You can get a 1230 v5 (basically an Skylake i7 minus GPU) for $260.
>>51472290
Why does Intel even bother including a GPU with i5 and i7 processors? Not like anyone is going to use them.
>>51471686
BASED
A
S
E
D
>>51472290
But here's the thing, not everybody needs a 280€ CPU.
A ~230€ i5 runs games just as well, but would surely be a good amount cheaper if it didn't have that shitty IGPU trash.
>>51472322
Yes, they will. Not everyone needs a discrete GPU, specially in a workplace environment. In that case you can just buy a Core CPU and not have to worry about the GPU at all.
Also, it's not totally useless if you have a discrete GPU either. You can still use quicksync, for instance, which is excellent when recording footage from games (so it affects neither your dGPU nor your CPU). And with DX12 multi-GPU becoming a thing, it will expose the Intel GPU for games to use as well.
>>51472376
Unlikely. CPU prices are chosen by Intel, not a direct consequence of manufacturing costs and nothing else. Intel has huge artificial margins on their chips, because right now AMD can't compete. They wouldn't reduce them if they didn't include a GPU.
They did release some P-series i5 a while ago, Ivy Bridge if I'm not mistaken, with the GPU disabled. They were barely any cheaper than regular i5s with GPUs.
>>51471191
>tfw my friend got a 290x for $50AUD
It was probably a bit coin miner, but for that price who could complain?
>>51472439
Didn't think of workplace environment at all. Makes sense.
>>51471191
Can't stream to my shield with and. Check m8 non shield fag.
>>51472529
>using shield
>>51471191
GTX 970 SLI 8GB
>4GB
how?
>>51472063
I watch 2 blurays a day. Remux.
Is upgrading from a 7800 to a R9 390 a good idea?
Good articles comparing Fury X and 980TI? I'm considering getting either or
>>51472836
Fury X loses bigtime to the 980Ti.
Well not bigtime, it's about 5% worse so if you can get it more than 5% cheaper than a 980Ti it's a good purchase.
My advice with benchmarks is never rely on a single game. Always use aggregations of games.
Most benchmarks you see posted here are of single games, cherrypicked to show whatever the poster wanted to.
I trust the tech report though.
https://techreport.com/review/28513/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x-graphics-card-reviewed
>>51471191
UUUUU WEEEEEE, cant w8 for AMD to finally catch up with nvidia, pascal is coming AMD will be rekt'd again.
>>51472137
Are you?
>>51472439
Intel had huge artificial margins on their chips even when AMD could compete. They locked OEMs with exclusivity deals and threatened mobo companies not to make AMD boards. First Athlon mobos came in white boxes because ASUS didn't want to anger Intel.
>>51471191
seems to do just fine in the most popular game right now.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-best-pc-hardware-for-fallout-4-4023
>>51473585
>one game
>with gameworks
>article from before AMD released drivers for the game
Great post. 10/10.
>>51472914
>architecture from three years ago is faster than what Nvidia has now
That does not put Nvidia in a good position for when they both have new architectures, anon.
>>51472572
970 can share vram somehow in sli
>>51472980
>>51472439
Processors of any kind have barely any production costs
It's r&d that costs a shitton
>mfw i have a 7870 Ghz edition(270x)
>mfw i actually thought about getting a 960 if the 380x didn't release
>mfw i see that chart
>>51474071
don't spread fud like this, it's disgusting.
>>51471191
>See dozens of charts where nVidia is always at least slightly better then AMD on FPS across all resolutions.
>OP posts single chart where even older AMD cards are better then new nVidia cards across the board
And somehow he thinks I'm the shill....
>>51475244
Shh...
AMD is allowed to shill here because they're struggling, and not evil like Nvidia
Why do you make threads like this when I'm trying to decide which card to use in my new build?
I was told to look at a 380X instead of going with a 960. Now I don't know anymore.
>>51475637
If you can get the 380x for ~220€, it's an ok card.
But at the 250+€ it sells right now, it's really overpriced.
>>51475746
I'm confused, do you mean like here?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202183
>>51475783
I don't know about $ prices, but non-X sells for around 190€.
AMD drivers have gone to shit since summer.
I have Asus R9 270X and last driver that works properly is 15.6 beta.
Every driver release after that gives me rendering bugs.
So the fan on my old GTX 660 is kill. Otherwise the card runs like a deportation train to the nearest Concentration Camp with the same heat issues as one. Now should I buy a new fan and wait until either AMD or Nvidia drops the next A-Bomb on the Market, or go with a new medium priced GPU for the next few years?
>>51471191
>overclocked 7850 scoring nearly the same as overclocked 670
>overclocked 7870 scoring just behind a slightly gimped 680
>when these cards were released it took the 7970Ghz to beat a 680
Buy Nvidia! The true gamer's choice!
>NVIDIA: 358.50 WHQL
TPU doesn't even use the latest Nvidia driver
Serious question for all you AMD shills.
Who makes a good cooler for these things? I've heard ASUS is shit for AMD (Putting a nVidia cooler on an AMD card doesn't work as well as you might expect) and MSI does good but I'm not seeing an MSI option for the 380x.
>>51475948
Just upgrade to the new cards goy
>>51476010
asus's strix line is good, sapphire's tri-x and vapor-x are good, powercolor's PCS+ is good.
>>51475956
How else is AMD supposed to come out ahead?
They pay them to look better
>>51475956
>>51476113
I just read through the release notes for 359 compared to 358.5
The only performance changes were for Assassin's Creed: Syndicate and Overwatch: Beta, games not tested by TPU
These results are as valid as any.
>>51471248
here you go faggot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15wOp7_dD8E
MUH BETTER CARD
MUH 8GB
>>51476239
addendum:
looking further at the two driver releases between 358.5 and 369, TechPowerUp did not test for any of the games optimized in those releases (FO4, Black Ops 3, Starcraft 2, etc)
Deal with it Nvidia fags. Your hardware is simply limited, while AMD's hardware consistently has proven to be limited by software.
>>51476304
>November 9th
he isn't using the 15.11.1 driver set :^)
>PC gaymer
Literally idiotic try hards.
A decent card cost more than a whole PS4 console.
With a console you also have no troubles, because developers actually optimize stuff.
PC gaymers are expected to throw away their cards every 2 years and buy a new one.
>>51476513
Some of us are adults with our own money
>>51476646
>implying owning money means that you can spend it carelessly
Let me guess, you don't actually have much money.
>>51476778
If you think $1000 to build a nice PC is a lot of money I'm sorry
gtx 950 blows the 370 out of the water and with light overclocking is on par with the gtx 960
>>51476513
enjoy upscaled 720p and 30fps
>>51476955
I enjoy carefree casual gaming.
I have more important things to do with my time than spending it on various forum and boards to collect information on what hardware one should buy to get anything decent in return.
With a console you turn on the TV and the console, start the game, enjoy.
No unecessary time waste.
Also it's undeniable that the market is geared towards console players, as they are the mainstream. We get all the benefits and pay a fraction of price for it.
>>51477055
Why the fuck are you here? You're not a special snowflake for owning a console. I own consoles as well and they're decent if you're looking to kill time and that's about it. The immersion doesn't come close to pc gaming and the experience isn't enjoyable at all. It's akin to reading the soap label while taking a shit, that's what console gaming is like.
>>51477149
Doubtful
Many gems are console titles only.
PC is only good for strategy games and multiplayer gaming on professional level.
Anything else the consoles win easily.
>>51477265
and many gems are PC only. for example, try to play CS:GO on console.
>>51477265
Hot opinions, now fuck off back to /v/
>>51477279
As I said, professional multiplayer games like shooters or MOBAs are the strength of PCs.
Anything else, console.
>>51477299
Cry me a river.
>just built new pc after 8 years
>have all specs locked down except gpu
>see a million and a half threads about amd 390 being some 980 ti potential card after magical driver updates
>nearly fell for amd meme but eventually went nvidia
>see all these posts about amd drivers sucking ass
Feels good I didn't cheap out.
>>51477265
For every 'gem' that is console only, there are approximately 20-30 PC only 'gems'.
>>51477336
The strength of PCs is that you can customise your experience to your liking.
Prefer high refresh rates? Console says 'no'.
Prefer mouse over other input methods? Console says 'no'.
Like in-depth strategy games? Console says 'no'.
Consoles have so goddamn many limitations that it's really only suitable for those who want to passively consume. PC has a steeper learning curve, but the possibilities are so much bigger, it's worth it for everyone who wants a good experience.
>>51472137
NvIDIA BECOMES WORSE but not worse than AMD on higher than 1080p resolutions (unless you talk about quad gpu setups or tri gpu setups)
that is with above 400dollar gpus from both brands.
>>51477451
>20-30 PC only 'gems'.
Name them
> PC has a steeper learning curve, but the possibilities are so much bigger, it's worth it for everyone who wants a good experience.
Yes, like WoW and any other MMORPGs.
Now talk about steep learning curve of PC games, when you try to play any decent Beat'em Up.
>>51472980
Jesus the more I read about INtel and Nvidia the more I begin to hate them
What's a good price for GTX980 Ti
and how much does not having direct x 12 support mean? in comparison to fury x which does have.
Here is reality for AMDPOORFAGS
>>51477544
>Name them
What terrible argument is that? Anyway, to humour you, pic related.
WoW like no learning curve at all. It's a fairly simple game. But I wasn't talking about learning curves inside of games at all, just everything around it. But I see that you don't intent to put any effort into getting a good experience, so you shut yourself off from everything that isn't 'plug and play'.
>>51476010
>>51476108
Sapphire Fury X watercooling system fine?
>>51477711
Water cooling? Fuck no. You mean their vapor thing?
Those 'relative performance' comparisons are complete utter bullshit based on benchmarks. Real life performance is very very very different.
>>51477699
>Not even settings used
>No source
>Benchmark of a single game
>>51477681
https://jet.com/product/Zotac-ZT-90501-10P-Zotac-ZT-90501-10P-GeForce-GTX-980-Ti-Graphic-Card-1-GHz-Core/
>>51476010
The asus 290/290x is an abomination and the asus fury is merely decent.
For the 380/380x the strix is a so-so cooler, but sapphire's nitro sits as the best right now.
>>51477738
How is it different? It's an average of performance across a range of games relative to other video cards.
Those benchmarks are based on real live performance.
>>51477781
How is the water cooling in Sapphire Fury X? Good or bad?
>>51477781
And draws the most power.
>>51477785
It doesn't count because it makes every Nvidia card bar the 980ti look bad, thus /g/ instantly discounts it.
See also: /g/'s denial over sli scaling (as in, its shit compared to crossfire).
>tfw waiting for Zen and HBM2 AMD cards
Intel and Nvidia are finished
>>51477785
Those benchmarks are basically measuring dick size, not the delivered pleasure.
>>51477806
>Quad, triple let alone dual set up (with Titan X or 980 or even Fury X) relevant to /g/
kek
>>51477798
The fury x coolers are all identical - the different brands just slap a different logo on it.
>>51477802
The nitro also happens to be the highest clocked 380x right now as far as i'm aware.
>>51477681
Both cards have DX12 support.
The difference is that the Fury will, in a properly coded game that uses all the features, gain an average of 30% FPS compared to DX11, whereas the Nvidia cards are so specialised on DX11 that they experience a slight performance drop of about 5%.
>>51477806
Scaling means jack shit when it never works.
I've had my GTX 980 for a year now, so I think I've certainly gotten my money's worth at that 550$ entry price that it had. I feel bad for anyone who isn't 280X and up, you're getting gypped.
>>51477898
The real people who got fucked are those who bought a 780ti when it cost more than a 290x.
So, Sapphire 380x worth getting it ? I have GTX 760 and DaSIII is the only game i'm looking forward to
>>51477810
Same here, just waiting for amd to make a good htpc card since their current cards lack h.265 10bit decoding I don't really care if it is hbm or hbm2, hopefully with upgraded ports so I won't have to use adapters it would be nice just to have an hdmi 2.0 port.
>>51477915
I'll be getting one. Sapphire Nitro is the best cooler for the card.
>>51477839
Does it even matter? Even at 1440p 980 GTX TI edges out Fury X and that's without overclocking and Fury X doesnt oc for shit.
>>51477810
10/10
>>51477929
Every AMD card has a Display port, which can do everything HDMI can, and more.
>>51477936
>Sapphire
Enjoy your void warranty
>>51474133
380x is meh, overpriced. get a 290 instead
>>51477981
Case supports maximum length of 255mm
290/390 is too big
>>51477906
Kek, that is pretty fucking bad, literally buying last years shit at this years premium.
>>51477810
>yfw Nvidia will use HBM2 on Pascal while Fury X is shitting the bed
>>51477954
Latest drivers show them on par with each other.
>building my first PC.
>can't get a goddamn good source on GPU information that doesn't reek of 'THE OTHER GPU IS TOTAL SHITE'
fugg
>>51477964
Ok, irrelevant but ok.
>>51477981
That reminds me... looking at the reviews I felt like the 380X was limited by its 190W powerbudget or some shit. Some reviewers metioned throttling that was not related to thermals (it runs pretty damn cool).
>>51478026
In some games after removing some games that used nVidia things which is another 'strength' of nVidia cards most games just pander to nVidia cards so..
I'd be happy to see if there's any difference in daily use like watching blurays but I get told I'm retarded for asking it.
>>51477810
>>51477929
>fury and hbm will blow titan x they say
>>51478000
>yfw amd refabs the fury x on 16nm with hbm2, increasing efficiency by 50% and increasing overclocking
I want that to happen so original fury owners kill themselves
>>51478076
Other than AMD being known for better colours since god knows when, there is no notable difference in Blu-ray playback.
>>51477810
>Zen might, MIGHT, match 1st gen Haswell performance as a best case scenario
>Meanwhile Intel will be on a refined Skylake process, with Broadwell-E having 10 cores/20 threads
And people actually think Zen will save AMD?
>>51478032
If you're gaming, 280X/GTX 970 and up.
If not, forget it. Just use the onboard graphics on an Intel processor or AMD APU.
If you're a visual arts person, ask a professor or colleague, because you should already know what you need anyways.
>>51478065
For some fuckretarded reason reviewers never touch the power limit option.
I think there was one review that mentioned upping it to 115% for a gain of 3-4 fps but get this: They still showed the old charts while for noise, power and temperature they updated it to the higher power limit
>>51478138
I(AM)DEAD
>>51478130
IIRC CCC has considerably more options related to video playback than what Nvidia's control panel offers.
>>51478146
That's just retarded.
Anyway, I'll up mine to 150% and just let it have what it needs to run smooth, and add a OC on stock volts. It's not like it'll significantly affect performance/watt, but it'll soundly beat the 280X.
>>51471686
thats from internal game patches
>>51478130
>GRAPHICS CARD BRANDS
>BETTER COLORS
>"Nah, it's not the shitty monitor, it's the card."
>SHILLING THIS HARD
>>51478188
Oh, that's true.
In fact, I build a new computer for a friend today and when I first installed the AMD drivers, it actually prompted me to check out the video playback tab in the CCC.
>>51471219
>>51471256
I have a 7950 and everything runs pretty fine, except bamham
you are a free/paid shill and a faggot
>>51478130
Is there a good comparison with monitor being same but GPU different?
>>51478248
Pretty sure I've seen them floating around somewhere. Screencap comparisons and shit. I don't have anything saved though.
Basically, there was banding visible in the shots playing back on Nvidia cards, and the colours were slightly shifted and looked odd in some cases.
Wouldn't be surprised if that's related to some of Nvidia's hacks they used to get lower video playback power consumption (it's like 2-3W more than idle power consumption on a 980Ti, how much can you actually do with that little power?)
>>51478320
I watch a lot of blurays and I'm getting some expennsive monitor go with the expensive ass GPU so I'd like to be sure about things.
if Fury X performs better in blruay use (better colors or whatever) then that might just be a dealbreaker.
It's just always game FPS average comparisons.
>>51471191
>Why do they even sell anymore?
The AMD logo
>>51478216
Its a well known issue anon - off the top of my head it only applies (applied? I forget if they fixed it) across hdmi.
I buy nvidia because its green like shrek and I love shrek!
>>51478360
This is just what I bothered to screencap - there are tons of options.
>>51478360
>falling for the age old amd better color meme
lol, he's fucking with you
If you were serious about watching movies you would use nnedi3 madvr anyways, which runs much faster on nvidia
980TI completely shitstomps Fury X in TW3.
Seems like every dev. uses nVidia things in their games and the AMD stuff is kinda just there a second thought.
>>51478360
That was an unrelated issue with how Nvidia drivers recognised HDMI. It basically thought it was a TV and applied the usual, terrible colours.
>>51478360
Every source I can find on google says that AMD offers better image quality and better video quality.
>>51478475
I do use madvr and no I did not know it runs faster on nVidia cards because I have never tested it on AMD card. Hell last time I actually saw AMD card in real life was almost a decade ago.
>>51477915
meh, not enough of an upgrade imo. I'd get a 290/390/970
>>51478475
madvr is a placebo
pic related is why vlc is considered bad while in reality this option is on 16-255 range on nvidia gpu's by default. VLC honors that setting, mpc-hc does not.
>>51477997
well that's a problem. aren't there some smaller version of the 970?
I honestly wouldn't get a 380x until it's a bit cheaper, at its current price point it doesn't really fit in anywhere
>>51478481
Old benchmark, old drivers.
>comparing factory oced rebrands to reference gpus
the 970 shines once OCed, it's essentially free performance as you don't need to increase voltage to get a 400-500mhz overclock. not sure why nvidia didn't just spec all the maxwell gpus to >1500mhz core clocks.
So is Pascal and whatever AMD is releasing next year going to come out earlier in the year or later like fall 2013 for 290 290x
>>51478145
280x isn't on par with the 970. I'd say 380/960 and up
>>51478542
q2 for nvidia q4 for amd, amd taped out arctic islands only a few weeks ago whilst nvidia taped out pascal all the way back in may
>>51478538
Because of power consumption.
>>51478538
>1080p babby resolution.
please.
>>51478517
Your life is placebo. Don't talk about shit you don't know about. Especially so when the subject on hand is fucking free but you're too ignorant to test out for yourself. And yet just a minute before you were attempting shill for the bullshit color thing now you're claiming placebo when it isn't in your favor. Fucking hypocrite.
http://www.gputechconf.com/
APRIL 4-7, 2016 SILICON VALLEY
THANK YOU BASED NVIDIA
>>51471191
SHILL DETECTED
>>51478581
>And yet just a minute before you were attempting shill for the bullshit color thing now you're claiming placebo when it isn't in your favor
wut
that's literally my only reply to you
>>51478565
q2 is summer right? so around june?
>>51476010
Sapphire = MSI > Gigabyte > XFX > shit >>> asus
>>51478571
an OCed 970 holds it's own with a stock 980 and a 390x at 1440p
>>51476304
muh just gamewerks
>>51478568
maxwell's power consumption doesn't scale with clock speed like GCN does, the 970 still uses less power than a 980 even when clocked very high.
>>51478642
That's maximum power, not average.
>>51478630
>>51478642
This is a stock card, not an OCed one.
>>51477758
>zotac
enjoy your DOA housefire
>>51471191
Good job op shill bux incoming
>>51478517
madvr does way more than just colors breh
>>51471191
>370 drops more than double the frames of gtx950
>>51478666
Zotac owns sapphire you mongoloid
>>51476304
I really dont give a shit if Shitout 4 the Shittening by Shithesda does not work at 60fps veddit FPS in my PC
>>51471191
>370 loses literally every benchmark
>>51478666
>>51478736
>implying all AMD GPUs aren't housefires already
I'd love to see all reviews re benchmark all cards. AMD's drivers have seen getting nice incremental jumps little by little.
Especially the Fury's (X), it'd be a nice change to having these 5+ month old drivers and still using them to compare performance.
>>51478763
>>51478733
>1080p as 'benchmark resolution'.
Come the fuck on
>>51471191
>370 can't hold 30fps on an i3 CPU
>>51471191
>370 needs as more power than an OCd gtx 950
>as much as a more powerful gtx 960
>>51478790
the vast majority of people are still gaming on 1080p monitors. Why shouldn't it be the standard?
>>51478787
Techpowerup's gtx 980 ti lightning has got updated fury x in their 'relative performance' chart shit.
it matches gtx 980 TI in 1440p
edges out at 4k.
loses in 1080 and lower.
but lets not kid ourselves here
980 TI overclocks WAY MORE than fury x
>>51478790
>implying either 370 or equivalent can game above 1080p
>implying anyone buying one has a monitor above 1080p
>>51478832
because AMD fanboys don't like it when you don't highlight the fact that low end AMD cards can get 2 fps more than low end NVIDIA cards at 4k, despite both cards not actually being able to achieve playable performance at 4k
What's a good monitor to go with high end GPU
thinking of that pgq27 asus.
how are benq monitors?
>>51471717
Just a reminder. Remember how the 680 beated the shit out of the 7950? And now the 7950 wrecks it. Remember how the 780 and the 780 Ti beated the shit out of the 290X? Now they lose every time to the 290X, and sometimes even to the 7970.
Longevity isn't a strong point with NVidia cards. They are crippled by newer drivers.
>>51478922
Do you really think software update will bridge the gap 980 TI can make with overclocking it? Why?
>>51478922
fact: newer cards with newer silicon need better drivers to make that silicon WORK PROPERLY
just because a card sucks at launch doesn't mean it will suck in 2 months time
>>51478971
In DX12 a Fury X can already match an OCed 980 Ti. It'll eventually happen. Like it always does.
>>51478971
Well it apparently works for Nvidia since /g/ still believes in the Nvidia wonder driver (late last year? early this year? I forget).
>>51479003
>>51479003
>n DX12 a Fury X can already match an OCed 980 Ti.
Wow what wait
hole up
I have not read about this anon
can i have a link
>>51479003
>In DX12 a Fury X can already match an OCed 980 Ti. It'll eventually happen. Like it always does.
[citation needed]
all the dx12 benchmarks i've seen have used reference gpus
>>51479014
nVidia has been in place where their high end GPU trails behind AMDs?
Recently?
>>51479019
No
In dx12 a 390x performs better than the fury x
>>51478971
Not exactly by AMD making newer and better drivers, but because NVidia depends on drivers to make their cards run well. NVidia cards aren't really strong cards (you can see AMD cards beating them everytime in compute tests), but their drivers are undeniably well-optimized. However, it takes time and money to make them - and older cards will get "forgotten" from newer optimizations.
Also, as AMD bases all their cards on incremental architecture changes, newer optimizations will pass on to the older cards, as they are all GCN.
But I'm just talking out of my ass, though.
>>51479111
>390x
Ain't that older card than Fury X?
AMD can't win anywhere so they try to sell the future. It's like some religious cult promising paradise.
>>51479159
Fury x has a rop bottleneck. In dx12 it's a glorified 390x. 390x can actually outperform it because it has more vram.
>>51479232
So what you are saying to me is that at DX12 390X 500 dollar AMD card (if not hceaper) will match 980TI, 700-800 dollar high end Nvida card?
You wat
>>51479232
Doesn't the 390X match the 980 Ti in compute performance.
I have the feeling we'll see the two perform on par eventually, once Nvidia spots optimising for Maxwell and focuses its efforts on Pascal, leaving Maxwell owners behind.
>>51479287
No.
>>51479291
Games aren't entirely compute. The 980 ti rapes the 390x/fury x in the fable dx12 bench and the unreal dx12 bench.
>>51478565
Once again Nvidia wins.
By the time AMD cards are out, Nvidia cards are perfectly optimized.
AMD is a company that simply cannot be saved anymore.
>>51479364
You said 390x will outperform? Fury X in DX12.
Fury X matches non-OC 980TI in some cases.
Why wouldnlt the 390x then match 980TI?
>Decide processor in a goddamn blink of an eye.
>So much confusing yes/no information between GPUs it's been 40 hours.
imf ucking losin it
>>51479417
There are two types of dx12 benches, the regular kind where it follows the usual hierarchy/gpu tiers, and the shitty ashes benchmark. The ashes benchmark has been discussed to death and the 390x performs uncomfortably close to the fury x (1~2fps) but the 980 ti still pulls ahead. The ashes benchmark isn't a reliable indicator of dx12 performance, but that won't stop poorfags dreaming.
How does Fury X pull ahead of 980 TI with only 4gigs of VRAM
>>51479609
in 4k*
>>51479609
Through the immense power of direct deposit
>>51479609
A combination of factors, but the primary one is that 4gb of vram doesn't hold a card back at 4k. The otheri s GCN is built to get absolutely slammed which is why it takes less of a performance hit as resolution increases (and thus, load) compared to maxwell and kepler.
>>51479609
it doesn't
>>51479287
>700-800 dollar high end Nvida card?
you have it the wrong way around. the 980ti can often be found for less than MSRP these days, while the fury x still can only be bought for $700-800 due to the short supply and low yields
>>51479687
all I see is GPU being tested with absolute bottom of the barrel trash games.
Why are these meaningful 'tests'
>>51479687
>4gb of vram doesn't hold a card back at 4k.
this is what AMD poorfags actually believe
>amdrones getting baited by nvidia shills
>>51479687
>need lmao x-fire to beat one nvidia card
ok and?
by the way those wolfenstein fps numbers are pure bullshit.
57-54 average fps for titan x with i7 while both were clocked and i7 with watercooling, did it myself few nites ago.
granted it was 2560x1600 resolution but its only little bit smaller.
>>51479739
Stay salty - its just a compilation of the charts done for the titan x release review.
>>51479745
If it did the 295x2 wouldn't beat a titan x - once you run out of vram you are fucked and the fps dips can't be hidden even behind averages.
In b4 /g/ fails to understand how dual chip cards work.
>>51471256
I have a Fury (my first AMD card since they bought ATI) and it's been the just werkiest graphics card experience I've ever had. I haven't needed to update the drivers since first install and everything plays at the FPS you'd expect or higher with no stutter.
My last few cards were NVidias and there was much stress over getting the right 'game ready driver', which often had problems for the first few weeks after a game came out and there was horrendous coil whine on all cards too. Comparatively the Fury has been very good for my blood pressure.
YMMV of course but currently AMD are in my good books.
>>51479781
Actually, the 295x2 has 8 GB of VRAM. But the 3.5 GB 970 SLI proves your point.
>>51479781
>If it did the 295x2 wouldn't beat a titan x
it beats a reference titan x whilst being more expensive and consuming 3x the power, no thanks shill
>>51479804
technically yesi t has 8gb of vram, but neither crossfire or sli stack vram, so for practical intents its a 4gb card.
>>51479811
>3x the power
No, it beats it using around double, which is entirely expected as its two 250w cards bolted together. The titan x has a TDP of around 250w.
>>51479855
No, it technically has 8 GB of VRAM on each card. There were 8 GB 290X, also.
>>51479855
Why are you comparing two cards to one. idgi.
>>51479855
>tom's
I know, right?
My 290x is faster than my 970 and my friend's 390 is faster than my 290x.
Not to mention my 970 is janky as hell in ways a card really shouldn't be. It's just fishy as fuck.
>>51479890
>My 290x is faster than my 970 and my friend's 390 is faster than my 290x.
if you didn't OC the 970 it will underperform.
>>51479881
Well, apparently it's really a 4GB card x2. Got confused with the 8 GB 290X cards.
>>51479937
>>51479881
powercolor recently released a 16gb '390x2', dunno if there were 16gb 295x2's, wouldn't be surprised if there was considering it's a $1500 card tho
>>51479881
There were 8gb 290x models, but the 295x2 doesn't use them.
>>51479886
Its to show how vram isn't the limiting factor - the 295x2 has immense gpu grunt but still only 4gb of vram for practical purposes.
>>51479889
DENIED.
Tom's is showing the specific load of the card on each poart is draws power from and its showing average. Your chart of maximum is meaningless because maximum loads don't matter as those spikes last for milliseconds.
Have a newer chart showing the gigabyte 980 peaking at higher draw than a 290x.
>>51479932
What the hell are these bullshit FPSs? I've never seen a live Titan X, not mine, not my friend, go above 70 in BS Infinite 1440p.
>>51471191
>GTX 950 is slower than a budget tier GCN1.0 card
>>51479981
so if AMD has history of beating Nvidia cards with better software support should I get Fury X instead of 980 Ti
I really don't know what is the dealbreaker between 2 cards.
Does Fury X do anything better than the nvidia card? Maybe 4k resolutions but that is not my worry I do not own 4k monitor.
>>51480032
>AMD has history of beating Nvidia cards
they don't, amd's always only been good for price/perf. i don't see the fury x ever outperforming a 980ti given how poorly the fury x OCs, they won't be fixing that even with a rebrand.
>>51480054
980TI it is unti further notice.
