So the latest round of AMD cards were pretty underwhelming I think everyone can agree.
One thing I don't understand, even if the Fury and 390x were underwhelming, why didn't they at least try to severely undercut Nvidia on a price point range thus at least to try to build a larger marketshare for future products.
AMD's business decisions are quite strange, why would you pick up a Fury over a 980ti in the same price range? You wouldn't.
What is AMD's plan that I am missing?
depending on rabid 'protect the underdog' consumer base
The only thing AMD fucked up was not putting HDMI 2.0 outputs on the cards and not making the top of the line fury X a 6GB card. That alone would have warranted the price.
This whole current generation of GPU's is dog shit.
>>52063463
Doesnt need more than 4gb with the HMB speeds
390x is way better than a 970 and is only like $50 more expensive.
Fury X was a letdown.
>>52063463
>This whole current generation of GPU's is dog shit.
/thread. Rebrands out the ass from one side, ripoff prices on the other.
That and few games worth playing anyway
>>52063473
Nice meme
>>52063473
the 980ti doesn't need it either really, but that's not the point when 3rd parties are releasing shit like the devil13 triple slot dual gpu card, 8GB 390x's etc.
my 290x isn't going anywhere any time soon. thought about trading it + cash for a used 980 but then i realized that would be retarded given that people really think a 980 is 'worth' 500 fucking dollarydoos.
Was thinking of picking up a 390x (1080p gaming is all I care about and my current video card can barely play The Witcher 3 at 30fps+ on low settings)
Not worth it, should I wait to next gen of video cards?
I bought two for the CrossFire benefits over SLI
>>52063548
you should pick up a 280x or 290x used and meme it out i mean wait it out.
>>52063389
>''the titan x killer'' is coming with new hbm
>they release fury x
>clearly slower than a stock 980ti at the launch
>fiji is not so good (high power draw, bad oc)
>wait 4 month for decent drivers who match with the 980ti
>too late
>they release 3xx
>rebranded overpriced 2xx
>yes with more vram but ZERO chip improvement, same gnc
>then they are surprised because they lost all the gpu market
Nvdia are evils
but AMD are incompetent
I wish a better year for amd
You can't just make Fury X cheaper and sell more. Fury price is dictated by availability. Next year is probably going to see a price drop around the same time Fury X2 releases.
AMD is leading in price/performance at all other price points, so it's not AMD's fault these cards aren't selling.
>>52063389
Anyone know model 390x performs the best?
>970
>3.5
>AMD
>Power hungry and high heat
Welp, bring back 3DFX
>>52063896
That only makes it ~$50 more expensive, you aussie idiot.
>>52063933
a year and a half ago our dollar was worth more than the US dollar, I would have gotten it for a $200+ discount
>>52063933
Also the point was I thought it was 400 AUD, not 400 US since I thought I was on the AU store.
>>52063519
>implying anything over 4GB today isn't meme territory.
>>52063896
I know this feeling all too well
>>52063933
>$400USD is $570AUD
I don't fuckin fink so mVIII
Also, we get fucked by vendors over here anyways. Shit sucks.
>>52063389
This gen is pretty shit if you already have decent cards from the last 2 generations. It's like intels' last few generation of cpu, each new generation is pretty meh in terms of improvements.
>>52063389
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/49191/amd-stock-rises-21-percent-five-days-68-three-months/
Link related. Its proof you don't have any business experience at all. And probably have no real merit questioning any business decisions of a multi-billlion dollar company.
>tfw 980Ti
Feels... conflicted, man. On the one hand, I upgraded from a 670 so the performance increase is massive. On the other hand, I feel like we really should have come farther than we did.
Hopefully the 980Ti lasts me at least one more year, what with Nvidia gimping cards left and right.
>>52063463
Pretty much this, but also:
PROPER FUCKING DRIVERS. The 390 series and the Fury series were plagued with driver issues ten fold worse than it had ever been before. Most of it has been resolved now but Fury owners still suffer from the 2D clock glitchout where your screen just goes all batshit insane while idle at desktop.
>>52064242
The rise in stock has been due to them partnering with Samsung to produce chips for mobile phones.
Their GPU market has been crashing and burning for years. They need to do something drastic to capture market share from Nvidia. I think selling the Fury X and 390x at even a loss to severely undercut Nvidia would have been a good move since it should rapidly increase brand awareness of ATI.
980ti and FuryX both have a RRP of $650 If I was ATI, I would have set the FuryX at $500 and the 390x at $300.
That would have absolutely demolished the Nvidia market. Sure you take a hit in profit, but companies do this all the time to build brand awareness, the Playstation consoles have always been sold at a loss for the first year or two after launch.
How bad is the 390? Sitting on a 7950 right now. Am I gonna see some crazy gainz or should I wait?
>>52064403
>3 months of rising prices are due to one week old news
>mobile chips
Clearly you are an expert on the semiconductor industry. Please tell us more.
>>52064448
Better than a 970 for the same price, though your not going to see 60fps when it comes to 4k gaming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9cKZiJw6Pk
>>52064448
Wait. There is nothing you can't play properly on a 7950.
>>52064478
Why would AMD stock be rising due falling GPU sales?
Oh wait, it wouldn't. AMD stock would be rising for other reasons.
It was retarded to price the Fury the same price as the 980ti a superior card in every aspect.
>>52064503
AMD is actually gaining market share back from Nvidia and doing OK in the GPU and semi-custom chip business. The reason AMD is losing money is mainly the CPU business.
Power:
980ti > Titan X > Fury X > 980 > Fury > 390X > 390 > 970.
Value
980ti > 390 = 390X > 970 > Fury = Fury X > Titan X
>>52063641
>yes with more vram but ZERO chip improvement
Come on now, Anon. Don't get too far ahead of yourself now. If you actually did a bit of googling (Not just one search) you'd know that it's an improved process. Doesn't get as hot, does OC bit better and uses a little less power. Obviously not 100w less but anything is still an improvement.
looking to upgrade my 7790 1GB.
already have 4690k so cpu wont be limiting me, getting new psu too so not enough power wont be an issue either.
have enough budget for 970/390, can't decide which one to get. i want this card to last ~2 years, so skipping pascal/arctic islands with it and i'll just upgrade with another generation.
1080p only atm, considering 1440p in ~6-12 months or so but it's not really a priority for me.
all i understand now is that gtx970 got meme 3.5, better power consumption, better drivers and as nvidia is more popular more stuff will be optimized for it.
on the other hand 390 got full 8 GB of ram, better memory bandwidth, performance in dx12 (remember i wont be getting pascal).
price for both is almost the same where i live, performance atm seems to be very similar too from tests i seen. but i heard amd cards age better, so i'm leaning towards 390.
anything else i should consider?
>>52064693
390 is a better card than 970.
Both are decent value for their cost.
>>52064693
>on the other hand 390 got full 8 GB of ram
Unless you crossfire you wont be using that 8GB is any playable scenario. I've got CF 390s and they're great though. It's a better buy for the long term, but don't let the 8GB fool you. The 390 also runs hotter and consumes more power, so your only real options for 'cool' cards are Powercolor or Sapphire. MSI is the best overclocker, but one of the hottest too.
I hate AMD Eyefinity though, Crimson removed hotkeys so you can switch between Extended and Eyefinity. Nvidia has the better software for users.
>>52064693
The driver argument is invalid. So long as you're not an idiot who installs new drivers right over the top of new ones then you're fine.
The R9 390 is literally the best value brand new card available and WILL last you many more YEARS than a 970 will.
>>52063389
>why didn't they at least try to severely undercut Nvidia on a price point range
Because the vultures in charge of amd were too busy giving themselves a fat raise. They need money for that, you know.
>>52064702
thanks.
>>52064724
>Unless you crossfire you wont be using that 8GB is any playable scenario.
i know but having more wont hurt. can always get back to modded skyrim again, this time on ok performance. not panning on doing cf, i'd rather just sell one card and get new one for the same money as getting another of old one.
>The 390 also runs hotter and consumes more power, so your only real options for 'cool' cards are Powercolor or Sapphire.
got define s so i'm not really afraid of heat, can always slap 2 more fans. was actually thinking about sapphire.
>>52064725
>The driver argument is invalid. So long as you're not an idiot who installs new drivers right over the top of new ones then you're fine.
idm waiting few days and checking internet if new drivers are released.
>WILL last you many more YEARS than a 970 will.
good to know.
so, anything better than sapphire r9 390 nitro? idm less oc potential for a cooler/quieter card.
>>52063896
>god fucking damn it I hate living in the country with the highest dollars/hour payment ratio in the world!
Oh poor you, please tell me how much you're suffering! :(((
>>52064807
When you factor in the cost of living we get fucked over.
>>52063520
you the 980 has the worst bang for buck even for a high end card. I mean for christ's sake the 980Ti is better performance per dollar wise. The 970 can achieve stock 980 performance when overclocked for way cheaper.
Even if you overclock the balls off it you might get around 10 additional frames, wasn't very lucky with my G1. Apparently most cards can hit 1500MHz on core when boosted, not sure if that takes into account overvolting and running stable for several hour long sessions.
Managed to hit around 1450MHz stable on boost with stock voltage and stock fan profile, if I get to 1500 or higher it runs for a good while then TDRs reverting to factory clocks. pushed memory to 7800MHz which doesn't create any visible artifacting or TDRs after stress testing for hours on end in the summer heat. Card hits 73 degrees C maximum.
This nets me a whopping 7 frames in valley, amazing. Not much of a boost, overvolting wouldn't be worth killing the card and fans for to gain an extra frame or two. With watercooling one can go crazy with it, the boost clock seems to give me an extra 15~20 or so MHz on core when the card is well under 65 degrees.
>>52064798
So far that's the pinnacle however the MSI TF5 is a close second with very good cooling if you're after a red theme
>>52064807
average household income is basically the same as the US and our cost of living is fucking batshit crazy expensive.
Australians have less spending money than Americans or Europeans.
>>52064724
>I hate AMD Eyefinity though, Crimson removed hotkeys so you can switch between Extended and Eyefinity. Nvidia has the better software for users.
Hate to break it to you, but I have nvidia surround and it sucks absolute ass.
It is even more broken on windows 10 the hotkey for reverting from surround to extended mode doesn't work anymore.
Even without that issue you have to close fucking everything to setup triple monitor, one trick I use is to tick the box to enable/disable it after I am done which allows me to edit surround settings without closing anything in the background for some odd reason. Using that method however, you have to go windows display settings and manually assign the other two monitors to extend desktop after you disable surround.
>>52064798
I've got the Define S too with all, but 1 the slots filled with 140mm fans. 55 idle on 1 card 45 idle on the other.
>>52065355
Also those temps are with the panel open to be fair, but with 1 card I did idle around 45c with it closed.
>>52064798
I have a nitro 390, no problems with it on modded skyrim, new vegas, gta v, witcher 3.
It slightly edges out the 970 imo.
>>52064602
the 390X has a worse value than the 390, the performance that you get for the extra money isn't worth it.
I've got a pair of CF 7870 2GB, am I right in thinking that going up to a 390 or 390x would be very little gain for the cost, power savings aside?
>>52065826
Depends what resolution, graphic settings, fps and games you want to play. Very little for a moba sure, but decent for any AAA game released recently
>>52065845
Well I have a 4k monitor but obviously I can't run much at that resolution.
>>52066166
Still doesn't really answer my question, but if your CF is doing what you want it to them don't upgrade. Future proofing is a meme. Only upgrade when you need to.
>>52067095
I don't intend to CF with 390s - I did CF with the 7870s because I got them end of generation for about £100 each.
I play stuff like Spengies, ArmA, Planetary Annhilation. I can mostly max most things at 1080p but 4k takes a huge steaming shit over my framerate.
>>52064602
980ti value???
what the fuck am i reading.
>>52063548
I just picked up a 380 (no x) for like 160 on sale. I'm satisfied with my 144hz and freesync until 14 nm gets cheaper
>>52067126
Well if 1080p is what you play at stay with what you have. Single 390 isn't remotely good at 4k. 1440p if alright with the 390, but you won't be maxing settings.
why does 8gb graphics card ram doesn't give any advantage to 4gb(3.5gb)?
Just go look at how bad amds stock has been. it's at a 15 year low. amd is garbage bin tier.
>>52064190
More like
>implying anything over 3.5GB today isn't meme territory.
Shill harder AMD!
>>52064602
>Value Fury = Fury X
Are you retarded? The Fury X gets about 9% higher FPS but costs 25% more, at least in Britbong land. A modest OC on the Fury brings it to stock Fury X performance.
Building a new PC for first time and going with a 380. Sort of like a placebo till Pascal and what AMD has planned in the near future are released. 1080p only gaming so I hope it's worth £165 :/
>>52069630
AMD has released quite some impressive cards lately, the r9 380x seems ridiculously good for the price, but... why should i get it?
I'm looking for a card that can:
-Replace my aging 8800 GT, which i can't even play path of exile or warframe above 800x600 without lag or
-Perform at 1280x1024 a resolution that i use because it's better with one working eye and because the monitors offer better contrast ratios than most reasonably priced 1080p variants
-Uses little power as I have no interest in replacing my 400w PSU
-Will be able to just sit in my case for the next 5 years or so playing whatever i want it to at full monitor resolution regardless of settings, as i'm not a graphics whore.
I first considered entry level amd cards but found they were all horse shit wastes of money, then looking at the 750 ti, i felt it would just not remain relevant long enough.
Now I'm leaning towards the gtx 960 4gb version by gigabyte. I probably won't ever need 4 gb instead of 2 at this resolution but since i intend to leave this in there for a good long while like i did with my 8800, it can't hurt to try to be a little future proof, can it?
If anyone knows of any AMD cards that can offer me the kind of performance to power ratio as the 960 let me know. I really like AMD as a company and as much as I would like to support them, I can't
>>52064652
They put more stable voltage regulator module for the chip with few brands but it's the same fucking chip with no revision
>Doesn't get as hot, does OC bit better and uses a little less power. Obviously not 100w less
Yeahhhhhhh....look the power consumption of the 390x vs the 290x...
>>52069858
>gtx 960 4gb version
No point in 4gb version at all, if there's anything that takes 4gb of ram of the card, it won't run good on it.
Just buy whatever you can get cheaper, something with a nice quiet aftermarket cooler.
>>52063463
>The only thing AMD fucked up was not putting HDMI 2.0 outputs on the cards
That alone killed the appeal of the lower end cards and the Nano for me. If I can't hook up my HTPC to a 4K TV and get the full 4k 60FPS playback that I spent money for, then why even bother?
Nvidia all the way for HTPCs
>>52063843
MSI has the highest factory OC, I don't even bother overclocking mine because it already destroys everything
>>52070207
>look the power consumption of the 390x vs the 290x
Its not that much higher considering the ram is running 250mhz faster than a 290x as well as having +50 core clocks. The msi 390x however is a guzzolene suckingm onster thats fit to fight the whit line nightmare due to its insane default voltage offset (and why it runs at 1100mhz core clocks).
>>52064244
the 980ti is gonna last you at least 3 years on High/Ultra settings if you keep playing at 1080p
So is Intel better than AMD now?
>>52064602
980 trades blows with 390x in a lot of games, and performs a little worse on higher resolutions, so it would be Fury > 980 = 390x
>>52071277
>now
>>52071277
Always were.
>>52071327
>>52071310
Lol. Thanks anons.
>>52069858
R9 380?
>>52069858
The nano seems nice for you because of its low TDP. The 960 will be okay for a few years indeed if you game at 1280x1024, equivalent from AMD would be a 380, which eats tons more watts.
>>52064248
Werks on my machine
so i'm buying a new comp and i'm trying to decide between the gtx 970 and r9 390
considering there wont be any game i care about released in the near future i dont particularly care about pascal and just want a card that will run witcher and near future mmos at highest settings.
from what i gather the 390 has somewhat better hardware but the 970 has better optimizations.
company loyalty and the evilness of nvidia aside, which card will perform better for me in the coming years?
will the difference between the ram amounts become relevant in the lifespan of these cards?
>>52071711
I really think they're on par, but considering future games and DX12 maybe the 390 has a slight advantage. Also more VRAM is always better
>>52071711
No one really knows how much ram future games will use, but more never hurt if the 970 and 390 trade blows at 1080p without vram being an issue.
>>52071711
>just want a card that will run witcher ... at highest settings
Can the 390 or 970 really do that at locked 60fps? When I was between 1440p monitors, my Fury dropped into the mid-50s in the evening weather in W3 at 1080p, I had to put a 15% OC on it to push it back up to 60. Got hella toasty.
>>52063389
their cards are better at every price point but the high end
>>52073105
A 60fps lock is impossible for most games unless you have overwhelmingly more powerful hardware. Engine stalls and data streaming are common areas where no matter your hardware fps will drop.
>>52073145
Pretty much this.
The Fury X though is overpriced as fuck it should be at least $100-$150 cheaper than it actually is.
>>52075827
Considering its watercooled straight from the factory, the price is about right. Get regular fury if you don't want it extra quiet and cool. The bad part is that hbm overclocking is still factory locked.
Wait until AMD's 400 series Q2 next year. 14nm vs Nvidfaggot's 16nm Pascal crap
both the fury X and the 980ti are expensive pieces of shit.
whats the point of spending 600 dollars on a GPU when every AAA game sucks dick, and the only fun games can easily be played by a 200$ gpu.
>2015
>playing bf4 at 4k
fucking meme kids buying this shit up is why the gpu market is such shit
>>52076335
NEXT YEAR
Nvids next GPU will have 10x the performance in Pascal vs Maxwell
amd is being extremely jewish as well with their FX cpu's shits are from 2012 and proven to be like 30% less effective than an i5, yet a fx8350 is 180$ seriously AMD that cpu should be like 120$ MAX
and jewtel is even worse but since their winning they got an excuse
>>52076366
you retards do understand they are going to price the pascal at 600-800$ right?
maybe in like 2-4 years pascal will be affordable
>>52076388
>being this much of a poorfag
heh
Dont worry, 980 ti will hit $300 for you soon enough
>>52076335
>980ti
>expensive pieces of shit
but my 8800 ultra
>>52076388
>the pascal
Pascal is an architecture, you fucking retard.
They are going to use that architecture to build chips ranging from small and cheap to big and expensive, and release graphics cards using those chips. Just like Arctic Islands (GCN 2.0). Just like Maxwell. Just like GCN 1.x. Just like Kepler. Just like every GPU architecture that ever existed.
Why are you even on /g/ if you're this clueless about technology?
>>52076366
>will have 10x the performance in Pascal vs Maxwell
Nvidiots actually believe this complete bullshit.
I don't get it. Just like >>52076388, how can you be this poorly informed about technology and still be on the technology board? Technology is clearly not for you.
>>52063389
>the latest round of AMD cards were pretty underwhelming
yet they still outperform Nvidia's cards on all price ranges except the $650 one. If this generation from AMD was underwhelming, then this generation from Nvidia was even more so, because they can't even outperform AMD's underwhelming generation.
>>52077251
>mfw fury x will be on par with GTX 980ti equilant of pascal anyway with future driver releases
>>52063641
>then they are surprised because they lost all the gpu market
sadly this
>>52063389
amd was underwhelming how?
we got nvidia lying to us about 4gb
we have nvidia pushing gameworks to cripple amd but also hurt the 700 series
we got failed win 10 drivers from nvidia
we got device killing drivers from nvidia
and the one part of amds cards that looks bad is the furyX, but remember the time frame, nvidia cut down their 1000$ titan to make the 980ti, and they priced it to fuck with the furyX, and that alone... funny thing is, at 1440 and 4k, fury x beats the 980ti...
if anything, amd forced nvidia into a desperate situation with the high end and they were forced to make a drastic choice and sacrifice the titan sales.
but even then, every price point beides 650, its amds win.
and even if amd lost at every one, due to nvidias business practices, i cant chose them so long as amd is competitive, and they are at every price point.
>>52063641
To be fair, they delivered on the first part. They couldn't have anticipated Nvidia getting as lucky as they did with the 980ti, otherwise, Fury and Fury X really would've been Titan killers, being right on par with it performance wise, as well as the price gap.
And Fury driver problems must be really isolated, because it always seems like for every 1 guy with problems there's 1000 "werks on my machine" guys. Myself included.
>>52077785
we have rebrands galore from AMD
we have huge power draw numbers from AMD
we have the disappointment that is the Fury (X)
we have had card killing drivers from AMD
I mean, those are pretty significant
>>52071711
390 will probably destroy the 970 once more games start using D3D12 and more VRAM.
>>52077827
>card killing drivers
Stop blowing things out of proportion. Nobody's card died, some just got a little hot because a fan didn't spin up quite right. Worst case scenario, they throttled and their PC crashed.
Its not like we're talking about Fermi, here.
>>52077883
290x runs hotter than a 480.
>>52077827
*wait a lot of time for new good drivers (Crimson)
>>52077911
Difference being one was designed to handle temps that high, and the other just burst into flames.
>>52077911
My 290x never goes over 60
To be fair, 5am in the north of Scotland will do that
>>52077827
300 is a refresh, stop trying to meme everything about and. 7xxx to the 200 series is a rebrand. Your one valid point is the power draw. No one's card died because at worst throttling would have just crashed their pc.
>>52077827
and the "rebrands" are better than anything nvidia... god how bad did nvidia do this year?
(correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there a bit of firmware change on the rebrands that also help out with power?)
the moment you oc an nvidia card to preform better than amd at the price range, suddenly it eats as much or more than amd... really this is a wash as power is a non factor, in money or system in real countries that have working power infrastructure.
again, the furyX was a disappointment only when you take into account the 980ti, you know, the card nvidia was forced to push out if they wanted to keep the title of fastest gpu, which they still lose at higher resolutions.
>>52077911
had a stock 290x for a while, never ran over 70c because i'm not a complete retard, fan noise wasn't bad louder than i would have liked but not bad.
moved it to water cooling and it never really goes over 50c.
that said, non stock cards dont really go over 70 with much quieter fans.
almost want to call this a non issue because if you have a stock card you either paid a retard price for it or managed to get it within the first few hours of it being on sale (i did) and not get the huge fucking lite coin markup... by the time the non ref cards came out the lite coin shit was dying out.
>>52078046
lets assume someones card did die, if i remember right the bug was user error and you had to change the setting yourself to make it happen.
>>52077789
nvidia didn't get lucky, they got wind of the performance of the fury/x and cut down a titan, calling it the 980ti... timing for it is undeniable. everything happened just to take wind out of amds announcements and should have been win.
>>52077851
it already does, some games use the crippled .5gb before the working 3.5 is full, that alone makes the 970 a no buy.
>>52071208
The bug had to do with people using Overdrive and it setting the fan speed to 20%. I used SpeedFan and didn't have the issue on my 280 or 390
>>52078023
>>52078181
Meant for >>52078108 that was weird.
>>52078186
Why is that comparing the tdp of a non-reference card with a decent stock oc to a reference card.
>>52078108
>that said, non stock cards dont really go over 70 with much quieter fans.
can attest to this. my 390 nitro oc'ed to 1111mhz doesn't get hotter the 67c with fans @ 60% while running benchmarks.
game load temp never go over 55 with fans @ 50%
>>52063389
>why didn't they at least try to severely undercut Nvidia on a price point range thus at least to try to build a larger marketshare for future products.
Nvidia is making money. AMD isn't. Guess who can afford a price war?
>>52064846
It all just depends on how much you pay. You can find 980s for 375 fairly easily and as low as 300 used. Then it definitely beats the 980ti price to performance
>>52078239
amd card are hot like the 480, why fury need a AIO...?
>>52078108
>it already does, some games use the crippled .5gb before the working 3.5 is full, that alone makes the 970 a no buy.
>le 3.5 meme @1080p
>>52078303
There's air cooled versions of the fury. It doesn't need an aio.
>>52078271
That means if AMD actually got their shit together we'll be seeing low price gpus.
amd is stagnating the market
>>52078044
my 290x is idling at 46c in a cramped as fuck case. my computer is actually next to an open window for times when it's cold and that works out well.
71c after a few minutes loading up STALKER on default fan profile. default a shit though so afterburner that shit.
>>52078318
dude, read the full thing, some games touch the bad .5 before the rest of the 3.5 is used up, shit gets patched out when it happens, but it still happens, once pascal comes out will it get patched out in the first month anymore?
>>52078361
Still consumes more power than a 980 ti while being half as powerful
>>52063389
>So the latest round of AMD cards were pretty underwhelming I think everyone can agree.
So were the latest NVidia cards to be honest. AMD is at least trying something new, though. Their HBM2 cards are going to be very interesting.
>>52078186
>max power consumption
you realize fury only uses about half that, the majority of the time, right? Not to mention the water pump its powering. Just because It's capable of that wattage doesn't mean that's what it uses all the time. Even Tom's shillware confirms it (all the while doing the best they can to take jabs at AMD)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-r9-fury-x,4196-7.html
>>52078339
it's a cut Fury with less core...
>>52078361
do you have it fully patched? i know that game without the most up to date patches doesn't respect v-sync and runs at 300-500fps.
>>52064532
Yeah instead of just 18% market share they now have 18.2%
>>52070708
>If I can't hook up my HTPC to a 4K TV and get the full 4k 60FPS playback that I spent money for, then why even bother?
If you are using a 4k HTPC then you probably won't need a videocard to begin with, other than maybe a low-profile passive card to get around the fact that Intel drivers are dogshit useless for HTPC setups.
>>52078424
Truly the beginning of the end for Nvidia.
>>52078385
290x came out Oct 24, 2013
980ti came out June 2, 2015
so either you got a year and a half, or year head start, in which the 980ti was not out, or you got the 290x far more recently for 200$ or less... yea, power draw is a point to make here.
>>52078385
costs less than half a 980ti and energy is dirt cheap. lol no a 290x isn't half as powerful, read some benchmarks.
>paying 980ti prices for such little gain in fps
>>52078444
Maxwell was finished and ready for production in 2013. That really shows how behind AMD is.
>>52078303
>amd knows they get hot
>"lets water cool the reference cards from the the factory guys"
>nividia's titan get upwards to 100c and sounds like a jet taking off
>IT'S FINE, NO WATER COOLING NEEDED HERE! WE'LL RELEASE THE 980TI LATER ANYWAY. FUCK EVERYONE WHO BUYS THIS.
>>52078403
if stalker respect half the shit i told it to do i'd be concerned that i was playing metro instead.
i don't see any crazy screen tearing going on so i'll assume it's fine. steam copy i bought a year or so ago. i really don't give a shit about it getting hot, it's within it's thermal limits unlike typical /g/ posters.
>>52077789
>price gap
You're really not very bright. The Titans were always meant to set up the 970/980. Nothing else.
>release GTX 680 with GK104 -- your midrange chip -- at $500
>can AMD price cut? No, they're bankrupt. They have to charge as much as Nvidia will allow.
>Delay Big Kepler. Make people wait in anticipation. Release it as Titan at $1000. Fanbois aren't angered because "workstation card."
>Release GTX 780. At $500? Heck no, we've prepped everyone with a new pricing structure with Titan. $650.
>can AMD price cut? No, they're bankrupt.
>Release GTX 780 Ti. At $650? Heck no, $700!
>Release Titan Black and Titan Z -- $1000 and $3000! Prices to the extreme!
Then
WHAM!
980 and 970.
$550 looks like a bargain compared to $700 and $3000. $330 looks like an absolute steal. That's why every single person on the planet bought at least six 970's.
Nvidia played AMDs weakness perfectly.
This entire current generation of cards were total dogshit. AMD did rebrands + one new card, Nvidia release a tweaked arc that performs the exact same and they hide that by gimping the old cards with their drivers.
The upcoming 14/16nm cards will be a huge breath of fresh air. For a year. After that we are stuck with shit respins for 4 more years, because it is getting impossible to shrink nodes any further. About the only improvement they can do after the upcoming generation cards is to improve HBM and perhaps come up with something that takes advantage of the ridiculous amount of bandwidth in there.
tldr; Next gen cards will be amazing, the gen after that will suck hard, unless they can leverage HBM.
>>52078475
maybe because Fury is a housefire
>>52078475
fury x can't run without a water cooling system
>>52078552
>fury x housefire
>runs cooler than a 980ti reference
>>52078591
Fury x is a failure
It needs to be $500
>>52063463
This.
I'm fucking pissed off that those retards at AMD didn't bother to put HDMI2 on, at the very least, the fury line.
>>52063874
This, tbhfam. Nvidia are a bunch of cunts, AMD are a bunch of retards.
We need a 3rd player to step in and smack them both.
>>52064242
The stock rise has nothing to do with GPUs you illiterate slag. It's due to them sucking samsungs dick in the short term and more news of zen in the longer term.
>>52078591
Thanks for the shitty power efficiency
>>52078586
Only the VRMs get hot, because they used an incompetent setup that doesn't cool them.
And it's not like Geforce cards don't get hot either.
>>52064807
It's also $450/wk to rent a decent house in a non-shit suburb in NSW, so feel free to fuck up cunt.
>>52078627
But the power draw is lower
>>52078627
>buy $1000 gpu
>can't afford $10 backplate
>>52078489
the coil wine is bad when its pushing 300+frames.
steam copy should be fully patched though.
>>52078643
>buy $1000 gpu
>$10 backplate not included
fucking dropped
>>52078641
it's only a 25 watt difference. if you can notice that in your power bill than you are king jew
>>52078669
In all fairness, power effects are cumulative.
Less power hungry GPU = less PSU draw, helping keep it in the 40-60% sweet spot
Less PSU draw means less heat means lower fan speeds
Less heat dumped the case means lower fan speeds, means less power used
etc
In the end that 25w could turn into 40-50w.
Which you still wouldn't notice.
>>52078627
This picture never fails to make me laugh
>101.98c
Now all we need is some wood screws and we're set
>>52078669
Back in the 200 days people were spending $100 more on nvidia cards to save $17 a year on their electricity bill.
The sheckle is strong with nvidia.
>>52063389
-stop the re-rebrands
-stop the ''overclocker dream'' disappointment (fury)
-be more professional (stop your boring marketing)
-fix your performance per watt like maxwell (why a full 980 can run in a laptop)
>>52078727
https://youtu.be/wCi5hiIO4fs
AMD gpus are now the housefires
>>52076366
>Nvids next GPU will have 10x the performance in Pascal vs Maxwell
>*10x 16-bit performance
>>52063389
>were pretty underwhelming
Not really.
They were the first implementation of HBM.
All the cards are short. With compact and effective coolers.
The FuryX averages out to about 250w under load, which is impressive for 28nm.
FuryNano matches the performance of a 980, while only drawing 170watts and being 6" in length.
>>52078840
>They were the first implementation of HBM
Showing 0 benefit
>All the cards are short. With compact and effective coolers.
Which rarely matters
>The FuryX averages out to about 250w under load, which is impressive for 28nm.
Except it isn't, at all. It's very average.
>FuryNano matches the performance of a 980, while only drawing 170watts and being 6" in length.
While also costing more and having coil whine problems.
Fiji is fucking trash, accept it and hope for better next year with HBM2 and GDDR5X.
>>52078840
>They were the first implementation of HBM
and?
>FuryNano matches the performance of a 980, while only drawing 170watts and being 6" in length
and for the same price than a fury x...
>>52078860
>>They were the first implementation of HBM
>Showing 0 benefit
Except, you know, halving the power draw over GDDR5, which allowed them to push more performance into the same total power envelope.
>>All the cards are short. With compact and effective coolers.
>Which rarely matters
First people complaining about AMD's coolers being too big, and now too small.
Please, make up your mind. If you want an enormous cooler, there's plenty of aftermarkets for you.
>>The FuryX averages out to about 250w under load, which is impressive for 28nm.
>Except it isn't, at all. It's very average.
Except it does it without sacrificing an enormous amount of FP64 performance.
To be honest, if AMD cut their FP64 clocks as hard as Nvidia does, they would be below Nvidia's power draw at higher clocks.
>>FuryNano matches the performance of a 980, while only drawing 170watts and being 6" in length.
>While also costing more and having coil whine problems.
Literally only a fan problem. Aftermarket coolers would be just as small without that problem.
>>52079765
>high FP64 performance on a consumer card
that thing has never made sense since they have their own professional line of cards, ditto with openCL
>>52079842
it differentiates them from the competition at least.
it's too bad consumers don't care about companies not gimping cards. they'll literally buy anything that's been gimped over shit that hasn't.
>>52079877
It does but at what cost?
They could rip it all out, get the power draw down add more dedicated FP32 circuitry and run nvidia up a cliff. The only people caring about high precision are users in the situation of having little money and wanting precision which there are very little when compared to the "gamer" crowd.
The average consumer card buyer only cares about FP32 by proxy of their render time/frame rates.
