Why would you willingly buy a several hundred dollar GPU that is anticipated to have a low effective life span due to gimping?
Andbody that says AMD cards don't last significantly longer are flat out biased.
I have a Maxwell Nvidia GPU in my laptop, but I would never buy a standalone GPU that is going to have a significant decrease in performance when AMD cards are anticipating an increase.
>>53368451
post 1080p benchmarks
>>53368463
I fail to see how deprecated configurations are worth benchmarking.
>>53368463
The picture isn't really relevant. Current performance isn't what this topic is about.
And 1080P is a low resolution anyway. If you buy a GPU in 2016 it should be for qHD.
>>53368486
no.
You fail to see why you should post evidence contrary to what you want others to believe.
>>53368499
Most people are still on 1080p.
consoles are still 720p.
>>53368486
only because what >>53368503 said is true.
Shills.
>>53368451
I bought a 380X because
>amdgpu
Also, hopefully I can just add another one for crossfire for VR. Otherwise, It'll still be great as a hypervisor boot GPU as it uses <5W on idle.
>>53368451
because
>fury x is only 4 frames per second better than a 390
>980 ti is 19 frames better than a 970
reming me again why I should buy AMD?
If I go out of my way to upgrade to 1440p i'll just get a 980 ti, if I stay at 1080p I'm better off with Nvidia.
Just give up, >>53368503 is right, you're just going to post shitty cherrypicked and inaccurate benchmarks to try and prove a shitty point no one cares about.
>>53368870
Fiji didn't massively improve core performance or core count.
What Fiji was based around was implementing HBM for massive improvements to compute and high-res performance.
The benchmarks for 1440 and 2160p speak for themselves.
If you buy a Fury/X and game on a 1080p monitor, you better be using virtual super resolution.
>>53369238
It loses in 1080p and trades blows in 1440p and 4k.
If it was $50 cheaper than a 980 ti it would have been a good buy.
>>53369360
I don't dispute that the 980ti is a better card in the current market, but I would also not be at all surprised if people were replacing their 980ti's in 1-2 years while the Fury's just keep on running everything great.
I'm receiving a 390 tomorrow. I thought hard about this and decided that DX12 support and 8GB of VRAM were more important than lower power consumption.
I'm replacing an 6850 I bought back in 2012. That card served me extremely well and kept up with new games.
>>53369400
but why?
Driver gimping is just a meme.
>>53369484
Driver gimping isn't the issue.
AMD has, for at least the last few generations of GPU's, made sure that their products are "future proofed" by including support for more modern API's (even if they aren't 'certified').
nVidia's GPUs (with a few exceptions) haven't typically kept up with modern API's to the same extent that the AMD equivalents have.
AMD puts a lot of work into their cards so that they last longer and remain relevant, even at the expense of having less than desirable performance at launch.
>>53369580
except that hd 6xxx and 5xxx are no longer getting driver support and lack dx12 support even though it's compatible with every dx11 card, all the way back to fermi?
Sure with GCN they saw ahead but my HD6870 is no longer supported and that makes me think twice about purchasing anything else from them for a while.
>>53369690
They're not updating the non-GCN drivers because they don't have the resources to work on two completely different architectures.
nVidia can support their cards back to the 500 series because their architecture hasn't changed as much as AMD's did in the transition to GCN,
nVidia also has the resources to do so, although the implementations for DX12 on nVidia's legacy drivers will be interesting in terms of performance.
>>53369771
I'm more interested in multiadapter.
Going from a hd 5870 to a gtx 670, I can't take advantage of it, but my friend can toss in his gtx 650 alongside his gtx 960 and be bumped up to gtx 970/r9 390 performance in dx12 titles
