Nvidia gimping has already begun
>>55378981
It was only a matter of time
>>55378981
Nice proof faggot.
>>55378981
>981
>>55381480
480
Please stop
>>55378981
>it took Nvidia 3 years to beat AMD's 295x2
top kek
>>55378981
>280x barely behind GTX 780 now
>People still fall for the Nvidia meme
>>55383011
A stock 780, down at 863MHz. I just ditched mine and it easily overclocked to 1241MHz with just a few slider changes in Afterburner. At that speed it matched a moderately-overclocked 970 or a stock 390. Best of luck overclocking a 280X to that level.
>>55383185
My 280x is clocked to 1150 m8, and besides, totally different price point.
>>55378981
>970 behind 780 ti now
the fuck is this shit?!
>>55383291
>My 280x is clocked to 1150 m8
And? That still won't get it anywhere near the stated performance level. You'd need to reach ~1450MHz to match up, so again, good luck with that.
>besides, totally different price point
Yes, and it still comfortably outperforms the 280X when we're not busy comparing what is a 7970 with a large factory overclock to a stock 780. What's the issue here?
>>55378981
>non reference card out performing reference card
>muh gimping
yeah, ok
>>55383300
The 970 was always behind the 780 Ti.
>>55383344
The issue is that it originally went up (and sometimes lost) agaisnt the 770, not 780.
>>55382519
Because it's two GPUs crossfired you dip
If they're gimping it's not much. MSI GTX 980 runs Doom at 60 fps on a 1080 at ultra.
>>55383438
The 770 has fallen away due to its VRAM limitations as games have become increasingly-hungry for it. That extra 1GB and wider memory bus, as well as AMD getting their shit together driver-wise, are why the 280X has pulled away from it.
But again, it doesn't match a 780 under any circumstances other than comparing a dead stock 780 to a 280X that's factory overclocked to fairly near the brink. Overclock both as high as you can get them (and the 1241MHz I achieved is actually fairly modest, better ones go to 1300+ on air), and the 780 remains in a different class.
![758-Nikki_Storm_Pro_Wrestling_EVE_champion[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RtLSuNk.jpg "758-Nikki_Storm_Pro_Wrestling_EVE_champion[2].jpg")
>>55378981
>updated 960 to newest drivers since not updating for several months
>100 points higher valley score
>>55378981
I don't see any evidence of gimping. I see a non-reference card outperforming a reference card.
Are you slow?
>>55378981
Yes. Nvidia made specific drivers for the MSI version of the 980 Ti different from regular 980 Ti to gimp the regular.
How fucked up must one person's perceptions of reality be to honestly believe that shit?
>>55378981
So I'm waiting on AMC versions of the AMD 480 and i'm also waiting on the 1060.
But I like to keep my options open, and if I were to have to pick between a 960 and a 970, which should I get?
>>55383011
did the 280x get stronger or did 780 get shittier?
>>55378981
just started getting newegg emails with good prices on 980 ti's so this sounds about right
>>55386065
What happened was GCN is a more forward thinking adaptable arch while Nvidia makes DX11 ASICs which are tuned for the at the time needs/popular features.
AMD puts a lot of brute force hardware which is difficult to program for, but as time went on the flexibility of the power available became more acessible.
>>55383378
>>55383623
>fury X faster than 980ti
>390x faster than 980
>>55383441
Why nvidia didnt make something like this? Its still a single card, not crossfire bullshit.
>tfw 970
>>55383604
-10% in actual games, -20% in DX12.
>>55387853
They had the Titan Z, but it was $3000 at launch.
>>55387853
Sigh. It's people like you that explain why AMD are still in business.
> Its still a single card, not crossfire bullshit.
You fucking moron. It *IS* crossfire, 'bullshit' as you put it. It literally is exactly the same interface, software, the whole fucking setup - Internalised in the card.
There's absolutely no difference in performance, compatibility, or reliability (in terms of frame timing) between one card with two GPUs or two cards with two GPUs. In fact - It's inferior because you have to deal with dump all of the heat out of one card rather than two.
>>55388998
the titan z was still slower and hotter than the r9 295x2
Should I buy another 970 and sli?
>>55389848
no wait for big vega next year
>>55389887
Ah the cry of the AMDrone. "Wait for the next card."
Pro-tip: The waiting game never ends.
>>55389896
no upgrading from a 970 right now is just retarded and the big vega or 1080 ti might offer a worthwhile upgrade now fuck off back to /v/
>>>/v/
>>55389933
>no upgrading from a 970 right now is just retarded
How is it retarded to upgrade from a 970 to a 1070? Because a new more powerful card is coming out a a few months? And when it does come out, we'll hear about the next generation of cards coming out in a few months. So we wait for the next generation's cards to see how good they are as they will make 1080ti and big vega pointless. But when the next generation comes out we hear of "big versions" coming out in a few months so we . . .
The waiting game NEVER ENDS. Stop deluding yourself that the next big thing will be a better solution. There is ALWAYS a better solution around the next corner.
>>55389969
the 1070 is like 20-30% better that's not a worthwhile upgrade let alone the price inflation
>>55389848
>SLI
im never falling for the dual gpu meme again, microstuttering is the worst thing in existence.
>>55389991
>the 1070 is like 20-30% better that's not a worthwhile upgrade
More than 50% faster in GTA V @1080, Anno 2205, AC;Synd, BF3, BF4.
Only 42% in Batman Arkham Knight.
Where are you getting your 20-30% from?
>price inflation
1070 is a greater jump in performance than the transition from 770 to 970. I don't see that as unreasonable price inflation.
>>55389848
1070 performs better than 970 SLI.
>>55390075
50% is still shit and half those games are shit console ports
>>55390075
>i don't see the problem with paying 500$ for a midrange gpu
why are nvidia users the biggest cucks on this board?
>>55390120
This can be applied to Apple users.
>>55390075
>he thinks 50% is good
Fuck off back to /v/ consumerist cuck, 100% or nothing
>>>/v/
>>55390108
What wouldn't be shit? A doubling of performance, while drawing only 2w of power and cooling your beer with an extension of the gpu cooler with a cup holder?
>>55390120
Not an argument.
>>55390126
nvidiots and macfags are in the same boat of stupidity and consumerist cuckolding so that is to be expected
>>55390129
See >>55390136
You are free to answer the question as well.
>>55390136
>What wouldn't be shit?
see >>55390129
>>55390144
Read the post you illiterate nvidiacuck
at least 100% or its a shit upgrade
>nvidia cards 27% worse on dx12 TWWH
>>55387853
> Its still a single card, not crossfire bullshit.
>AMDrones are really this fucking dumb
>>55378981
I don't get it, how would this show that the gimping meme is real?
Protip, it isn't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvCsT_dk-1E
>>55390129
>>55390150
>>55390162
Can you name any new card that was released that was a 100% increase in performance over its immediate predecessor?
>>55386457
on 4k, none of these cards are fit for 4k though
>>55390173
Nvidiot shills belong on /v/
>>>/v/
>>55390195
>gets presented with evidence he's a buttflaming idiot
>hurr shill hurrpa durrp
Stay mad fanboy
only reason to get 1080 is for 4k,
1080 cant get 60 fps at 4k
no reason to get a 1080 unless sli
can get better performance in crossfire at a fraction of the cost
>literally no reason to upgrade until a single gpu can get 60fps maxxed at 4k.
>>55390206
>sli, or cf
>relevant
Pick one
>>55390173
>>55390162
>>55390150
>*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
I guess by the extended silence you have come to understand how unrealistic it is to expect and judge a card based upon a 100% increase in performance.
>>55390202
/v/ spillage go back you shitposting faggot
>>>/v/
>>55390253
>This salty AMDiscount fucker
Get your poo cards out of here faggit
>>55390245
This line of thinking has given rise to an interesting question. HAVE there been any similar jumps in performance between generations?
>>55390295
If I read your graph correctly, the increase in performance of the GTX is less than 50% faster than the GTS. Not even half way to an increase of 100%.
>>55390281
>lel poo loo memes
i remember when that used to be a meme on /int/ but they fucked off with it because it was a old joke that only newfags still thinks funny so seriously you would be better off with your own kind on /v/
>>>/v/
Instead of these hand wavey half-bs ways of showing NVIDIA is gimping cards, why aren't there benchmarks of games by driver version? That would very easily prove it.
>>55390176
you skip generations, upgrading every generation is retarded you consumerist cuck
>>55390315
>8800 GTS
>the immediate predecessor of 8800 GTX
What the hell have you been smoking?
>>55390326
>you skip generations
You may. You may not. Doesn't change the point that expecting a 100% increase in performance from the 1070's or ANY GPU's immediate predecessor is a ludicrous standard to erect.
>>55390316
>meme
>the architecture is literally called Poo-laris
Nice try AMDrone
>>55390343
I got a 290x and can do 1440p 60fps so i am still waiting on my 100% upgrade with a big vega.
>>55390315
>HAVE there been any similar jumps in performance between generations?
Last one Radeon 5870. It performed about 50% better over the 4870.
Then there's the 8800 GTX before that.
>>55390343
No one is expecting 100% increases in performance in a single generation anymore.
That's why you don't upgrade every generation.
>>55390373
>>meme
>>the architecture is literally called Poo-laris
>Nice try AMDrone
everything you said reinforces the fact that you are a massive newfag
>>>/v/
>>55390378
I got a 290x and can do 1440p 60fps
At low settings, or old as shit games maybe
>>55390378
It is nice that you openly admit your posts have nothing to do with the point.
>>55390384
>No one is expecting 100% increases in performance in a single generation anymore.
You might want to tell the posters of >>55390129 and >>55390162
Two? who openly proclaim anything less than 100% increase in performance is shit.
>>55390396
>AMDrone foaming at the mouth realizing nobody gives a shit about AMD
Stay salty
>>55390399
star wars: battlefront isnt a old game and its closer to 70-80 frames
1180 comes out in 2 years, 30% performance increase, another $700.
still not running 4k 60fps most games on ultra.
literally just buy a used 980ti and sli it with your current 980ti and not need an upgrade for 10 years.
>muh games
>>55390409
newfag
>>55390415
>star wars: battlefront isnt a old game
One assumes you are not talking about Star Wars Battlefront from 2004?
>>55390408
They're not expecting 100% performance increases in a single generation. They're saying that there is no point in upgrading until you get a 100% performance increase from your upgrade.
>>55390408
that post does have to do with the point for example if you have a 290x you wont have anything to worth upgrading to until big vega or big pascal
>>55390434
im talking about the one dice made
>>55390441
>They're not expecting 100% performance increases in a single generation
Am I to understand that there were TWO IDIOTS who jumped into a discussion about upgrading from a 970 to a 1070 and did not realize the point about a 50% increase in performance was not about IN A SINGLE GENERATION?
That "they" failed quite epically in their posts?
>>55383573
>The 770 has fallen away due to its VRAM limitations as games have become increasingly-hungry for it.
And yet you morons argue that 4gb ram is enough.
>>55390471
They're saying that there is no point in upgrading until you get a 100% performance increase from your upgrade.'
why can you into reading comprehension
>>55390484
4gb is
see >>55390378
>>55390415
Star wars also runs well on my old 780ti though at 1440p, it's not really a good example for how most new games run on older gpu's It's very well coded
>>55390518
well there is dying light that runs at 60 fps as well on a 290x at 1440p
>>55390493
>They're saying that there is no point in upgrading until you get a 100% performance increase from your upgrade.'
Perhaps I am giving them credit for intelligence that they don't have. Like, support of new techology that the older hardware doesn't include. Or the lower power usage or that some people can afford to buy the bestest and the newest so long as it isn't a failure like the 480 appears to be. Or that it is rare we see a card that gains 50+% in a single generation.
Then again, there's the other side as well. Another five years without much else but incremental increases in performance due to being stuck on one node for a long time. In that case it is foolish to hold onto a video card waiting for 100% performance before upgrading.
>>55378981
>"relative performance"
>>55390533
>Or that it is rare we see a card that gains 50+% in a single generation.
Well that generation also costs about $100 extra.
inb4
>$379 MSRP!
>>55390533
Again i have a 290x that can do everything i want it to at 1440p 60fps and im waiting on something to do 1440p 144 fps so you are wrong there.
Just stop being such a consumerist whore buying into 20% upgrades every generation
>>55390534
relative performance is the most accurate test of gpu performance
>>55390551
There is only a $50 difference between the 970s MSRP and the 1070s MSRP.
>>55390559
I stopped paying any attention to your posts as you admitted previously to not participating. But I don't think I need to re-explain the bullshit stated with regards to the 1070:
>buying into 20% upgrades
I don't know if you are unintentionally or intentionally grossly under-representing the performance difference because you have an AMD gpu.
>>55390592
the difference between the 970 and 1070 isnt 100% so its a shit upgrade you fucking nvidiot mong
>>55390592
>implying you are ever going to get a 1070 for msrp until next year
its like you don't know what a paper launch is
>>55390592
>There is only a $50 difference between the 970s MSRP and the 1070s MSRP.
I literally say this shit in my post and you still manage to be a retard.
>inb4
>>$379 MSRP!
Hint: You can't get a 1070 for its MSRP. Most models go for about $430, which is $100 more than $330, in case you can't count. The cheapest model currently is one by Gigabyte that they released a few days ago, which goes for $400. Besides that, you're looking at $420, $430, $440.
On the other hand, GTX 970 prices varied from $330 to about $350 at launch.
The situation is a lot worse in yurop though. 970 was something like 370-390€ here. On the other hand, you'll have to pay 520€ for a 1070.
>>55390619
And we get back to the original stupidity. It is repeated like it wasn't attacked rather than addressing the attacks presented. How unsurprising.
Let me guess. You can afford to buy a 1080 Ti or whatever $1k card Nvidia is going to launch after buying a $330 970?
>>55390660
>Hint: You can't get a 1070 for its MSRP.
You cannot get it NOW you mean? How about a month from now when the supply and demand equalizes?
>>55390671
>nvidia cuck talking about not affording cards
lol stop being poor it feels good having a 290x waiting for big vega
>>55390677
So now we're waiting, just like how the other guy was waiting for Vega/1080 Ti?
>>55390677
that card wont be in supply until fall or next year
>>55390692
yea because waiting for a substancial upgrade is bad
commit suicide you consumerist cuck
>>55390691
>lol stop being poor
Where did I suggest stop being poor? I'm talking about the typical owner of a 970. They chose the 970 because they couldn't or wouldn't afford the 980 let alone the 980 Ti or Titan.
So an upgrade for a 970 owner is going to be something like a 1070 because they cannot afford to get a card with 100% performance in the next generation and likely not even in the generation after that.
>>55390718
well then you are waiting for the 1170 becasuse that will be 100% for cheap then
>>55390703
>that card wont be in supply until fall or next year
The 1070's price will stay high for over a year? Source?
>>55390731
Math isn't your strongest suit, is it?
>>55390730
>ell then you are waiting for the 1170 becasuse that will be 100% for cheap then
Unless it is a rebrand or an incremental upgrade like we got from the 570 to the 670 or the 670 to the 770 thanks to being stuck on the 28nm node.
>>55390731
because TSMC is incompetent
485x2 when?
>>55390744
I asked for a source not an ad hominem. Is it safe to assume you are just pulling numbers from your ass rather than based upon any facts outside your person?
>>55390759
One delay due to natural forces = incompetence?
>>55390781
its not natural forces, TSMC is just shit
unlike TSMC, Globalfoundries isn't incompetent can can supply AMDs gpus so the RX 480 isnt a paper launch and it is outselling the 1080 and 1070 by far
if nvidia was with Globalfoundries they wouldn't have this supply issue
>>55390763
>ad hom
Got that wrong too. Looks like you don't even know your logical fallacies.
http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
Here, read up.
An insult is not ad hom. I deduced from your post that you suck at math, because you thought that either until fall (fall starts in roughly two months) or next year (next year starts in roughly 6 months) means "over a year". Telling you that you suck at math over that isn't an ad hom.
>>55390817
Also, wasn't it TSMC's 20nm process that screwed AMD's Fury? Since they couldn't get it ready... Or was that GlobalFoundries?
>>55390817
>Globalfoundries isn't incompetent can can supply AMDs gpus
Which is why AMD released 20nm gpus a couple of years ago. Oh wai-
You sir, are a fanblind.
>>55390843
An ad hominem is an attack on the person making the point to undermine the validity of the point itself. Saying I do not know my math seems to be an attempt to undermine the point by attacking the point's author to me.
> because you thought that either until fall (fall starts in roughly two months) or next year
And you failed at reading comprehension then. I explicitly included:
>The 1070's price will stay high for over a year?
It seems I misread your point and included that question to make certain I understood your point correctly. You now explain that your point was different but you did not read and respond to the question I presented leaving me little choice but to believe I understood it correctly when you posted that "you don't know math" post.
>>55390867
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/205887-was-globalfoundries-to-blame-for-amds-about-face-on-joint-x86-arm-platform
A little off topic but the rest sheds some light.
>>55390867
it was TSMC that is why AMD told them to fuck off and they went to GloFo
>>55390877
AMD was still with TSMC with the 20nm prosess that is why AMD left TSMC and went with GloFo this generation, if AMD had stayed with TSMC they would be on 16nm instead of 14nm and they would be having the same supply issues nvidia is having right now
>>55390877
>An ad hominem is an attack on the person making the point to undermine the validity of the point itself. Saying I do not know my math seems to be an attempt to undermine the point by attacking the point's author to me.
Go read the thing I linked you. Seriously, because you clearly can't grasp what an ad hom is. If you can't understand it after that, then I don't know what to tell you.
>It seems I misread your point and included that question to make certain I understood your point correctly. You now explain that your point was different but you did not read and respond to the question I presented leaving me little choice but to believe I understood it correctly when you posted that "you don't know math" post.
Try to not make your sentences complete messes. Also, it doesn't take a genius to realize that you're talking to two different people here. Are you autistic? (still not ad hom)
Anyway, construct your sentences properly and then come back, because it barely makes any sense and addressing it would do no good. But before that, go read up on what is and what isn't an ad hom, because you clearly need it.
>>55390980
>Go read the thing I linked you.
Okay. I didn't read it before because I know my fallacies.
>Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.
What did I write?
> an attack on the person making the point to undermine the validity of the point itself.
"Undermine the validity of the point itself" sounds dangerously similar to "attempting to undermine a speaker's argument"
Can you explain how my definition of ad hominem is significantly off from what you asked me to read after the fact? Or should I assume you are trying to push a trivial objection as something greater than trivial simple because you cannot admit to making a mistake?
>>55391022
So you still haven't bothered to read it?
Retards everywhere.
>>55391048
Thank you for admitting that you cannot explain how my definition is significantly different and thus raising a trivial objection.
Perhaps YOU should read it a bit better and then maybe you could recognize when someone does actually know their fallacies instead of trying to hide your deficiency behind a refusal to engage and resorting to mere repetition like a nine year old.
Any nine year old can repeatedly claim someone didn't read something even when that someone quoted the very thing and showed it to be all but word-for-word the same thing they defined.
>>55390373
>Poo-laris
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAH
I'm using this one from now. Get ready to get triggered poorfags
>370 > 950
>280x = 780
>290 > 780 ti
>290 > 970
>390x > 980
>Fury > 980 ti
>295x2 > 970 sli
>>55391072
It's more like I didn't bother to read your whole post because you managed to check the link, read my post and write your own in a spawn on 3½ minutes. This showed that you clearly didn't bother to read the link properly, but instead saw the general description of an ad hom at the beginning, thought "yeah, I was right" and stopped reading.
Perhaps you were afraid that the rest of the link would provide information that conflicts your own beliefs. This is pretty common when people are faced with stuff that conflicts with their beliefs. They get distressed, and might run away, might start rationalizing if they didn't run away, etc.
But if you have no intention to even bother to read the link, then there is no real point in trying to converse with you. No one likes dealing with stubborn people like that.
PS: I only read the first line of the post I'm quoting right now.
In other news I'm using a 7970 still. Yet I am able to run it at 1440p ultra in arma, black desert, battlefield, far cry etc...
When the shit do I upgrade? Do I wait or snatch up a 480 non-ref
>>55391243
if you want to get a 480 non ref its sort of fine but if i were you i would wait for the 490 though
>>55391256
Thanks for a genuine reply.
I'll wait a little longer and hope AMD keep forcing nvidia to lower their aids prices.
Ausfag = $800 min for 1070
>>55391256
This. I always buy in the 300-400 range or rather the xx70 or x90 series
So I'm waiting on the 490.
>>55383441
>nVidiot card loses to crossfire
>"It's crossfire! Of course it's gonna be better!"
>jewvidia card beats crossfire
> "HAHA CROSSFIRE IS SHIT"
