Which is more future proof, a 390X or an R9 Nano? I will be playing at 1080p, so take that into account. I know people will tell me a Nano is overkill for 1080 and to get a 390 or a 970 and the like but I want something that's overkill now and will last me down the line.
Benchmarks put the 390X and the Nano/normal Fury very close together, but maybe Fiji will get better down the line as it gets more optimized. My question is, is 8GB or 4GB HBM better for futureproofing?
>tech
>future-proof
Neither have HDMI 2.0 and HEVC decoding anyway, current state of the tech industry is laughable. Nobody trying to push forward anymore. Even the GTX 960 is more future proof than any of AMDs offerings in that regard. Intel has the best DirectX 12 support, what a time to be alive.
Fury wit 8 gig
>>53675596
Nano performs on par with a GTX 980 in benchmarks (Read, not TI) and costs about the same, here in the UK atleast.
So far as a purchase goes, I would honestly say that the Nano was a better choice. While it is more expensive than the 390x, it does also outperform it while drawing significantly less power, which means you might not have to get a new PSU to run it. Depending on what you already have that is.
Nano also runs cooler. And quieter, so there is that to consider too, if that matters to you.
Neither overclock particularly well. 390X is limited by the nature of the GPU, they just don't OC well. While the Nano is limited by the size of the cooler attached to the PCB, and Power targets put in place to stop the GPU from overheating.
I would personally say Nano, but that may be a little biased because I think that thing is just Cute as fuck.
>>53675638
It does look pretty nice IRL, I actually have one already. I just have to send it back because it gives me no signal on my monitor and I don't think my computer goes past POST with it.
I was thinking of maybe refunding it instead of having a new one sent back, but I might try for a new one and keep it. What do you think?
>>53675667
Might be worth using the mobo video out until you get the drivers installed, might be that the whatever port you were using doesn't work on stock drivers. That would be my best guess.
>>53675690
I have no iGPU because I have a Xeon, and I already have Crimson installed, so I don't know what the problem is. Keep in mind that I can turn it off by tapping the power button and there's no HDD activity, so I don't think it boots into Windows either, as well as my monitor not working with it (with either HDMI or DisplayPort). You reckon it's dead? I think it might be.
I do have an older motherboard, but not that old; LGA1155 from some Lenovo workstation. Worked with my previous card perfectly though (7990).
The only future proof option is to wait for summer and buy Polaris/Pascal
>>53675753
That is an odd one..Get another Nano, give it a shot. Failing that, grab a 390x.
>>53675770
Yeah, I'll probably do that. It's really unfortunate.
>>53675631
Serious question, why would I need HDMI 2.0?
>>53675764
Did you just wake up, anon?
>>53675875
4k/60 fps.
>>53675875
Because HDMI 1.4b caps at 24Hz on 4k. If you're going to future proof then do it well. HDMI 2.0 has support for 60Hz at 4k resolutions.
>>53675875
You don't. He's a dipshit. Only necessary for 4k TVs,because TVs tend to not have displayport which is capable of driving 4k @60Hz while HDMI 1.2 can only do 30Hz. HDMI 2.0 fixed this.
>>53675596
>future proof
Still that buzzword
In the current year
>>53676008
Meant HDMI 1.4
While we're on this topic.
What should I get for 1440p?
Should I wait for the new cards to come out and get a 980ti?
>>53675991
>>53675993
4k monitors all use displayport
>>53676045
Fury X - 390x - 980Ti
>>53676051
MONITORS, but not TVs. I have 65" Oled and it has just HDMI
>>53675631
>hdmi 2.0
hahahahah Back to /v/ with that outdated console tech.
>>53675638
considering its one fan, I'm not so sure how accurate 'quieter' is.
>>53676060
TVs don't use displayport. I have 3000 dollar OLED and 5000 dollar Bravia and no display ports
![77403[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/N3dnq6s.png "77403[1].png")
>>53676061
Pic related.
>>53676008
Some people prefer socializing in the living room around a 4k television, occasionally playing some nice video games using a minimalist mini-ITX system. That's where HDMI 2.0 comes in.
There is no proper argument against HDMI 2.0. It's great technology.
>>53676059
Who cares about you falling for the deprecated standards and bad panels jew?
>>53676045
>spending more than 300 on a gpu
Holy fuck, how can you faggots justify spending so much money on that shit. Did your parents teach you nothing about humbleness/modesty? Sad
>>53676117
Only poorfags and leftards care how someone uses money
>>53676098
>There is no proper argument against HDMI 2.0. It's great technology.
It's deprecated technology. And mITX builds still cast handle 4k@60fps and won't in the next couple of years.
>>53676098
It is, but it's useless for 99%+ of pc users, so who gives a shit. DP is superior in every way. HDMI 2.0 is a nice bonus but nothing mandatory.
>>53676117
>humbleness
Pls, if i want something and can afford it, i don't care if shitlords think I'm humble or not.
>>53676078
Pointless because smaller fans will always produce a higher frequency sound that humans find louder. A 35db 80mm fan will sound louder than a 50db 140mm fan.
>>53676098
>socializing around a 4k TV
>PC
top kek. buy a god damn console. There are only like 3 PC games that support local multiplayer
>>53676078
Huh, alright then. I stand corrected. I might buy a Nano myself.
>>53676149
You missed the point. Ofc don't give a fuck about what others think. I'm talking about oneself. I couldn't justify spending 150% more for 20% performance boost. It's not healthy
>>53676219
The performance increase is worth it for me though. Why does your situation affect me? It's not like I have other obligations I'm not meeting by spending that much.
>>53676059
>tvs
>>53676150
I can perhaps believe the high frequency assertion. But to say 35db is louder than 54 db is a bit much for me.
>Desktop PC
Seriously, Desktop PC is becoming more and more irrelevant.
>>53676345
No ,you cant beat the one thing that makes desktops superior , and that is space. Pc makers and builders can work with far more space in a desktop than they ever could in a mobile device , this makes it possible to use stronger and cooler components. Plus they barely fit everything in the current laptops and you cant build them yourself
>>53675631
>>53675991
>>53675993
>OP says 1080p
>Talks about 4k@60hz support
Great reading comprehension you tards.
>>53676484
Assuming that was op that asked about HDMI 2.0, we were telling him/her/xe what was so special about 2.0. It is immediately obvious to a moderately intelligent individual, that 2.0 wouldn't help him. But thanks for being obtuse and pedantic, it reminds me why you computer needs have no friends or lovers.
>>53676071
Then don't come to /g/ to cry because of bad purchases faggot!
>>53675753
I installed nano the other day and had same problem. One pair of my (is it eight) pin PSU connectors connecting to nano was loose. I switched to the cables that came with nano and it worked.
should the nano stutter on 1080p with everything high in Wolfenstein new order? I had some stutters when played today, for example when there was large explosions on screen
>>53675596
>Overkill for 1080p
There's no such thing. Play the latest games such as the division, rise of tomb raider, AC, Witcher 3 @ 1080p and no card in the market is going to give you >60fps 100% of the time (which is what it would need to do to be considered an overkill)
>>53676078
Are they testing a reference 390?
The Sapphire and Powercolor 390s are very quiet.
>>53675596
OP get a 290X. If you can one with 8gb. If you can get a used Vapor X. You can oc the shit out of it and it will probably be better than a stock nano. Also super quiet.
>>53675596
Future proof? None of those 2. Dude. Spend 350€/$ and get a 970, if you are cheap. Otherwise 980TI. And no, I'm not a fanboy. But you can't speak about "futureproof" with those 2. Not at all.
will the pascal equivilent of a gtx 970 be a respectable 1440p card?
Is gtx 750 Ti 2gb enough for 2016? I got it new for $100 on black friday. my first gpu
>>53677334
Considering that AMD cards have aged well conpared to nvidia, I'd say they are good options. Alson Dx12
>>53675631
>HDMI
>not the superior DisplayPort
http://www.amazon.com/Club3D-Displayport-1-2-HDMI-CAC-1070/dp/B0194F1MY4
>>53677527
it's okay for most games at medium settings.
>>53675596
Intel GMA X4500HD is future proof
source: own experience for many years, still good enough for me
>muh gaymes
>>53675596
Get a Fury. It's the Nano with better thermals.
>>53676008
4k TV's usually have display port.
>>53675596
They're pretty close, yes.
Nano is newer architecture, though, so you can expect better longevity trough drivers, also it's more power efficient
390X has more VRAM and doesn't throttle easily (Nano starts throttling after 75C)
>>53675596
Furry seX
>>53677370
No, it will literally be the same thing as a GTX 970, gimped memory and all. Pascal's only change is 64-bit float performance and perf/watt, neither of which are any useful for vidya raw perf.
>>53677334
>no async
m8...
>>53675596
> future """""""""""""""""""""""proof """""""""""""""""""""""
ITS FUTURE PREPAREDNESS.
NOTHING IS FUCKING FUTURE PROOF
>>53675596
>Graphics Card
>Future proof
Good one, anon
>>53679049
Right now, neither pascal nor polaris are improving performance in any significant way. Not only that but pascal still won't support proper async. There is no proper performance improvement prospect in sight. Sure the card might be deprecated 30 years from now, but 30 years is way beyond the future in terms of tech.
>>53676071
>using non adaptive sync displays
>>53676071
>he fell for the oled meme!
Literally first gen plasma v2.
>>53679049
7970 was a future proof card in 2012 as you can see, same thing with the 200 series
The Truth about the 970
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IghcowGhRBc
>>53675596
8GB or 4GB HBM better for futureproofing?
Well thats a fucking stupid question. Obviously 8 would be better and 100 would be better than 8 years from now. I'm going to get the nano for my next build 4GB HBM is faster or equal to 8GB DDR5.
>>53680647
GDDR*
>>53680647
Doesn't matter how fast your VRAM is if you don't have enough space, also 390X's bus is big enough so speed isn't a problem yet
>>53675631
again, please stop with this lie, we've had DisplayPort to HDMI2 adapter for months now, kindly fuck off autismo.
>>53675764
mmm enjoy your $1000 gddr5 Nvidia rebrand, gonna be worth the wait and above retail rape pricing for months after release for sure.
>AMD
>future-proof
AMD isn't even present-proof. http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=398858
>>53681422
>Doesn't matter how fast your VRAM is if you don't have enough space
A farm packing Watermelons.
4 small Mexicans can pack faster than 8 fat Americans.
4 Mexicans would require less space and consume less food.
The faster Mexicans would require the trucks to bring the watermelons to the farm really quickly(Bandwidth)
HBM=Faster Bandwidth, Smaller Area, Less Power
If this was not the case then we would just be dropping more ram in everything.
>>53681532
lol meanwhile my 390X was $385 and car with the $60 Hitman version, so based. 970 and 980 owners are getting reamed hard the gen.
>>53681578
>AMD dominates in all meaningful benchmarks
>hurr nivida wins again durp
Nice try nvidiot.
>>53681590
terrible analogy considering hbm is 4 stacks of 4 chips each, not 4 individual chips replacing 8 chips.
>>53681578
and yet Nvidia loses every dx11 benchmark except for the 980ti nowadays
if you don't buy that card Nvidia doesn't even support you hardly at all
>>53681597
nice try raja, AMD rebrands don't dominate anything.
https://youtu.be/frNjT5R5XI4?t=8m27s
>>53681645
t. fireman
>>53681644
>and yet Nvidia loses every dx11 benchmark except for the 980ti nowadays
you mean wins? even a 970 demolishes cards a price tier above it. i've been waiting for AMD to make an actually competitive GPU, maybe once they stop rebranding i'll consider buying one.
>>53681590
>If this was not the case then we would just be dropping more ram in everything.
That's exactly what's gonna happen this gen
>>53681672
niceme.me
>>53681645
you just posted a video about CPUs and different ram speeds
I suspect you may have taken the short bus to school.
>>53681590
>>53681694
(cont.)
>>53681590
>>53681694
>>53681708
Last one. Your analogy is retarded, by the way
>>53681696
>too impatient to watch the whole video, or to use a functional browser that would jump to 8m27s like the link implies.
AMD user spotted. They tested the CPU overhead of a 390 vs a 970 and showed that even with an OC'ed i5 you can't get equal performance to NVIDIA's offering because of AMD's terrible driver overhead.
>>53681578
>05-04-2015
>>53681733
They show two games (The Witcher 3 and Project Cars, both endorsed by Nvidia btw) with an overclocked 970 against a regular clocked 390, and still the stock 390 have a pretty similar performance in Project Cars. You're not proving anything with this video
>>53681733
the fact that it only applies to certain games means it's not the gpu hardware, it's just crappy optimization.
>>53681694
>>53681708
>>53681729
You're comparing actual cards running games with a hundreds of variables.(API,Memory management, gpu throttling, programming of the games it self )
You have to look at the actual HBM vs GDDR.
>>53681848
>watched 30s and made retarded claim
go to 9:52 son, 970 has ~2x the perf in rise of the tomb raider alone. you can't sweep this issue under the rug, until AMD acknowledges and improves on this it's not going to be worth buying anything but a flagship from them, which they have already decisively lost against the 980ti.
>>53681876
>You're using real life results, what about using numbers?
>>53681919
Are we talking about Fury vs Titan or GDDR vs HBM?
>>53681903
So this happened with one terrible optimized game, what a shame AMD!
>>53682015
About the future of VRAM, 4GB won't cut it for long even if it's HBM
>>53682123
CPU chips have been hovering around 3.0GHz for some time now. Hyper threading made them faster not by speed but quantity of work. As I respect your opinion. My Opinion is 4GB HBM is fine for now and the next 5 years.
>>53681733
they do say its only applicable with CPU bound games and situations
>>53682123
4GB is already unusable for any serious scientific application (inb4 """"scientific"""" gpu meme - they cost 10x as much and perform half as well, require other server hardware and are typically double-boarded GPUs so when you see X amount of memory it's actually X/2 per card).
>>53675596
I own a nano in my itx build. Holy shit it's pretty goat. Dead silent, performs very well, compact, lowered tdp with high performance. Honestly, if you're running a small build it would be great to get, but if you room in your case nothing wrong with the 390
>>53679312
the 7950 is still based as fuck.
I've yet to see a compelling reason to replace it for comfy 1080p setups.
>>53675631
>HDMI
>>53675596
Future proofing isn't real, get the nanos for their efficiency, plus they out perform the 390x, and they're under 500 right now
>>53676150
Look here idiot, to start off the fan size is pretty much the same in most graphics cards, pic related.
Then smaller fan size is not the only factor in rotor blade sound. If you want to produce the same flow with a smaller fan, you do indeed need higher RPMs which leads to higher intensity sound and frequency. But there's also number of blades affecting the frequency, the blade shape and transfer function, and then different bearings have different sound distributions.
So stop spreading factoids, dumbass. You can have a smaller fan making a lower frequency sound.
>>53687165
>But there's also number of blades affecting the frequency, the blade shape and transfer function, and then different bearings have different sound distributions.
all of which are impacted by the size of the fan, so the generalization is correct.
>>53678847
You can configure the target temperature where it starts throttling though.
>>53675596
Nano with a custom water loop on it so you can actually OC it.
>>53682123
Yet benchmarks consistently put the Fury line on top of the 8GB 390(x) and the Fury X trading blows with the 6GB 980Ti. Especially in 4K where supposedly the lack of RAM is more noticeable.
>>53687220
Huh? None of those are affected by the size.
Besides, the main factor of noise is fan size, just don't say it's the only one.
>>53687836
>None of those are affected by the size.
lol
>>53687909
Being big or small affects the number of blades in a fan how?
>>53687316
Because devs still care to optimize for 4GB cards, this may change with DX12
http://techbuyersguru.com/first-look-dx12-performance-rise-tomb-raider?page=2
>1080
>futur proof
Kek
>>53681729
Most the time the amd card has lower latency than the nvidia cards. I guess latency causes shredding? Wouldn't be a problem with freesync i think.
>>53675991
Thats why DP exist, retard.
>>53675631
a lot of people are give you shit but HDMI 2.0 is necessary for future 4k consumer content. they sell displayport 1.2 --> HDMI 2.0 adapters though, and AMD already has driver support, so the issue is MOOT
also any computer strong enough to manage an r9 Nano at full speed can decode 4k blu rays on the fly anyway
>>53675631
What would you need HEVC decoding for?
I play 4k HEVC files just fine on a GTX 960 and 2010 Xeon.
