Ok so now AMD has competitors for Nvidia cards for every high end model: 290X vs 970 390X vs 980 Fury vs 980Ti It's great to see that AMD can keep up the race even with their low budget (lower than Nvidia). Curious to see DX12 performance and where this is going with 14nm. Exciting times for PC gamers.
Correct me if I'm wrong here guys but there is an air cooled version coming, expected in a month or so.
You're right DC. I'll post that when I get home. There's yet another issue with 3dmark, if we as gamers are so concerned about graphics results then why are the reviewers posting system results when doing GPU reviews?
Theres a Fury air-cooled coming, not Fury X. I think maybe cut-down version, less performance (as in 290 vs 290x). Could be wrong on that, so anyone feel free to correct.
The non-X version is getting an air cooler. Not sure about the Fury X though. This is a gripe I've had for a while.
I never had to roll back with AMD. I remember games like Vanguard SOH and Anarchy Only I literally had to go 6 months back to get a driver to work on the nvidia card. That is my personal experience, not some chart or graph made up by a commercial website.
Alright. Here's my point with the 3mark stuff I've been "spewing wrong information about". This is my 295x2 run at stock GPU clocks with a heavy OC on the CPU which for graphics should have no affect: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/7557892? Here's my 970's at stock clocks as well and my CPU isn't even OC'd at all which "technically" shouldn't affect graphics scores but it does by a small margin so it should favor the 295x2 but the 970's still beat it: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/5908092? The 970's take out the 295x2 even in graphics score on stock clocks. However my 295x2 is between 12-20% faster than the 970's were in games.
When NVIDIA launched the first detonator drivers there were some really big performance increases everywhere. Nothing like that has happened since though.
And your 'personal experience' based on extreme bias and hate of Nvidia and Intel is trustworthy? Funny how one single individual can trot out "personal experience" as some infallible standard that others should believe over countless others personal experience. I'll bet Tek Syndicate is your favorite site too.
CF tends to scale better in game than SLI. While CF renders more frames the frame times tend to fluctuate more than SLI. This can be seen in FCAT testing. SLI tends to air on the side of lesser performance while making frametimes more even.
That might be true, but it is just an assumption. Frame pacing, when enabled for CrossFire, had negligible impact on performance and did not lower scaling at all. Based on that, we can extrapolate that further adjustments to frame pacing would lower frametime variance still without impacting framerates (scaling). There surely are cases where CrossFire has close, same, or less frametime variance than SLi yet still manages to scale further. In a nutshell, CrossFire scaling is close to 100% in both cases, good and bad frametime variance. SLi scaling is almost never 100%, hovering around 70-80% (?) in both cases, good and bad frametime variance. So frametime variance might not be as related as we may think. Other than that, I cannot possibly know the reason why CrossFire tends to scale better than SLi, and it's one thing worrying me about going SLi in the future since I've been used to near-perfect scaling. I would hope multi-GPU gains more attention with the upcoming DX12, although leaving it up to the choice (competence?) of developers sounds like a bad idea to me.
I never had a problem with my AMD drivers either. I ran a reference Sapphire HD4850 for 6ish years and never had an issue with the drivers. Only problem I've had with Nvidia drivers so far is when I use Surround. It works great, but when I'm done using it, it disconnects my outer monitors. Every time I disable Surround I need to manually re-enable my outer monitors.
My reply was in the context of his post history which included below and point to BS and extreme fanboyism:
You made it pretty apparent that you dislike Nvidia and Intel, which is just fanboyism. You provide no benches, no charts to prove your facts only hearsay and personal opinion. You don't back up any of of your facts and opinions. You've said it's Intel and Nvidia fault for the position AMD is in, yet you refuse to look at AMD's own finacial situation that they themselves put them due poor choices they made. You've already made up your mind so I don't know why you're still here as it's pretty apparent no one is listening to you.
All right, where's this 'nearly every game' where the 290x is the better performer? http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/nvidia_geforce_gtx_970_and_980_reference_review,12.html Here you have 1440p benchmarks, where the 970 trades blows with the 290x. I don't think I need to post the 1080p results where the 970 gets straight out ahead. As you can see in that review, excepting some AMD titles like HMA where the 290x pulls ahead and Nvidia titles like Bioshock Infinite where the 970 is instead ahead, you will see the cards are actually similar in performance. If the 290x was so much better, why is it at the same price point at the 970? That benchmark is exactly why. I'm sorry, I cannot stand bias.
Well some want others to take something at face value, depends who the person is tbh, tbh I trust a lot of long time members opionion, in this case I would require proof for opinions not based with known facts.