I'm on the same train. I'm fine with the 7970 @1080p for now, if I get something it will not be 28nm again. It is faster in 4k, I bet in 6 months it will be faster/as fast with the rest. They managed to bring the 290x on 980 levels with a driver upgrade basically, and judging by NVIDIA's commitment to older hardware, you might as well change that 980Ti once Pascal is out.
SURE THEY CAN. I know I can. If you can't, then have your eyes checked. If you're playing with v-sync enabled at 60Hz, those 5 fps are the difference between supersmooth and stutterfest. I personally can't even tolerate 59fps@60Hz due to the small skip every second.
in 6 months no one in the enthusiast segment will care about the fury x or this generation with 16nm around the corner. i keep hearing "wait for this, wait for that" but the card is damn late to the party as it stands
I like that you focus on drivers and not the hardware side of things as the problem with AMD is entirely drivers. It's not avoidable or excusable. Best wait for DX12.
Yeah it is sadly you cannot exactly overclock it so winning in 4k becomes rather moot point if it oc'd to 1300mhz it would beat 980 ti I think even when ocd. AMD's biggest issue is the driver overhead it hurts 1080p, 1200p, 1440p benchies a lot it seems with such a card. It hurts even this card with this processor in some games. Maybe one day amd and nvidia have similar standing in overhead and drivers.... In dx12 we know they have.
True enough. On the other hand there is literally nothing we have seen out of 16nm. As far as we know it is still bollocks and we will be stuck at 28nm for a year again. I honestly believe it is the driver, and I also believe that anyone can extrapolate it from the bench results. At 4k the card is as fast or faster than the 980Ti, EVEN THOUGH the 980Ti has more VRAM. Now, is it magic or a spoiled resistor that makes it slower at 1080p? Obviously not. 99% it is the driver scheduler (that AMD is famous for it's quality :infinity: ) that can't feed the card fast enough.
But I think it's the driver. 8.6 Tflops vs 6.6 of Titan X. Also Fury has more transistors and the chip is bigger. No way. Fury has more raw power. The similar situation was with 7970(launch) and 680GTX if someone remember. After a driver update 7970 was faster. Remember BF3?
They achieved parity with their competitor's leading products and have done so with a new technology that makes an excellent platform for improvement. Don't be so hyperbolic, they have not "dropped the ball big time".
it doesnt suck.. but my expectation was higher.. any one will buy 980ti over fury x.. they should lower the price.. else it cant fight with 980ti there is something wrong very wrong.. 8.6 tf vs 6.6 tf
I have a different theory. What would happen in AMD stripped the GPGPU capabilities from all Radeon cards like Nvidia does with the GeForce cards? I believe that driver overhead would reduce and power consumption would go down.
That sounds like the most well round up opinion in here. Nope. They never really did, unless you had the product with the latest chip. Also NVIDIA card generations have different architectures between them, making said improvements harder as the engineers have to focus on the newer architecture. One of the good things about AMD's GCN is that whoever has a GCN card will see improvements one way or the other. See Maxwell 2.0 and Kepler.
Driver overhead is API related as well (DX11). If AMD supported multi-threaded DX11 like NVIDIA then they would be equal in that department.
GCN is a GPGPU monster, and that is one of the reasons that older hardware keeps performing so damn well. I am glad that they didn't go cheap on that.
