Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by iMacmatician, Jun 17, 2015.
Though it probably means no nvidia price cuts which makes me sad.
The Nvidia price cut is already there in the form of the 980Ti, that would have never been as fast/cheap without the competition of the Fury X.
I have to say, I am very disappointed in the R9 Fury X's performance. I was expecting that it would be better than the TITAN X in 4K, even by a tiny bit.
On the bright side, the Fury X doesn't drop as much as any other GPU in TPU's tests as the resolution increases. I think it could match the TITAN X in 5K as long as it's not VRAM bottlenecked.
That may indeed be the case. If it can reach ~95% in the TPU charts (with the Fury X at 100% for every resolution) then I think it will be a strong solution for its price point for higher resolutions. Interestingly enough, that's about where I expected the 980 Ti to end up (at 1440p) before its specs were leaked.
And maybe even some semi functional drivers when that comes out in a month.
Could you explain what all this means for the plebes? The only thing I can understand is benchmarks.
At the moment I'm just waiting for the Fury line to rock my socks off before I buy a 390.
I'm waiting for a 290x go for 150ish$ or equivalent nvidia card, those would be a massive step up from my 6850 which is starting to feel a bit old in certain games. I'm looking at you star citizen.
You could just tell us what you need the new card for. Gaming in 1440p and 120+hz maybe? What is the max you would like to spend?
I've got a 1080p monitor @60hz and that's not likely to change so I want a card that will easily run GTAV, Fallout 4 and Metal Gear Solid 5 without a single hitch. I was assuming bigger games means more textures so it might actually be worth getting one with more than 4gb?
Price range ideally under £250 but there's always finance.
heh heh look at my dank memes. AMD drivers suck rite guize?
The video RAM you need on your card is mostly decided by the resolution you play in (and the textures needed for that resolution). 2 GB would be already sufficient for 1080p.
Just get a Radeon 290X or a Nvidia 970. Both cards are really almost overkill for what you need. But don't forget that some games like GTA V also need a decent CPU to have high fps.
Dont believe his lies.
Yeah, a 290x is where it's at of you can get a good deal on it. If not the 960 is Nvidia's 1080p card.
At a minimum, check out a 750 ti. I don't like amd's cheaper cards at that price, but they probably have something around there as well.
Also, don't fucking finance computer hardware you goddamn pleb. Priorities, jeez.
The 970 was on the books before I got wind of the whole 3.5gb thing which pissed me off. I'd rather go with a newer model anyway for better driver support for new games.
The rest of my pc is up to scratch. I've got an i7 which is old but has eaten up everything I've thrown at it and I've not even overclocked it. Going to double up on ram to 12gb for the sake of it too.
The 970 is nice, but it hasn't received any prices cuts in the last few months. It went from an exceptional deal to just alright deal. A 960 is built for 1080p and it's not too pricey. I'd you want a little more performance without spending 50% more for a 970, then the 290x has basically the same performance as a 970 for quite a bit less.
Pff, this is a mess: http://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/3b21fp/fury_x_possibly_reviewed_with_wrong_drivers/
AMD cards tend to improve as resolution increases relative to NVIDIA cards.
The top chart shows how well each card performed in the overall benchmarks when the Fury X is fixed at 100% for each resolution. Then for each card, I take the percentages at all the resolutions (900p, 1080p, 1440p, 2160p) and divide those numbers by the percentage at 1080p to get the bottom chart. So the bottom chart shows how much performance each card gains or loses compared to the Fury X when moving from 1080p to another resolution.
For example, the GTX 960 goes from 55% at 1080p to 43% at 2160p, so that drop is reflected by its line in the second chart going to 0.78.
Since you mentioned that you run 1080p, I think that any of the cards that McGyver and ImSpartacus mentioned will work. Regarding the 290X vs. 970 comparison, the latter does better at 1080p (according to TPU).
cba to confirm the legitimacy.
I'd rather avoid Nvidia if I can (see above.) Surely the 390 is a better choice than the 290x? They're priced the same. IIRC the 390 is more power efficient and I only have 600w.
The 390 would be better for 1440p and above, but maybe not for 1080p.
If they are priced exactly the same, then you might want to go for a 390, but I would try to get a 290x on sale.
The Anandtech review is finally here, no surprises:
Separate names with a comma.