qubitYup, they've been rebranding GPUs since 2012 and people wonder why I don't bother with their products any more. :shadedshu:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm not a fan of either AMD or NVIDIA. I want to two strong competitors slugging it out for our money and preferably in a price war. This would result in increasingly better tech at increasingly better price points, but we don't have this as things stand.

Technical advancements in computers are supposed to lead to better technology each generation at the same or lower price point. Without this critical competition NVIDIA is giving us better tech each gen at increasingly higher price points and that seriously sucks for us. For this gen, it looks like the mid tier GTX 1080 (GP104) is going to be priced at the same price as the previous top end GTX 980 Ti (GM200) while the as yet unannounced top end "GTX 1080 Ti" that I'm interested in is going to be significantly more expensive, perhaps at Titan levels, which would place it out of my reach as no way am I spending £800-£1000 on a graphics card.

And in other news, this is forum post 12000. :peace:

I am not buying it qubit. You are a nvidia fanboy through and through. No need to hide those colors :slap:

TheinsanegamerNSo AMD's second most powerful card (other than the fury) competes against nvidia's fourth highest model. Meanwhile, AMD had no answer for the titan x or 980ti, and the 980 can be OCed easily to outgun the 390x.

AMD has not competed properly in awhile. When your x9x card competes against your opponents x7x card, you've done goofed. AMD needs to start competing again, and polaris is a step in the right direction. Whether or not it will be enough s the question.

kind of a double standard here, people usually defend the GTX970 claiming it sold like hotcakes, its much more the realm where most people buy videocard so it seems the more interesting level to compete at.
The Titan X lets be honest is nothing special, barely better then the GTX980Ti in any games (and most people defend it as being more then a gaming card....) and for that we have Fury/FuryX, (let alone the R9 295X2).

AMD is competing well enough across the board, hell lets check TPU's latest review:
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/7.html

Go through the games and see where the cards are positioned and how far apart they actually are, 2fps? 4fps?
Lets not be blind to simple real world tests/facts here.

FxI am not buying it qubit. You are a nvidia fanboy through and through. No need to hide those colors :slap:

No, I'm not, end of story. Reread my post and try to understand it this time. :slap:

qubitNo, I'm not, end of story. Reread my post and try to understand it this time. :slap:

I was just playing man. Relax and go have a beer.

FxI was just playing man. Relax and go have a beer.

I'm always game for a gag, but the way you wrote it looked serious, so little old me wondered why the accusation. No problem now.

MrGeniusI'm not sure what you mean by that. But I love it. I was thinking the same type of thing. Something along the lines of...Segment this!!!

What a bunch of totally senseless and meaningless terminology. Doesn't mean a god damn thing. None of it.

broke ass-segment
dumbass-segment
wannabe poseur-segment
brain in their head-segment
waste of money-segment
pretentious asshole-segment
get a real life-segment
call a psychiatrist-segment

fantastic comment. This website has joined a list of others like hardocp and hardwarecanucks as unofficial Nvidia PR sites.

From my POV, AMD is..

following everyone.

AMD dont want to compete with top of the line player like Intel/Nvidia anymore

They just want to follow other.. since they got console. (Nintendo NX, ps4 and Xbox)

AMD just want to follow them..

they look lazy lol

people who think AMD gonna surpass nvidia/Intel in performance/price/watt ratio are crazy.

But i like crazy people.. we need them! (i am one :nutkick:) :toast:

ASOT@john_ The gapp between intel and amd is diminished and in one year or two will be equal.

In theory only. In theory Polaris was, in the beginning, faster than 980Ti, then as fast as Fury, then Nano, then 390/X series and now, who knows.
The gap in manufacturing technology between Intel and the rest of the world has diminished so much that if not today, in 1-2 years TSMC and Samsung will be in a position to say that they are ahead of Intel. But for this to have any meaning for AMD, Zen would have to be the processor that will be at least as fast as Haswell in IPC and also clock to 4GHz.

MrGeniusI'm not sure what you mean by that.

Just exaggerating a little, after reading that funny post about, why Tonga is not performance segment GPU.
But your list is much funnier and definitely more accurate :D

ZoneDymokind of a double standard here, people usually defend the GTX970 claiming it sold like hotcakes, its much more the realm where most people buy videocard so it seems the more interesting level to compete at.
The Titan X lets be honest is nothing special, barely better then the GTX980Ti in any games (and most people defend it as being more then a gaming card....) and for that we have Fury/FuryX, (let alone the R9 295X2).

AMD is competing well enough across the board, hell lets check TPU's latest review:
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/GTX_980_Ti_XtremeGaming/7.html

Go through the games and see where the cards are positioned and how far apart they actually are, 2fps? 4fps?
Lets not be blind to simple real world tests/facts here.

Your argument makes no sense. AMD's 390x was their high end video card, with fury being the titan-esq GPU. the 970 selling better does not mean that comparing high end to high end is a double standard.

The fury x falls short of the 980ti unless you are at 4k, and since most gamers are not at 4k, AMD falls short for a majority of the market. You can try to twist the story with graphs and semantics, but that will not change the fact that AMD has not really competed recently, especially against the highest end maxwell GPUs. And lets not even get into performance per watt here, where AMD is truly abysmal.

AMD needs to compete. They dropped the ball with the 300 series and they know it. They need to actually compete with polaris, none of this (well, its cheaper and performs good enough) BS. They NEED to perform well, on par with nvidia, and they need to do it day 1, not 6 months later one most purchases have been made.

TheinsanegamerNNot to mention that iris pro is faster then any of AMD's iGPUs. Embarrassingly so.

Iris comes in much more expensive CPUs and also is lucky to have Skylake/Broadwell/Haswell cores next to it. Put AMD's iGPU into a Skylake and see what happens. Put Iris in an AMD APU and get ready for a facepalm.

Sold my AMD stock this morning after making a nice 50% profit on it.

TheinsanegamerNYour argument makes no sense. AMD's 390x was their high end video card, with fury being the titan-esq GPU. the 970 selling better does not mean that comparing high end to high end is a double standard.

The fury x falls short of the 980ti unless you are at 4k, and since most gamers are not at 4k, AMD falls short for a majority of the market. You can try to twist the story with graphs and semantics, but that will not change the fact that AMD has not really competed recently, especially against the highest end maxwell GPUs. And lets not even get into performance per watt here, where AMD is truly abysmal.

AMD needs to compete. They dropped the ball with the 300 series and they know it. They need to actually compete with polaris, none of this (well, its cheaper and performs good enough) BS. They NEED to perform well, on par with nvidia, and they need to do it day 1, not 6 months later one most purchases have been made.

ERmm again, just check the benchmark and see they are competing perfectly fine, yeah their cards might consume more but on pure performance they are trading blows with everything Nvidia has.
Again, check the stats....
Or ya know, ignore facts and claim bringing them up is "twisting the story".
The funny thing is that with actually facts something can become more then just a story, like ya know, the truth...

Also the double standard remark is specifically aimed at the GTX970 not being at the performance level of the next 4 cards form Nvidia either, yet it sold really well, so it seems logical to compete with that first, yet doing so is now a bad thing?

TheinsanegamerNiris pro is faster then any of AMD's iGPUs

So let me quatify that statement, you believe a $370 solution in the form of a i7-5775C should not win out over a $170 A10-7890K?

www.computershopper.com/components/reviews/amd-a10-7870k/(page)/3#review-body

Yea, I'm not seeing why anyone thinks paying 120% more to be like 10% above with a Iris Pro.

MrGeniusSegment this!!!

What you think is "Bang-for-Buck"... the only segment that really means anything!

To be fair I expected more out of the TPU readers.
AMD GPUs are very much competitive. The ONLY case in which they are not equal or better to their nvidia equivalent is with the GTX 950 and the 980 TI.

Apart from that... the R9 380(X) is a better buy to the 960.
The R9 390(X) is a better card than the 970.
The Fury Non X, Nano, and much cheaper R9 390X are better cards than the GTX 980.

The Marketing of Nvidia is better. So is the mindshare I guess. But the AMD cards are good.

TheinsanegamerNSo AMD's second most powerful card (other than the fury) competes against nvidia's fourth highest model. Meanwhile, AMD had no answer for the titan x or 980ti, and the 980 can be OCed easily to outgun the 390x.

Whah?

380 > 960
390 > 970
390x ~= 980
Fury Nano > 980 (same price)
Fury X ~= 980Ti (from 8% behind on low res, to slightly faster at 4k)

Titanium X is not that far from 980Ti.

If you go multi GPU, it only gets better for AMD.
wccftech.com/amd-radeon-r9-fury-quad-crossfire-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-quad-sli-uhd-benchmarks/

Jeez. So much pro nZilla FUD these days.

A credible source has not been given for this article, therefore it's basis is NOTHING.
Currently the World's Fastest GPU is the Radeon Pro Duo.
The R9 Fury X trades blows with the GTX 980 Ti, and beats it on 4K game benchmarks.
AMD competes in the High end rather nicely.
In Future, i would suggest not writing articles based on fabrication, speculation, postulation, rumination, rumors, gossip, hearsay and conjecture.

Be advised you are addressing the Intellectual Gaming Community

awesomesauceFrom my POV, AMD is..
people who think AMD gonna surpass nvidia/Intel in performance/price/watt ratio are crazy.
But i like crazy people.. we need them! (i am one :nutkick:) :toast:

They did step away from top end CPU market years ago so, wouldn't be unfounded if they did same in the GPU side. But with 4k starting to get more and more mainstream top end gpu's will be needed.

citrix13Currently the World's Fastest GPU is the Radeon Pro Duo.

Yea likely 2x 1070's will give that thing a problem while being a good 700$ cheaper.

CharcharoThe ONLY case in which they arent equal or better to their nvidia equivalent is with the GTX 950 and the 980 TI.

In the case of a 950 I might have you look at this... Unfortunately, one of the only decent match-ups of a MSI GTX 950 Gaming 2G (1316 Mhz Boost), and the MSI R7 370 Gaming 2G (1050 Mhz). Consider this is back end of September 2015 (pre Crimson), and even then both spare in their intended 1080p resolution. While looking at this keep in mind this has a chip (both geldings) released back March 2012, vying a January 2015 part. Consider Nvidia had exact figures as to what the R7 370 offered... as that released 2.5mo's prior. I think had reviewer used settings where games not dump into the <30Fps as some they do, I think the difference as to good 1080p gaming wouldn't see such disparity, especially in that end summary. Even the load power the 370 was just 9% more.

ht4u.net/reviews/2015/amd_radeon_r7_370_vs_nvidia_geforce_gtx_950_test/

For a chip/card that is like 3-4 elder in architecture, still smaller, and more often 30% less cost it has held up it's place as in the final index there's like 11% between them. Personally, yes it can be 15-20% depending on the title and settings. Almost like Nvidia wedge the better Boost models in between what a 370 was known and just get near what more pedestrian 960's offered. It was Easy Pick-in's.

Edit: Just saw Guru3D has a MSI R7 370 Gaming review up. First it's odd to not see any 950 power numbers? Some B-M runs are what looks like a reference 950, others call a Palit 950 Storm X Dual edition (1241 MHz Boost). Some B-M don't even have a 950 like Witcher, while honestly for me his setting are a little harsh on 1080p for this level card. But these charts (not hard data) have something's to "glean" from them. Not bad for a card that today is $120 -AR$20, or Heck an Asus STRIX is $115 -AR20.
www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_radeon_r7_370_gaming_2g_review,1.html

Let's look at Stock/ Reference GTX 980 Ti vs R9 Fury X at 4K where it matters

Anno 2205

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 30.9 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 27.5 FPS Nvidia Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/6.html

Assassin's Creed Syndicate

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 38.0 FPS
R9 Fury X 4G: 38.4 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/7.html

Battlefield 3

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 49.4 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 53.5 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/8.html

Battlefield 4

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 37.5 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 34.2 FPS Nvidia Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/9.html

Batman: Arkham Knight

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 45.7 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 51.9 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/10.html

Call of Duty: Black Ops III

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 25.0 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 30.6 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/11.html

Crysis 3

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 26.7 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 28.9 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/12.html

Fallout 4

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 45.9 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 47.4 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/13.html

Grand Theft Auto V

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 33.9 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 35.9 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/14.html

Just Cause 3

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 36.1 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 34.3 FPS Nvidia Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/15.html

Mad Max

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 48.6 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 50.1 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/16.html

Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 41.3 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 36.5 FPS Nvidia Wins

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/17.html

Rainbow Six: Siege

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 46.5 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 50.9 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/18.html

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 25.9 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 26.5 FPS AMD Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/19.html

World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 88.9 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 85.8 FPS Nvidia Wins
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/20.html


TALLY of 15 Games for Reference Cards GTX 980 Ti vs R9 Fury X at 3840x2160
Nvidia = 5
AMD = 10

FrickAren't most GPU's sold in the segment Polaris is targeting? It's what I keep hearing amyway, I have no idea if it's true.

I believe so, but on this forum there are a lot of people who only care about the high end.

I think AMD's tactic of going low and midrange first is very smart considering the position they are in. For several months they will actually have superior cards in a broad segment of the market. Not just desktop, but laptops as well. That has to be good for their bottom line.

I wonder if we will see an article about Nvidia's AIB partners complaining about the lack of 16nm designs in the low and midrange?

At 4K where it matters...?????

You do know that WELL less than 1% of people (from Steam stats) are running 4K monitors, right? So while your results are true for 4k, 'where it really matters' couldn't be more antithetic when looking at the gaming landscape of today and likely the next year or two.

Why don't you take the time to run those numbers again for 1080p, where there is the most use (from steam stats) and see what the story is. I'm sure you will find it a bit different. ;)

Here you go:www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/23.html

It's well known the AMD Fury cards compare better at higher resolutions. Can't say I'm sure what point you are trying to get across there citrix...

ZoneDymoERmm again, just check the benchmark and see they are competing perfectly fine, yeah their cards might consume more but on pure performance they are trading blows with everything Nvidia has.

You act like that is unusual. AMD is forced to match Price/Performance with Nvidia. If they didn't they wouldn't sell any cards. They repackage old designs, drop them down a tier and lower the price.

citrix13World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor

GTX 980 Ti 6GB: 88.9 FPS
R9 Fury X 4GB: 85.8 FPS AMD Wins

Gotta love AMD fans view point, even when they Lose they still get called for the win. The review they link to doesn't even use the card review results were for.

rruffYou act like that is unusual. AMD is forced to match Price/Performance with Nvidia. If they didn't they wouldn't sell any cards. They repackage old designs, drop them down a tier and lower the price.

Last 2 card releases AMD has been forced to match price. 980/970 forced prices of 290(x) cards down from their 4-500$ price point. 980ti forced AMD to match 650$ price tag where likely card would been 800$. AMD had to do it cause performance per $ would been very lop sided other wise.

That's an error apologies, not intentional

Because a small segment of the market has 4k Monitors does not minimize the fact that the R9 Fury X is able to outperform the GTX 980 Ti.
Saying nobody cares, is like saying only a handful of people own the Bugatti Veyron, so nobody cares

Arbiter, since I'm a fan of the whichever graphics vendor has the current Fastest GPU

AMD currently has the fastest GPU available for purchase: Radeon Pro Duo

Should Nvidia release a faster card in the future: i'd be an Nvidia fan

Until then it's AMD

So you reposted the same thing again??????

You do know you can edit posts to fix and in order to not double posts right? :)

And as I said, nobody really cares about 4k as so few people have one.