By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I think the R9 290X doom was premature.

HollyGamer on 23 October 2014
the-pi-guy said:
HollyGamer said:

I know my question is out of topic, but if i may ask, when  GTX 960M will be release, do we have to wait for GTX 960 to come out first or they will just build the Mobile card from the previous chips?

I am planing to get new Asus ROG NX500 with  GTX 960M, currently they only have GTX 860M for the laptop.

While there are better topics to ask about that, so far it seems that the desktop version will come out first.  

GTX 980 released first, then about a month or so they released the GTX 980M.  

Thank you very much for the reply, i am sorry if it's out  off the topic. Well i guess to wait until the end of 2015 to have a good gaming laptop then :).



Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 23 October 2014
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Well... I never said it was a great deal loll... All I said was that for those that just want the best of the best, they will get a 980, even if the price/performance isnt there

And I have had better driver support from Nvidia than amd, specially considering how often Nvidia updates their drivers with new profiles by comparison


I got better driver support from Nvidia.  I know people who will say one way or the other as well.  My point is that clearly there really is no difference.

Well... The thing is, Driver support from Nvidia does "enhance" the experience a bit more than amd does. And what I mean by that is that in some situtions that me and my friends have come across, both having used amd and nvidia cards, having a bit better driver support would have been great for some situtions.

For example, when Crysis 2 came out, it had tons of issues with SLI/Crossfire configurations. The game had tons of graphical glitches and it was virtually unplayable but Nvidia rolled out the lastest profiles faster than amd in which case, the Nvidia users with SLI got to experience the game a lot faster than the amd users did. Another example was when cod ghosts came out, it was poorly optomized as hell but Nvidia's driver updates helped with the issues a lot sooner than amd did.

Now, I am not saying that if the Nvidia card costs like $200 more and its only slightly better than the amd card, you should get it cause of driver support but if the cards are similary priced with similar performance, people should go for the Nvidia card or at least consider the driver support as an option


Look you have no idea how many problems me and my friends had with Nvidia.  The SLI problems were so bad that my brother just had to sell off his cards.  We learned that Nvidia finally fixed a chipset compatibilty error HALF A YEAR LATER.  If you had problems fine, but I have had more with Nvidia.  Again, we both just got unlucky.  I have no problems getting an Nvidia card if they make a card that is the better product when I upgrade.  Don't let bias cloud your jusdgment.



Jizz_Beard_thePirate on 23 October 2014
Captain_Tom said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Well... The thing is, Driver support from Nvidia does "enhance" the experience a bit more than amd does. And what I mean by that is that in some situtions that me and my friends have come across, both having used amd and nvidia cards, having a bit better driver support would have been great for some situtions.

For example, when Crysis 2 came out, it had tons of issues with SLI/Crossfire configurations. The game had tons of graphical glitches and it was virtually unplayable but Nvidia rolled out the lastest profiles faster than amd in which case, the Nvidia users with SLI got to experience the game a lot faster than the amd users did. Another example was when cod ghosts came out, it was poorly optomized as hell but Nvidia's driver updates helped with the issues a lot sooner than amd did.

Now, I am not saying that if the Nvidia card costs like $200 more and its only slightly better than the amd card, you should get it cause of driver support but if the cards are similary priced with similar performance, people should go for the Nvidia card or at least consider the driver support as an option


Look you have no idea how many problems me and my friends had with Nvidia.  The SLI problems were so bad that my brother just had to sell off his cards.  We learned that Nvidia finally fixed a chipset compatibilty error HALF A YEAR LATER.  If you had problems fine, but I have had more with Nvidia.  Again, we both just got unlucky.  I have no problems getting an Nvidia card if they make a card that is the better product when I upgrade.  Don't let bias cloud your jusdgment.

I am not... I have been with amd for a long time for my video cards and I only recently switched to an Nvidia card although my laptop has Nvidia as its gpu so I have had experience with them in the past... I am not saying amd is bad or anything, all I said was if they are similarly priced with similar performance, people should consider the driver support from Nvidia as an option, that is all



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

Captain_Tom on 23 October 2014
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Well... The thing is, Driver support from Nvidia does "enhance" the experience a bit more than amd does. And what I mean by that is that in some situtions that me and my friends have come across, both having used amd and nvidia cards, having a bit better driver support would have been great for some situtions.

For example, when Crysis 2 came out, it had tons of issues with SLI/Crossfire configurations. The game had tons of graphical glitches and it was virtually unplayable but Nvidia rolled out the lastest profiles faster than amd in which case, the Nvidia users with SLI got to experience the game a lot faster than the amd users did. Another example was when cod ghosts came out, it was poorly optomized as hell but Nvidia's driver updates helped with the issues a lot sooner than amd did.

Now, I am not saying that if the Nvidia card costs like $200 more and its only slightly better than the amd card, you should get it cause of driver support but if the cards are similary priced with similar performance, people should go for the Nvidia card or at least consider the driver support as an option


Look you have no idea how many problems me and my friends had with Nvidia.  The SLI problems were so bad that my brother just had to sell off his cards.  We learned that Nvidia finally fixed a chipset compatibilty error HALF A YEAR LATER.  If you had problems fine, but I have had more with Nvidia.  Again, we both just got unlucky.  I have no problems getting an Nvidia card if they make a card that is the better product when I upgrade.  Don't let bias cloud your jusdgment.

I am not... I have been with amd for a long time for my video cards and I only recently switched to an Nvidia card although my laptop has Nvidia as its gpu so I have had experience with them in the past... I am not saying amd is bad or anything, all I said was if they are similarly priced with similar performance, people should consider the driver support from Nvidia as an option, that is all

I read through your post too fast, and it is late.  No problem :)



Locknuts on 23 October 2014

Until a single GPU is doing 4k at 60 fps in modern games we're just not there yet. 1440 is where it's at for now.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 23 October 2014

Unless AMD has a new product line coming in the next 4 or so months than the dooming of the R9 290X is justified ...



JEMC on 23 October 2014
fatslob-:O said:
Unless AMD has a new product line coming in the next 4 or so months than the dooming of the R9 290X is justified ...

After they scrapped the 285X, nothing until Q1 2015 nothing if the rumors are true.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

fatslob-:O on 23 October 2014
JEMC said:

After they scrapped the 285X, nothing until Q1 2015 nothing if the rumors are true.

AMD isn't in a very healthy position. 

Their next line of GPUs better blow the socks off otherwise they just got conroe'd in graphics division ... 



JEMC on 23 October 2014
fatslob-:O said:
JEMC said:

After they scrapped the 285X, nothing until Q1 2015 nothing if the rumors are true.

AMD isn't in a very healthy position. 

Their next line of GPUs better blow the socks off otherwise they just got conroe'd in graphics division ... 

Goin by rumors, again, the 380X will supposedly be the card to compete with Nvidia's 970/980 while the 390X will go after the 980Ti or whatever Nvidia has in its sleeve.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Captain_Tom on 23 October 2014
CGI-Quality said:
I'm, fortunately, not sold on 4K yet. However, as far as Ultra High-End GPUs in 1080p, you'd be surprised how many people have not moved on. Outside of 1440p, 1080p is still a viable res, regardless of the GPU setup.

As for the 290X, I rarely doom a graphics card (unless it is a POS like the GTX Titan Z).


Not directed at you CGI!  And yeah I know most people still use 1080p, but again I really don't see a point in upgrading to anything stronger than 7970 unless you like seeing higher numbers in benchmarks.