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

Forums - PC Discussion - AMD continues to see significant performance gains in DX12, Nvidia not as much

JEMC on 19 August 2015
Eddie_Raja said:
JEMC said:

*blah*

And in that case, a 980Ti card is the best option.


You see I actually disagree completely.  If you want to play in 1080p, the 980 Ti and 390 will give you the exact same experience - even 5 years down the line.  If you want to play in 4K - 390 CF is the same price and almost twice as powerful with more VRAM.

And here I disagree with you.

At 1080p they don't give the same performance, the 980Ti is much, much faster (btw, it's hard to find reviews of these cards at 1080p. Most reviews go directly to 1440p and 4K)

http://www.bjorn3d.com/2015/08/sapphire-nitro-r9-390-8g-ds-review-playing-nitro/

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Sapphire/R9_Fury_Tri-X_OC/1.html It's a Fury review but it has numbers for the R9 390 and the 980Ti

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_pcs_r9_390_8gb/

The only thing that saves the 390 is that most of the time it is able to give 60fps, so in a regular 60Hz monitor they will look the same... now. In five years they won't feel the same, not even close.

And if we go into CF, well, yes, in a best case scenario a pair of 390 in CF will be much faster than a 980Ti. But with that stupid GameWorks thing and with studios like Ubisoft, crossfire won't work all the time, so the performance will vary greatly. And of course there's the fact that the system will draw +300W more, making the system a lot hotter and a lot more noisy.

Personally, I think that CF or SLI is not the best option. It's better to buy a single and fast card than 2 slower ones. You'll run into less troubles.



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.

Around the Network
Eddie_Raja on 19 August 2015
JEMC said:
Eddie_Raja said:
JEMC said:

*blah*

And in that case, a 980Ti card is the best option.


You see I actually disagree completely.  If you want to play in 1080p, the 980 Ti and 390 will give you the exact same experience - even 5 years down the line.  If you want to play in 4K - 390 CF is the same price and almost twice as powerful with more VRAM.

And here I disagree with you.

At 1080p they don't give the same performance, the 980Ti is much, much faster (btw, it's hard to find reviews of these cards at 1080p. Most reviews go directly to 1440p and 4K)


There is a reason they skip to 1440p - 1080p gives the same experience.  Should the OP get excited to play at 120 FPS instead of 100 FPS on his 60 FPS monitor?   No, because there is no point.

Sure single cards are more reliable than double cards, but CF at this point scales in 99% of the games out there with ZERO frame latency problems, and in 4K there is no other option for smooth 60 FPS gameplay in the latest.  So it isn't ideal, but it is also the only option.



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]

JEMC on 19 August 2015
Eddie_Raja said:
JEMC said:
Eddie_Raja said:
JEMC said:

*blah*

And in that case, a 980Ti card is the best option.


You see I actually disagree completely.  If you want to play in 1080p, the 980 Ti and 390 will give you the exact same experience - even 5 years down the line.  If you want to play in 4K - 390 CF is the same price and almost twice as powerful with more VRAM.

And here I disagree with you.

At 1080p they don't give the same performance, the 980Ti is much, much faster (btw, it's hard to find reviews of these cards at 1080p. Most reviews go directly to 1440p and 4K)


There is a reason they skip to 1440p - 1080p gives the same experience.  Should the OP get excited to play at 120 FPS instead of 100 FPS on his 60 FPS monitor?   No, because there is no point.

Sure single cards are more reliable than double cards, but CF at this point scales in 99% of the games out there with ZERO frame latency problems, and in 4K there is no other option for smooth 60 FPS gameplay in the latest.  So it isn't ideal, but it is also the only option.

Honestly, this argument is pointless and could go on and on without an end.

If asqarkabab wants a card now to play at 1080p, 60Hz and that lasts him 2-3 years, then the R9 390 is his best option. End of the story.

If he wants a card that lasts him as long as possible (maybe even till the end of this console gen or more), plays at higher than 1080p resolutions or with a 120/144Hz monitor, then the 980Ti is his best option.

And to make everything a little more complicated, the AMD Fury Nano is supposed to launch "this Summer", so it will be here soon. A card, if rumors are true (not a small "if") with the same 4096 SP of the Fury X but at half the speed and a TDP of just 175W. But with only 4GB of VRAM.



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.

Eddie_Raja on 19 August 2015
JEMC said:
Eddie_Raja said:
JEMC said:
Eddie_Raja said:
JEMC said:

*blah*

And in that case, a 980Ti card is the best option.


You see I actually disagree completely.  If you want to play in 1080p, the 980 Ti and 390 will give you the exact same experience - even 5 years down the line.  If you want to play in 4K - 390 CF is the same price and almost twice as powerful with more VRAM.

And here I disagree with you.

At 1080p they don't give the same performance, the 980Ti is much, much faster (btw, it's hard to find reviews of these cards at 1080p. Most reviews go directly to 1440p and 4K)


There is a reason they skip to 1440p - 1080p gives the same experience.  Should the OP get excited to play at 120 FPS instead of 100 FPS on his 60 FPS monitor?   No, because there is no point.

Sure single cards are more reliable than double cards, but CF at this point scales in 99% of the games out there with ZERO frame latency problems, and in 4K there is no other option for smooth 60 FPS gameplay in the latest.  So it isn't ideal, but it is also the only option.

Honestly, this argument is pointless and could go on and on without an end.

If asqarkabab wants a card now to play at 1080p, 60Hz and that lasts him 2-3 years, then the R9 390 is his best option. End of the story.

If he wants a card that lasts him as long as possible (maybe even till the end of this console gen or more), plays at higher than 1080p resolutions or with a 120/144Hz monitor, then the 980Ti is his best option.

And to make everything a little more complicated, the AMD Fury Nano is supposed to launch "this Summer", so it will be here soon. A card, if rumors are true (not a small "if") with the same 4096 SP of the Fury X but at half the speed and a TDP of just 175W. But with only 4GB of VRAM.


That's exactly what I was saying - and I assumed he games at 1080p 60 FPS or lower like 95% of the PC gamers out there (I don't  :D ).  But a few more things:

-3-4 years and this current gen of consoles will be last gen anyways (I will take bets if you disagree)

-Nvidia graphics cards age terribly compared to AMD's.  This has been seen again, and again, and again.  AMD releases a new gen every 1.5-2 years instead of every 0.75 - 1 year like with Nvidia, and AMD also spends less than Nvidia on R&D.  As such AMD needs every architecture to last a very long time, and Nvidia can afford to only focus on what will maximize performance immediately.

-Driver support is about even between the two (And has been for some time).  However if anything Nvidia is having more issues right now as  shown here:

http://imgur.com/a/0KBXa

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2970946/microsoft-windows/microsofts-rollout-of-windows-10-gets-b-grade.html

http://www.lazygamer.net/pc-hardware/nvidia/nvidia-stumbles-while-amd-soars-on-first-directx-12-test/



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]

SubiyaCryolite on 20 August 2015

AMD really needs to get its act together because they are getting decimated by the competition. I think their hardware is more than capable but they are constantly let down by software and driver issues. DX12 gives them a chance to make a comeback and they better take full advantage of it. Apart from bad press in general the biggest problem with AMD cards is power consumption and heat imo.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

Around the Network
Vasto on 22 August 2015

Looking foward to the Fable Legends benchmarks.



Arkaign on 23 August 2015

I think the Bitcoin craze hurt AMD in the long run. It drove non miners who just wanted to game straight to Nvidia during that crap.

Following that up, the poorly threaded drivers, higher heat/power/noise of many of their options (particularly the original 290/290X, the last AMD card I bought was a launch 290X, and it was terrible).

It sucks because Nvidia can charge a lot more and get away with it largely. The 970 and down are honestly pretty decent buys, but the 980+ get silly expensive in a hurry. If the 3xx hadn't been so disappointing and offered great value then it would be better. To launch the highly hyped HBM and fail to really leapfrog the competition is pretty sad.