| JEMC said: AMD and Nvidia have different views on what the devs and by extension the market, needs. Nvidia bets on more raster and tessellation units while AMD bets on more texture units and processors. And the truth is that both are true or wrong given that the performance results they get are pretty similar. Also, while Nvidia cards are better with tessellation, the games that use it the most like The Witcher 3 with Hairworks on run so bad on even Nvidia cards the advice from every reviewer is to turn it off completely, which is funny because AMD launched a patch that allowed to cap the tessellation of the game making it run better on AMD cards than on Nvidia cards while looking the same. So even thought Nvidia has an advantage when it comes to tessellation, it's hard to notice that advantage in non syntetic benches. And no, Fury X doesn't overclock well, which is odd given that AMD publicly said that it would be a good overclocker. Maybe we'll have to wait until there's a way to increase the voltages. |
Err, I commended AMD's gains in tessellation ...
It's true that Nvidia GPUs are better at tessellation but the equivalence disparity isn't so bad anymore like it was with Evergreen and Fermi when it was every 3 rasterizers/set-up units being equal to 1 unit from Fermi. Right now the ratio is one to one with Fiji compared to Maxwell v2 ...
Nvidia hairworks isn't so bad anymore on AMD with Fiji putting up a good fight against GM200 in The Witcher 3 ...
