AMD continues to see significant performance gains in DX12, Nvidia not as much

[Eddie_Raja]

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/