Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[JEMC]

Slimebeast said:
A Geforce 980Ti is only 50% faster than a Geforce GTX 970. So of course the Geforce GTX 1070 will beat a 980Ti, and we should expect a Radeon 480X to be at least on par with a R9 Fury X.

Like JEMC said, a new architecture plus process shrink is a big thing. Historically it means twice the power.

JEMC, what GPU do you have now?

I have an old and trusty HD 5850. So yeah, I need an upgrade .

 

Bofferbrauer said:

You said 1070/480 would be as strong as Titan/Fury, not 980/390. You would have to compare the 6970 with the 7770, the 6770 with the 5870, the GTX 560 with the GTX 480 and so on, all of which would fail hard.

If you meant 980/390 with high-end, then I misunderstood you, but when someone says high-end graka I always assume their biggest consumer models, which would be Titan and Fury. 1070/480 being at least ± as strong as 980/390 is basically what needs to happen every generation - unless they're both stalling (3770 vs 2900 XT/ 8800 GTX vs 9800GTX comes to mind)

As for watercooling (Fury X cooling solution), not everyone likes that, for different reasons: too complex, too cumbersome, not silent enough (pumping noises, noisy condensators depending on design) and a general fear of mixing water with electricity. I wouldn't want one, btw, even though my case is made for watercooling

I'll be honest here, with the silly line up that AMD has, I treat the X and non-X variants as the same, so I take the 390 and 390X as the same thing and the 380 and 380X also as the same thing. That's why I used the 480 as their second best design.

I know that it's not the proper way or the best to talk about them, but let's face it: AMD has too many cards on the market. Let's look at the cards now on the market, shall we?

Nvidia	AMD
-	R7 360
GTX 950	R7 370 / 370X
GTX 960	R9 380 / 380X
GTX 970	R9 390 / 390X
GTX 980	Fury Nano / Fury
GTX 980Ti	Fury X

(Note that I haven't listed the Titan because it's an halo product designed for those with more money than brains, so it doesn't really count).

That's 10 cards to compete against 5. And the worst of all is that some of those cards compete with each other, not only in price but also in performance. Just look at the 390X, Fury and Fury Nano, all of them fighting the same spot that the 980 occupies but with price differences of up to 200 $/€ betwen them. It's simply stupid.

So, going back to our discussion, when I say that the future R9 480 should be faster or on par than Fury, I mean that the 480X should be on par or faster than the Nano and Fury with a chance to beat the Fury X. And the same goes for Nvidia's 1070, which will easily beat the 980 and should come close if not beat the 980Ti.

 

fatslob-:O said:

A new microarchitecture only improves performance by 10% from now on. The reason why the newer GPUs are performing better has to do with the fact that games are now designed to be compute limited so flops will actually matter this time when it comes to game performance ... 

2x transistors =/= 2x performance ...

You can't expect perfect scaling when it comes to increasing shader resources ... 

I know that comparing the number of transistors doesn't translate into actual performance, that doesn't even work with the TFlops battle that console users have embraced this gen (otherwise the 7970 and 290X should have destroyed their competitors, and they didn't).

But the combination of a lor more transistors (the never trustworthy rumors say that both Nvidia and AMD's high end chips will have around 15-18 billion), the improvements from new architectures and the use of HBM2 with up to 1Tb/s of bandwidth should provide a nice and hefty bump in performance.