JEMC said: I have an old and trusty HD 5850. So yeah, I need an upgrade .
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?
(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. |
And I've got a 5770, even worse
Not listing Titan but listing Fury due to the initial pricepoint is silly imo. Also, NVidia has put the lower Maxwell chips into the GeForce 700 lineup for some reason, so you would have to add 745, 750 and 750Ti. As a result, AMD only would have 1 card more than NVidia, and imo that's the Nano, as it caters for a very special market (powerful mini PCs) where NVidia has no equivalent card.