AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT

AYYMDPOORFAGS CONFIRMED ON SUICIDE WATCH

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

both charts imply that vega is almost as fast as titan x pascal?

>top chart: FuryX 41fps @4k
>bottom chart: FuryX 49fps @4k
So that would likely put Vega64 around 64-65fps on the bottom chart, yes? Yet with 470 outperforming 1060 6GB and FuryX outperforming 1070, this is clearly a best-case scenario for AMD, so... yeah. Vega arrives very late and has nothing to show for it. What a shame.

Vega 56 might be a decent buy though. Assuming it sucks at mining and ethfags leave it alone, at any rate.

Wrong board kiddo

The irony is that Nvidia gpus get even faster in dx11 with no quality loss. Give every Nvidia gpu there a 5-10 fps boost

Vega will barely outperform a 1080 for the same money bottom line. Amd pulled through with Ryzen but vega is easily the biggest disappointment they've ever delivered

RX Vega only gets 55fps in 4k.
Thats roughly the same as one single 1080.

It doesnt own the 1080Ti or Titan X

real talk

youtube.com/watch?v=osSMJRyxG0k

NO NO NO! STOP

AMD is secretly keeping performance hidden from the press. When the new drivers are released this will be 50% faster and 50% more power efficient.

Mark my words!

the math, can you do it?

it doesnt cost as much as a titan or a 1080ti

AMD cant even compete anymore.

Thats pretty sad

>Wait a year and a half for a 1080 with double the power draw for $20 discount

it does when you count the power consumption.

>AMD Official Drivers

Everyone knows they're shit. We won't see what these cards are really capable of till the open source driver devs get them.

Get with the times, gramps. Amd should be represented by a pink, bleeding and screaming wojack

why should I care about 4k when my monitor is 1080p?

and the 1080 ti and titan x also cost way more. i'm pretty sure most people are at least happy because there's a 1080 equivalent for amd now.
can't wait to use it on my 1440p/144hz freesync monitor, also the AIB versions with higher OC potential are going to be sick.

>he has expensive electricity from coal
Just buy some LED bulbs to replace your incandescent and CFL lights.
You'll more than offset the cost.

quadruple the power then if you have 120 hz. 4k is nice if you can afford it, but right now its a luxury resolution.

Can't wait for amd to tank and they get cheap as fuck.

But I could do the same thing and buy a 1080, saves me even more!
Hmm.. really making me think here

If you're still stuck with a low res 1080p display then you aren't in the market for a high end video card.

>2017
>still playing in 1080p

this is like those people that still own tvs with the tube in the back LUL

thanks, I'll still keep using a 380

Say it with me:
>AMDfags were waiting 15 months for this

mind you, these are also ayymd numbers. no relatively unbiased reviewers have gotten their hands on it yet.

this is going to be such a shitshow, I wonder how the drones will defend this one. overhyped expectations probably.

They won't tank, their cards suck on Windows where you're stuck with their official drivers, but they're awesome on Linux where there are open drivers from third party developers (though AMD did hire some of them to just keep doing what they were doing).

Its put AMD in a weird place where they want to talk up the awesome performance on Linux, but they don't want to compare it to their own drivers.
So they're left comparing it to old versions.

They're already latching on FP16 to save them.
In the grand total of 2 games that will support it.

It's easy to post 122% gains when you previously ran like total shit.

>Hype Vega as the Volta killer
>Can't even beat Pascal
AMD: Another Massive Disappointment

Remember this?

...

i'm willing to bet you're 1080 TI coattail riders who don't even own one. likely upset because you paid full price for a 1080/1070 and can't afford a gsync monitor.

ITS NOT FAIR VEGA WAS MEANT TO SAVE US FROM THE JEWS NOT LEAVE US IN DARKNESS

t. assblasted AMDfag

These number are pretty in line with all the info we have right now. They are aiming to compete directly with gtx 1080, which is slightly disappointing but it's far from them being FINISHED.
Also buttcoinfags are going to be buying the shit out of these

>AMD, yesteryears performance at twice the temperature!

everything's fine on our end you poorfag without an adaptive sync monitor, keep riding that coattail. :^)

why, when it's almost twice the power draw? this is also optimal performance, and it barely matches the 1080 blower edition. in reality it'll be much fucking worse.

That may be, but you're ignoring the fact that the open drivers went from not really supporting the game at all to being 50% faster than AMD's own efforts.
Its still pretty common for there to be a new patch with big new performance improvements.

>$400 gpu
>same performance as $600 gpu
I don't understand.

>Getting payed soon
>Thinking of getting an i7-7700k
I-Is it a good idea bro's?

here is your best CPUs for the money this month ;)

cya next month lads - kikes hardware

JUST GET A PLAYSTATION 4 GUYS !! WE CAN UPSCALE 4K!!!

4.... 4 THE PLAYERS!!!

>buy 400$ card to play old games
youre not too bright

Wait for i7-8700K 6 cores 12 threads

I'd rather get a 144hz monitor than a 2k/4k one.

>i3
>if you aren't poor as shit give us $200 alright

>180 watts vs 280 watts
>twice

AMD's Windows drivers are piss poor for gaming performance.
The Linux drivers on the other hand are awesome, so all the extra power that's wasted on Windows is put to good use for Linux centric compute tasks like mining.
Those drivers are quickly getting to the point where they're definitively better for gaming as well.

OpenGL and D3D9 are already faster than on Windows with the official driver.
The open source RadV Vulkan driver, originally started by a couple of guys outside of AMD in their spare time is rapidly catching up.

They're already frequently much faster than the OpenGL drivers as seen in this benchmark of the Linux exclusive Vulkan version of Mad Max.

buy AMD graphics and computer processors please

do not fall for the intel/nvidia jew

>anything x99
F

ayymd numbers, yes. they've never fluffed up their numbers before, i'm sure there wont be a problem this time.

Which card should I get for 1440p/144Hz gayman?

Don't know why you'd buy this over a R5 1600 these days, unless you play CS at 1080p and really need 300fps

In low res / high framerate gameplay you're more likely to hit the single thread CPU bottleneck than the GPU bottleneck.

you won't be able to get much fps over 60 in that res with anything less than a 1080ti

I own a 2560x1440 monitor and still don't consider it necessary. 1080p is just fine for most people's needs/GPUs, stop being a huge faggot.

We're in a thread talking about high end GPUs though. If you're still playing in 1080p then you're not really looking at a GPU over $200 (at least when the prices are normal)

I'm looking to get the Ryzen 5 1600 since that seems to perform pretty fucking good in games. Not worth getting the 1700 since it performs identical to the 1600 in gaming.
Sheet. I think I might be better off going 1080p/144 Hz in that case.

I have a 2560x1080 screen and I'm happy

SHUT UP U NIGGER


GET A SWITCH IS MUCH BETTER HAS BETTER GRAPHIC NINTENDO ALWAYS WIN BABY!

RIght, games have only really started to use over 4 threads, games that require 16 threads are a ways off.
The 6 core / 12 thread Ryzen parts are a good choice for the foreseeable future.
Much better than a chip limited to 4 threads.

>you won't be able to get much fps over 60 in that res with anything less than a 1080ti
This isn't true for most games. I run a 980ti with an R7 1700 at 3.6ghz and I get 90-100fps in BF1 1440p ultra. Same deal with R6 Siege. PUBG I can get 50-60 on ultra but I turn stuff down so I can get 100+ all the time.

>thread is about redvgreen
>user posts about redvblue
What did he mean by this?

>Implying 120 fps is ever enough.

If you aren't rocking more than 250 fps in all occasions to be sure that, whatever happens, your framerate never falls beneath your monitors refresh rate of 144 hz (you fucking pleb), then you should kys.

>tfw R7 1700 and a GTX 1080

Amazing for gaming and amazing for MAYA, literally the best of both worlds. 4 core Intel cucks will never know this feeling

not all AAA games have stellar optimization, even in Witcher 3 it's hard to get over 70 fps in 1440p with a GTX 1070. 1080p 144hz is a better upgrade right now as it offers the best result for high end cards.

So a 1070/1080 or Vega card will suffice?

Are you stupid or retarded?

8700K is LGA 1151

>not all AAA games have stellar optimization
Seriously though, what is up with NVIDIA sponsored games and shit optimization?

Witcher 3's big problem is they never delivered the promised Vulkan version.

>Man these graphics are too good for my graphics card, and the AMD cards perform terribly on this game because of the Nvidia graphics technology, so I guess I'll go out and get myself a new Nvida GPU.

>the most expensive card from the company i prefer is better than the most expensive card from the company you prefer
>none of us own any of the two cards but the company i prefer is obviously better than the company you prefer therefore making my mid range card better than your mid range card

The thing is, high end cards nowadays find themselves in a very weird niche, since buying them to max out 1080p gaming is a waste and the upgrade to 2k/4k games is still expensive.

>buying Bulldozer
>ever

>Unironically defending the horrible optimization in Dishonored 2, Deus Ex MK, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4, and even Frostbite game ME Andromeda, never mind the last few Asscreed games.
Most of these still aren't fixed.

I wasn't defending it, I was speaking with the mindset that they want from their consumers

>have Freesync monitor and GTX 1080
>didn't buy a Gsync one because too expensive
>Vega would be at best a sidegrade
Welp.

Deus Ex was mostly AMD, they still advertise it with FX CPU's even though FX CPU's can't run the game very well.

When I bought my current AMD card it was a sidegrade/slight downgrade from my Nvidia card.
Three months later it was about the same most of the time and slightly faster in a few games.
Six months later it was definitively faster in every game.
Two years later its still faster than Nvidia's current card in that same market.

Didn't quite catch that. Cheers for clearing that up.

It will be interesting to see how the rumored Vulkan upgrade performs when its released.

This.
My 290 is still rocking everything maxed out at 1080p and has only seen performance improvements over the years.

>mfw 4gb RX480

so good for 1080p

I think 70fps is plenty for a game like Witcher 3 though. Also if you only have the one monitor, 1440p will have a far superior desktop experience.
Yes one of those would be fine, but keep in mind they probably won't be able to hit 144fps consistently in the latest titles where as a 1080 ti probably could most of the time. All comes down to what is more important to you really.

How the fuck is Titan X worse than 1080ti?

I wouldn't mind dropping some ultra settings down to high since the difference becomes negligible at that point.

>not having a 1440p 144hz ips monitor with gsync

desu 240p is fine for most peoples needs

Hmm.. is the 7xxx generation (the 7970 specifically) the last time AMD truly competed for the high-end gaming market? It doesn't seem all that long ago (5 years) yet everyone seems to be fine with AMDs current state.

Same reason AMD cards aren't faster.
Optimized for compute over gaming.

the 56 is gonna be worth it

That's because AMD have the best mid-range cards for the average PC-gamer. NVIDIA holds the enthusiast high-end market at the moment.
That might change if AMD manages to squeeze out more performance out of their cards with better drivers and when more info starts to leak from the Vega cards and we start seeing more benchmarks.
Their Ryzen series is also a success that they definitely needed after the terrible FX-series.

The Fury line was competitive against Nvidia's high end at the time.
It still performs at somewhere between the 1070 and the 1080.
Depending on the game its sometimes faster than the 1080.

AMD's benchmarks with their own driver undersell their hardware.

The Titan X is a workstation card, not a gayman card. It's optimized for tasks outside of gaming.

you dirty retard have fun with Intel's unfair prices when AMD has something more powerful for literally 100$ cheaper. but know you're a poorfag if you make smarter decisions

...

Most gamers are midend where AMD thrives.

Idiot.

oh shit my bad i thought he was an Intel retard

xfx480 here senpai. Its great to able to play anything l want in 1080 without worrying about fps drops or meme resolutions.