1080 is literally 50% faster than the fury x at 4k dx 12

>1080 is literally 50% faster than the fury x at 4k dx 12

So now that we´ve got the dx12 meme out of the way what bullshit will AMDrones come up next about Nvidia cards?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JXhHivCLBwc
youtube.com/watch?v=y9WS-CCcorg
youtube.com/watch?v=pDxTcvZ4T2k
youtube.com/watch?v=O8zo9tYcQn8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Oops, that's 1440p where its 72% faster

Here is the 4k benchmark

...

>Rise of the Goy Raider
>Powered by Nvidia ShillWerks
>representative

>this benchmark doesn't count!
>i-its not really dx12!!

Okay lets look at Ashes of the singularity, totaly optimized for AMD cards, and even there they get fucked up

You are out of memes faggot

Ashes isn't optimized for AMD, its just purely optimized for DX12 / New APIs.

>1080p
>dx12 performance kicks in for higher res

Nvidia had 8 months of time to optimize and work with oxide. You can't optimize a lack of hardware scheduling.

Gameworks is a closed source black box that AMD has no access to and devs can't even say du too non disclosure with nvidia.

"AMD optimised" is just an asshurt version of saying

>Multicore enabled
>Properly developed

Shills seem to think that any thing that benefits AMD only benefit them, yet the way they do things, it ultimately just ends up meaning better performance for everyone due to better implementation of low level features that make a huge impact.

>Pascal still can't into DX12

Nvidia shills BTFO

w-ww-w-wait for polaris!!!

w-w-w-wait for vega!

atleast zen will be good. THEY PROMISED!

Just leave graphics to the professionals, leave it to the Nvidia.

there is no such thing as AMD optimized games. They dont use any proprietary technology in their cards, apart from the few EA games that could use Mantle

This

The amount of salt from AMDrones is so funny.

Even now when the benchmarks are out and we can see that across the board this thing performs insane for a single gpu they will still try to cling on to a single benchmark on a resolution from the stone age where amd cards perform relatively well.

Sure lets just ignore 99.9% of the videogames in which this card absolutely destroys anything AMD has.

And whats AMD's answer? A entry level mainstream vr cards, top kek.

And we haven't even talked about the 1070 which will be even more attractive

How's the 1070 gonna compare to this card? I don't know if I wanna spend the extra 250 or not.

My guess would be about 20-25% worse performance, so 980ti level.

If it oc's as well as the 1080 seems to do it might even come ahead of oc'd 980ti's

if anything it'll be pretty much like the titan x
which is okay I guess because of the price and the added benefit of not getting gimped by gameworks if you get the fury x or polaris

don't forget to factor in the cost of a new house to the price of your 1080. Or the cost of a sprinkler system to keep it from burning your house down

>comparing next gen GPUs to current gen GPUs
Well done Nvidia, you finally won.

Tomb raider doesn't have a-sync implemented, the DX12 there is only a wrapper layer


And in real DX12, the difference is much less

It supports it more than maxwell, but still doesn't have the implementation on the level of AMD

>if AMD performs better than Nvidia it is because AMD products are better
>if Nvidia performs better than AMD its because Nvidia paid the developers to fuck the performance of all cards
Every fucking time

so a year old, cheaper (reminder gtx1080 will release for 700$) amd card is only 6 fps slower when the new amd cards are going to be released in 1 month.
That looks quite good for AMD

>comparing new cards to out cards

Properly Developed?

really?
You are saying that it is the only game properly developed, from hundreads of games develoepd, only this one is properly developed. It cant even cross your mind it is actually the other way round can it??
thats how far your amd fanboyism takes you?

god would it be funny for polaris 10, not even amd's high end, beat a 1080 in dx12. nvidia's 1080ti is only 20% faster then it, amds gpu above polaris if i remember right is at least two times the size.

and your point is?
year end is when nvidia sells all their cards, tax season is when amd sells theirs, should tell you the people who get each right there.

by the time nvidia gets their kids to buy their cards, amds answer to the high end will be out.

wow... that's actually a lot more pathetic when you put it that way.

we are looking at the future of games right here, this api and vulcan, from here our, all major releases will have dx11 legacy and one of the new ones, possibly dropping 11 for vulcan.

dx11 benchmarks are suddenly far less relevant than ever, but still important.

but they do... gameworks and nvidia marketing the game is nvidia paid them to implement it, why else would a dev put something into the game that adds next to nothing but reduces performance across the board compared to open solutions?

>DX12
nobody cares. Vulkan support when?

it is currently the only real dx12 game, not a fake dx12 wrapper, or a ported to dx12/vulcan game.

look at games without gameworks compared to games that have it, you will see a major difference in what the benchmarks look like.

>GTX 1080
>DX12 gain is 20%

>FuryX
>DX12 gain is 48%

Gee, I wonder who is better in DX12.

>gpu released last year is beaten by a gpu announced two weeks ago
Wowitsfuckingnothing.jpg

With temps like these, it better be fucking faster

Never ever for anything.

VEGA is going to be the HBM2 chips most likely, polaris 10 is probably only the 480X, AMD is going to want GDDR5X on it's 490X chips

>in 1-2 years nvidia makes sure 1080 starts performing worse

wew, I'm glad I didn't bought that Fury X with those 500w consumption. Wouldn't want to watercool that.

you will be happy to know that Fury is drawing only 10w more from the wall.

youtube.com/watch?v=JXhHivCLBwc

>980
>literally butting heads with the Fury X at stock clock speeds
>mfw an OC'd 980 would stomp an OC'd Fury X because the Fury X can't OC for shit

AMD LITERALLY aren't even trying anymore

>nvidia has to push their chips to the limit
>AMD still easily outclasses them in terms of hardware

If only AMD could actually write decent drivers, they would be in a much better position. Their cards would be much more powerful than nvidia's if they weren't bottlenecked by crappy driver optimization.

>temps=/=pushing to the limit

You do know how much power the 390x/Fury cards consume compared to the 1080/980 cards (ti cards not included)?

See The Fury cards can't OC for a reason whereas the Maxwell cards had retrarded headroom

>could
>would
>would
But they don't.

>pushing themselves to the limit

Is that why AMD cards almost always have zero Overclocking headroom?

>he never owned a based 290

>10% difference, on a new card running on a new node.
>"they got fucked up"

The only one who fucked up there is NVidia. This is pathetic. The card should be 50-70% faster, not 10%. Especially not for a $700 piece of hardware.

>$700
It's $600, and the Fury X starts at $650.
$50 less for 10% better performance sounds like a no brainer to me

A big percentage of that performance difference really is Nvidia fuckery.

Just look at Doom.
>alpha and beta, both AMD and Nvidia running same version of opengl
>AMD destroying Nvidia at every turn
>final version, AMD suddenly forced to run older version they're well known for not being optimized for
>conveniently provides a benchmark to spam, showing Nvidia dominating all over
>everyone forgets ID Software's history with Nvidia

I hate this industry

>almost always
>almost

290 was bretty gud. Too bad that was around 3-4 years ago

>You do know how much power the 390x/Fury cards consume compared to the 1080/980 cards (ti cards not included)?

yea, 50w more than 980, 10w more than 1080.
1080 OC takes 100w more than FuryX

Founder is 699 retard.

Given how nvidia lied about literally everything during the unavailing I don't doubt the MRSP is a lie too. Fuck off

>Founder
No one is going to buy a reference card when cheaper and better options are coming out shortly afterward.

Please show me the "hundraeds" of DX12 games that have been "develoepd". Games that use a DX12 wrapper don't count.

>$699 "founders edishun"
>$599 Vendor MSRP, none to be found
>it's 600,fucko

>XFX Fury X $559 right now
>it starts at $650, faggot

Because polaris will be SO much faster. Oh wait.

>"it's $600, guise"
Nobody will be selling those cards for $600 for at least three months, retard. Your only option now is the $700 founders edition.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Nvidiots will never learn

Really, the raw specs don't lie.

>AMD
>spends their budget on hardware R&D
Twice as many FLOPS (single and double precision), twice the texture fill rate, twice the pixel fill rate, etc.

The specs go on and on.

>nvidia
>spends their budget on marketing, drivers and anticompetitive tactics
weaker hardware that runs hotter. Performance gains mainly through replacing game's shaders in their drivers and poisoning the competition

>are coming out shortly afterward
I guess you didn't watch the conference to be aware that no aftermarket cards will be available for months

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

>Card that costs $150 more has a 7fps advantage
>this is a win
>$25 per frame
Lmao you can't make this shit the fuck up

Nigger the new cards haven't even released yet.

well but nvidia runs games better in the end
and that is what counts while talking about gay-ming cards

shooo shooo AMDrone

Polaris is not intended to be faster, retard. It's intended to occupy the $200-$300 price range, where 80% of the desktop GPU market is.

Same for this, the GTX 1080 and 1070 ($700 and $450 respectively) are essentially irrelevant products, the real relevant Pascal will be 1060, that is the card that may fuck up AMD if done right.

You retards often forget just how ridiculously tiny the high-end GPU market is. Just go to the Steam hardware survey and look at how many 960s and 970s are there, then compare it to 980s and 980 Tis.

>shooo shooo AMDrone
I own a GTX 970, actually. I bought it because AMD has no working Linux drivers.

I just wish I wouldn't have to give money to nvidia. I fucking hate the company.

Oh, I agree with you, man.
I'm just saying it sucks. I KNOW Nvidia hardware runs better in alot of stuff, but when I take a hard look at why, it disgusts me.

AMD generally does the right thing, and I love that they do, but it really does burn my ass to watch them get outplayed by Nvidia every single time, and endure the Nvidia circle jerk while the industry is held back, yet again, because of the way the company operates.

Sure, Nvidia fans will say the same thing, every time, about AMD guys crying wolf alot (and yes, some really do), but the reality of it is that, much of the time, it's really not AMD's fault that they get beaten.

>960 BTFOd by 380
>970 BTFOd by 390
>980 tied with 390X
The only Nvidia card that performed better than the AMD equivalent was the 980 Ti. Below the $600 market, Nvidia doesn't win in any segment.

Source? I can find only benchmarks where amd lose by 50%+
So your claims are quite wild

This.
Nice meme. Faggot.

seeing as prices will be dropping fairly soon, what card should i try to get my hands on? i'll be upgrading from a 750ti so anything in the 200 plus "whatever i can get from an asus 750ti" price range

Enought with your bullshit AMDrons
Here , even intel beats amd graphic

>1080 bench finally out
>as good as I'd feared
>start to regret getting the zotac amp extreme 980 ti 6gb and not waiting
>suddenly realize that this bench is worthless because it's all reference card stats

Wow, it's nothing

Post aftermarket comparisons if you want anyone to care

See pic related
>380 12.9% faster than 960 (35/31)
>390 7.7% faster than 970 (56/52)
>390X 1.6% faster than 980 (61/60)
And my mistake, the 980 Ti and Fury X (which was absolutely slower at launch) are actually tied now. That's embarassing for Nvidia. Thank god they have a new generation coming up now so they get another chance at not being complete shit.

>3D particle movement
>single threaded

>all these constant shill threads

>980 tied with the 390x

Nigger, a 980 is tied with the Fury and literally butts heads with the Fury X

See: Thats not considering overclocking which would put the 980 ahead of even the FUry X

Nah

youtube.com/watch?v=JXhHivCLBwc

A 980 literally stomps the Fury X in certain games and is neck and neck with it in most others, never mind the 980ti

>390x
>tied with a 980

Nigger, a Fury is more or less tied with a 980, not a 390x

Ashes is also a pretty good game. My favourite RTS since supcom.

Runs fine at 1440p, nearly maxed out on my R9 290

>tries to argue that the 980 is not slower than the 390X with an image that doesn't have the 390X
My god, nvidiafags get more retarded every day.
Don't argue with me, argue with techpowerup which actually tested both cards on their whole suite of games.

>cherry picking a lower resolution to make Nvidia look better
Why not just go straight to 1024x768 or 800x600 then, faggot?

Nah, nowadys it's

1080p
1080 > everything
980ti > Fury X
980 > 390x
980 >= Fury

1440p
1080 > everything
980ti > Fury X
Fury > 980
980 = 390x

4k
1080 > everything
Rest are too weak to run 4k

Overclocks
1080p > everything
980ti >>>> dogshit >>>> Fury X
980 > Fury X

AMD shit the bed with their pitiful OC headroom on their Fury and 390x card. Their only worthwhile card is the 390

R9 380: 3476.5 GFLOPS, 108.6 GT/s
GTX 960: 2308 GFLOPS, 72.1 GT/s

R9 390: 5120 GFLOPs, 160 GT/s
GTX 970: 3494 GFLOPS, 109.2 GT/s

R9 390X: 5913.6 GFLOPs, 184.8 GT/s
GTX 980: 4612 GFLOPS, 144 GT/s

AMD hardware is like a muscle car compared to nvidia. They can't even be compared. They're not even in the same ballpark.

If what you're doing is even remotely bottlenecked by the hardware (e.g. raw computational capacity of the GPU, raw texture fetching speed, etc.), then AMD cards will wipe the floor with nvidia many times over.

Nvidia is only good if you're into playing AAA games. If you actually use your GPU for work, computation, or with high quality programs that are written to use the hardware optimally (e.g. mpv's rendering algorithms) then AMD hardware will win many times over.

AMD BTFO!

S U I C I D E W A T C H

1080p is the only real gaming resolution you fucking retarded amddrone

>>>/reddit/ (implication for you to fucking leave kid)

>people just ignoring the super boiling temperature it runs at
I'm sorry but what the fuck? The reference design is clearly fucking terrible.

>playing on the same resolution as a console
>using console resolution to compare PC hardware
Hilarious.
At least people on reddit manage to be less retarded than you.

>It's $600,

Will be in 2 months or three. Until then you only have Founders Edition, which is $700 and comes with a shit cooler.

And again, they have a year on the Fury and a huge jump in node size, and all they get is 10% better? You've got to be a retard if you think this is all right.

>1080p

The 390x was 1% better than the 980 at 1440p whereas the 980 stomps it at 1080p and lower. Overall the 980 is better, neither card is a 4k card. The image that was provided shows the 980 literally neck and neck with Fury cards, nevermind the 390x.


see youtube.com/watch?v=JXhHivCLBwc - 980 stomps the Fury X in certain games and ties with it in most other ones

youtube.com/watch?v=y9WS-CCcorg - 980 absolutely obliterates the 390x

youtube.com/watch?v=pDxTcvZ4T2k - 980 OCd stomping a Fury X OCd

youtube.com/watch?v=O8zo9tYcQn8 - 980 OCd stomping a Fury X OCd

Nevermind the 980ti or the god tier 1080 user, the Fury X can barely beat a 980. It's literally embarrassing

>what is 1440p

Holy shit, tell me you're baiting

>gaming this
>gaming that
>game
>game
>GAME
I want to leave.

Why would anyone buy a card that doesn't have very good DX12 support?

do any of you actually play on 4k

is sub 30fps fun

I play KSP, LoL, Besiege, WoW, TTP, The Witness etc. just fine at 4K

>playing AAA garbage

>they have a year on the Fury and a huge jump in node size
Let's not forget the Fiji is just a hurried proof-of-concept for a larger chip with HBM, it's literally two Tonga chips spliced together with a different memory controller. It has the same ammount of ROPs as Hawaii (64, which is a significant bottleneck in Fiji).
If they barely beat poorly designed competition, they stand no chance againt proper competition (which hopefully Vega will be).

I have 9800 GT should I wait for 1060 so I can play witcher 3 ,ds3 on 1080p on ultra?
Is it a good idea?

Graphics cards are technology, even if used for gaming, fucking retard.
Leave yourself. If you want a board only for programming monkeys and freetards, go beg moot's replacement for a /prog/ or /foss/ board.

Call me when DX12 works even on AMDshit

Wrong.
They could've done a twice as powerful card for $400.

But, why would they do that? They only need to undercut Fiji by 10%. Then once Vega is out, they can undercut that by 10% with a 1080Ti. Or, just release a new Titan for $2000.

Vega needs to fuck Nvidia in the ass or else we'll get this same 10% increment every year for $500 like we have ont he CPU market.

>10fps worse on AMD
>no performance difference on NVidia
>DX12 literally works better on NVidia

WHAT THE FUCK AMDBROS?! DX12 WAS OUR THING, NOW NVIDIA ARE TAKING THAT AWAY FROM US?!

when are we getting 1070 benchmarks?

It's a gamewerx title. Literally designed to run gimped on non-NVidia hardware.

Keep up the good fight guys, your company is proud of you.