AMDiscount fags thinking this would have fury performance

>AMDiscount fags thinking this would have fury performance

Other urls found in this thread:

3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpu/fs/X/982/6000?minScore=0&gpuName=NVIDIA
3dmark.com/fs/7804987
3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpu/fs/X/982/8000?minScore=5708&gpuName=NVIDIA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>around 390X/980 performance level
This is what's expected of stock.

With OC, this is supposed to go near Fury tier. It would make sense if the OC potential is above 15%, it would be near Nano tier. @ 20% OC, it would be at Fury tier.

>comparing stock to oc
Your comparison does not hold, because if we would overclock the 980 and the 390x aswell they would still end up above the 480.

Or at least the 980 would

>$199 for performance rivaling Nvidia's last gen flagship using only 1 6 pin power connector


This is even better than I expected desu

>980
>nvidia's last gen flagship
Lol no, and as you can see it does not rival it, although it comes close

Yeah but if you OC the 480 shouldn't you use the OC rating of the Fury X too?

And wouldn't OCing the 480 kind of neccesitate the need for a 8-pin or larger power connector because of the larger draw?

-Completely clueless about dem GPU bois

You can't oc a fury x

AMD literally advertised a card as the overclockers dream which doesn't overclock for shit

Nvidiots on full damage control mode! Suicide watch imminent!

>suicide watch over a budget card with last years midrange performance

Yeah...no

>GTX 980
>Midrange
Cool Story

>OC needs 8 pin
Not necessarily. You need to factor in what the regular power draw is and then add in power to it. If the 480 consumes about 100w, then OC hunger might reach to 140w or so.

Thats sitll enough for 6 pin

Fact of the matter is, if this card can OC, there will be so much butthurt from 1070 owners.

Yeah I'm sure AMDiscount fags don't consider that mid range, but it is

>butthurt for having 980ti performance for 380$
Hah, I doubt it

>he fell for the $380 meme/myth

Damage control
A
M
A
G
R

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

the 980 was the best nvidia card for 9 months, it counts as being a flagship

Buy 2 then

>mid range
>$500-$600 card that reigned on top chart for months
kek

Stop with the downplays. Jesus christ, this is just too cringy.

It does make sense, because you can't really OC the Fury cards, and the 980 would still cost a good deal more and maxwell lacks A-sync support

Begeezus guise.
Yes the 480 is a great deal and yes the best gaming experience will be on team green. Team red is as always adequate.

>only 5708 in firestrike extreme

this is slower than a 970 by a huge margin, 3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpu/fs/X/982/6000?minScore=0&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970

seems like AMD is generating fake leaks and fake hype now because they have a shit product

here's the highest result for a single 970 on firestrike extreme:

3dmark.com/fs/7804987

~36% faster. sounds like the 480 is roughly 380x performance.

It's only $450 right now because partner cards have not hit the market yet

>RX 480 does better than expected (naysayers were putting it between 390 and 390X).
>People think this is somehow good for nvidia
Bitches please, I prefer Nvidia (and was planning on building with a GTX 970), but the RX 480 is just too amazing at its price point.

>right now
So you're saying it won't be like the 1080, where all the partners were overcharging even past the FE tax?

[citation needed]

there are several 1080s for less than the FE pricing on newegg right now, including the acx 3.0 cards.

>amd fags consider 980ti high end

*980

>6 pin is not enough for the RX 480 to OC
>8 pins are fine fine for muh gtx 1080!

Just

Except its anomaly. I hope you guys actually know it and just baiting.

Dudewhat.exe

Just checked newegg, all 1080s start at 699$ and are sold out. You can grab a 999$ asus ROG 1080 tho, that's not sold out.

there are thousands of 970s above the stated rx 480 score.

It looks like it's the best $200 3D mark card

only decent reply to this thread

Why defend Nvidia's jewery? The RX 480 looks like it's closer to a 980 than a 970, just wait 2 weeks for the real benchmarks

Maybe if you want to spend the money for a 1080 and high end G-sync display, the average person is better off with a 480 and less expensive free-sync display

If only Vega would come out sooner

there are always bundles in stock, theyre just really hard to find
you can only buy a 1080 if you buy a power supply or some RAM too

>Why defend Nvidia's jewery? The RX 480 looks like it's closer to a 980 than a 970, just wait 2 weeks for the real benchmarks

how am i defending nvidia? all i'm doing is stating facts about the 480's performance.

What did they mean by this?

Let me translate this, happy Muslim Easter

I dont see any facts. Just butthurt nvido fanboy.

AMD does not use spec with power pins. Haven't in years. Could very well use 200 peak.

you must be blind then, plenty of evidence was given showing the 970 is considerably faster than the 480. the onus is on AMD to put out a product worth buying at this point.

According to Sup Forums the 970 is faster than a fury x, so make of that what you will.

so does passmark. your point?

Point me to any evidence in your posts.

Passmark has the 290x only slightly ahead of a 780 yet in games the 290x murders it. Even ignoring that passmark is an awful gpu benchmark as it flatout does not support dual chip cards.

Even as a cpu test passmark is kind of meh.

If this is your evidence, then 33% of GTX 970s are faster than GTX 980s.

yeah, you clearly are blind

3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpu/fs/X/982/8000?minScore=5708&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970

>88566 RESULTS FOUND.

the 970 is unequivocally faster than the 480.

not him, but an OCed 970 will easily outperform a stock 980.

Yeah but is it faster than a 6970?

>88566 RESULTS FOUND.
>all sli
I guess you`re just stupid.

So when is AMD going to release their new flagship card? A few months?

next year

>all sli

except that the search was limited to systems with 1 gpu, so that's 88,000 results before the SLI stats would be included.

Holy fuck, nice catch. So what is the typical score of stock 970?

The point is that it is 199 for a 980 like card, except it is extremely efficient and can be overclocked quite a bit

How are you so confident it can oc so well?

You cant be that retarded.

Benchmarks

It has a smaller architecture, uses much less power and unlike the 1070 doesn't run at 80C idle :^)

October iirc

...

Every AMD chip has been a decent overclocker until fiji. Even the nuclear inferno hawaii overclocks nicely if you can cool it.

Because they're trying to delude themselves into thinking it'll be some amazing overclocker even without confirmed or reliable benchmarks.

GPU scoring charts provided by the Pittsburgh Penguins

You should go

the last few AMD releases haven't been exactly impressive in the overclocking department.
i loved my 280 and my 390 but let's be honest, they're not great for overclocking.
it's a bit shameful to expect future AMD cards to be "amazing" overclockers.
we'll see with time, but for now, please stop with this "AMD / NVIDIA IS FINISHED" nonsense.
WAIT FOR ACTUAL RELEASE INFORMATION.

AMD's stock is owned by some very colorful individuals.
Some of which are known for their Yemen based non profit charity organizations - aka ISIL.

So think twice if you're thinking of buying an AMD card. You might be providing funds for the next attack on European or American soil.

I told you guys. In fact, I'm impressed it even gets that close to a 980. For $200 it's an amazing card, but as always, WAIT FOR ACTUAL BENCHMARKS.
On another note, my ass isn't ready for the RX470. If it gets 970/390 performance, then I'm buying one to replace Tahiti and wait for Vega at the end of the year or early next year.

>mfw amdrones were screaming from the rooftops about how accurate that chink benchmark and about how accurate 3dmark is
>mfw now they're all saying "i-it doesn't matter, b-benches are never reliable anyway!"

This just gets better and better. They were literally saying it was 1070 performance just yesterday. Enjoy your sub 980 performance, fags.

There is always the very vocal minority. I've been posting that "don't delude yourself" post several times since it was getting out of control. I expected more than 970/390, that's it. If it does deliver, then it's a win for all of us.

For $200 I will.

280 is fine at over clocking
Base clock is 827mhz and it'd OC to 1200mhz on average.

Problem is no GCN GPU design could reliably breach 1200mhz, and the later ones like Hawaii and Fiji were clocked closer to it.

I personally did not have the same result with my 280. My best OC was around 950MHz, and that ran really hot. :(
silicon RNG ftl

GCN as a whole prefers to sit in the 800-900mhz range for poerformance vs power draw. Those absurdly high clocks of hawaii and fiji give the arch impressive performance but a not so enjoyable TDP.

Pic semi-related, a borderline suicide run on air.

That's not the point. They've been saying this for weeks about how it's going to be like a fury nano and then even more recently they've been saying it's 1070 levels of performance. You could tell they legitimately believed it as well.

That's exactly the point. Even if it was 200$ for a 970-like it would be sweet.

Also, muh 2x Titan X performance. But back then it was "clearly marketing and noone should believe it".

Again, vocal minority. I never believed any of the last few images circulating around the RX480 much less that OC version. It's just rumors.

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

It's GTX 980 performance for $200, absolutely amazing desu senpai.

>thinking this would have fury performance

Nobody ever said that, we all said it would be 980 tier, which your chart clearly shows is the case.

It's not even $450 now, it's like $550, these nvidia cards are overpriced garbage

I have a Fury X running a 100Mhz overclock on core

Temps are so fucking great with clc on a graphics card

Why won't AMD make another Fury X?

i has to go further than that, fans are only at 20% and load is 0.

Was going to buy a Nano but this is far more tempting....

your VRMs will fail eventually. fury x can't withstand any increased voltage with the stock cooler.

Nano is like $300 more, no way is it worth it.

RX 480 has ridiculous price performance, it's the value king.

Please never mention OC as a shit eating AMD fanboy. We already had this conversation with 390 blowing away 970 gtx till you started comparing OC benchmarks.

>We get to overclock to Fury/1070 speeds for $199. That's why we laugh at you.

There are no fans plugged into the fan header (virtually n gpu actually checks that, unlike cpus) due to using custom cooling and its at 0% load as it completed the benchmark (barely). Still the average overclock for a 290x is 1150mhz - my particular card will do 1200mhz but the voltage required is obscene.

But it's cute =\

Listen I'm glad that you're happy for being 2 years behind Nvidia players but hit me up when your based Pajeet actually develops a card that can compete with current lineup. Thanks.

Except the 980 costs twice as much now? You're funny.

Have fun wasting your money on overpriced bullshit so you can run minesweeper at 9000 fps

Its taken until the 1080 for Nvidia to catch up to the 295x2 - it remained the fastest card in existence from release until now.

Who shills harder

Legit curious, how many of you are serious?

You're just as bad as the other user. Multi GPU cards are garbage.

the x2 was insane

>295x2
>Counting as a single card

Haha, no. I don't understand why AMD always post the same retardation and then get very upset when people call them out on their bullshit.