Nvidia gimping has already begun

Nvidia gimping has already begun

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DvCsT_dk-1E
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It was only a matter of time

Nice proof faggot.

>981
480


Please stop

>it took Nvidia 3 years to beat AMD's 295x2
top kek

>280x barely behind GTX 780 now
>People still fall for the Nvidia meme

A stock 780, down at 863MHz. I just ditched mine and it easily overclocked to 1241MHz with just a few slider changes in Afterburner. At that speed it matched a moderately-overclocked 970 or a stock 390. Best of luck overclocking a 280X to that level.

My 280x is clocked to 1150 m8, and besides, totally different price point.

>970 behind 780 ti now

the fuck is this shit?!

>My 280x is clocked to 1150 m8
And? That still won't get it anywhere near the stated performance level. You'd need to reach ~1450MHz to match up, so again, good luck with that.

>besides, totally different price point
Yes, and it still comfortably outperforms the 280X when we're not busy comparing what is a 7970 with a large factory overclock to a stock 780. What's the issue here?

>non reference card out performing reference card
>muh gimping
yeah, ok

The 970 was always behind the 780 Ti.

The issue is that it originally went up (and sometimes lost) agaisnt the 770, not 780.

Because it's two GPUs crossfired you dip

If they're gimping it's not much. MSI GTX 980 runs Doom at 60 fps on a 1080 at ultra.

The 770 has fallen away due to its VRAM limitations as games have become increasingly-hungry for it. That extra 1GB and wider memory bus, as well as AMD getting their shit together driver-wise, are why the 280X has pulled away from it.

But again, it doesn't match a 780 under any circumstances other than comparing a dead stock 780 to a 280X that's factory overclocked to fairly near the brink. Overclock both as high as you can get them (and the 1241MHz I achieved is actually fairly modest, better ones go to 1300+ on air), and the 780 remains in a different class.

>updated 960 to newest drivers since not updating for several months
>100 points higher valley score

I don't see any evidence of gimping. I see a non-reference card outperforming a reference card.

Are you slow?

Yes. Nvidia made specific drivers for the MSI version of the 980 Ti different from regular 980 Ti to gimp the regular.

How fucked up must one person's perceptions of reality be to honestly believe that shit?

...

So I'm waiting on AMC versions of the AMD 480 and i'm also waiting on the 1060.

But I like to keep my options open, and if I were to have to pick between a 960 and a 970, which should I get?

did the 280x get stronger or did 780 get shittier?

just started getting newegg emails with good prices on 980 ti's so this sounds about right

What happened was GCN is a more forward thinking adaptable arch while Nvidia makes DX11 ASICs which are tuned for the at the time needs/popular features.

AMD puts a lot of brute force hardware which is difficult to program for, but as time went on the flexibility of the power available became more acessible.

>fury X faster than 980ti
>390x faster than 980

Why nvidia didnt make something like this? Its still a single card, not crossfire bullshit.

>tfw 970

-10% in actual games, -20% in DX12.

They had the Titan Z, but it was $3000 at launch.

Sigh. It's people like you that explain why AMD are still in business.

> Its still a single card, not crossfire bullshit.

You fucking moron. It *IS* crossfire, 'bullshit' as you put it. It literally is exactly the same interface, software, the whole fucking setup - Internalised in the card.

There's absolutely no difference in performance, compatibility, or reliability (in terms of frame timing) between one card with two GPUs or two cards with two GPUs. In fact - It's inferior because you have to deal with dump all of the heat out of one card rather than two.

the titan z was still slower and hotter than the r9 295x2

Should I buy another 970 and sli?

no wait for big vega next year

Ah the cry of the AMDrone. "Wait for the next card."

Pro-tip: The waiting game never ends.

no upgrading from a 970 right now is just retarded and the big vega or 1080 ti might offer a worthwhile upgrade now fuck off back to Sup Forums

>no upgrading from a 970 right now is just retarded
How is it retarded to upgrade from a 970 to a 1070? Because a new more powerful card is coming out a a few months? And when it does come out, we'll hear about the next generation of cards coming out in a few months. So we wait for the next generation's cards to see how good they are as they will make 1080ti and big vega pointless. But when the next generation comes out we hear of "big versions" coming out in a few months so we . . .

The waiting game NEVER ENDS. Stop deluding yourself that the next big thing will be a better solution. There is ALWAYS a better solution around the next corner.

the 1070 is like 20-30% better that's not a worthwhile upgrade let alone the price inflation

>SLI

im never falling for the dual gpu meme again, microstuttering is the worst thing in existence.

>the 1070 is like 20-30% better that's not a worthwhile upgrade
More than 50% faster in GTA V @1080, Anno 2205, AC;Synd, BF3, BF4.
Only 42% in Batman Arkham Knight.

Where are you getting your 20-30% from?

>price inflation
1070 is a greater jump in performance than the transition from 770 to 970. I don't see that as unreasonable price inflation.

1070 performs better than 970 SLI.

50% is still shit and half those games are shit console ports

>i don't see the problem with paying 500$ for a midrange gpu
why are nvidia users the biggest cucks on this board?

This can be applied to Apple users.

>he thinks 50% is good
Fuck off back to Sup Forums consumerist cuck, 100% or nothing

What wouldn't be shit? A doubling of performance, while drawing only 2w of power and cooling your beer with an extension of the gpu cooler with a cup holder?

Not an argument.

nvidiots and macfags are in the same boat of stupidity and consumerist cuckolding so that is to be expected

See You are free to answer the question as well.

>What wouldn't be shit?
see

Read the post you illiterate nvidiacuck
at least 100% or its a shit upgrade

>nvidia cards 27% worse on dx12 TWWH

> Its still a single card, not crossfire bullshit.
>AMDrones are really this fucking dumb
I don't get it, how would this show that the gimping meme is real?

Protip, it isn't:
youtube.com/watch?v=DvCsT_dk-1E

Can you name any new card that was released that was a 100% increase in performance over its immediate predecessor?

on 4k, none of these cards are fit for 4k though

Nvidiot shills belong on Sup Forums

>gets presented with evidence he's a buttflaming idiot
>hurr shill hurrpa durrp
Stay mad fanboy

only reason to get 1080 is for 4k,

1080 cant get 60 fps at 4k

no reason to get a 1080 unless sli

can get better performance in crossfire at a fraction of the cost

>literally no reason to upgrade until a single gpu can get 60fps maxxed at 4k.

>sli, or cf
>relevant
Pick one

>*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

I guess by the extended silence you have come to understand how unrealistic it is to expect and judge a card based upon a 100% increase in performance.

Sup Forums spillage go back you shitposting faggot

>This salty AMDiscount fucker

Get your poo cards out of here faggit

...

This line of thinking has given rise to an interesting question. HAVE there been any similar jumps in performance between generations?

If I read your graph correctly, the increase in performance of the GTX is less than 50% faster than the GTS. Not even half way to an increase of 100%.

>lel poo loo memes
i remember when that used to be a meme on Sup Forums but they fucked off with it because it was a old joke that only newfags still thinks funny so seriously you would be better off with your own kind on Sup Forums

Instead of these hand wavey half-bs ways of showing NVIDIA is gimping cards, why aren't there benchmarks of games by driver version? That would very easily prove it.

you skip generations, upgrading every generation is retarded you consumerist cuck

>8800 GTS
>the immediate predecessor of 8800 GTX
What the hell have you been smoking?

>you skip generations
You may. You may not. Doesn't change the point that expecting a 100% increase in performance from the 1070's or ANY GPU's immediate predecessor is a ludicrous standard to erect.

>meme
>the architecture is literally called Poo-laris
Nice try AMDrone

I got a 290x and can do 1440p 60fps so i am still waiting on my 100% upgrade with a big vega.

>HAVE there been any similar jumps in performance between generations?

Last one Radeon 5870. It performed about 50% better over the 4870.

Then there's the 8800 GTX before that.

No one is expecting 100% increases in performance in a single generation anymore.

That's why you don't upgrade every generation.

>>meme
>>the architecture is literally called Poo-laris
>Nice try AMDrone
everything you said reinforces the fact that you are a massive newfag

I got a 290x and can do 1440p 60fps
At low settings, or old as shit games maybe

It is nice that you openly admit your posts have nothing to do with the point.

>No one is expecting 100% increases in performance in a single generation anymore.
You might want to tell the posters of and Two? who openly proclaim anything less than 100% increase in performance is shit.

>AMDrone foaming at the mouth realizing nobody gives a shit about AMD

Stay salty

star wars: battlefront isnt a old game and its closer to 70-80 frames

1180 comes out in 2 years, 30% performance increase, another $700.

still not running 4k 60fps most games on ultra.

literally just buy a used 980ti and sli it with your current 980ti and not need an upgrade for 10 years.

>muh games

newfag

>star wars: battlefront isnt a old game
One assumes you are not talking about Star Wars Battlefront from 2004?

They're not expecting 100% performance increases in a single generation. They're saying that there is no point in upgrading until you get a 100% performance increase from your upgrade.

that post does have to do with the point for example if you have a 290x you wont have anything to worth upgrading to until big vega or big pascal

im talking about the one dice made

>They're not expecting 100% performance increases in a single generation
Am I to understand that there were TWO IDIOTS who jumped into a discussion about upgrading from a 970 to a 1070 and did not realize the point about a 50% increase in performance was not about IN A SINGLE GENERATION?

That "they" failed quite epically in their posts?

>The 770 has fallen away due to its VRAM limitations as games have become increasingly-hungry for it.

And yet you morons argue that 4gb ram is enough.

They're saying that there is no point in upgrading until you get a 100% performance increase from your upgrade.'
why can you into reading comprehension

4gb is
see

Star wars also runs well on my old 780ti though at 1440p, it's not really a good example for how most new games run on older gpu's It's very well coded

well there is dying light that runs at 60 fps as well on a 290x at 1440p

>They're saying that there is no point in upgrading until you get a 100% performance increase from your upgrade.'
Perhaps I am giving them credit for intelligence that they don't have. Like, support of new techology that the older hardware doesn't include. Or the lower power usage or that some people can afford to buy the bestest and the newest so long as it isn't a failure like the 480 appears to be. Or that it is rare we see a card that gains 50+% in a single generation.

Then again, there's the other side as well. Another five years without much else but incremental increases in performance due to being stuck on one node for a long time. In that case it is foolish to hold onto a video card waiting for 100% performance before upgrading.

>"relative performance"

>Or that it is rare we see a card that gains 50+% in a single generation.
Well that generation also costs about $100 extra.

inb4
>$379 MSRP!

Again i have a 290x that can do everything i want it to at 1440p 60fps and im waiting on something to do 1440p 144 fps so you are wrong there.
Just stop being such a consumerist whore buying into 20% upgrades every generation

relative performance is the most accurate test of gpu performance

There is only a $50 difference between the 970s MSRP and the 1070s MSRP.

I stopped paying any attention to your posts as you admitted previously to not participating. But I don't think I need to re-explain the bullshit stated with regards to the 1070:
>buying into 20% upgrades

I don't know if you are unintentionally or intentionally grossly under-representing the performance difference because you have an AMD gpu.

the difference between the 970 and 1070 isnt 100% so its a shit upgrade you fucking nvidiot mong

>implying you are ever going to get a 1070 for msrp until next year
its like you don't know what a paper launch is

>There is only a $50 difference between the 970s MSRP and the 1070s MSRP.
I literally say this shit in my post and you still manage to be a retard.
>inb4
>>$379 MSRP!

Hint: You can't get a 1070 for its MSRP. Most models go for about $430, which is $100 more than $330, in case you can't count. The cheapest model currently is one by Gigabyte that they released a few days ago, which goes for $400. Besides that, you're looking at $420, $430, $440.

On the other hand, GTX 970 prices varied from $330 to about $350 at launch.

The situation is a lot worse in yurop though. 970 was something like 370-390€ here. On the other hand, you'll have to pay 520€ for a 1070.

And we get back to the original stupidity. It is repeated like it wasn't attacked rather than addressing the attacks presented. How unsurprising.

Let me guess. You can afford to buy a 1080 Ti or whatever $1k card Nvidia is going to launch after buying a $330 970?

>Hint: You can't get a 1070 for its MSRP.
You cannot get it NOW you mean? How about a month from now when the supply and demand equalizes?