Nvidia disappoints again

Why do people pay so much for nvidia cards again ? Especially in the

Other urls found in this thread:

theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/11/3/13510238/evga-geforce-1080-1070-1060-graphics-card-fire
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nvidia cards run stable while AMD cards keep crashing the PC.

So stable that you need a custom patch to stop your graphic card from burning down the house.

theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/11/3/13510238/evga-geforce-1080-1070-1060-graphics-card-fire

Probably because they're actually better and weirdly enough nobody can recreate those benchmarks and charts while actually recording and showing footage of it on youtube.

despite that the 1070 still uses less power and runs cooler than the RX 480 which is about half as fast

how does gamegpu manage to create all these AMD-favorable results? literally no other reviewer has been able to replicate them. really makes you think...

What is up with this graph?

Its a conspiracy...

Its sorted by min fps instead of average?

>youtube autist at it again
Nobody gives a shit about nameless fake youtube videos.

This is the intelligence level of the average Sup Forums poster.

>1060's 61 aligned evenly with the 480's 65 and way ahead of the 290's 60 on the bar graph

TPU gonna TPU.

I'd pick minimum 42 and average 61 over min 35 avg 65 every day
Not to mention lower power,noise,heat and stable PCI-ex power delivery

this, look into GSOD OP

>He honestly believes somebody with 1000 views would take his time and effort to fake MSI afterburner graph in a fucking video

>Meanwhile he is absolutely fine with taking a word for granted of some fucking shill who has to shill in order to receive early samples of hardware and has nothing to provide except for a fucking graph that could be done in 5 minutes by anyone.

Literally fires up my brain synapses.

they inexplicably concatenate the min and average bars but still sort by min.

this is a trend I will never understand.

to be fair, their graphs are fucking retarded.

Minimum is more important then maximum, as this is what you see the game drop to, this is the worst it will perform, I'm willing to cap games at minimum frame rates rather then have the rates be wildly different because fuck me losing half your frames is not enjoyable at all.

>Literally fires up my brain synapses.
You said this same gay-ass line in the other thread.

>1000 views
Holy shit, stop the presses. As if 1000 13 year olds stumbling around youtube for TWIMTBP benchmarks could figure out the difference between real and fake data. I mean shit, even you can't, yet you somehow were able to find your way here.

I mean shit I don't even like TPU but I know they don't make data up out of nowhere.

>no mGPU support on DX12 yet again
>fastest card gets 100FPS at 1080p, 70FPS min.
>clearly won't get 60+ even at 1440p, 4K would probably be a stutterfest
Why do people get excited over this shit again? The game is playable 60+ at 1080p with a GTX 1080 minimum, fucking amazing. AMD's latest card drops to fucking 35FPS and their fastest drops to 50, so they can't maintain 60+ at all, even at 1080p. What exactly is there to get excited about here? You need a GTX 1080 to run the game at 1080p (maxed?), that's fucking disgraceful if anything.

The graph you are whining about comes from GameGPU, not TPU.

my point is that min+avg is a dubious metric to show, but you might as well sort by it if you're gonna implicitly claim it's useful.

Fuck me in the arsehole... Thanks bruh! I wonder if the Linux driver protects me against that fire.

its the RAM thats all