Nvidia takes a nap

Here we go again!

Other urls found in this thread:

computerbase.de/2017-11/star-wars-battlefront-2-benchmark-test/#diagramm-star-wars-battlefront-2-1920-1080
computerbase.de/2017-11/star-wars-battlefront-2-pc-ersteindruck/2/
techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/33.html
tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-10-year-anniversary-benchmarks,5329.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I see that 1080 ti is beating 64 for virtually the same price and lower temps & power draw. What's your point?

pascal is two years old
everybody is getting milked

A tasty dirt nap

>He doesn't buy a RX Vega 56 for $399 and run it on 64 BIOS/Powerplay profile

>Fury X aged poo-

Oh would you look at that!
Novidyo BTFO again!

>1080ti same price as Vega 64

In what planet?
The Vega 64 is priced like a 1080, not a 1080ti.

Novideo shills gonna shill

www.computerbase.de/2017-11/star-wars-battlefront-2-pc-ersteindruck/%3famp=1

...

Nice try Jensen, not buying your shitty GPOOs again.

computerbase.de/2017-11/star-wars-battlefront-2-benchmark-test/#diagramm-star-wars-battlefront-2-1920-1080

kek Novideo got slower

>amdrones still going at it even after King Pajeet doesn't want to deal with their shit company

404 kek

computerbase.de/2017-11/star-wars-battlefront-2-pc-ersteindruck/2/


Vega is DOA

wah wah wah waaaah

>amd can match with a 2 years older gp104

Nice job AMD, MAGA

11th September 2017 (Beta) vs 14.November.2017 (Retail version)
Nice try Novideo shill

I'll buy Vega simply for the fact that games will run better on it in the future.

/this

The future is bright for Vega.

This. Buying Vega is an investment.
Performance is already great desu, outperforming the 1080 I would have bought if I had GSync monitor. Drivers will only improve performance.

My only complaint with is related to drivers, I've had to driver hop a few times to find a driver version that didn't give me heavy artifacting and crashes in games.

But it's not a witcher or gta? This doesn't count, r-r-right?

Going forward games will become more opitmized towards GCN DX12 and Vulkan. Games will become more threaded requiring more cores. Nvidia will release Volta to stay relevant in the new age of compute GPU's and hopefully AMD will get enough cashflow to give RTG a bit of a boost. They will never beat Nvidia but if they can at least stay close on their tails it will benefit us all.

>barely beating 1080 FE
is this honestly supposed to be impressive?

>Battlefront 2
Yeah with EA's recent shit how many are going to give a shit about how it performs when everyone's refunding it before it's even out.

>MFW vega 64 same price as a 1080 in my country
>MFW people told me vega was similar in performance but ran much hotter and louder
>MFW bought a 1080 on special a week ago
>MFW can't return it
>MFW vega 64 will eventually be equivalent or better than a 1080 ti

>Thank you for your email regarding your interests with [custom VEGA] query.ETA for the product to be available in Australia, Q1 (JAN - MAR 2018)
too bad AMD shit the bed. I wanted to buy one

No but this is
Anyhow. Why does it have to 'beat' it? RX Vega 64 was meant as a competitor to the GTX 1080 and 56 the GTX 1070. The 56 did what it intended and for those looking for a good option on Freesync it delivers. Vega was never intended to compete with the GTX 1080 Ti so I don't even compare that but in at least Wolfenstein II it gets very close to the GTX 1080 Ti which shows it has potential in future games.

I don't see why you must have this constant battle. As long as each team can play their games at +60 fps in most games and resolutions who cares.

>Ausfalia
>Living in a third world shit hole
XFX will have one out before xmas and looks the better of the few Vega AIB partners (Sapphire dropped the ball with 3 x 8 pin power connectors).

>980 ti I bought THREE years ago still on top of the pack competing with a stock 1080 once oc'ed
>used ones are going for measly $250

Damn too bad I don't play much games anymore. I would've been stoked had I been younger and this happened.

Fury X aged like shit. Glad I didn't buy into that meme.

Also
>this 499$ MSRP card can't beat this 699$ MSRP card
>Vega 64s are mostly sold for around 550 to 600 dolllars while the 1080Tis go for around 750 dollars.
It's almost 200 dollars cheaper and still comes very close or even beats it in some scenarios. How is that not a clear AMD win?

It looks like a fucking happy meal toy though. I don't care for gaymer aesthetics but the XFX model makes me want to throw up. Also we get parts just after the US. I guarentee no one is seeing it until next year

980ti can barely compete with the 1070 what are you talking about?

nah. With all the lootboxes, you'll more likely to see EA reporting record profits.

DELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

There are people in the world who gauge things only on absolute performance. There are also people who like to buy what they view as the "premium" product. Nvidia is marketed as both. So those people will buy Nvidia every time. It's stupid, yes, but you can't reason with them on the basis of efficiency. Those people are mindless consumers, through and through. You'd have to get into a philosophical debate to really hit the root of the issue.

FE are trash

Most people aren't defeatists.

I'm confused, are you trying to insult people who don't buy Nvidia?

speaking of efficiency - don't forget the $50-100 on every power bill from your vega

If the shoe fits

OK I just had to make sure your joke really was that boring.

cuck

With an undervolt my Vega is always drawing around 220W, which isn't all that much and is about the same my previous card was drawing.

If you play 24/7 365 days a year.

Most people play a few hours a day at most. You won't hardly notice it on your bills. BTW I am running mine at 0.660mV on idle and 1050mV at full load (1400Mhz) for most of the less demanding games by way of game profiles. For the more demanding I jack it to 1150mV @ 1650Mhz but I don't play those too often.

do you know what that word means?

The sweet spot for power to efficiency is 1400Mhz at the lowest power you can get it to stay stable. Anything past that is really an overclock. I use about 175w at 1400Mhz with 1050mV

56 or 64?

what is the noise like on reference vega? I've heard its very loud and its putting me off buying

56 on 64 BIOS with memory at 1100Mhz.

It's really loud when the fans are spinning really fast, but if you undervolt and underclock you can get pretty silent operation.
Don't buy reference if you care about noise, take it form someone who has a reference Vega.
Just wait for AIB cards, seriously.

/this

Kinda disappointed there is no thiord party air coolers for Vega apart from the Morpheus (too big and clunky). Aero said they are not planning any Vega coolers.

I'm buying before Christmas though so I guess I'm buying nvidia

Looks like you might have to. 1070Ti or GTX 1080?

atm leaning toward 1070 ti as its $100 cheaper than the 1080 equivalent in Aus. G sync monitors are ludicrously expensive here though so I might end up holding off even though I really don't want to.

I can easily buy a 64, unfortunately my Seasonic x-650 is not enough...

Yeah the G-Sync tax really sucks. They really need to get those partner cards out for xmas time. But I bet they will be in short supply and overpriced if they are.

>Hawaii rehash house fire still maintaining 60+ fps @1080
>keeps a healthy distance ahead of the 970 3.5
i picked the right card

story time Sup Forums

this type of mentality stems all the way back to the hd 4000 series from amd. amd back then decided to go the small die route and only released the 4850, 4870, and the 4850 x2 / 4870 x2.

the 4850 debuted at msrp $199. it competed with the nvidia gts 250 & 9800gtx. the 4850 was as fast, or faster. and not only that, but used slightly less power.
the 4870 debuted at msrp $299. it competed with the nvidia gtx 260. the 4870 was as fast, or faster. and not only that, but used slightly less power.

amd though did not have a gtx 280 competitor. yes, they had the dual cards, but they did not have a single gpu solution that competed with the gtx 280 and above. later amd did release the 4890, but it was a slightly more improved 4870.

and that was a problem. since nvidia had the single gpu king title, when reviewers went out there and said "but nvidia still faster with their $500+ 280" people therefor took nvidia as generally faster. faster, better in every category and tier. which was false.

and nvidia sold more gtx 260's than amd sold 4870's and 4850's combined.

and then it didn't help you had the likes of reviewers like techpowerup for YEARS also con amd for not having "cuda." i shit you not. every single year until 2012 every amd gpu that was reviewed by techpowerup always had a negative con due to lack of "cuda." and people wonder why so many fuckwits thought they needed cuda for games.
>techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6950/33.html
>No support for CUDA / PhysX
and more for the dickwads like techpowerup also dinged, for example, the 6950 as a con of:
>DirectX 11 relevance limited at this time
yes thats right. they con the 6950 because of its focus on dx11.

and back then drivers wise both were truly 100% identical. microsoft even admitted like 20-30% of BSOD were caused by nvidia drivers back then.

and then the 5000 series and 6000 series. 6950 > 560 / 470. used less power. nvidia sold more 560's than 6950's & 6970's.

amd was into power savings for years. trying to make cards that didn't use that much power. its one of the reasons why they focused on the small die strategy. NO ONE gave a damn. not a single damn soul cared about power savings. see the entire fermi line vs 5000 / 6000 series. amd had strong competitors except no top dog. nvidia sold more 460's and 470's than amd sold of their entire 5000 series.

people didn't care, reviwers didn't care, like techpowerup, until nvidia cared with keplar.

> always had a negative con due to lack of "cuda.

For those interested here is a comparison of various GPU's over the last 10 years from both teams runing the original Crysis game.

tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-10-year-anniversary-benchmarks,5329.html

Some surprising results actually.

>AMD cards are hotter/less power efficient
>HAHA AMD yet again delivering an underhwelming, hot and power hungry chip!

>Nvidia cards are hotter/less power efficient
>This is the price you have to pay for performance! It's the way it's meant to be played.

Why goyim never learn?

Without an understanding of the history of GPU's and CPU's you are just another consumer tard who follows the marketing bullshit. Millenials suck.

Considering the GTX 1060 is 50usd cheaper in my country...
Seems like the better choice still.

It's a fine GPU. If you don't need Freesync it's a worthwhile purchase.

4000 series got abandoned after 3 years
5000 series got abandoned 3 years ago, with only 2 years of support
6000 is a rebrand so its the same
700 got rebranded into r9 200 and now it's forgotten as well

290/390/fury x performs like shit now


Nvidia still supports the 400 series within the h5870 generation btw. They upgrade the drivers and regularly publish the bug fixes in the release pdf.

No kidding, I had an argument with an Nvidia drone the other day and he quoted Nvidia having the most powerful GPU on the market, even though it's 200 to 300 dollars more expensive than anything below it from either manufacturer as an argument for Nvidia being better or their lower tier cards being faster than AMD.
Of course idiots who don't know anything about hardware think like that. But I wonder, does Ferrari make the best utility cars? Clearly not, so why does this apply to GPU/CPU manufacturers still? People are just retarded.

That was amazing

Nvidia supports previous GPUs?? What the fuck

Yeah it's probably what I'd buy if I was building my PC now.

Luckily I got a r9 fury while they were cheap

>$1000 gpus are literally unreachable dreams like Ferrari for amdfags

lol

'The only drawbacks are the GameWorks shadows PCSS and HFTS, which provide graphics errors regardless of the resolution, and the not recommended DirectX 12 path.'

Ha! Novideo gimps again!

GTX400 series got dx12 drivers, HD6000 series barely got 3 years of driver support.

Nobody said that, I would have bought a 1080ti equivalent from AMD if it existed because I have a freesync monitor. It's just a retarded extrapolation.

AMD's driver team is miniscule compared to Nvidia. Shame really. Lisa Su reeally needs to show RTG some love with Ryzen's profits.

Or you could just buy a 1080 ti and a ulmb monitor for a vastly superior experience

I'm not going to upgrade my monitor when my current one is already perfectly good. I can drop 800$ on a GPU but why would I do that + new monitor with extra Gsync tax?

buying vega 56 is a smart move if you get it around msrp, as it more often than not plays ball with the 1080

buying vega64 at msrp is a gamble that drivers will improve.

I have little doubt that in time 64 will get a commanding lead ahead of the 56, but when the bottleneck is still in place, it just matches it.
When it comes to money, its really hard to argue for the 64 in its current form.

Nah AMD drivers have been great lately, it's just the HD 5000/6000 series that got an update every 6 months for 3 years before Raja cleared shit up after the HD7000 series was released iirc.

It's not a tax when your (((((free))))sync can't do ulmb and locks you into low performance gpus

>have the money
>want the vega
>mid November 2017 and custom cards still not released
this is nothing less than embarrassing at this point. They should just swallow some pride and make the announcement that they're coming next year

My freesync monitor has ULMB mode, but with a different name. I still prefer Freesync because it doesn't dim the display.

Voltage control has been broken since August

No you don't

Okay. If you say so.

>buying anything but middle tier GPU's

>Nvidia still supports the 400 series
Utter bullshiet.
Novidia has great ties between their drivers and their bloatware libraries called gameworks.
If they don't keep changing the old drivers, those cards won't be able to run the new barely works.
Novidia's transition to dx12 in barelyworks delayed due to their false approach on bloatware libraries and semi-useless drivers.
That's why they _have_ to updtate old drivers, those cards die a bit more with each update which removes optimizations that don't work on newer cards and last but not least they are forced to update their drivers to keep their fags happy for not providing an oss driver for linux.
Novidia never cared about their customers, they showed that with their physx cards, they showed that with their linux support, they showed that with the dc5.0 fiasco, they showed that with the 3.5 vram scum....and the list goes on.
I'd rather stay on a shitty intel igpu rather than get a novidia fraud card.
Also i hate all those paid shills like tpu at toms and their fanboys in videocardz wccft e.t.c.

If what you're saying is true then old amd gpus wouldn't able to run new game works titles at all and it would be stupid to buy a amd gpu in the long run because if old Nvidia gpus don't stand a chance what can the old amd gpus do?

Or maybe it's a lie by you made up without thinking ahead

>not a single damn soul cared about power savings.
And now it's yet another thing AMD gets dinged on every single release.

Trash benchmark for a trash game.

Dear retard fuck,
the 7000 series is still supported because of the GCN architecture, even Linux drivers support it, please delete your post.

I'm surprised no one has made a chart of which driver version works best with what cards, so people know if they have a 560Ti they shouldn't update beyond version X.

Why the fuck would I care some years ago graphic card, shill?

I like shill bring up old graphic card just to argue

>290/290x/fury x perform like shit now
>citation needed
The 290/290x still hold up, fury x was always shit for its price point

>fps in a game thats like 10 fucking years old

Maybe but either way I won't buy it not that I can run it my stuff's kinda old (i5 2500k 770gtx)

Not sure if bait, but it's the new battlefront 2, not the old one