• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

390X or 980ti - which one are you going for?

Tonester0011 said:
Lol.
I'll stick with Kaap's thoughts, much more sensible.


Humbug will now continue to do weird maths that use 10%+15%-12% = something arbitrary = probably almost 100% correct score
Click to expand...

Can't you ask that "Guy" you know for some real info ? Because you know, You know what he likes, Which sounds like your turning tricks for info to me :D
 
Dicehunter said:
Can't you ask that "Guy" you know for some real info ? Because you know, You know what he likes, Which sounds like your turning tricks for info to me :D
Click to expand...

Sorry, mate.
I would, but i've been banished from this thread by my lord and master - Humbug.

I'm not old enough to discuss rumours and how fake they are without offending ;)

more bugness said:
Always the one trying to drag the thread into the gutter.

Grown-up's are trying to have a discussion about hardware, please do the rest of us a favour, take yourself and your Teenage moodies to the park swing, brood about life over there, out of our way.

Or Keep it ontopic, instead of making it about people and attacking them. If you have a problem with my calculations point-out what's wrong with them.
Click to expand...

Your last point, surely a part of you must have noticed the irony of that?
Your post, was off topic. Your post, was attacking me. As for you calculations, lol...will leave that LOL.
 
Dicehunter said:
IF, And this is a big IF, If they have seriously pulled out all the stops then I could see possibly 50% on top of a 290X seeing as it's still on 28nm, But that's a big maybe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I reckon 50% is possible, but as you say, unlikely. Wouldn't surprise me 'that' much, though.

The one thing that is almost certain - if not already set in stone, is that it won't be a jump like it used to be several years ago (5870 being about twice as fast as the 4870). :)
 
Surely it's about time we heard something solid from amd regarding release dates and specs. I'm so keen to know what do do with my £600 worth of ocuk vouchers. I'm not jumping on the 970 or 980 band wagon, Imo they are mid range fill the gaps type cards because I'm sure they could have been one he'll of a lot faster. and we now seeing problems with whine and what not. I want to see some 390x info, solid info at that.
 
My guess is around 5%to 10% faster than a 980 but running at around 95C with a crap cooler and AMD saying it is fine at those temps.
 
Gregster said:
My guess is around 5%to 10% faster than a 980 but running at around 95C with a crap cooler and AMD saying it is fine at those temps.
Click to expand...

They have no choice in have a **** cooler now, not after telling everyone running @95c is more efficient and better for the hardware.

I still remember Matt quoting me AMD's reason for the cooler running @95c when i asked lol.
Science, bitch.

Or along those lines.
 
Tonester0011 said:
They have no choice in have a **** cooler now, not after telling everyone running @95c is more efficient and better for the hardware.

I still remember Matt quoting me AMD's reason for the cooler running @95c when i asked lol.
Science, bitch.

Or along those lines.
Click to expand...

Yer, it was common place to see people defending the temps and I am sure it is fine but not for me thanks. I like cool and low power usage to save on the leccy bill. Got to watch the pennies :)
 
Tonester0011 said:
They have no choice in have a **** cooler now, not after telling everyone running @95c is more efficient and better for the hardware.

I still remember Matt quoting me AMD's reason for the cooler running @95c when i asked lol.
Science, bitch.

Or along those lines.
Click to expand...

Are you sure AMD said that, i thought it went more like the hardware is perfectly fine running at 95C, not that it was more efficient and better for the hardware.
Im sure you can find the quotes.
 
Last edited:
Tonester0011 said:
I'm not in the mood to look for some random quote done by Matt back in his tonguing days :p
Click to expand...

Well its a known fact that running cooler is better for the hardware than running hotter so its very unlikely that was said, such a silly statement would get slammed by all and would not be easily forgotten.
 
You'll have to dig for the quote then.
AMD designed the card to run @95c, they wouldn't have if there wasn't a reason behind it.

Knowing there would be outcry over the silly temperatures, they would have no doubt given a reason behind it. I remember it was vague and along the lines of. Science, bitch.
 
Tonester0011 said:
You'll have to dig for the quote then.
AMD designed the card to run @95c, they wouldn't have if there wasn't a reason behind it.

Knowing there would be outcry over the silly temperatures, they would have no doubt given a reason behind it. I remember it was vague and along the lines of. Science, bitch.
Click to expand...

as temps increase so does amperage (MIGHT be wrong, but i dont think so). Maybe it has something to do with power delivery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom