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

Dicehunter · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:34

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

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

arc@css · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:35

My guesstimate is around a max boost of 30%.

Rangerjr1 · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:37

arc@css said:
My guesstimate is around a max boost of 30%.

And another 20-30% ontop of that as a result of ocing

Kaapstad · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:38

arc@css said:
My guesstimate is around a max boost of 30%.

+1

If they can better the 980 by 30% @1080p this will be nearer 40% or slightly more @higher resolutions as the AMD cards do better there.

Dicehunter · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:39

arc@css said:
My guesstimate is around a max boost of 30%.

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.

Tonester0011 · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:42

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

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.

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.

Rangerjr1 · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:42

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.

Bro, didnt you have 980s? what happened to them?

arc@css · 18 Jan 2015 at 18:45

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.

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).

Dicehunter · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:12

Rangerjr1 said:
Bro, didnt you have 980s? what happened to them?

Yep, Sold 1 and the other belongs to my brother which I borrowed when he was on shifts for SLI.

TonyTurbo78 · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:27

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.

Gregster · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:36

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.

Rangerjr1 · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:39

The green glow is vibrant

Tonester0011 · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:39

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.

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.

r7slayer · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:42

Rangerjr1 said:
The green glow is vibrant

Allways is

I don't care which card is faster i just hope the slowest of the next gen card from either red or green is at least 30% faster than what we have now single GPU card ofc!

Gregster · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:43

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.

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

Final8y · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:44

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.

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.

Tonester0011 · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:51

I'm not in the mood to look for some random quote done by Matt back in his tonguing days

Final8y · 18 Jan 2015 at 19:55

Tonester0011 said:
I'm not in the mood to look for some random quote done by Matt back in his tonguing days

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.

Tonester0011 · 18 Jan 2015 at 20:06

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.

Rangerjr1 · 18 Jan 2015 at 20:09

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.

as temps increase so does amperage (MIGHT be wrong, but i dont think so). Maybe it has something to do with power delivery.

Competitor rules

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

Mobster

Mobster

Mobster

Mobster