• 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.

Would you buy an AMD Fury Pro if it was cheaper and faster than a GTX 980 ?

Depends how much faster and cheaper really, there would need to be a significant saving to make up for linux drivers.
Personally I think the Fury nano and FuryX2 are the 2 interest cards form AMD this round.
 
Would be interesting if you could get a Fury X to only use 3584 SP's and downclock (or whatever) to try mimic a Fury.
 
I'd be interested, but right now I think FreeSync has been a bit disappointing - I'm yet to be convinced.

If they can get around the minimum/maximum refresh rate issues, then I'll be a lot more interested.
 
Keeping my AIO cooled 290X for the foreseeable and sticking with 1080p too, the PC hardware market has gone completely stale for me, either ludicrously expensive for the higher end or a bit pointless in changing to anything in regards to mid range

Rather spend the money on other things and enjoy most games set to max at 1080p with my current spec
 
Depends how much cheaper and how much faster :D

With the 980ti's being sold for around £500 I don't see any reason to get a Fury if it's not significantly faster than a 980. I would rather just spend a few extra quid and get a 980ti.
 
Vinno said:
Depends how much cheaper and how much faster :D

With the 980ti's being sold for around £500 I don't see any reason to get a Fury if it's not significantly faster than a 980. I would rather just spend a few extra quid and get a 980ti.
Click to expand...

For me, I'd want to see it with performance better than a 980 (or at least matching, as in not losing at all like the FuryX does against the 980Ti) and at under £350.

That way it's a viable alternative to the 980 on price and performance. Sadly the seem to be pointing towards a a £410/£420 pricetag, at which point it would need to be pretty much FuryX speed to make sense, otherwise I'll just spend the extra £80 and get a 980Ti.
 
Jim99 said:
I'd be interested, but right now I think FreeSync has been a bit disappointing - I'm yet to be convinced.

If they can get around the minimum/maximum refresh rate issues, then I'll be a lot more interested.
Click to expand...


That 3440x1440 due out from Acer has a 30-75hz limit which is pretty good for a 21:9 at the moment, The 2560 x 1080 versions where 48-75 so it seems they listened to the complaints there and got it down some, However there's a 144hz coming that apparently starts at 30 and can only stretch to 90 or 95 rather than the full 144 of the panel so overall yeah the 9-245 hz promises were just a pipe dream, maybe in another year or two but the waiting for everything is becoming very old.
 
nashathedog said:
That 3440x1440 due out from Acer has a 30-75hz limit which is pretty good for a 21:9 at the moment, The 2560 x 1080 versions where 48-75 so it seems they listened to the complaints there and got it down some, However there's a 144hz coming that apparently starts at 30 and can only stretch to 90 or 95 rather than the full 144 of the panel so overall yeah the 9-245 hz promises were just a pipe dream, maybe in another year or two but the waiting for everything is becoming very old.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what happened with the MG279Q, twas a choice of 40 min and >90 high or 35 min and 90 high, which is what they went for. Personally, if I'm going to buy a 144Hz monitor, then I want it to be running at that for as much time as possible.

I don't know if anyone's actually pinned down what the issue yet either, though I saw a few articles back in April that hinted at the explanations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom