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.
And for your info, couple of FPS here or there is matching performance
Am I the only one thinking that when reviewer compare GPU, they would use the same setup so they can direct GPU to GPU comparison; but in this thread here, it would seem that you think having faster CPU/system means nothing, and any extra performance must be from the GPU and only the GPU, and using more powerful system has zero impact on the result...especially when this is STILL a CPU intensive bench/game, even with dx12?Its 20% differences... Yes at 30fps that is only 6fps, but at normal gaming settings that 20% becomes 15-20fps, which is definitely a visible difference for most people
Its funny how ashes was a poster child for AMD's coming domination of DX12 gaming when they were beating nvidia by 1fps, but now suddenly its not important
Well regardless, I don't think I ever dispute that fact that 980Ti is a very fast card. It's good to know that its performance doesn't tank for the 980Ti in dx12 as some of us may have worried...however, the same really cannot be said about the lower tier cards such as the 970. If this bench is anything to go by, the 290/290x will age better/last longer than the 970/980, just like the 7950/7970 vs 670/680 back then.Look at the results, everyone here is GPU limited, people are getting 100+fps as the CPU score and 30-40 as the GPU score
AMDmatt has the fastest CPU on here, so let's see some of his FuryX scores?
Muziqaz and streetlight have the same CPU at the same clocks and there is still a 5.5fps difference, completely inline with GPU only affecting the score
Funny enough some people seem to feel proud of the 980Ti beating the Fury X, where for those of us that never really expected much from the Fury X, it actually put it into more positive light than before
No, the bench is broken and flawed but seems a couple of guys are not happy for whatever reason and looking at their sig's, it does make me chuckle. Maybe results are not as they had hoped?
Your post also sounds a little bitter. Chill man, just a bit of fun bench thread.
Funny enough some people seem to feel proud of the 980Ti beating the Fury X, where for those of us that never really expected much from the Fury X, it actually put it into more positive light than before
The thing is whilst the highly overclocked 980Ti is beating the current limited overclocked Fury X, but if I am not mistaken it would be at the cost of consuming more power and run hotter and noisier? So all the sticks that the Hawaii got for being "hot and noisier" than the 780/780Ti justified because it was AMD not Nvidia, and now it's not something worth thinking about now that it is the other way round?
and while we are at that 1080p? seriously? When your superclocked 980ti gets 20% more fps in 1440p and 4k, then you can gloat. Now, please keep calm with your mobile phone resolution
Funny enough some people seem to feel proud of the 980Ti beating the Fury X, where for those of us that never really expected much from the Fury X, it actually put it into more positive light than before
The thing is whilst the highly overclocked 980Ti is beating the current limited overclocked Fury X, but if I am not mistaken it would be at the cost of consuming more power and run hotter and noisier? So all the sticks that the Hawaii got for being "hot and noisier" than the 780/780Ti justified because it was AMD not Nvidia, and now it's not something worth thinking about now that it is the other way round?
On the other note, I would be very ****ed if my superclocked 980ti was not beating voltage restricted fury x
