Private equity to buy 20 per cent of AMD

Marine-RX179 · 10 Sep 2015 at 21:04

andybird123 said:
He said based on Now, how many released games are there using async shaders?
Simple none or none please.

But his question is not about whether or not any game at the moment is using it at the moment, but if it is a feature the card has or does not has the feature at hardware level?

It is like someone ask the question "does the 970 has proper 4GB of memory at full", rather than a simple yes or no, you respond with "majority of people still game at 1080p, and most games at this res doesn't go beyond 3.5GB usage, so who cares?"

Rroff · 10 Sep 2015 at 21:06

Ian Evey said:
Amd users make and post in Amd Threads that 9 times out of 10 are debunked a day / week / year later.

Nvidia users make and post in Amd threads to show that they are not right 9 out of 10 times ( with some gloating it has to be said ).

Nvidia have more solid information based on Now. ( except the 970 vram )

Amd have more rumour information for the future which turn out to be false more times than not. ( Fury X Overclockers Dream / Dx12 is best on GCN and outperforms Nvidia massively / Nano will blow your socks off and wont Empty your wallet )

Thats three to one right there ^

Whether that is the fault of the review sites as well as Amd PR i do not know but its the same every time something new is around the corner.

I was gonna say... can you imagine how it would end if someone made a thread titled "nVidia - 20 years of flawless drivers" lol... its a lot harder to troll the average nVidia thread and not end up looking stupid (970 VRAM and current state of the drivers aside)... those long enough to remember things like the FX series and even to a degree Fermi will remember how it looks when the boot is on the other foot. (That isn't to say I agree with it).

andybird123 · 10 Sep 2015 at 21:06

Marine-RX179 said:
But his question is not about whether or not any game at the moment is using it at the moment, but if it is a feature the card has or does not has the feature at hardware level?

It is like someone ask the question "does the 970 has proper 4GB of memory at full", rather than yes or no, you respond with "majority of people still game at 1080p, and most games at this res doesn't go beyond 3.5GB usage, so who cares?"

Nope, the point being argued was about solid information based on "now"
Async shaders aren't really out there "now" (or where they are nvidia still have a massive lead anyway)

Ian Evey · 10 Sep 2015 at 21:16

andybird123 said:
Nope, the point being argued was about solid information based on "now"
Async shaders aren't really out there "now" (or where they are nvidia still have a massive lead anyway)

Exactly, Talking about the here and now for a graphics card that primarily plays games, which performs the best at x,y resolution in said benchmark / game regardless of what's in store in 6 months time.

LoadsaMoney · 10 Sep 2015 at 21:23

The here and now, theres only one choice, and thats Nvidia.

Ian Evey · 10 Sep 2015 at 21:33

LoadsaMoney said:
The here and now, theres only one choice, and thats Nvidia.

Your biased!

But seriously the fury is a good card right now but the price is poor and stock levels.

A 980ti is a Good card right now and priced too high but looking at the alternatives its the best performer at the 5 to 6 hundred bracket. (All too rich for me to justify from my 780 right now and probably too rich for most 290 owners )

The 390 is a good card at a good price, now in 12 months a good card might be a poor card or with dx12 it might be a great card.

Most of us know that future proofing is generally impossible and subjective unless nvidia and AMD don't release a single card for 2 years.

r7slayer · 12 Sep 2015 at 03:51

Ian Evey said:
Your biased!

But seriously the fury is a good card right now but the price is poor and stock levels.

A 980ti is a Good card right now and priced too high but looking at the alternatives its the best performer at the 5 to 6 hundred bracket. (All too rich for me to justify from my 780 right now and probably too rich for most 290 owners )

The 390 is a good card at a good price, now in 12 months a good card might be a poor card or with dx12 it might be a great card.

Most of us know that future proofing is generally impossible and subjective unless nvidia and AMD don't release a single card for 2 years.

I couldn't agree more with this! IMO 980Ti is priced a little too high but with the other alternatives priced up there with the 980Ti there's no need for the price to drop. The 980Ti is the best bang for buck high end card. Titan x your just paying for the vram basically so that's just a bragging rights card unless your finding use for that extra vram some how. Fury x is a decent card but not at its price when a 980Ti is right on the heels of the same price. Slightly more but 980Ti is faster out of the box and over clocks like crazy.

Fury x is restricted on over clocking on stock volts so why pay near enough same price for a card that performs slightly less and doesn't overclock that well currently?
I'll not even get onto the nano, but that's good for those small builds.

Fury x needs a bit of a price drop to be taken seriously but then you have stock levels to deal with.

The 390 is quite a good card for the price too especially for those wanting to go 4k on a budget!

Stanners · 12 Sep 2015 at 07:33

r7slayer said:
I couldn't agree more with this! IMO 980Ti is priced a little too high but with the other alternatives priced up there with the 980Ti there's no need for the price to drop. The 980Ti is the best bang for buck high end card. Titan x your just paying for the vram basically so that's just a bragging rights card unless your finding use for that extra vram some how. Fury x is a decent card but not at its price when a 980Ti is right on the heels of the same price. Slightly more but 980Ti is faster out of the box and over clocks like crazy.

Fury x is restricted on over clocking on stock volts so why pay near enough same price for a card that performs slightly less and doesn't overclock that well currently?
I'll not even get onto the nano, but that's good for those small builds.

Fury x needs a bit of a price drop to be taken seriously but then you have stock levels to deal with.

The 390 is quite a good card for the price too especially for those wanting to go 4k on a budget!

Might be to early for me but the 980ti is the cheaper card.

Gregster · 12 Sep 2015 at 11:01

LoadsaMoney said:
The here and now, theres only one choice, and thats Nvidia.

The Fury is a decent card, as is the Fury X but I feel if there was tons of stock, we would have seen a price drop on both but saying that, I would have no issues buying a Fury at its current price over a 980 but the overclocking would leave me feeling meh. And I would take a 980Ti over the FX every time, as it is cheaper and it is much faster.

The 390/X is a decent price as well but the 290/X was cheaper and it is essentially the same card. Out of the GTX 970 or 390/X, I wouldn't really know what to buy, as the 970 is a beast at overclocking.

As for the lower end, I don't have a clue or care

Bring on Greenland and Pascal and hopefully we have some good prices with some fantastic performance.

TheRealDeal · 12 Sep 2015 at 12:10

LoadsaMoney said:
The here and now, theres only one choice, and thats Nvidia.

I assume you mean at the top end as below this Amd stacks up pretty well.

fs123 · 12 Sep 2015 at 12:38

Ian Evey said:
Nvidia have more solid information based on Now. ( except the 970 vram )

Amd have more rumour information for the future which turn out to be false more times than not. ( Fury X Overclockers Dream / Dx12 is best on GCN and outperforms Nvidia massively / Nano will blow your socks off and wont Empty your wallet )

andybird123 said:
andybird123 said:

Nope, the point being argued was about solid information based on "now"
Async shaders aren't really out there "now" (or where they are nvidia still have a massive lead anyway)

Click to expand...

Ian Evey said:

Exactly, Talking about the here and now for a graphics card that primarily plays games, which performs the best at x,y resolution in said benchmark / game regardless of what's in store in 6 months time.

Click to expand...

You claimed that Nvidia provides 'solid' information regarding their products and AMD is just rumours. That's why I asked do you know if Async Shaders are fully supported in hardware? Fairly simple question which you and all the Nvidia fans sidestepped. I don't want to know if any games support it, or whether it matters just yet.

I know AMD supports the feature in hardware right NOW but do you know if Nvidia does? After all you have solid information right NOW

andybird123 · 12 Sep 2015 at 12:42

fs123 said:
You claimed that Nvidia provides 'solid' information regarding their products and AMD is just rumours. That's why I asked do you know if Async Shaders are supported in hardware? Fairly simple question which you and all the Nvidia fans sidestepped. I don't want to know if any games support it, or whether it matters right now.

I know AMD supports the feature in hardware but do you know if Nvidia does? You have solid information after all

He said "Now", async shaders in DX12 aren't "now" as there is nothing released that uses it... when there is come back and ask the same question, async shaders are still "future" which is why there isnt a definitive answer yet

fs123 · 12 Sep 2015 at 12:51

andybird123 said:
He said "Now", async shaders in DX12 aren't "now" as there is nothing released that uses it... when there is come back and ask the same question, async shaders are still "future" which is why there isnt a definitive answer yet

So basically you and fellow Nvidia fans don't have 'solid' information of whether Nvidia cards have Async Shaders in hardware or not. I would have thought that info should have been available since the cards are available NOW.

andybird123 · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:26

The 970/980 were released nearly a year before DX12 at all, so by your logic nvidia should have released full and complete info on DX12 before Microsoft

humbug · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:30

andybird123 said:
The 970/980 were released nearly a year before DX12 at all, so by your logic nvidia should have released full and complete info on DX12 before Microsoft

To be fair GCN was released 3 years ago.

andybird123 · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:34

What has that got to do with nvidia supporting DX12 async compute?
In any case, yes if you want to try and pick holes in a generalisation you can do.

humbug · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:38

andybird123 said:
What has that got to do with nvidia supporting DX12 async compute?

They don't, at least not at the hardware level.

whyscotty · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:41

Nvidia don't seem to be making a bad job of it considering.

andybird123 · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:41

humbug said:
They don't, at least not at the hardware level.

And you have that as solid info from where?
If you have that as solid info then you prove fs wrong

humbug · 12 Sep 2015 at 13:43

andybird123 said:
And you have that as solid info from where?

Aside from developers saying they don't support it?