-
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.
Fable Legends: AMD and Nvidia go head-to-head in latest DirectX 12 benchmark
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
It was a simple question.
That is my honest answer. I honestly would seriously think twice about the 980Ti since the partial software async compute could be a factor by next year. With the way Nvidia supports the older cards I reckon spending £500+ could be a bad financial decision if planning to keep the card for more than 1.5 years.
The FuryX is also not on my list at the current price since it has no voltage control (yet) and the VRAM will be an issue in a couple of years time especially if crossfiring. I have never recommended a FX over as 980Ti or vice versa since they both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Yer, the 980/970 Vs the the 390X/390 would be tough but for me liking ShadowPlay and DSR, I would go for the 980 still. AMD's software is poor in comparison to Nvidia's. As for the lower cards, I am not really sure what is what, so wouldn't be fair to comment.
I agree, I bought my fx because it was cool, quiet and considerably cheaper when factoring in an adaptive sync monitor. The extra fps weren't worth it for me as it gets good frame rates at max settings at 1440 anyway.
If the extra fps were more important I'd have gone for the 980ti.
The "best" card is purely subjective so arguing for one or the other is rather pointless.
It's good to see more DX12 stuff coming though and any gains are a free bonus for everyone. I'm looking forward to actually getting to play something!
Well said.
Interesting you say it gets good frame rates at 1440P. My FX was quite a bit behind my Titan X and I wouldn't consider running some of my games at Max settings for 1440P on the FX in truth.
What games are you playing on it and able to max. Of course playable frames are subjective but still interested to know what games you are playing.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Some people's definition of trolling is anything anti-AMD regardless of whether it has merit or not
Agreed, I have often been verbally assaulted for bringing up something I think is or may become an issue with AMD's current or due for release hardware/software. It tends to be the same three or four people (from both sides) that jump on things and try to drag the discussion down, I'm not sure what it's like on the Nvidia hardware threads as I do not visit them that often, I tend to spend more time on the AMD threads on the forum simply because I've run AMD more than Nvidia overall, I currently run AMD and I'm interested in there current situation and how they deal with it, But if I see them do something or handle something in what I think is a bad way I will mention it, after all it is a forum for us too discuss things, Sadly doing so will often result in people attempting to downplay or ridicule your opinion as if you attacked them. Or in not so many words they'll imply you are nothing but an Nvidia fanboy here to troll the forum. The people doing it really need to be pulled up for there behaviour by the moderators.
Are we again trying to sell Titan X over FuryX ? Don't you get a holiday on Sunday
The trouble is, the bloody 980Ti is faster than my Titan X, so no, I am not trying to sell the Titan X but if you look at my comparison video's between the FX and TX, you can see why I would go for the 980Ti everyday of the week. If frames and money and software are unimportant and being company loyal is important, I can see why you would choose the Fury X though
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Are you not a bit disappointed in the performance? The Fiji cards do not perform that great when you consider how the Grenada chips do in comparison, how long we had too wait for a Hawaii replacement and the hype leading up to it's release. I did not buy my Fury pro on release I waited as I had planned on getting a Fury X, Sadly the whine issue and then when new stock appeared and still contained whiny cards the delay made me go with the Fury pro. Overall it is a brilliant card. Cool, quiet and a decent performer but it's not always far off a 390x and that is a shame. When I got the card I did 11 game benches on my MSI 290x gaming and the Sapphire Fury once switched over. The 290x won 2 and came close in a few. Some the Fury won massively but it's that inconsistency that's disappointing. Overall I'm glad I switched but it could have been so much better.
Last edited:
The older GCN cards being close to fiji performance either indicates driver problems with Fiji or the HBM clock speed is too low causing some sort of bottleneck even if there is more bandwidth. Not every game will use all that bandwidth and in those cases a faster memory clock will make a huge difference. It is probably why the GDDR5 cards are faster or come close.
Some of the modded Fury pro results show that the HBM gives a pretty big boost once it's clocked to 1000MHz.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,528
ROP's
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
I saw the benching results thread and it did great on LN but what matters is what I can do as a regular gamer. I don't tend to overclock above what the card comes at for day to day use but if it makes a worthwhile difference there's no reason not too so I hope they hurry up and give us access to do so. Plus as you mentioned it could be that the chips held back elsewhere so if that's the case let's hope it gets fixed if it can be.
Dunno if its been posted with all the slightly off topic stuff but apparently async use in the benchmark is very very low (only a few commands every few frames or so) and so incidental it has no real implications here.
The interesting thing is that the AMD cards are making full use of DX12's ability to offset driver overheads to compete with the nVidia cards that are still running quite a bit of driver overhead (hence benefiting from the extra cores/HT units to an extent over the AMD cards) and still able to be competitive - comes back to my previous comment I guess AMD just can't pack "enough" of those features into 28nm to offset nVidia's ability to "brute force" it this generation.
The interesting thing is that the AMD cards are making full use of DX12's ability to offset driver overheads to compete with the nVidia cards that are still running quite a bit of driver overhead (hence benefiting from the extra cores/HT units to an extent over the AMD cards) and still able to be competitive - comes back to my previous comment I guess AMD just can't pack "enough" of those features into 28nm to offset nVidia's ability to "brute force" it this generation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,780
- Location
- Cornwall
Yeah, all sounds good in theory, but this will require extra work from the developers. Remember that a lot of current games seem to struggle on consoles as it is (either being upscaled or locked to 30fps) so to implement more than is currently being used seems like it'd need to be done for PCs specifically.
So we may get lots of shiny new stuff or we may get more Arkham Knight quality ports as companies want to take money from PC gamers without putting in extra work to cater for the minority platform.
But but but
A pair of 390s surely and money left over for a McDonalds or 2? Though for a single GPU solution the Ti is the best option right now. I'm just hoping that one of the possible improvements to Fury pays out at some point; be that GCN, Voltage control, Lower Driver Overheads (which we've seen bring the Fury a lot closer to Ti).. heck, I'll take anything at this point - although my Furys aren't really struggling right now, and I don't see them struggling in the future as I plan on going 1440 ultrawide, so less pixels anyway O.o