They were using 358.50 for all NVidia cards and 15.9.1 Beta for all AMD cards. The thing is, as someone already pointed out, the games changed between the old system from the older results and the new system with the new results so it's not really a fair comparison.
-
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.
AMD R9 Fury X Leaps Ahead Of Nvidia GTX 980 Ti With The Latest Windows 10 Drivers
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
They were using 358.50 for all NVidia cards and 15.9.1 Beta for all AMD cards. The thing is, as someone already pointed out, the games changed between the old system from the older results and the new system with the new results so it's not really a fair comparison.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Its rubbish, can't have gone from about par with the 980, to beating the Ti after a couple of drivers, *******, that must be some heavy **** they smoking 
I just compared the scores of the MSI lightning review vs the asus strix 980ti review, if you look at the individual games, the actual gains on AMD are tiny, approx 1% faster, the other gains come from techpowerup removing some games from their benchmark list. "clickbait" article from WCCFtech
Last edited:
Had a feeling it would boil down to testing methodology.
I think it has been a very long time since Tech Powerup has had a reference GTX 980 Ti or most of the other cards in those tables to test so no they were not using 358.50 for all NVidia cards.
Tech review sites test then return the cards most of the time.
I think it has been a very long time since Tech Powerup has had a reference GTX 980 Ti or most of the other cards in those tables to test so no they were not using 358.50 for all NVidia cards.
Tech review sites test then return the cards most of the time.
You think a big tech site is not going to have a 980ti in at least some of their machines ...lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,369
- Location
- Northampton
I thought as much, I'd like to see a proper FPS comparison between an overclocked Fury X and an overclocked 980 Ti.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,192
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 15,369
- Location
- Northampton
You're dreaming
You're probably right
Although the forum may be able to do this, Hell Kapp could do this on his own
I think it has been a very long time since Tech Powerup has had a reference GTX 980 Ti or most of the other cards in those tables to test so no they were not using 358.50 for all NVidia cards.
Tech review sites test then return the cards most of the time.
From the site
Even if you don't believe that they own or have access to as many cards as you do Kaap
this is the first time their new skylake test system has been used. If you look at the Farcry 4 results from the Lightning review, and you look at them from the Nano review a month earlier the FPS for the 980Ti changes. I don't expect them to test every card every review, simply because they can reuse the same results if the drivers haven't changed. Or they simply state what drivers have been used for what cards, like on the Nano review where they used 3 different sets of AMD drivers depending on the card.
I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to ask the, but I'm going to interpret the above quote as they have tested every card in the way they have stated.
Last edited:
Thought I would see how the 15.11 drivers fared vs the first ones that were available for the Nano (PRE-WHQL I believe) as I wanted some benchmarks anyways having not used my Nano too much. Kept everything the same for pre and post 15.11 test, 4690k @ 4.0 Ghz, 16GB DDR3 @ 2400 Mhz, Nano at 1050 Mhz / 500 Mhz and kept the fan ramped up so it stayed at that speed constant.
Seemed there was no change in the before or after patch test on the following games I tried: Tomb Raider, GTA5, Arkham Knight, Metro Last Light, Shadow Of Mordor, Hitman Absolution and Bioshock Infinate as most these titles have built in benchmarks.
Was not expecting there to be any change anyways and from the article was not clear exactly what drivers they were using. Oh well, at least I have some benches to compare for when the next big update hits
Seemed there was no change in the before or after patch test on the following games I tried: Tomb Raider, GTA5, Arkham Knight, Metro Last Light, Shadow Of Mordor, Hitman Absolution and Bioshock Infinate as most these titles have built in benchmarks.
Was not expecting there to be any change anyways and from the article was not clear exactly what drivers they were using. Oh well, at least I have some benches to compare for when the next big update hits
From the site
Even if you don't believe that they own or have access to as many cards as you do Kaap
I don't expect them to test every card every review, simply because they can reuse the same results if the drivers haven't changed. Or they simply state what drivers have been used for what cards, like on the Nano review where they used 3 different sets of AMD drivers depending on the card.
I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to ask the, but I'm going to interpret the above quote as they have tested every card in the way they have stated.
Have you not noticed that the achievable overclock figures for the cards never change on the Tech Powerup reviews.
As we all know when overclocking different platforms and different drivers give different overclocks for graphics cards.
How much other stuff are Tech Powerup recycling instead of testing properly........
To do a review for a single card is very time consuming if done properly, to do a whole bunch is a huge amount of work.
Tech Powerup do 1600x900 though which is totally pointless with modern GPUs.
Tech Powerup really need to look at their testing methods as they are really showing their age.
Frame times TP ?
+1
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
As usual it won't matter, as day one benchmarks results is what most important for driving the sales of graphic card (and they will be stucked on the internet forever). It will certainly benefit for people that actually already have the Fury cards, but it changes nothing about the fact that most of their potential buyers would already have already went for a 980Ti, so it's not going to do much in improving the position of AMD's well-being as a company
Doesn't look like a huge change to me.
At 4k, Fury X starts very slightly behind 980Ti(stock), then afterwards, it is slightly ahead.
At 1440p, it is behind the 980Ti(stock) before, then after it merely matches it. Which is good, but um, saying it 'Leaps ahead' is some supreme exaggeration. Especially when the MSI 980Ti is far and away better still.
At 4k, Fury X starts very slightly behind 980Ti(stock), then afterwards, it is slightly ahead.
At 1440p, it is behind the 980Ti(stock) before, then after it merely matches it. Which is good, but um, saying it 'Leaps ahead' is some supreme exaggeration. Especially when the MSI 980Ti is far and away better still.
Looking forward to benchmakrs.
yes, AMD do have a knack for getting performance out of old hardware, but I don't really see this as a positive. why wasn't that performance in the driver early on? This has always been the case for over the last decade. AMD/ATI release a card with sub-par performance in relation to the technical specs and everyone says they just need better drivers. A year later and yeah, maybe the gap is closed, and another year the old hardware might take pole position, but who cares. By then everyone is 1 or 2 GPU generations ahead.
having terribly nu-optimized drivers on release and gaining performance over the next year is not a positive in my book, and certainly doesn't help AMD's market share. Everyone has seen the reviews and purchased a 980Ti against a hard to find and slower FuryX. Maybe the Fury ends up slightly faster than the 980Ti by xmas, when we have leaked pictures of pascal benchmarks floating around. that might eb great for current Fury owners but not AMD's bank balance.
yes, AMD do have a knack for getting performance out of old hardware, but I don't really see this as a positive. why wasn't that performance in the driver early on? This has always been the case for over the last decade. AMD/ATI release a card with sub-par performance in relation to the technical specs and everyone says they just need better drivers. A year later and yeah, maybe the gap is closed, and another year the old hardware might take pole position, but who cares. By then everyone is 1 or 2 GPU generations ahead.
having terribly nu-optimized drivers on release and gaining performance over the next year is not a positive in my book, and certainly doesn't help AMD's market share. Everyone has seen the reviews and purchased a 980Ti against a hard to find and slower FuryX. Maybe the Fury ends up slightly faster than the 980Ti by xmas, when we have leaked pictures of pascal benchmarks floating around. that might eb great for current Fury owners but not AMD's bank balance.