• 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 investing heavily to "win the graphics battle" next year

Gregster said:
Now you are just being childish but your last paragraph is quite correct in mis-advertising. They also mis-advertised the boost clocks and people were/are getting far more speed than what is stated.

Anyways, you get the point, so back to the topic at hand....Anyone feel AMD have something big coming or just talk?
Click to expand...

Like Mine, 1253Mhz on in the gumph but 1354Mhz actual.

Its only really a problem when reviewers don't tell you that, a lot of them don't so the card looks faster than it actually is, a lot of pepole when they see 390 vs 970 comparisons say "Yeah but the 970 has more overclocking headroom"

I would argue not, its usually the good ones like mine which run at higher stock Clocks and they run at about 1500Mhz 24/7 realistically, from 1354Mhz thats 11%, an average 390 will do 15% and they don't run higher clocks than stated.

So in that way they are misleading.
 
Not really Humbug.

Vanilla 970 has a base clock of 1050 boosting to 1178.

So getting over 1500 which most seem to do,

your looking at a OC of approx 42% from the base clock.
 
Rofflay said:
Anything bar 4K should be irrelevant because 1080p and 1440p are dead men walking within 12 months. 4K G-Sync at around 90-100hz is going to be the go to resolution by the end of 2016 early 2017.
Click to expand...

Not a chance! The price of the monitors and hardware to run them are and will still be to high for the vast majority of PC gamers.
 
if you don't understand why AMD drivers are considered bad, look a little further than windows. The linux drivers were a complete joke, so much that i'm not sure i want to check their current state. The MAC drivers simply don't exist, which excludes people from playing with Hackintosh. And these are enthusiasts we are talking about - the people who get bored at a whim and try out new stuff. I'm going to take a wild guess here too, but support under solaris/unix or anything else like that is also going to be non-existant.

The latter stuff - ok. minor market. But with valve & steam, AMD REALLY need to bring out some awesome linux drivers. They have complete free reign there too.
 
whyscotty said:
Not really Humbug.

Vanilla 970 has a base clock of 1050 boosting to 1178.

So getting over 1500 which most seem to do,

your looking at a OC of approx 42% from the base clock.
Click to expand...

Vanilla you mean ref? Is anybody use one?
Just checked techpowerup reviews and average clock speeds for the custom 970s:
Asus Strix 1278mhz (17% to 1500)
MSI Gaming 1280mhz (17% to 1500)
EVGA SC 1340mhz (12% to 1500)
Palit Jetstream 1354mhz (10% to 1500)
 
whyscotty said:
:rolleyes:

Is? - Don't you mean DOES

Nvidia doesn't make Custom cards - so the base clock is 1050 :)
Click to expand...

Yep my mistake.
Still as the two companies boost works differently you cannot compare those.
BTW when you state the base is 1050 and boost 1178 you just reinforce what humbug said.

What he said is most 970 boost higher than, and reach the results in the reviews with those higher clock against the AMD cards which really run at the given specifications. Many reviewers dont tell the boost clocks tho so if ppl think the results show there are the "vanilla" results and expect another 40% OC they will be disappointed.

In some test they compared custom 970 to a 390, they score about equal (even with the custom 970s higher boost), but still many think they will OC the 970 further than the 390...but in reality they will not, or just by a tiny bit.

I agree with you on that it is in fact an overclock over the given nv specification of 1050/1178. It is.
But as humbug said, many expect to reach that higher OC above the result seen in the reviews.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Like Mine, 1253Mhz on in the gumph but 1354Mhz actual.

Its only really a problem when reviewers don't tell you that, a lot of them don't so the card looks faster than it actually is, a lot of pepole when they see 390 vs 970 comparisons say "Yeah but the 970 has more overclocking headroom"

I would argue not, its usually the good ones like mine which run at higher stock Clocks and they run at about 1500Mhz 24/7 realistically, from 1354Mhz thats 11%, an average 390 will do 15% and they don't run higher clocks than stated.

So in that way they are misleading.
Click to expand...

But that's only a problem for those that overclock their graphics cards. I suspect a large percentage of GPU owners don't OC (or in the case of the "overclocker's dream" can't, much).

So what Nvidia do is give the vast majority of buyers a product that exceeds the specifications to give the user the best out of the box experience. AMD lock their cards down to what it says on the box so that customers get what they paid for even if they could get better performance. Sure, the overclockers can unlock the added performance, but as I said before I suspect these are in the minority.

That's not to say the review sites should be more accurate, but it's not an Nvidia problem. Wanting Nvidia to restrict performance on everyone's cards so the overclockers can better judge performance based on reviews seems like a very selfish idea.
 
GoogalyMoogaly said:
But that's only a problem for those that overclock their graphics cards. I suspect a large percentage of GPU owners don't OC (or in the case of the "overclocker's dream" can't, much).

So what Nvidia do is give the vast majority of buyers a product that exceeds the specifications to give the user the best out of the box experience. AMD lock their cards down to what it says on the box so that customers get what they paid for even if they could get better performance. Sure, the overclockers can unlock the added performance, but as I said before I suspect these are in the minority.

That's not to say the review sites should be more accurate, but it's not an Nvidia problem. Wanting Nvidia to restrict performance on everyone's cards so the overclockers can better judge performance based on reviews seems like a very selfish idea.
Click to expand...

You can look at it the other way. What if AMD marketed the Fury X with 800MHz core clock but they all operated at 1050MHz? Then AMD would be providing "buyers a product that exceeds the specifications to give the user the best out of the box experience." So you can look at it both ways, nVidia under-advertise the clocks to make the results look better while AMD advertise accurately - or look at it your way that nVidia are giving away free performance while AMD are locking performance down. Depends which spin you want to put on things.
 
nVidia have a "guaranteed" boost clock and the actual boost will be upto whatever the card is capable of which will depend card to card (which could make things tricky going by benchmark results which aren't based on the base boost clock) - if AMD did similar I wouldn't criticise them but purposefully underclocking but running every card at 1050MHz would be another story.
 
Rroff said:
nVidia have a "guaranteed" boost clock and the actual boost will be upto whatever the card is capable of which will depend card to card (which could make things tricky going by benchmark results which aren't based on the base boost clock) - if AMD did similar I wouldn't criticise them but purposefully underclocking but running every card at 1050MHz would be another story.
Click to expand...

Ok say they have a guaranteed boost clock of 950MHz then the benchmarks have results of 1050MHz+ because "that's what the card is capable of". That's pretty much the situation the nVidia cards are in at the minute - it makes it hard to judge when the sites don't state what the clocks are ACTUALLY at, people would have to assume they're the "stock" boost rate. I think that's the point folk are getting at. The variance in clock rates makes benchmarks less useful for comparison unless clocks are stated, this is easy on AMD as they run at what the box says - but the nVidia cards do not, so the onus is on the reviewer to elucidate.
 
Last edited:
175w Nano.
AMD is leading already and are extending their lead next year.
Backed by Dx12/Mantle their own developed software used world wide.
cant say nvidia done much for us PC gamers the last 20 years.
 
flopper said:
175w Nano.
AMD is leading already and are extending their lead next year.
Backed by Dx12/Mantle their own developed software used world wide.
cant say nvidia done much for us PC gamers the last 20 years.
Click to expand...

Yes, those Billions in profits Nvidia have made - and will continue to make - must just be a fluke.

And AMD's continued decline must be for similar reasons.
 
You guys do realise that AMD advertise their cards with the boost clock being the quoted figure, which is why when you look on their website it always lists the GPU clock as up to xxxxMHz. They don't even list the base clock at all.
Whereas NVidia list a base clock and a minimum boost clock.

Not saying that either method is right or wrong, it is just different ways of advertising their cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom