• 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 NANO NOW IN STOCK & AVAILABLE!! **

JediFragger said:
Amen Brother!!!

No doubt that AMD's hardware is kickass, they just need to sort the software/support side out in my eyes and they'll be onto a winner :cool:
Click to expand...

Their software/drivers/support for Single GPU's is already top notch.

I've been running a single AMD GPU for many years and I've yet to encounter any problems with any games.

I've seen a lot more issues with NVIDIA drivers lately, compared to AMD ones.

Again, I'm talking about single GPU's.
 
Waterblocks

Aquacomputer_R9_Nano_3_900x698.jpg


http://videocardz.com/57510/aqua-computer-intros-kryographics-r9-nano-full-cover-water-block
 
Dave2150 said:
Their software/drivers/support for Single GPU's is already top notch.

I've been running a single AMD GPU for many years and I've yet to encounter any problems with any games.

I've seen a lot more issues with NVIDIA drivers lately, compared to AMD ones.

Again, I'm talking about single GPU's.
Click to expand...

This, Nvidia's Drivers are also very good and there is nothing worth complaining about BUT i have had more Driver issues with Nvidia in a couple of months than i had with AMD in 2 years, AMD's Drivers at least on single GPU are absolutely rock solid, install and forget about them, they just do their job and never complain.
 
Dave2150 said:
Their software/drivers/support for Single GPU's is already top notch.

I've been running a single AMD GPU for many years and I've yet to encounter any problems with any games.

I've seen a lot more issues with NVIDIA drivers lately, compared to AMD ones.

Again, I'm talking about single GPU's.
Click to expand...

Yup, the majority of my issues were with Crossfire tbh
 
Gibbo said:
Asus have landed, 2 left. :)
Click to expand...

How many did you start with? I can't imagine there were many pre-orders for the 600 quid version. Considering how there all the same card why would people pre-order a 600 quid version rather than save 70 quid on an identical card from someone like Sapphire or even Powercolor who are in stock.
 
Dave2150 said:
Their software/drivers/support for Single GPU's is already top notch.

I've been running a single AMD GPU for many years and I've yet to encounter any problems with any games.

I've seen a lot more issues with NVIDIA drivers lately, compared to AMD ones.

Again, I'm talking about single GPU's.
Click to expand...

I had no real issues with AMD but then again, I have no real issues with Nvidia. I tend to know what I am doing though and having used both AMD and Nvidia quite extensively, I consider myself a good judge. I guess if you were personally having issues with Nvidia though, I can see why that would put you off.

Anything in particular was happening with your system and what Nvidia drivers are you using?
 
nashathedog said:
How many did you start with? I can't imagine there were many pre-orders for the 600 quid version. Considering how there all the same card why would people pre-order a 600 quid version rather than save 70 quid on an identical card from someone like Sapphire or even Powercolor who are in stock.
Click to expand...

5 arrived, you have to bear in mind our webshop appeals to a far wider audience than our forums. We know all the brands are the same card, so it makes sense just to buy the cheapest.
 
Dave2150 said:
Their software/drivers/support for Single GPU's is already top notch.

I've been running a single AMD GPU for many years and I've yet to encounter any problems with any games.

I've seen a lot more issues with NVIDIA drivers lately, compared to AMD ones.

Again, I'm talking about single GPU's.
Click to expand...

Actually on some games and benches the single card mode support for Fury Xs is dreadful and the 290X often embarrasses them lol.

Here is a good example in DX12 !!!! where an overclocked 290X is trading blows with a Fury X lol.

dWifsgR.jpg



2160p


DX12
  1. Average FR 20.8, GPU 980 Ti @1452/1842, Normal FR 25.5, Medium FR 19.9, Heavy FR 18.2, CPU 5930k @4.4, rickyjb Link
  2. Average FR 20.3, GPU TitanX @1127/1752, Normal FR 24.5, Medium FR 19.4, Heavy FR 18.0, CPU 5960X @4.0, Kaapstad Link
  3. Average FR 19.0, GPU Fury X @1050/500, Normal FR 23.4, Medium FR 18.1, Heavy FR 16.7, CPU 5820k @4.4, ALXAndy Link
  4. Average FR 18.6, GPU 290X @1200/1500, Normal FR 22.0, Medium FR 18.3, Heavy FR 16.4, CPU 4790k @4.7, bloodkil Link



DX11
  1. Average FR 23.8, GPU TitanX @1491/2002, Normal FR 31.2, Medium FR 22.6, Heavy FR 20.1, CPU 5960X @4.0, Kaapstad Link
  2. Average FR 22.3, GPU 980 Ti @1452/1842, Normal FR 28.4, Medium FR 21.2, Heavy FR 19.2, CPU 5930k @4.4, rickyjb Link






[*]Average FR , GPU @/, Normal FR , Medium FR , Heavy FR , CPU @,

[*]Average FR , GPU @/, Normal FR , Medium FR , Heavy FR , CPU @,
 
Kaapstad said:
Actually on some games and benches the single card mode support for Fury Xs is dreadful and the 290X often embarrasses them lol.

Here is a good example in DX12 !!!! where an overclocked 290X is trading blows with a Fury X lol.

dWifsgR.jpg

2160p


DX12
  1. Average FR 20.8, GPU 980 Ti @1452/1842, Normal FR 25.5, Medium FR 19.9, Heavy FR 18.2, CPU 5930k @4.4, rickyjb Link
  2. Average FR 20.3, GPU TitanX @1127/1752, Normal FR 24.5, Medium FR 19.4, Heavy FR 18.0, CPU 5960X @4.0, Kaapstad Link
  3. Average FR 19.0, GPU Fury X @1050/500, Normal FR 23.4, Medium FR 18.1, Heavy FR 16.7, CPU 5820k @4.4, ALXAndy Link
  4. Average FR 18.6, GPU 290X @1200/1500, Normal FR 22.0, Medium FR 18.3, Heavy FR 16.4, CPU 4790k @4.7, bloodkil Link



DX11
  1. Average FR 23.8, GPU TitanX @1491/2002, Normal FR 31.2, Medium FR 22.6, Heavy FR 20.1, CPU 5960X @4.0, Kaapstad Link
  2. Average FR 22.3, GPU 980 Ti @1452/1842, Normal FR 28.4, Medium FR 21.2, Heavy FR 19.2, CPU 5930k @4.4, rickyjb Link



[*]Average FR , GPU @/, Normal FR , Medium FR , Heavy FR , CPU @,
[*]Average FR , GPU @/, Normal FR , Medium FR , Heavy FR , CPU @,
Click to expand...


By the same token the 290X is just about as close to Nvidia's flagship card.

Something about Fiji is holding it back, if it wasn't for whatever that is it would be behaving like the monster it appears to be on paper.
 
andybird123 said:
Eh? The FuryX is 2% ahead, the titan / 980ti DX11 scores are 20% ahead
Click to expand...

DX12

DX12
  1. Average FR 20.8, GPU 980 Ti @1452/1842, Normal FR 25.5, Medium FR 19.9, Heavy FR 18.2, CPU 5930k @4.4, rickyjb Link
  2. Average FR 20.3, GPU TitanX @1127/1752, Normal FR 24.5, Medium FR 19.4, Heavy FR 18.0, CPU 5960X @4.0, Kaapstad Link
  3. Average FR 19.0, GPU Fury X @1050/500, Normal FR 23.4, Medium FR 18.1, Heavy FR 16.7, CPU 5820k @4.4, ALXAndy Link
  4. Average FR 18.6, GPU 290X @1200/1500, Normal FR 22.0, Medium FR 18.3, Heavy FR 16.4, CPU 4790k @4.7, bloodkil Link
 
humbug said:
By the same token the 290X is just about as close to Nvidia's flagship card.

Something about Fiji is holding it back, if it wasn't for whatever that is it would be behaving like the monster it appears to be on paper.
Click to expand...

The TitanX above it is running at it's stock speed but is a very good overclocker with a lot more overclocking headroom than a Fury X.

If you check the DX11 results below you will see what I mean and even then the TX was not flat out, it was just the first go at an overclocked run.:D

There is a serious problem with the Fury X in single card mode that AMD need to sort out with the drivers. The strange thing is the way you can detect the problem is in C/F where scaling going from 1 to 2 or more cards in some games and benches will give way over 100% scaling. You are never going to get over 100% scaling in either SLI or C/F if single card mode is working correctly. The other way you can spot the problem is when comparing the Fury X in single card mode to the 290X, the newer card should be much further ahead than it is.:)
 
Kaapstad said:
The TitanX above it is running at it's stock speed but is a very good overclocker with a lot more overclocking headroom than a Fury X.

If you check the DX11 results below you will see what I mean and even then the TX was not flat out, it was just the first go at an overclocked run.:D

There is a serious problem with the Fury X in single card mode that AMD need to sort out with the drivers. The strange thing is the way you can detect the problem is in C/F where scaling going from 1 to 2 or more cards in some games and benches will give way over 100% scaling. You are never going to get over 100% scaling in either SLI or C/F if single card mode is working correctly. The other way you can spot the problem is when comparing the Fury X in single card mode to the 290X, the newer card should be much further ahead than it is.:)
Click to expand...

The 980TI above it with pretty much identical scores is running a 320Mhz higher clock rate.

i know as well as you do that the reading in GPU-Z on Maxwell is not necessarily what the card is actually boosting to, mine consistently reads 100 to 200Mhz less than what its actually running.
 
humbug said:
The 980TI above it with pretty much identical scores is running a 320Mhz higher clock rate.

i know as well as you do that the reading in GPU-Z on Maxwell is not necessarily what the card is actually boosting to, mine consistently reads 100 to 200Mhz less than what its actually running.
Click to expand...

If you compare the TX and 980 Ti in the DX11 results where they are both overclocked they have swapped places with the TX ahead by a good margin.:)
 
humbug said:
DX12

DX12
  1. Average FR 20.8, GPU 980 Ti @1452/1842, Normal FR 25.5, Medium FR 19.9, Heavy FR 18.2, CPU 5930k @4.4, rickyjb Link
  2. Average FR 20.3, GPU TitanX @1127/1752, Normal FR 24.5, Medium FR 19.4, Heavy FR 18.0, CPU 5960X @4.0, Kaapstad Link
  3. Average FR 19.0, GPU Fury X @1050/500, Normal FR 23.4, Medium FR 18.1, Heavy FR 16.7, CPU 5820k @4.4, ALXAndy Link
  4. Average FR 18.6, GPU 290X @1200/1500, Normal FR 22.0, Medium FR 18.3, Heavy FR 16.4, CPU 4790k @4.7, bloodkil Link
Click to expand...

290X in Xfire giving the Fury breed some stick @ 1440p.

5.Score 79.2, Min 60.2, GPU 290X @1210/1625, CPU 3930k @5.0, Geeman1979 Link 14.12 Drivers
6.Score 78.8, Min 54.5, GPU Fury P @1040/500, CPU 5930k @3.8, LoadsaMoney Link 15.8 Drivers

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18654903
 
why would you run a visibly buggier DX12 when you get 15% higher frame rates on DX11 with less visible anomalies? DX12 has no higher quality and has lots of glitches

i would also imagine, at the very least, they would manage to get the dx12 results level with dx11
 
Kaapstad said:
If you compare the TX and 980 Ti in the DX11 results where they are both overclocked they have swapped places with the TX ahead by a good margin.:)
Click to expand...


Kaap please stop pretending to be ignorant of knowledge. :p

They ain't that different in scores and DX11 is entirely CPU bound which can also be skewed by how well the Bencher has his system set up to get the most out of his available CPU performance. Just turning off background services can net you 5%
 
humbug said:
Kaap please stop pretending to be ignorant of knowledge. :p

They ain't that different in scores and DX11 is entirely CPU bound which can also be skewed by how well the Bencher has his system set up to get the most out of his CPU performance.
Click to expand...

TXs and 980 Ti's perform very similar whether you are using DX11 or DX12 on the bench, switching the API won't change the result when overclocking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom