Al depends what reviews you look at , what settings and if you go by average or minimums. 20% slower at 1080p is about right Fter double check a few different reviews.
-
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.
Dark days, AMD share price at lowest ever.
- Thread starter bru
- Start date
Al depends what reviews you look at , what settings and if you go by average or minimums. 20% slower at 1080p is about right Fter double check a few different reviews.
Caporegime
I've got a Xenon [email protected] and its a stonking chip, hopefully with Windows 10 and DirectX12 it will last me awhile longer yet. there's no way I can afford to upgrade yet so it will have too.
That is an awesome setup, i think you will find that thing blow a similar clocked 8 thread Haswell out of the water in Win 10.
Its basically a 6 core 12 Thread Sandy, Intel's CPU's have only moved up in IPC by about 20% since then, the extra 50% cores and threads will have the 8 Thread Haswell dumb founded.
Last edited:
Caporegime
You mean the Fury Strix which uses less power than a Fury X while delivering better performance per watt while being air cooled and running higher than 70C and being less than 10% slower than a Fury X??
Then start to doubt another person who has owned both cards too.
Now you are starting to get caught up in your own claims and using shifting goalposts and Reductio ad absurdum.
Can we start a GTX980TI fund for him - I will contribute 10p to it??
Then start to doubt another person who has owned both cards too.
Now you are starting to get caught up in your own claims and using shifting goalposts and Reductio ad absurdum.
Can we start a GTX980TI fund for him - I will contribute 10p to it??
Last edited:
Associate
D.P. where are you getting this completely false information? Literally every benchmark you can find shows the Fury being closer to the Fury X than the 980 and ALWAYS above the 980, even at 1080p, which we know AMD's driver overhead ruins.
Last edited:
Both Fury cards are behind even your regular old GTX 980 when considering the 99th percentile FPS i.e. the actual smoothness of the gameplay experience - and that's at 4k.
http://techreport.com/blog/28624/reconsidering-the-overall-index-in-our-radeon-r9-fury-review
http://techreport.com/blog/28624/reconsidering-the-overall-index-in-our-radeon-r9-fury-review
Associate
Yes, but the difference is very small (at least if you look at the graph without the abomination that is project cars). If you check other reviews you will see the 980 generally does come out on top in 99th percentile framerates, but not by a huge amount. If I am playing at 4K I would rather have 5-10 more FPS than 2-5ms less 99th percentile frametime.
Also, 99th percentile framerate is not "the actual smoothness of the gameplay experience". It's the very edge cases, hense the 99th. If you were looking for a stat that showed that more accurately it would be 60/80th percentile, as that would show what stutters more and by how much generally, not just the very extreme cases.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
You need to look at all of the data
if you also look at the "time spent beyond 33ms and 50ms" charts, the Fury's are significantly worse than a 980
so overall, as an average, the fury is similar to a 980, but when it does go south it does so deeper and for a longer amount of time
thats the way I see those charts anyway
you can see it as well with the frametimes by percentile graph, the uptick at the end past 95% swings upwards by a larger amount for the fury cards than it does for things like the 390X and Geforce cards... and if you look at the average fps, with a fury you aren't getting "5-10fps more", the fury and the 980 are pretty much level pegged on average fps, with the 980 having less in terms of frametime variance
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
But if Freesync/G-sync monitors were thrown into the mix, it wouldn't be as clear a cut, as it would then become "2-5ms less 99th percentile frametime with Freesync vs 5-10 more FPS with no Gsync" if we were comparing on the basis of same price level.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
again, look at the "time spent beyond" charts, the fury spends more time beyond 50ms than the 980 spends beyond 33ms, so freesync isn't going to cover up dips to 20fps
chances are if you are buying a 980/fury you are gaming at 1080p anyway, and there isn't a freesync 1080p I can find, and the cheapest freesync monitor is a 21:9 2560x1080
it all becomes very blurry, and very specific to the end user depending on what their aims are, but again at 1080 things swing even more in favour of the 980 in terms of framerate/frametime variance
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
You do realise there is a resolution between 1080p and 4K known as 2560x1440 res right?
It is also by far the most popular res for sync monitors.My point has nothing to do with the cheapest sync monitor available, I was merely pointing out the fact that to get sync with Nvidia card, it will cost £100-£150 more for the same spec monitor comparing to AMD card (or no sync feature available at the same price with the same base spec monitor)...
Your response seem to be a subject matter different to the point I was trying to make, as we seem to be talking about different things here.
Last edited:
For starters Hardocp
You do realise there is a resolution between 1080p and 4K known as 2560x1440 res right?
My point has nothing to do with the cheapest sync monitor available, I was merely pointing out the fact that to get sync with Nvidia card, it will cost £100-£150 more for the same spec monitor comparing to AMD card (or no sync feature available at the same price with the same base spec monitor)...
Your response seem to be a subject matter different to the point I was trying to make, as we seem to be talking about different things here.
And nvidia graphics cards are much better value for money than the AMD line up. All swings and round abouts.
Soldato
DP what card are you currently using bud?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,375
You do realise there is a resolution between 1080p and 4K known as 2560x1440 res right?
My point has nothing to do with the cheapest sync monitor available, I was merely pointing out the fact that to get sync with Nvidia card, it will cost £100-£150 more for the same spec monitor comparing to AMD card (or no sync feature available at the same price with the same base spec monitor)...
Your response seem to be a subject matter different to the point I was trying to make, as we seem to be talking about different things here.
You were saying that freesync made AMD the better "value" proposition as it would cover up the frametime variance issues... But looking at the fury's frametime issues, it wouldnt, and that is ignoring the issue that people might already have a non freesync / non gsync monitor and not want to spend either amount on a new monitor just to cover up their new gpu's shortfalls
All I was saying is that it very much depends on what someone is trying to achieve, whether they are buying a new monitor and what their budget is... You can move the goal posts about as much as you like to cover a very specific "what if" if your main goal is to try to make AMD seem like the best option for a given price band.
The discussion ongoing was 4K single card... Your response was 4K freesync to cover up frametime variance, but with dips past 50ms (below 20fps), that wouldn't even be the case.
Some equivalent freesync gsync monitors are £50 apart, others are more but then you are looking at choices between stuff like 90fps max or 144, its all over the show.
Last edited:
AMD 6970M 1Gb.
Soldato
Rgr that.
But can it play Crysis ?
You can softmod it to a FirePro M8900, then it will MAKE Crysis for you in Autocad
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,582
Look, I am not here to argue anything, nor was I trying to win an argument. I have not been following this thread nor the 4K discussion AT ALL, and I merely mention my point in response to Meladath's comment and state my opinions of looking at things from a different point of view, in terms of the difference in options/features available relative to the amount of money being spent. My opinion could be right or could be wrong, but clearly you are not happy about me mentioning AMD offering something that Nvidia does not at the same price point.
If I'm guilty of anything, it is probably not realising that this thread has been hijacked to become a 4K discussion
I'm sorry for not realising that discussion outside 4K is not not allowed (and suggesting you and I were probably talkng about different things was not good enough for you, and you have to insist we are talking about the same thing and I was goalpost shifting 
).
Last edited: