It could also be the other way round. Potentially they went with a custom X86 SOC design because they went with AMD.
-
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.
[H]ardOCP: GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice
- Thread starter LoadsaMoney
- Start date
Caporegime
Who will be avoiding NVidia in the future then? I don't care personally and will buy whatever is best suited to me.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Which is why lying in reviews and review sites in general aren't trustworthy, words are cheap, literally, they can be bought at a low price.
The point was after AMD had a card Nvidia couldn't deal with suddenly and for no reason pretty much all the strongest titles for AMD were removed, lots of Nvidia heavy, physx heavy games were added and other games suddenly AMDs top card lost a huge amount of performance.
One of these things is suspicious, all of them together is frankly unquestionable. They also listed the drivers and those drivers worked perfectly with xfire in that specific game for me and everyone else I could find. There was no reason the game suddenly stopped working with xfire and yet suspiciously it did.
1070 is 3% faster than R9 Fury X: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1070_Ti_FTW2/
3840x2160
Battlefield 1
R9 Fury X 36.0 FPS v
GTX 1070 43.1 FPS v
Civilization VI
R9 Fury X 49.7 FPS v
GTX 1070 60.9 FPS v
Call of Duty: IW
R9 Fury X 53.3 FPS v
GTX 1070 50.2 FPS v
Dawn of War III
R9 Fury X 32.5 FPS v
GTX 1070 32.7 FPS v
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided
R9 Fury X 23.7 FPS v
GTX 1070 23.2 FPS v
Dishonored 2
R9 Fury X 28.2 FPS v
GTX 1070 36.0 FPS v
DOOM
R9 Fury X 47.7 FPS v
GTX 1070 40.8 FPS v
F1 2016
R9 Fury X 46.3 FPS v
GTX 1070 41.9 FPS v
Ghost Recon Wildlands
R9 Fury X 31.8 FPS v
GTX 1070 33.8 FPS v
Grand Theft Auto V
R9 Fury X 48.8 FPS v
GTX 1070 50.8 FPS v
Hitman
R9 Fury X 44.9 FPS v
GTX 1070 46.1 FPS v
Prey
R9 Fury X 39.9 FPS v
GTX 1070 38.5 FPS
Rainbow Six Siege
R9 Fury X 52.8 FPS v
GTX 1070 50.5 FPS
Resident Evil 7
R9 Fury X 36.3 FPS v
GTX 1070 38.4 FPS v
Rise of the Tomb Raider
R9 Fury X 30.9 FPS v
GTX 1070 31.2 FPS v
Sniper Elite 4
R9 Fury X 42.4 FPS v
GTX 1070 38.0 FPS v
Styx: Shards of Darkness
R9 Fury X 30.5 FPS v
GTX 1070 33.3 FPS v
The Witcher 3
R9 Fury X 34.7 FPS v
GTX 1070 36.6 FPS v
Watch Dogs 2
R9 Fury X 20.0 FPS v
GTX 1070 26.7 FPS v
R9 Fury X 730.4 FPS
GTX 1070 752.7 FPS
Me, put me in the list with the people who will avoid GeForces.
I am, personally, happy with Radeons. Have right now an R9 380 Sapphire Nitro and not going to upgrade soon enough.
Soldato
Got a link to back that up?
Also I should've said the HardwareUnboxed tests were at 1440p
EDIT:
Based on the link you provided it looks like
At 1080p 1070 is 11% faster
At 1440p 1070 is 8% faster
At 2160p 1070 is 3.5% faster
So saying 3% is being generous and picking best case. You could as easily say 1070 is 11% faster.
So at 1440p Techpowerup and HardwareUnboxed were 2% off.
The hardware unboxed review was older than I thought (January 2017) so were using older drivers so that might explain a bit of the difference.
Last edited:
Soldato
Absolutely, but again you've picked best case.
at 2160p Watchdogs 2 is about 33% faster on the 1070
There is virtually no FPS difference. The differences in most games are very small.
I will even though i have a gsync monitor
Soldato
Almost 21fps difference in Watchdogs 2 at 1080p, Fury X can't hold 60fps there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,071
Tbh that's pretty surprising to me as Fury X was a bit of a dog on release. I have not really kept up with it's performance as it's not a card i am interested in as it was clearly outperformed by the gtx980ti. If it had had 2gb more vram it wouldn't be a bad purchase second hand now as the performance seems to be a lot better. It's not to surprising though as AMD chips do seem to get better over time. Lack of memory is a deal breaker for me though.
The performance is there even despite the fact that it is "only" 4GB of HBM. The bottleneck will appear in the shaders, not in the HBM size first.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,071
It's been a while since Fury X has been talked about but i am sure it had Vram issues back not long after it released. The averages might be high but i would like to see the minimums.
Soldato
The tech media is broken enough without adding tinfoil. Nobody has enough product knowledge. You can double that down with some good old fashion bribery, doesn't really make a blind bit of difference. Besides which, the 7990 did have its own problems, it didn't really need much in the way of smoke and mirrors from NVIDIA.
That aside, like I said, it's very easy to sit there and shout foul play without anything substantial to back up claims.
Neither do I. I enjoy my hobby far too much to let pointless moral judgments take precedence and buy an inferior product.
Associate
not me , we are not exactly spoiled for choice in the gpu market.
Soldato
I think the HardwareUnboxed video did give minimums. Sometimes they were a bit low, like average of 80 with mins in the 40-50 region. Didn't strike me (or the guy doing the tests if I remember correctly) as being caused by running out of VRAM though. They did their tests at 1440p I think. Maybe they just picked (or happened to choose) games that weren't overly demanding in terms of VRAM.
If AMD stops making new GPUs, you will say bye-bye to your hobby. There will be a monopoly and no technology progress.
Caporegime
If NVidia were the only GPU maker, they would still want to sell GPUs, so they would still need to sell at the right prices and innovate to sell more. They would still want to make money.