• 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.

New R9 290X 8GB cards

Kaapstad said:
So what you are trying to tell me is a 256bit bus without compression is better than a 256bit bus with compression, I don't think so nor does NVidia going by the 9 series.:)

And yes I know how data compression works and have done so for the last 35 years. It has shown up many many times in different forms in the Hi Fi world and a lot of the implementations have had problems too.:)
Click to expand...

You obviously don't and it clear you're quite clueless.
 
Kaapstad said:
Thank you for the kind words.

:D:p:D
Click to expand...

All cards have compression, the GTX 690 also uses compression as the GTX970/980, what differs is the quality and efficiency of that compression so when you say this:

Kaapstad said:
So what you are trying to tell me is a 256bit bus without compression is better than a 256bit bus with compression, I don't think so nor does NVidia going by the 9 series.:)
Click to expand...

It really does make me smile because it's just completely WRONG...

From GTX980 reviews across the globe

NVIDIA is doing something similar to AMD’s Lossless Delta Color Compression. NVIDIA is using its third generation Delta Color Compression. NVIDIA's Delta Color Compression is also lossless. Delta Color Compression was actually present all the way back to Fermi, but it was limited in capability. Maxwell improves effectiveness by offering more choices of delta calculation to the compressor. Delta Color compression reduces the memory bandwidth needed. It has major results on R9 285, and we are seeing that it has evolved on Maxwell.
Click to expand...

So as I said, you're wrong in your assumptions and words.

All cards have compress the same data sets the 970/980 can, they just do it will effectiveness and efficiency.

Which is why me and everyone else thought it was pretty funny when you showed memory use in GPU-Z to show this compression... funny... :cool:
 
almighty15 said:
All cards have compression, the GTX 690 also uses compression as the GTX970/980, what differs is the quality and efficiency of that compression so when you say this:



It really does make me smile because it's just completely WRONG...

From GTX980 reviews across the globe



So as I said, you're wrong in your assumptions and words.

All cards have compress the same data sets the 970/980 can, they just do it will effectiveness and efficiency.

Which is why me and everyone else thought it was pretty funny when you showed memory use in GPU-Z to show this compression... funny... :cool:
Click to expand...

If you know so much perhaps you can explain how a GTX 980 is faster than a GTX 690 @1080p but slower at higher resolutions. This is despite the fact that in theory the GTX 980 is better specced.

Before you argue about the above statement remember I own a pair of GTX 690s and some GTX 980s so I know which is quicker.

I also know why the GTX 690 is faster at higher resolutions but I don't think I will share it with you, perhaps you can answer the question. If you are as smart as you keep saying please enlighten us.:D
 
Kaapstad said:
If you know so much perhaps you can explain how a GTX 980 is faster than a GTX 690 @1080p but slower at higher resolutions. This is despite the fact that in theory the GTX 980 is better specced.

Before you argue about the above statement remember I own a pair of GTX 690s and some GTX 980s so I know which is quicker.

I also know why the GTX 690 is faster at higher resolutions but I don't think I will share it with you, perhaps you can answer the question. If you are as smart as you keep saying please enlighten us.:D
Click to expand...

The answer is simple, the GTX 980 is not superior to the GTX 690 is every aspect when raw specs are concerned.
 
Kaapstad said:
That does not answer the question

If you don't know why, it just shows you have not got the faintest idea how the memory works on a GTX 690.
Click to expand...

I know how everything works my friend, you're the one that's made inaccurate comments.

Texture performance, shader ALU, Geometry set-up... The only area a GTX 690 is not superior to a GTX 980 is fill rate.

That is why a GTX 690 is faster then a GTX 980, nothing at all to do with memory or 'compression' as you seem to be fascinated with at the moment.

As the resolution increases all aspects of the core logic are stressed, if the GTX 980 hits a shader, geometry set-up or texture bottleneck the GTX690 will pull a head due to higher out put of said performance metrics.

Fill rate

GTX690 - 58.6GPixels/s
GTX980 - 72.1GPixels/s

GTX980 has a ~19% advantage

Texture rate

GTX690 - 234GTexels/s
GTX980 - 144GTexels/s

GTX690 has a ~39% advantage

Floating point arithmetic

GTX690 - 5.62TFlops
GTX980 - 4.61TFlops

GTX690 has a ~18% advantage

If the GTX690 falls into a scenario where it becomes fill rate bound the GTX980 will pull a head providing it's not texture or ALU bound.

If the GTX980 becomes texture or ALU bound the GTX690 will pull a head providing it's not fill rate bound.

Higher specs plus more mature drivers, nothing more and nothing less.
 
Last edited:
almighty15 said:
I know how everything works my friend, you're the one that's made inaccurate comments.

Texture performance, shader ALU, Geometry set-up... The only area a GTX 690 is not superior to a GTX 980 is fill rate.

That is why a GTX 690 is faster then a GTX 980, nothing at all to do with memory or 'compression' as you seem to be fascinated with at the moment.

As the resolution increases all aspects of the core logic are stressed, if the GTX 980 hits a shader, geometry set-up or texture bottleneck the GTX690 will pull a head due to higher out put of said performance metrics.

Fill rate

GTX690 - 58.6GPixels/s
GTX980 - 72.1GPixels/s

GTX980 has a ~19% advantage

Texture rate

GTX690 - 234GTexels/s
GTX980 - 144GTexels/s

GTX690 has a ~39% advantage

Floating point arithmetic

GTX690 - 5.62TFlops
GTX980 - 4.61TFlops

GTX690 has a ~18% advantage

If the GTX690 falls into a scenario where it becomes fill rate bound the GTX980 will pull a head providing it's not texture or ALU bound.

If the GTX980 becomes texture or ALU bound the GTX690 will pull a head providing it's not fill rate bound.

Higher specs plus more mature drivers, nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

None of this explains why the 980 is faster than the 690 @1080p and slower at higher resolutions.

You are going to have to do better than reading the info out of GPUZ lol.
 
Kaapstad said:
Wrong.

None of this explains why the 980 is faster than the 690 @1080p and slower at higher resolutions.

You are going to have to do better than reading the info out of GPUZ lol.
Click to expand...

No I'm actually correct.... And I've not got any information from GPUZ.

That's what you do to show off the compression :rolleyes:
 
almighty15 said:
No I'm actually correct.... And I've not got any information from GPUZ.

That's what you do to show off the compression :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am afraid you are totally wrong.

To answer the question you need to know exactly how a GTX 690 works which you obviously don't.

You also need to know how the GTX 690 works with the rest of the PC as well.

The answer is a real wall of text, or rather it was last time I shared it with someone who had a genuine reason to know.

I am done with this now you have shown how little you really know about graphics cards as I think this is starting to bore other people silly.

Please feel free to reply to this if you want the last word as I am done with this topic, just a word of caution though. At some point in the near future I will post a proper thread using a wide variety of cards to show the answer to the question but I suspect that most people will find it quite boring.

Over to you.....
 
Ego engine on Grid loves more Vram.
Hope to see more engines to do this.

15671555688_f9de3a3643_o.png

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6818/sapphire-radeon-r9-290x-8gb-vapor-x-oc-video-card-review/index14.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom