• 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.

Nvidia gameworks - Game over for you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rroff said:
In a general sense I'm not defending Kepler performance personally (in some cases it has been left behind in newer games sometimes woefully so) - I just seriously question the 780 results that are commonly used as they don't at all match with my every day usage i.e. take the Battlefront performance posted near the start of the thread - I've got a 970 and 780 I can test with that and in situations where the 970 is getting 76 fps like in the benchmark if I restricted my 780 to boosting like a revision 1 780 I still get 71-72 fps nothing like 65 and with my out the box boost (I have a GHZ edition revision 2 780 that is quite a bit quicker out the box than normal cards) I actually exceed the 970 by ~1fps - with both overclocked to the max it is still pretty close. Strangely enough I do get exactly the performance they get if I gimp my 780 to prevent it boosting above the on paper specs - which makes me question if they didn't just fudge the results based on the specs rather than using an actual card.

EDIT: Obviously in comparison to that one benchmark it could be down to using a different area to test, etc. but I've seen a similar story with several high profile sites where their 780 performance just doesn't match up with what I get compared to a 970.
Click to expand...



The issue is not specifically to do with the 780 though is it? The whole range of kepler gpu's from the TITAN downwards are significantly underperforming compared to their AMD counterparts in Fallout 4 1.3 beta according to those benchmarks. If is a fact that the TITAN was neck and neck with a 290X yet the benchmark shows the 290X beating the TITAN by over 50%.

It's a question that needs to be raised and challenged. Mind boggling to see people defend that kind of blatant gimping in performance.
 
Last edited:
Glad I'm running GHz 7970's. Still holding up and first one bought in 2011! It wouldn't surprise me if NVidia did try to slow the old cards down, they've been caught out trying it on with AMD, as have Intel, in the past so a few small tweaks to move customers on to the newer cards is quite possible.

The biggest issue is when people see questioning of their product of choice as a personal insult. Remember you are not your GPU ;)

Is also telling that the big tech sites don't investigate these things fully. I don't trust any of them either too wedded to their sponsors/advertisers. I'll take a broad spectrum of user reviews instead.
 
Troezar said:
Is also telling that the big tech sites don't investigate these things fully. I don't trust any of them either too wedded to their sponsors/advertisers. I'll take a broad spectrum of user reviews instead.
Click to expand...

As one mentioned recently - sadly if they go too far "off script" they start not getting invited to press events, etc. :S
 
Rroff said:
As one mentioned recently - sadly if they go too far "off script" they start not getting invited to press events, etc. :S
Click to expand...

Indeed. I know people don't like to pay for stuff but taking Netflix add an example. I'm happy to pay to not have adverts and get home grown productions. I'd do the same for a trustworthy independent tech site if they thoroughly investigated and reported any "funny business". Just needs someone to do it and us to support it.
 
Final8y said:
Funny enough that was brought up by someone on TS about a month ago, the price hike really shocked me.
And ten fold would be $135 this guy went way past that.


http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article36206235.html






http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/b...ncrease-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html
Click to expand...

That was the one thanks, I obviously got some details wrong but I think there may be other examples as well, one in particular that was brought to my attention by the dementia carers association a year or so ago maybe. I can't remember the details but I do remember the one you mention now I see the details.
 
Sadly there are many examples but if anyone thinks that NV would not try to push the prices of there GPUs higher if they were the only game in town are kidding themselves.
 
Final8y said:
Sadly there are many examples but if anyone thinks that NV would not try to push the prices of there GPUs higher if they were the only game in town are kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

Yea they would without question but i am in the camp that they might lose customers if they took it to far. Competition definitely drives performance and innovation. You would probably pay more for even less performance gains than we are seeing at this moment in time.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Yea they would without question but i am in the camp that they might lose customers if they took it too. Competition definitely drives performance and innovation. You would probably pay more for even less performance gains than we are seeing at this moment in time.
Click to expand...

Look at the CPU market for a current example of just that.
 
TheRealDeal said:
Yea they would without question but i am in the camp that they might lose customers if they took it too. Competition definitely drives performance and innovation. You would probably pay more for even less performance gains than we are seeing at this moment in time.
Click to expand...

Yes they would lose some which would be expected, but the point its better for us if they are not in a position to price hike and push it as far as they can in the first place.
 
The video tells us nothing of what driver is used when they are doing the test, nor is it helpful when he wont even do an apples for apples test as he calls it.

It would be interesting if anyone still with Kepler can find out what drivers are used when nvidia suddenly gimp their cards and do a comparison with supposedly gimped and non gimped drivers.

As a side note, if GW gimps AMD cards, how did they managed to get a 20-30% boost and Maxwell got a 10+% hit ?
 
LambChop said:
The video tells us nothing of what driver is used when they are doing the test
Click to expand...

I really don't want to fan any flames here but what has the driver got to do with, for example the excessive (gimping) levels of polygons placed in flat objects, or indeed the massive water tessellation going on under the ground as shown in the video which massively nerfed AMD cards and older Nvidia cards? That for me is the big story here.
 
D.P. said:
Don't see why people keep arguing something that is disproven by empirical evidence:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...iews/70125-gtx-780-ti-vs-r9-290x-rematch.html

http://imgur.com/a/J2MGp#1

https://public.tableau.com/views/Vi...t=yes&:showTabs=y&:toolbar=no&:showVizHome=no
Click to expand...

Well that is easily explained away as what you are seeing is old games where performance has not changed and most sites would not use in there bench suite these days. The hardware canucks review contradicts just about every other review. Look around and there is loads of evidence. The guy in the video shows plenty of evidence yet you are writing him off. He uses different sights and sources to do so.
 
Last edited:
beany_bot said:
I really don't want to fan any flames here but what has the driver got to do with, for example the excessive (gimping) levels of polygons placed in flat objects, or indeed the massive water tessellation going on under the ground as shown in the video which massively nerfed AMD cards and older Nvidia cards? That for me is the big story here.
Click to expand...

Thats not the only talking point, but no matter, case is closed.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29104467&postcount=116
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom