Lol, pcper is powered by pressworks and will always be biased. No equivocating on that fact.
Lol, pcper is powered by pressworks and will always be biased. No equivocating on that fact.The most important thing is they are using built in benches , do we play benches or do we play the game? incompetence at it's best.
The funny thing is just 2-3 days ago these sites were listed as NV shill sites, THG,HWC,PC-PER, now they are the best reviewers on planet
what's the right $450 card to get?
Tom's is using all different drivers. Its a mess.
Their power numbers are questionable too. Very different from other sites. I remember they also messed up the 980 power numbers and ended up pulling them (simulated 970/980 clocks and power usage with an aftermarket 970/980 with a much much higher power limit, naturally results were incorrect).
The idle power is unrealistically low and uncorroborated by any other site.
The most important thing is they are using built in benches , do we play benches or do we play the game? incompetence at it's best.
The funny thing is just 2-3 days ago these sites were listed as NV shill sites, THG,HWC,PC-PER, now they are the best reviewers on planet :biggrin:
You must be confused. If Tom reports negative power consumption, it's a fact. The other 10+ review sites - all wrong.
Tom says Fury X uses -23 W, you better call your electric company because they owe you a check.
Sarcasm aside, seriously if one out of a handful of site is reporting something completely different - you can't err saying that one site is right. Clearly something is off and I'd hope the other sites (or Toms) are taking a double look.
There is no such card. The only reasonable choices right now are R9 290/290X/970, maybe 390 if you can't find a 290X for $270, and 980Ti. 980/R9 390X are overpriced. Also with your CPU, anything beyond R9 290/290X/970 is just a waste. Even with those cards you'll be seriously CPU bottlenecked in a lot of games, I mean a lot of games.
A buddy of mine plays a lot of Total War games and there AMD CPUs are a non-starter even with a mid-range GPU such as the 970/290.
This forum is 100% full of double standards, but specifically when it comes to favouring NV products. I was about to start a new thread but didn't even bother because I'd just get called out for "Damage control" or some other non-sense.
Here are the facts:
HD7970Ghz = $499 with a 3-game bundle, 50% more VRAM, huge overclocking headroom/scaling, 9% faster at TPU at 1440P on launch date than $499 GTX680 2GB. I recommended HD7970Ghz back then and today I am recommending the 980Ti. Coincidentally that is definitely not the case for the 980Ti fanclub which back then downplayed all key advantages of HD7970Ghz from launch.
#1. The amount of bashing GTX680 2GB received for having 50% less VRAM from the same people talking about 4GB vs. 6GB today on the NV side - practically nil.
#2. The amount of bashing GTX680 2GB received for being noncompetitive by 9% at the same price resulting in worse price/performance from the same people today bashing Fury X for not being fast enough at 1440p - practically nil.
#3. How many people during HD7970Ghz vs. 680 era discussed how one can buy after-market HD7970Ghz cards? Almost none of the people today who only want to compare factory pre-overclocked 980Ti cards vs. a reference Fury X. That's right cuz they don't want to discuss how a reference 980Ti is a failure in terms of noise levels and temperatures but back then the theme was to ignore after-market HD7970Ghz cards' noise levels, temperatures and overclocking at all costs and continue with the mantra that all HD7970Ghz cards run hot and loud despite not 1 reference HD7970Ghz ever sold in retail channels like Newegg or Amazon, etc. It's sad to see these insane double standards being applied today but 680 was somehow excused from this? Right....
While objective gamers have every single right to criticize Fury X for not delivering enough (until we see its full overclocking potential with voltage control), nearly every single person who recommended a 680 over an HD7970Ghz back then is a true hypocrite. I'll never forgot how certain posters on here would constantly, and I mean constantly mislead with reference HD7970Ghz noise and temperature levels but now they are eerily quiet about how the reference 980Ti's cooler is a giant failure, especially when it comes to overclocking. :sneaky:
Did Fury X live up to the hype? No, for now it didn't but the amount of bashing happening and how it's a total failure is ludicrous considering HD7970Ghz had 50% more VRAM, cost the same and outperformed 680 by the same 9%. Yet, how many of the same people called 680 a failure and recommended 7970Ghz over it? Practically none of the NV owners/Fury X bashers. It's pretty easy to spot blind fans on this forum to be honest.....
Fury X should have been priced at $549 but considering we heard the most insane non-sense like Fury X = R9 290X with HBM or Fury X = Dual Tonga XTs, we still got a card that at stock is nearly as fast as a reference GTX980Ti, but runs way cooler and quieter. Maybe with full voltage control, maybe it can overclock to 1250mhz? We can't say yet, but either way there seem to be driver issues because the scaling from R9 390X is simply too low at the moment to make sense unless the card is almost 100% ROP bottlenecked.
At 4K it basically trades blows with GTX980Ti/Titan X which means Fury X CF should be fairly competitive against 980Ti SLI.
Still, it's hilarious that the clueless/biased review sites are trying to say that 980 is a true competitor to Fury X in terms of gaming feel when objective sites with more than 5 games (or which have a spread of games and not just mostly GW titles) are finding Fury X destroying a 980 by 25-30% at high rez gaming and more or less trading blows with the reference 980Ti. Where Fury X starts to suffer is against after-market 980Ti cards but those are factory pre-overclocked 15-18% which makes sense that they would win since AMD's AIBs have so far didn't release any factory pre-overclocked Fury cards.
Right now, the logical choice is an after-market 980Ti but it remains to be seen if overclocking will improve with voltage control and if AMD can get another 5-10% performance increase with better drivers over time; and if AMD will allow AIBs to release faster clocked versions of the Fury X.
Generally speaking the biggest problem with this card right now is the price. I am not sure why there is so much bashing for 1080P performance since we know AMD has a DX11 driver overhead. Also, I would personally never buy a $650 GPU late June 2015 to play at 1080P. I think the key resolution for comparison is 1440P (or Ultra wide 3440x1440) for single chip and 1440P/1600P/3440x1440/4K for CF/SLI.
That would be because they use previous tests for older cards. At least they say so unlike some sites that just pretend they finished testing 1 million cards just for the Fury X launch.
A good number of sites that use multiple cards would be using old tests they ran, that is why they would also be on older drivers. Some bad ones probably still use old 290x benches without saying or hinting so.
These results aren't simulated.
For idle other sites are either calculating or using whole system numbers. Unrealistically low because its an AMD card?
Who listed toms as a shill site?
The other sites did not do an indepth look at the card power consumption as far as I see. TPU tried. They could be wrong, but more technical seems more trustworthy especially since these cards vary consumption so quickly
Did Fury X live up to the hype? No, for now it didn't but the amount of bashing happening and how it's a total failure is ludicrous considering HD7970Ghz had 50% more VRAM, cost the same and outperformed 680 by the same 9%. Yet, how many of the same people called 680 a failure and recommended 7970Ghz over it? Practically none of the NV owners/Fury X bashers. It's pretty easy to spot blind fans on this forum to be honest.....
Fury X should have been priced at $549 but considering we heard the most insane non-sense like Fury X = R9 290X with HBM or Fury X = Dual Tonga XTs, we still got a card that at stock is nearly as fast as a reference GTX980Ti, but runs way cooler and quieter. Maybe with full voltage control, maybe it can overclock to 1250mhz? We can't say yet, but either way there seem to be driver issues because the scaling from R9 390X is simply too low at the moment to make sense unless the card is almost 100% ROP bottlenecked.
At 4K it basically trades blows with GTX980Ti/Titan X which means Fury X CF should be fairly competitive against 980Ti SLI.
Still, it's hilarious that the clueless/biased review sites are trying to say that 980 is a true competitor to Fury X in terms of gaming feel when objective sites with more than 5 games (or which have a spread of games and not just mostly GW titles) are finding Fury X destroying a 980 by 25-30% at high rez gaming and more or less trading blows with the reference 980Ti.
This card should have been priced at $549 but considering we heard the most insane non-sense like Fury X = R9 290X with HBM or Fury X = Dual Tonga XTs or Fury X is only 20% faster than a 980 at high resolutions
Doesn't really matter, they messed up. Initial impressions stick. Remember the hot & noisy R290/X?
Now most gamers will think Fury X can't OC at all or its vcore locked permanently.
Yup, Fury X is already tainted day 1. Just like 290X due to reference cooler, now it is due to low OC and the price.
Should have been cheaper than the 980 Ti and with better OC from day 1.
That would be because they use previous tests for older cards. At least they say so unlike some sites that just pretend they finished testing 1 million cards just for the Fury X launch.
A good number of sites that use multiple cards would be using old tests they ran, that is why they would also be on older drivers. Some bad ones probably still use old 290x benches without saying or hinting so.
These results aren't simulated.
For idle other sites are either calculating or using whole system numbers. Unrealistically low because its an AMD card?
Who listed toms as a shill site?
built in benches are better imo, but it seems you guys really don't care for consistency or detail
The other sites did not do an indepth look at the card power consumption as far as I see. TPU tried. They could be wrong, but more technical seems more trustworthy especially since these cards vary consumption so quickly
tainted to who? Regardless of what you guys think, most people do not OC. Who this affects will be the partners puting out overclocked cards, not the average consumer. Not every Pc gamer is an enthusiast who wants to overvolt and OC to the moon. Some even do it to see how far it goes and then just run stock for the whole time. People used to OC when they needed it.
tainted to who? Regardless of what you guys think, most people do not OC. Who this affects will be the partners puting out overclocked cards, not the average consumer. Not every Pc gamer is an enthusiast who wants to overvolt and OC to the moon. Some even do it to see how far it goes and then just run stock for the whole time. People used to OC when they needed it.
You're right. ANd those average consumers won't care. YOu know what they will care about?
This:
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/perfrel_1920.gif[/img
Or if you want to give them benefit of the doubt they game at 1440p:
[img]http://tpucdn.com/reviews/AMD/R9_Fury_X/images/perfrel_2560.gif[/img
So average joe see's it is slower, and has less memory, but cost the same. Hmmmmm....[/QUOTE]
If the average Joe goes to techpowerup, sure. If he goes somewhere else he might see fancy HBM and equal performance plus benchmarks showing 4GB was enough. etc etc. It's nowhere near the bad reference cooler situation on the 290x.
Funny enough when nvidia put out cards with reference coolers that end up getting the GPU throttled, we don't see the same tainting.
[quote="Enigmoid, post: 37511495"]Most people do not overclock. That is true. Most people do not buy $649 graphics cards either. Ultimately what is important is the people buying $649 graphic cards that OC.[/QUOTE]
It's really a matter of means. a complete noob would still buy the $649 if they had the cash. it's not just people who would OC. The only thing you could really say about those who buy those cards is they have the cash. Could be grandma buying the most expensive GPU she could find for little timothy. Costing a lot does not mean you are going to OC it and you are more likely to see overclockers on lower end/mid range hardware because that's where the real thrill and difference is.
If the average Joe goes to techpowerup, sure. If he goes somewhere else he might see fancy HBM and equal performance plus benchmarks showing 4GB was enough. etc etc. It's nowhere near the bad reference cooler situation on the 290x.
Funny enough when nvidia put out cards with reference coolers that end up getting the GPU throttled, we don't see the same tainting.
Funny enough when nvidia put out cards with reference coolers that end up getting the GPU throttled, we don't see the same tainting.
Yeah, but I don't think this is a question of double standards. No one cares because the 980 Ti had non-reference cooler options available day one. With the R9 290 and 290X it was a pretty long wait, 3-4 months if I recall.
In a sign of the daffy times we live in, Radeon R9 290X prices have hit $900 this week at Newegg. Every card, from the reference models to the water block model, is now at $899, with Newegg apparently doing brisk enough business to be sold out of more than half of their different 290X SKUs. This of course is some $350 over the 290Xs original launch price of $550, a 64% price bump. Meanwhile the Radeon R9 290 has been similarly affected, with 290 cards starting at $600, $200 (50%) over MSRP.
This forum is 100% full of double standards, but specifically when it comes to favouring NV products. I was about to start a new thread but didn't even bother because I'd just get called out for "Damage control" or some other non-sense.
There are players on both sides of the fence, Russian.
This forum really doesn't have much double standards
1. GTX480/470 launched with more vram, I don't remember this forum recommending them over a 5870/50
2. You keep saying that but 7970Ghz was not a new sku it was just an overclocked 7970, people could oc their 7970 and attain those clocks easily.
The head on between a ln2 cooled 680 vs a 7970 was a win for 680, I hope you remember that.
People didn't give much value to 3gb at that moment because they knew these cards will be too slow when the 3Gb vram becomes relevant.
3. Unless AT is the new shill site on the internet check their benches, 980 is dangerously close to Fury-X @1080P. You can't dictate what resolution people will use this card for, maybe they love maxing out each and every options @1080P.
4. The problem with Fury-X is just not the price, why you release a wc card and don't let oc it? it doesn't make any sense. You were very vocal when NV didn't allow ocing on their mobile chips, why would AMD get a pass this time?
No kidding. WHen 7970 came out and it was $550 he made it out like I was an idiot for supporting it and even buying it.
5 months later a 7970 Ghz for $500 is some kind of godsend? WTH!?
If only Fury X was 20% faster than 980.
Yeah, but I don't think this is a question of double standards. No one cares because the 980 Ti had non-reference cooler options available day one. With the R9 290 and 290X it was a pretty long wait, 3-4 months if I recall.
Yawn, as tviceman or most other people on this forum will confirm, if I know AMD/NV GPU launches will be close, I always recommend waiting. So why would I recommend a $550 925mhz 7970 on launch when we all knew 680 was about to come out shortly? Once we knew all the performance at stock vs. stock and OC vs. OC between 7970 and 680, one could make a better informed decision. Also, I am pretty sure you bought a reference HD7970 didn't you? So ya, no offense bud but you messed up twice there by paying early adopter tax on 7970 and getting the POS reference blower 925mhz 7970. Anyone objective in my shoes would have told you to wait for after-market 7970 vs. after-market 680 showdown.
Of course your entire rebuttal doesn't address my point on how this forum viewed HD7970Ghz (that were only for sale in after-market form) against GTX680. You discussing 925mhz reference 7970 that you purchased had literally 0 to do with my post.
Why isn't Russian sensation a writer for this? That dude needs his own blog/review site seriously.