Still got a couple more pages to read of this thread but so far I'm thoroughly disappointed. Even if performance improves with drivers damage is already done. Amd needed a good launch and this launch will get torn apart.
You are completely confused as usual.
1. I already recommended after-market 980Ti cards over Fury X and I guess you missed those posts, which means in no way I am defending Fury X as a product against 980Ti. Also, your comment that we should be looking at only the most intensive games makes no sense either since you assume there are only 4-5 most demanding games out now (most of which are GW?). That's not the reality as Guru3D showed a lot of games are very demanding at 1440P and 4K.
For example, some people bought Metro Redux Steam bundle. Metro games are still demanding but you are implying nah we shouldn't be testing those anymore. Do you think everyone just plays $60-90 AAA games on day 1 or something? A professional review site which wants to conclude on the overall card standing, needs to cater to both groups of gamers - early adopters and others who buy games later in their life once their bugs are fixed and patches are released. That's the whole point of reviews with 10-15 games spanning various genres and game engines, across various release dates.
2. Yes, it's more important to have 40 vs. 30 fps but that's not what's being debated here. To conclude on the card's overall performance standing, we need to look at 10-20 games across many reviews. That's the first point you seem to be missing and I've consistently advocated not using just 1 review site with 4-5 games over the years. Secondly, certain reviewers concluding that 980 is a competition to Fury X is simply absurd.
If you want to cherry-pick 1-2 reviews to fit your agenda, knock yourself out. The rest of us have 10+ reviews to paint a better overall picture of the card's performance. If if these same sites showed Fury winning, I would still look at 5-10 other sites because 1 review alone with 5 games isn't enough to conclude on the product overall, especially if most of those games are GW titles. A lot of us buy those GW games at $5-10 at bargain bin so if I throw out broken GW games, I am left with 2-3 games out of the total 5. What kind of a review is that? Not to mention you also forgot how when Ryan Smith asks us time and time again what games to include for next year's review testing, we try to focus on gaming genres and game engines, not only on the most demanding titles. What if someone plays racing games, strategy games, FPS games, fighting games, etc.
Did you see Batman AK game? There is no way I am paying $60-90 for that POS. Including a broken game like that or a game made specifically for NV videocards (Project CARS) is blatant bias from the same sites that excluded Dirt Showdown for the same reasons. At least W1zzard provided a picture with and without biased titles in his chart. :thumbsup:
That's why sites like HardOCP or TR will never be able to compete with TPU or any other similar site unless they start becoming more objective and open-minded.
You are completely confused as usual.
1. I already recommended after-market 980Ti cards over Fury X and I guess you missed those posts, which means in no way I am defending Fury X as a product against 980Ti.
2. Yes, it's more important to have 40 vs. 30 fps but that's not what's being debated here. To conclude on the card's overall performance standing, we need to look at 10-20 games across many reviews. That's the first point you seem to be missing and I've consistently advocated not using just 1 review site with 4-5 games over the years. Secondly, certain reviewers concluding that 980 is a competition to Fury X is simply absurd.
If you want to cherry-pick 1-2 reviews to fit your agenda, knock yourself out. The rest of us have 10+ reviews to paint a better overall picture of the card's performance. If if these same sites showed Fury winning, I would still look at 5-10 other sites because 1 review alone with 5 games isn't enough to conclude on the product overall, especially if most of those games are GW titles. A lot of us buy those games at $5-10 at bargain bin so if I throw out GW games, I am left with 2-3 games out of the total 5. What kind of a review is that?
Did you see Batman AK game? There is no way I am paying $60-90 for that POS. Including a broken game like that or a game made specifically for NV videocards (Project CARS) is blatant bias from the same sites that excluded Dirt Showdown for the same reasons. At least W1zzard provided a picture with and without biased titles in his chart. :thumbsup:
That's why sites like HardOCP or TR will never be able to compete with TPU or any other similar site unless they start becoming more objective and open-minded.
RussianSensation used to make this point all the time, that you only need to test the top 4-5 heaviest hitters because that's where you need help the most. As for lesser games, who cares if you get 80 fps vs 90 fps? It's like, during the Crysis 1 era, you could probably get away with testing literally one game--Crysis--and that would kinda tell you what you needed to know. Testing 5 games is gravy.
I'm afraid this launch will get over-hyped and leave people disappointed.
I haven't read through any reviews yet, but this doesn't seem like a bad card at all. I think people were expecting too much from Fury, especially after the reveal at E3... I said it before and I'll say it again:
1. Why I will review a game that erm almost no one plays atm? it may happen that the IHV has just stopped optimizing for it. If the major games that coming out this year are all GW then it would be stupid not to review them.
2. So what we test then, FIFA? punishing games shows the deficiency in your gpus not the other way around.
3. TPU lol, that side is really lolworthy, they tested 900P with a 980Ti OK :$ also most of these sites don't know how to test mmos, that fps is meaningless when you are sitting idle in the town, did they raid when they captured the fps? that data is completely irrelevant then.
Don't twist words if you don't understand the context. During PS360 era when most games were console ports, it was fair to say that Crysis, Metro and Skyrim modded, GTA IV modded, BF4, etc. and other demanding games were often sufficient to separate the top cards since for most other games cards like 680 or 7970 crushed console ports. Therefore, during that time, it was fairly accurate to assess the card's overall performance by 4-6 of the most demanding games. Back in 2009-2013, hardly anyone talked about 4K either. The situation today is completely different. Today with even more broken AAA games at launch, a lot more gamers are delaying buying AAA $60 games right away knowing they require patches and multiple driver updates to fix their performance issues.
Furthermore, the demands of 1440P and 4K today have resulted in some games running well on a single 980Ti /Fury X and others simply bombing. During PS360 era, you would be seriously hard pressed to find many games that would cripple 680 OC or 7970 OC but then games like WoW or Diablo 3 would be included. Finally, as you always tend to twist facts into your own view, most people on this forum can attest that I tend to link overall performance in large reviews like TPU, TechSpot, Sweclockers, Computerbase, etc., unless someone specifically asks for gaming comparisons for the games they want to upgrade for.
You'll even go as far as to defend certain sites and largely ignore reviews that have 10-15 games in them. That's your call but the rest of us won't use 1 review with 4-5 games to judge your opinion of the said product, especially when totally ludicrous comparisons are made with Fury X ~ 980 :hmm:
Steam/GOG/UPlay/Origin sales prove that most gamers don't buy AAA games on day 1.
It would have been declared the second coming if it launched at $399.
Who plays compute? Seriously, this is ridiculous. I don't play 3DMark, Furmark, Tessmark, Luxmark...let's get real for a change, shall we?
It is not a bad card by any metric but it is a tough sell @ $ 649
It's not bad. At $650, there is a better option. That option is the GTX 980TI. Remember the saying; there is no such thing as a bad product; just bad pricing. Priced at $550, the Fury X would be an awesome, awesome card.
"Prove"? The kinds of people who can drop $650 on a video card may well buy AAA titles. If they are the kind to play older games, then why the hell buy a $650 card when a $240 R9 290 would do as well when playing Mass Effect 3?
Damn 980ti was a ninja throat kick to this Fury card. Brutal preemption by Nvidia.
2 reasons:
1) Steam/GOG/UPlay/Origin sales prove that most gamers don't buy AAA games on day 1.
2) When assessing the card's overall performance, we want to try to get as much data as possible. Are there are only 4-5 most demanding titles? If not, throw 10-15 of them in. TPU does, or are you suggesting it's only worth buying a 980Ti for the 5 games HardOCP tested? ^_^
TPU, Sweclockers, Computerbase, Hardware.fr, PCgameshardware, AT are all better than HardOCP by miles when it comes to assessing the card's overall performance.
Whatever you say. Have fun playing broken Batman AK and Project CARS and trying to suggest these games fairly represent the performance of a modern flagship card for future games for the next 2-3 years.
Not to mention you still didn't address the point how 980 is apparently ~ Fury but every other site besides TR and HardOCP has it crushing the 980 by 24-35% at 1440P-4K. I would totally buy an after-market 980TI and OC it but only a totally clueless person or a brand biased gamer would state things like 980 and Fury X are competitors at 1440P-4K.
Good price, or low supply?
Wouldn't the non-"X" Fury fill that spot? Same card without the water cooler should be $100 cheaper.
Who plays compute? Seriously, this is ridiculous. I don't play 3DMark, Furmark, Tessmark, Luxmark...let's get real for a change, shall we?
If you wouldn't recommend a GTX 680 2GB over a HD 7970 3GB at the same price, then why the hell recommend a Fury X 4GB over a 980 Ti 6GB at the same price?
Classic AMD, overpromise and under deliver. After hype train this long, they needed 10-15% over Titan X to deliver.