That's the most disappointing thing of all, the Fury X's awful awful voltage-locked overclocking.
Having to go to a warranty-voiding aftermarket BIOS just to get voltage control back, and then likely not seeing any major increase in MHz anyway, is a major disappointment.
The thing is I can kind of see their point as far as game selection. It's not just that they're GameWorks titles, they're popular games that happen to implement GameWorks. If they were games no one had heard of or were looking forward to, I could see the point about cherry picking, but you can't honestly say that games like Dying Light, Witcher 3, and Batman are niche titles.
It's unfortunate that a lot of anticipated games are GameWorks titles, and I'm not saying that it's good for consumers that this is the case, but it's a reality of the market right now.
This is maxing out the voltage on a program like precision x, right? When you say no voltage mods, the voltage slider on precision X doesn't count as a voltage mod, correct?
I am of the opinion that [H] is incompetent rather than shilling. However, if Fury X had delivered the goods as many here hoped for, then it wouldn't matter. If it had been neck and neck with titan X and 5-10% faster than 980ti then there would have been some reviewers raving about it and lots of positive messages. As it is, it's still decent but they should have priced it at $599 instead of $649 at least.
Of course, with such (rumored) limited availability, they can probably sell every one that they can make @ $649.
I like you, alot. please post more often :biggrin:Personally I'll take a large data source over hearsay. HWBot is hard to refute. You can buy the 980 ti with confidence, just be aware that no OC is guaranteed. It doesn't need much to distance itself from the fury in any case, my only concern is passing off hearsay as fact.
Don't put words in my mouth. If you want debate stick to the facts and you don't need to twist anything.
Something that got my attention is that AMD went with texturing power on Fiji, meanwhile nV moved away from that particular point in the Kepler -> Maxwell transition, increasing the ROPs.
Gives something to think about. Maybe some less TMUs could've made room for 32 more ROPs and maybe balance the card better, make better use of what HBM offers. The extra efficiency of Tonga's ROPs is seen, but I can't help to think that a few more of these units wouldn't have hurt. I don't know which architecture will do better under DX12.
My point is sites that test a wide variety of games, including GameWorks title, come out with Fury X tie to to 980Ti. But sites that test a small selection of games, most of them GameWorks, with GameWorks features enabled, it doesn't matter what AMD comes up with on the hardware side. They have a mountain of crippling to climb to offset the performance loss in these titles with GW features on.
I saw it on [H] a long time ago where the R290X was behind the 980 by 25-50% and [H] concludes the 980 destroys it. Well yes, if all you do is play a few NV sponsored titles.
RS I have to give you credit. Your stance is exactly the same as always. :thumbsup:
It's a no brainer situation again if you value money over "brand".
Even if [H] did know they wouldn't care. It was pointed out to Brent several times that AMD cannot optimize GW games properly due to being denied access to source code. He just kept blaming AMD's driver team for failing in GW titles.Witcher 3, yes no problem its an awesome game with lots of players and indeed deserving of "GOTY". But why run it with HairWorks enabled? Heck, did [H] even realize AMD users can force tessellation to 16x and get the SAME image quality but at significant performance improvements?
You're saying most review sites say that FuryX and 980Ti are neck and neck.
Even if [H] did know they wouldn't care. It was pointed out to Brent several times that AMD cannot optimize GW games properly due to being denied access to source code. He just kept blaming AMD's driver team for failing in GW titles.
I honestly can't tell if it is willful ignorance or not.
Even if [H] did know they wouldn't care. It was pointed out to Brent several times that AMD cannot optimize GW games properly due to being denied access to source code. He just kept blaming AMD's driver team for failing in GW titles.
I honestly can't tell if it is willful ignorance or not.
Didn't some random guy in a random forum post a patch or program that lets hairworks perform better on AMD cards? Refresh my memory because I might be mixing it up with something else.
They always have a thread created in their forums to discuss the reviews.is that why HARDOCP reviews don't have a comment section?
There's a mod that will increase FPSs. Shoutout to the mod community :hmm:
lazy devs
But the game dev did, and they still failed. I wonder why that is?Yeah, ok. Thanks. I knew it was something like that.
I can make a pretty good guess that the person who made the mod, didn't have Gameworks source code.
Even if [H] did know they wouldn't care. It was pointed out to Brent several times that AMD cannot optimize GW games properly due to being denied access to source code. He just kept blaming AMD's driver team for failing in GW titles.
I honestly can't tell if it is willful ignorance or not.
Nvidia does it because it works, but as a consumer I have no intention of supporting said tactics. Either way that is not the reason for Fury X not living up to the hype, which honestly was probably unrealistic. AMD could have changed the perception by pricing the card @$599.It's not fair, but it is what it is, and as an unbiased consumer who has owned both company's products, it's a big big plus towards Nvidia.
Definitely as asshole tactic, no doubt about it.
Right, but you do understand that "lock out" for AMD is a competitive advangatge for Nvidia right?
Meaning if you're an unbiased consumer who doesn't own stock in either company, the fact that Nvidia can lock AMD out of the source code for major major titles should be something you weigh as a huge negative when you think about purchasing an AMD product no?
We can bitch at HardOCP all we like, but the fact is that for GameWorks titles now...and in the future...AMD will be at a disadvantage. Nvidia's wallet and payoffs and greedy developers will make sure of that.
It's not fair, but it is what it is, and as an unbiased consumer who has owned both company's products, it's a big big plus towards Nvidia.
Definitely an asshole tactic though, no doubt about it.
Yes. HWC, Guru3d, TPU, Computerbase, Sweclockers, PCPER (yes even these guys!), Hw.fr. Oh, even LegitReview shows it trading blows against Titan X.
It definitely loses (and so does Titan X) to custom 980Ti, like the SSC or G1 models which hit >1.3ghz boost out of the box.
But the game dev did, and they still failed. I wonder why that is?
Yep. Computerbase has Furyx ahead by 1%, TPU has 980ti ahead by ~ 3%, others are mostly in that range for 1440 and 4k. Nice job by AMD, this is a good launch and far ahead of what I was expecting a few weeks ago, but it's not good enough to make NV lower their prices. I think that we can all look forward to $500 gtx980 and $430 3900x for the rest of the year...
Nvidia does it because it works, but as a consumer I have no intention of supporting said tactics. Either way that is not the reason for Fury X not living up to the hype, which honestly was probably unrealistic. AMD could have changed the perception by pricing the card @$599.
Or they can level the playing field and turn off those feature. Reviewers like Guru3d and Digital foundry did, thats why I always trust them.
But the game dev did, and they still failed. I wonder why that is?