@wege12
It's practically crap at 1080p. I wouldn't say its crap. I've been able to run every game I've played so far at max settings 60 fps. However, the 980ti is better due to its stronger front end.
Okay at 1440p. "Okay" is underselling it a bit. Its great at 1440p. Fury X trades blows with 980ti at this resolution.
Too weak for 4K despite decent performance. You really need 2 GPU for 4K. This is absolutely true, but the same is also said for the 980ti.
And low OC potential compared to the 980Ti. No arguement here. I'm only able to obtain a 13% OC on mine.
When NV overclocks better, overclocking is THE metric. I disagree here because even if most buyers of flagship cards OC, there are still some who won't. Plus no two GPUs OC the same. So everyone who purchases a flagship will automatically get stock clock performance. It's a variable whether or not the user OC's and/or how high they can OC.
I'm not saying OC'ing abilities shouldn't be compared, because they should. But IMHO, stock clocks should always be the metric as its guaranteed everyone will receive that level of performance.
Back during the 7800 and 7900 series, those SKUs often did 50% OC, but "overclocking is a niche" apparently. Those cards were released at lower clocks to begin with. Also, GCN is more dense, with hardware designed for DX12, which is a negative when it comes to OC'ing.
Still, Fury X has no excuse being priced close to custom 980Ti that's 20% faster out of the box. I believe the Fury X is now less expensive when looking at its MSRP. I think its also worth mentioning how much more capital Nvidia has compared to AMD to invest in R/D. This puts AMD at a disadvantage from the get go which, to me, makes the Fury X all that more respectable.
Of course, all of this is my opinion and is up for debate
Polaris will no doubt be a substantial improvement over the Fury X. However, the hate towards Fury X somewhat baffles me. At stock clocks, it is extremely comparable to the 980ti in performance. Not to mention that it is much better suited for DX12 and VR than the 980ti.
I could be biased as a own a Fury X, but I believe it is a very respectable card.
@wege12
It's practically crap at 1080p.
Okay at 1440p.
Too weak for 4K despite decent performance. You really need 2 GPU for 4K.
And low OC potential compared to the 980Ti.
When NV overclocks better, overclocking is THE metric.
Back during the 7800 and 7900 series, those SKUs often did 50% OC, but "overclocking is a niche" apparently.
Still, Fury X has no excuse being priced close to custom 980Ti that's 20% faster out of the box.
If Polaris is what FuryX was supposed to be, then it seems like AMD would still be one step behind NV with Polaris.
I believe Polaris will be release before Pascal and it give me high hope that my dream of a triple monitor gaming setup is still coming to fruition.
I have to go with AMD because Nvidia doesn't care about triple monitoring. I just want to go triple monitoring so bad. I don't want to settle for 21:9.
Triple monitor setups are a pain. With ultra-wide screen monitors at 21:9 ratio replace the need for them so there's no reason to go with triple monitors other than cost. The bezels alone make gaming other than racing or maybe FPS a pain. Just my 2 cents.
What's your issue with 21:9 monitors? Why would want to deal with bezels? The only real advantage may be with a PLP setup but those are are expensive and a pain to setup.
Wait what?
Could AMD "Polaris" be what the Fury X was suppose to be?
If Polaris is what FuryX was supposed to be, then it seems like AMD would still be one step behind NV with Polaris.
Triple monitor setups are a pain. With ultra-wide screen monitors at 21:9 ratio replace the need for them so there's no reason to go with triple monitors other than cost. The bezels alone make gaming other than racing or maybe FPS a pain. Just my 2 cents.
I love my triple monitor set up. I have a very small bezels on my monitors, they just fade out of your mental perception when you game since the side monitors are peripheral anyways. Thick bezels do pull you out of immersion. 21:9 isnt close to how wide triple monitor is which is good and bad. For games that support it, triple is extremely immersive. Star Wars Battlefront for example is fantastic on triple. Fallout games on the other hand are nearly impossible to get fully functional without glitches and bugs even after modding it to try and get it to work (fuzzy terminal text...)
Why not compromise? Triple curved 21:9 monitors.
Too bad you can't get 34" 1440p 21:9 monitors with a tighter curve. Something with a 1m or 1.5m curve would be intense.
What's your issue with 21:9 monitors? Why would want to deal with bezels? The only real advantage may be with a PLP setup but those are are expensive and a pain to setup.
Considering we're wondering if Pascal is going to have support for DX12 and Vulkan that GCN has offered for years I'm not sure what metric you are basing AMD being behind on. Overclocking?
I will say that I have had triple monitor setup with both AMD and NV setups and the differences were minimal between them.