Fury might help them a bit but Fury X offers nothing over 980 Ti at that price point.
-
At least $100 less than EVGA GTX980Ti Hybrid
- Most likely superior to a reference 980Ti - for the same price it runs cooler and quieter in both overclocked and stock states
- One will be able to create the most powerful small form factor chassis PCs with Fury X or Fury X CF, something that's a lot harder to do with GM200 cards
- 300-600W of heat will be exhausted out of the case at quiet noise levels and low temperatures in stock or overclocked states, something not possible with any air cooled GM200 setup.
Get yourself a CF setup if you don't have one, start buying games on release day. You'll have your own personal database in no time.
Not everyone buys all AAA games on release date, especially when a lot of games have $30+ of DLC which makes a $60 game essentially a $90 game. Batman Arkham Knight is $95 CDN for me with Season pass/DLC on Steam. GOTY edition of this game will be $7.5-10 very quickly given the track record of this franchise. Also, a lot of gamers have a giant backlog of games across GOG, Steam, UPlay, Origin. What that means is with a social life, friends, family, job, sports, the backlog is often a natural occurrence. Another example is Borderlands 2 which I believe was $80-90 for the entire game + DLC but on this Steam sale it was $7.99 for GOTY edition. Just 2 of these games bought at launch would be $180 CDN vs. say $20 if bought later. A lot of gamers here buy 10+ games a year which means buying games at $10 vs. $60-90 results in a massive savings.
If you are the type of gamer who only buys $60-90 games at launch, then you have a point but a lot of PC gamers do not do that. Some games are so broken or are so poorly done (AC Unity or Watch Dogs), that they aren't even worth playing at launch until they receive many patches and several driver updates. Knowing all of this, many gamers might buy some games at launch but wait for many others due to backlog, not to mention that too many games come with DLCs and/or are broken on release which means it's actually better to wait to buy them later once they are fixed. It's not like the old days where if you got a $60 game, it was actually 99.9% complete with very few bugs/glitches and performance was well optimized. Today, you might buy a game that results in a
magic developer patch that boost performance 45% months later. If you bought it at launch and your performance was unsatisfactory, you might proceed to buy a $650 videocard when a $300 card would have ran the game just fine.
But that's not even the point since $1100 Fury PRO CF vs. $1000 Titan X takes all of that into account already. When CF doesn't work, performance will be 87-90% as good and when CF works, performance will bury the Titan X. Many modern games work well with CF which means on average the former setup is far superior, especially if one considers the TX more or less requires a cooler swap - so add another $100 to the cost, essentially making them equal. Of course except Grooveriding and a couple other guys, TX owners will continue to defend their purchases but anyone else objective can see how the TX was yet another NV marketing rip-off. Instead of admitting how AMD is about to change the entire $550-650 high-end GPU landscape, the TX owners are in denial phase defending their purchases. No credit is given to AMD where it's actually due, especially from people who were claiming AMD is never going to even match a Titan X and here we are with a possibility it'll beat the Titan X at 4K.
I guess anyone wanting to put 2-3 of these in Crossfire and a couple 4K monitors is out of luck:
Is this a troll post from you?
A great gaming experience on just a single 4K monitor more or less asks for 2x 980Ti/TXs or Fury cards. Not only will 2x4K monitors destroy even Quad Titan SLI since scaling is not great beyond 2 cards but very few gamers play on non-RTS style genres on just 2 monitors because you end up with 2 bezels staring right at the gamer's face. Dual monitor gaming is probably the worst option possible between 1 large screen/projector and triple monitor gaming.
Your very point contradicts your next example below:
"The GeForce GTX TITAN X SLI at 4K was by far the most amazing experience in GTA V. However,
to run with "Ultra" grass it looks like a third TITAN X would be needed in a 3-Way SLI configuration. That is a lot of GPU performance to push GTA V fully at 4K"
Ya, so HardOCP states they needed 3x Titans in SLI to run GTA V on a single 4K monitor, what gaming is anyone doing on 2x 4K monitors with modern cards?
I wonder how angry Fury X owners will be if they try to run games like GTA V with VSR or 4K + AA and find it hitting their tiny 4GB limit? Hmmm..
Let's wait for benchmarks but considering 980 SLI/R9 295X2 outperform Titan X in 4K, your 4GB VRAM concern for GTA V has already been addressed by professional reviewers.
More so, that bench is without everything maxed out. Once the entire game is maxed out at 4K, Titan X SLI is a slide-show. Essentially no dual cards with single chips on each available today can max out GTA V at 4K with everything on Ultra. Comparing all these setups, they are all unplayable unless someone likes gaming at console level FPS with insane stuttering.
Exactly. 50% faster when using two GPU's and paying more for them isn't exactly a homerun achievement.
You are confused. It's $1100 Fury CF => projected 90% as fast as the TX when CF doesn't work and at least 50% faster when CF works, all for $100 more just 3 months later. In PC gaming, that's called a no brainer and this was discussed 3 months ago why Titan X would be obsoleted by Fury PRO but many NV supporters dismissed this notion. Now they are all quiet focusing in on 4GB HBM...NV took them for a ride where now one will be able to get 90% of TX SLI performance in dual Fury PROs for
$900 less. Oh, and the after-market coolers on Fury PRO will ensure the card stays cool and quiet, unlike the Titan X which was a jet engine in overclocked states on a reference cooler. You trying to say that 87-90% of TX SLI performance for $900 less OR having 87-90% of Titan X performance for $450 less while running cool and quiet isn't a good achievement just 3 months later is some statement alright. I am pretty sure 3 months ago you didn't even dream that a $550 Fury card would be this close to a Titan X and recalling your posts, you didn't even seem confident that Fury X would beat a 980Ti at 4K. After all, without even waiting for specs or benchmarks you ordered 980Ti reference cards. Everyone knows you had no intention of buying AMD cards in CF since apparently you intended to keep your cards for 4-5 years anyway which meant 4GB wouldn't be enough for your sub-1440P monitor.
If you want an apples to apples comparison. CF Fury vs SLI 980Ti and you're still slower for the same amount of money.
That's not the point. Obviously with a 980Ti out today at $650-700, the comparison should be in relation to TX as of now. The point was to bring up what happened in the past and how people just ignore what they were told 3 months ago without admitting they were proven wrong:
1) After-market 980Ti would make Titan X irrelevant
2) After-market 980Ti would outperform Titan X out of the box, with 0 overclocking for $300+ less, while running cooler and quieter, with better components too
3) Fury Pro will offer 87-90% of the performance of the Titan X for nearly 1/2 the price (back then we projected $500-550)
4) Fury X has a serious shot of outperforming the Titan X at 4K
5) 980 was an overpriced rip-off for the last 9 months at $550 and for those who want to spend $500+ on a card and aren't in a rush, it's worth waiting for Fury cards.
Most, if not all of these points, were dismissed by a lot of NV fans on this forum and now they are all quiet after being proven wrong.
Looks like most of these things have come true and instead of admitting how many people on this forum called each one of those points despite being told how AMD is done and won't even improve perf/watt on 28nm, certain posters instead are in spin mode about 4GB HBM not sufficient for dual 4K monitor gaming. Let's not even forget the insane BS made up on this very forum about 2x2048 shader Tonga with HBM or Hawaii with HBM and no other improvements. Now AMD has released a card with 1.5X the perf/watt increase over 290X in Fury X and supposedly 2X the improvement in the Fury Nano and people are downplaying this, despite many of the same users spouting crap like Fury might only beat 980 by 20% at best, while using 300-350W of power doing so.