You don't get it. What I said and what you said aren't even close to the same thing.
We get it. You won't ever buy an AMD card for whatever reason. I'm not sure why some posters need to go round and round when it's clear they wont but the product. I'm really happy about fury and the features you get with the card. I won't be getting it on release bit from am enthusiast pov, you have to be excited about the product.
I don't think it's just that. Anyone willing to spend $1,000 for a gaming video card is probably concerned much more with bragging rights and having the absolute best rather than getting the most bang for their buck.Of course you don't see many. They'll never admit to wasting $350 per card for 2½ months of gaming. They'd rather defend their purchases to the death rather than appear foolish.
Mo' debinitely not the 980 - that's way beyond my price range unless these AMD cards just absolutely clobber the 970/980. Were that the case I'm sure we'd know by now, as AMD has no doubt done very detailed testing against all their potential competitors to not only know how to position and price their own cards, but also what talking points are best. So it's looking as though my choice is between 970 and the 290X, with 290 on the bottom and very doubtfully the Nano on the top as unlikely but possible choices. My monitor is a 27" 1080P and I don't care about AA, so I mainly want 4GB VRAM because that's what the consoles have and most games will be ports. And, truth be told, so I can run the most humongous Fallout 4 mods.We'll have to see how things shake out, but AMD doesn't look to have anything super compelling below Fury Nano. Likely your choice will be between 970 and 980.
I don't know about the 980. $549 Fury PRO is going to be a better buy than a 980 if it has 3584 shaders, 224 TMUs and 64 ROPs and 4096-bit HBM. People on AT recommended a 6-15% faster $510-550 980 over a $280-300 290X for the last 8 months. I expect every single one of those people to recommend a card just $50-100 more expensive than a 980 if it's 6-15% faster, which is about where Fury PRO should fall in.
I don't know about the 980. $549 Fury PRO is going to be a better buy than a 980 if it has 3584 shaders, 224 TMUs and 64 ROPs and 4096-bit HBM. People on AT recommended a 6-15% faster $510-550 980 over a $280-300 290X for the last 8 months. I expect every single one of those people to recommend a card just $50-100 more expensive than a 980 if it's 6-15% faster, which is about where Fury PRO should fall in.
It was not very uncommon to see a $100-$150 more expensive 970 being recommended over a 290. It was also not very uncommon to see about a $200 more expensive 980 being recommended over a 290x.If this ever happened it was the huge exception to the norm.
(the case where they all out want the fastest and don't care about money is completely different).
Nano would certainly be my first choice, but I can't see myself ever paying over $350 for a video card. $250 would make me much happier, so I may well end up buying a 290, even though I'd obviously prefer a 290X or 970. Power consumption still bothers me about the 290/290X, I feel irresponsible burning that much additional power just to avoid a 970.It was not very uncommon to see a $100-$150 more expensive 970 being recommended over a 290. It was also not very uncommon to see about a $200 more expensive 980 being recommended over a 290x.
@werepossum
Wait it out a bit. Fallout is more than a quarter away. Prices will stabilise a bit. Nano will be quite likely priced lower than Fiji Pro, and will provide near as makes no difference performance somewhere between 970-980. That also has HBM and certainly will help avoid 'bug' with 3.5gb of 970 which may come up as soon as Pascal comes around.
If this ever happened it was the huge exception to the norm.
(the case where they all out want the fastest and don't care about money is completely different).
100% agree.
The 980 also doesn't have a 6GB to 4GB (although this remains to be seen what it means, but still reflects the specs) 'advantage' the 980Ti has over the X.
Unless the Pro is a very poor overlocker, the advantage of 4GB HBM will really help.
Plus, even if the cards use the same power, perform the same and cost about the same, its cooler to have some new, shiny HBM.
The exception might be picking-up some cheap 980s used? Those could get to be a decent deal as people dump those for 980Tis or Furys...
Edit: IMHO the 980 (new) would only be interesting at $429 or less.
...tiny 4GB limit?
...minuscule vram.
I think it will get a drop to $399, then Nvidia releases a GTX 980+ (20 SMM GM200) at the same price point as the $550 Fury, and possibly even a 960 TI to round out Nvidia's fleet.
If this ever happened it was the huge exception to the norm.
(the case where they all out want the fastest and don't care about money is completely different).
It happened a lot on these forums and lots of other tech sites and forums under the guise of "power efficiency" nevermind that ~100W really isn't much unless you are literally gaming 24/7.
My back of the envelope calculation by stream processor count says that the reference clock Fury would have to have 20% of its SPs disabled for the G1 Gaming 980 to have a chance considering it has 45% more memory bandwidth and SP count, and more difference in ROP performance. The 980 is a long way behind the big boys.
So it begins. I feel my hyperbole senses tingling.
5150Joker Comparing a $649 Fury X with a TitanX (@$999) is a comparison but NOT of equal cards. Running 3 Titan X's is @$3000 vs $1950 for 3 Fury X's.
I suspect AMD could not get an 8G card ready or decided to wait for HBM2 to release such a high resolution card. Tough when you are releasing a new model that you want to run well. No doubt their highest end consumer card, for now, is limited to 4G Vram, HBM1.
If you have followed the releases from AMD, and especially Joe Macri, he recently (last few weeks) acknowledged this limitation and said he addressed it by assigning engineers specifically to better utilize the Vram. Only extensive testing will see if his efforts bore fruit.
The real battle appears to be between the GTX980 TI and the Fury X. The price is comparable, though the GTX980 TI has more Vram.
Only when reviewers get these cards and run them at 4k and multiple 4k monitors with various games will we see the results.
If this ever happened it was the huge exception to the norm.
(the case where they all out want the fastest and don't care about money is completely different).
RS. IMO Fury Pro will equal the Titan X in games. You've proven it that when a GPU from AMD scores lower in 3dMark than Nvidia GPUs in games, the differences between the GPUs are smaller.
Do you think this will be the latest new test specifically designed to make Fury look bad? Multiple 4K monitors... What a joke!
980 gets hammered in GPU demanding situations where GM200 starts to seriously pull away. At lower resolutions that are often CPU bottlecked, 980 looks good but in GPU demanding situations the 980 is way closer to 290X than to a 980Ti. If you overclock a 980, it won't help that much since it's hammered in pixel fill-rate, memory bandwidth etc. With Fury PRO, it'll be shader and texture limited but have a lot of pixel fill-rate and memory bandwidth to spare. That means Fury PRO should be able to overclock to 980Ti/Fury X speeds.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/gigabyte_geforce_gtx_980_ti_g1_gaming_soc_review,25.html
@garagisti
It depends on the game developer, with Witcher 3, I am very happy with the performance. Just a few small tweaks and CF works amazing, with better scaling than NV, AND I get the option of running with Hairworks with minimal performance loss by controlling tessellation usage.
Most of the GW titles that cause AMD problems have been from Ubisoft. To be fair, they also messed up on NV GPUs too. FC4 had broken SLI on NV setups, shadows were messed up for months. Watch Dogs didn't even have functional SLI at 4K and stutter on NV SLI at every resolution. ACU was just bug ridden in general.
Basically, if its an Ubi title, just avoid buying it early on, wait a few months for patches and you're good to go.
I think it would be more interesting at that price with 8gb of memory vs the 390x.?IMHO the 980 (new) would only be interesting at $429 or less.
Yes, but they are trying to sell us the cards. So we should take that with a grain of salt until objective reviews are done.
Of course we should. People are only trying to point out to the people who are pronouncing it DOA that AMD has said that 4GB won't be an issue. Now it's a wait and see. It's not 8GB of GDDR5 is automatically better than 4GB HBM like they are thinking.
AMD has also said they're using some compression to mitigate that downside so it would likely be worth waiting for reviews.
I think it would be more interesting at that price with 8gb of memory vs the 390x.?
Maybe.
I suppose 2x 980s might be a good 4k option of they were more ~$400 each