So it is 3rd party review site and nvidia fault that AMD has a become a no competition ,where they cannot compete with big companies?
Last edited:
So it is 3rd party review site and nvidia fault that AMD has a become a no competition ,where they cannot compete with big companies?All last gen cards have had their cost cut in half, it is what happens every single time a new card comes out. Or are you going to say the 980 TI is a $600+ card still? In that case it is terrible price/performance.
Fury Air was always price / perf level with the 980 TI. Fury X wasn't, but it had a water cooler. The cheapest 980 TI with a watercooler was an extra $100 and the same price/perf as the Fury X.
His point was trying to compare a 1080 to the Fury X is a terrible comparison because they aren't in the same league price wise now. Or do you think the 980 TI should also keep up with the 1080?
So it is 3rd party review site and nvidia fault that AMD has become a 3rd grade company ,where they cannot compete with big companies?
So it is 3rd party review site and nvidia fault that AMD has become a 3rd grade company ,where they cannot compete with big companies?
How is AMD not competing? Can you seriously ask that, since they are already months behind nVidia in releasing a high end next gen gpu, and it will be at least several months before they do? Yes, they may be competing on price, but that is because any card they are selling above the 480 is old and outdated.Why are you just trolling?
How is AMD not competing?
Fury X is performing the same as 980 Ti, which is what it was released next to.
The newer generation card should win out over the older generation one, if not, then there has been no progress. Especially so if the newer card costs more than the old one did.
How is AMD not competing? Can you seriously ask that, since they are already months behind nVidia in releasing a high end next gen gpu, and it will be at least several months before they do? Yes, they may be competing on price, but that is because any card they are selling above the 480 is old and outdated.
You started it by asking how AMD is not competitive. Guess you dont like the answer. BTW, the "you guys" comment is very close to a member call-out, and I cant recall that I ever quoted the Steam survey or bashed Fury for not having enough vram. I also have an AMD video card.Its amazing how you guys turn all threads into AMD vs Nvidia. Is it really that hard for you to admit that both have value?
Even Steam Hardware surveys that you guys love show the 1080 (0.57%) and 1070 (0.87%) having less than 2% of DX12 users combined. Considering how many people here would never buy an AMD high end card regardless of its performance why would you expect them to try to constantly put out high end expensive parts?
They are competing in the important areas and even Fury is still competing for higher end even with it being so old.
But even though you guys tried and failed to show that it would run out of VRAM now its time for a new approach to bash AMD.
Can you stay on topic?
480 is competing with 1060, Fury with 980 Ti, 390 with 970.
This game runs Ultra 1080 on a 970/390 or better at >60fps
You started it by asking how AMD is not competitive. Guess you dont like the answer.
In post 127 *you* specifically asked "How is AMD not competing?".No, read the post I responded to. He was the one saying that. Please try to stay on topic though
When you post stats and figure then please make sure that you are on latest not based or double standard.Its amazing how you guys turn all threads into AMD vs Nvidia. Is it really that hard for you to admit that both have value?
Even Steam Hardware surveys that you guys love show the 1080 (0.57%) and 1070 (0.87%) having less than 2% of DX12 users combined. Considering how many people here would never buy an AMD high end card regardless of its performance why would you expect them to try to constantly put out high end expensive parts?
They are competing in the important areas and even Fury is still competing for higher end even with it being so old.
But even though you guys tried and failed to show that it would run out of VRAM now its time for a new approach to bash AMD.
Can you stay on topic?
480 is competing with 1060, Fury with 980 Ti, 390 with 970.
This game runs Ultra 1080 on a 970/390 or better at >60fps
When you post stats and figure then please make sure that you are on latest not based or double standard.
In post 127 *you* specifically asked "How is AMD not competing?".
that AMD has a become a no competition ,where they cannot compete with big companies?
It is only DX12. It only take 2 mins to research and read rather then posting false figures and stats.I was:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/
This is a DX12 only game, why would I include DX10/11 results?
Sorry to reply again my stats of AMD are wrong.I was:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/
This is a DX12 only game, why would I include DX10/11 results?
Sorry to reply again
It is only DX12. It only take 2 mins to research and read rather then posting false figures and stats.
So it is 3rd party review site and nvidia fault that AMD has a become a no competition ,where they cannot compete with big companies?
How is AMD not competing? Can you seriously ask that, since they are already months behind nVidia in releasing a high end next gen gpu, and it will be at least several months before they do? Yes, they may be competing on price, but that is because any card they are selling above the 480 is old and outdated.
Its ue4 hence no support but game is well optimized and graphically stunning.On topic, pity no SLI or CF support...
On topic, pity no SLI or CF support...
I really dont like GTX1070 performance in new titles.Its always slower than 980TI and GTX1080 leads around 30-35%.GamersNexus updated their results: http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2630-gears-4-pc-benchmark-updated-with-ultra-high-settings
They were using higher settings on AMD cards than Nvidia in the previous graphs, those have been fixed.
They didn't retest just re-graphed so still using the 16.9.2 not 16.10.1 ("game ready") drivers for AMD, but are for Nvidia (373.02)
Their minimums seem super low for AMD though, neither PCGH or GameGPU saw such low minimums. Wonder if they have some odd bottleneck as all cards have massive (50%ish) difference between minimum and average.