I NEED HELP! GTX 980 vs R9 390X

[qookap]

I don't know guys, I am so confused!

Check review yourself...most of pp stupid....
You wont get any good answer for that.

They only know NV graphics, nothing more.

For now(DX11) GTX 980 have a little advantage on low resolution.
if you consider DX12, R9 390X 8GB is better choice.

I'm always have both company cards for gaming.
AMD cards better now.

 

[Carfax83]

If he really needs a higher level of performance the 980 is still a mediocre choice. In that case he should either get a 980 Ti if he wants single GPU or he should get a 290/X Crossfire setup for not much more than the cost of a single 980...

It's not a mediocre choice. The 980 can be overclocked to achieve 20% greater performance, and then it can also use MFAA which increases performance by an additional 5 to 10 FPS if you enable MSAA.

An aftermarket GTX 980 should be faster than a Fury in GTA V with 4x MSAA with MFAA turned on..

 

[Carfax83]

AMD Built GCN for dx12.
amd choose a flexible design allowing compute to shine with async shaders.

If AMD built GCN for DX12, then that is the dumbest move they have ever done and it cost them a ton of market share.

DX11 has been with us since 2009, and only in the last quarter of 2015 will be finally see the first DX12 games start to trickle out.

So that's six years of AMD wasting valuable die space on features that weren't even being used..

 

[flopper]

If AMD built GCN for DX12, then that is the dumbest move they have ever done and it cost them a ton of market share.

DX11 has been with us since 2009, and only in the last quarter of 2015 will be finally see the first DX12 games start to trickle out.

So that's six years of AMD wasting valuable die space on features that weren't even being used..

Mantle 4 years at least and the die shrink that was suppose to happen 22nm etc...didnt happen while they couldnt have foreseen that which was the only drawback of their design choice it will now rise to something really good with windows 10.
It was a brilliant plan and if the die shrink had happen they would been done a lot better as they now was forced to stay on 28nm way longer than calculated.

It wasnt dumb it was brilliant.
It was a calculated risk but the die shrink hurt them as their design clearly is superior to nvidias now.

 

[Carfax83]

Mantle 4 years at least and the die shrink that was suppose to happen 22nm etc...didnt happen while they couldnt have foreseen that which was the only drawback of their design choice it will now rise to something really good with windows 10.

What do you mean Mantle 4 years? Total development time perhaps. Mantle was announced in September 2013, and launched in February 2014. So it got about a year and a half worth of play for AMD, but the investment cost was probably in the millions of dollars..

Mantle wasn't around long enough, nor was it prevalent enough to really help AMD to grow their market share.

It was a brilliant plan and if the die shrink had happen they would been done a lot better as they now was forced to stay on 28nm way longer than calculated.

If it was brilliant, then AMD would not have lost so much market share to NVidia.

It was a calculated risk but the die shrink hurt them as their design clearly is superior to nvidias now.

Right, it's so clear that the Fury/Fury X with almost 9 billion transistors and the advantage of HBM still cannot trounce big Maxwell in performance, let alone performance per watt.

It's so clear that their design is superior, when Fury X has 45% more shaders than the 290x and water cooling, yet is only 25% faster on average..

You have a serious case of rose colored glasses dude..


We will not put up with your attitude. You obviously can't agree to disagree and have to resort to personal attacks.

-Rvenger

 

[Mondozei]

Not sure how this thread degenerated into an offtopic argument about Mantle but my 2 cents is that if you want to maximise bang for the buck, an aftermarket 290 is the way to go. If you're not allergic to buying a used card, this is even more so.

As for the GTX 980. There is a higher delta in 1080p than in 1440p, as for all Maxwell cards. Don't know why people bring up 1440p all the time, since it is a very, very marginal resolution(per the Steam survey). I guess it helps AMD more in benchmarks.

From TPU's GTA graph for 1080, the GTX 980 is about 12.4% faster than the 390X at stock speeds - and that is before overclocking, which is much better on the 980.

Still, I agree generally speaking that the 980/390X are both overkills. The 290 is imho still an amazing card giving amazing value if you can find it for sub-250 dollars.

 

[qookap]

The only thing we need is 60FPS on gaming...
I don't know GTX 980 with 1080p have any advantage.
I like playing game with Vsync.

Everyone looking at 1440p or 2180p because DSR(VSR) really helpful.

 

[Rvenger]

It looks like this thread is going nowhere and the OP had plenty of recommendations. Thread Closed


-Rvenger