As for TR I don't think you really get what they are saying.
Seems to me they gets that 960 and 285 perform basically the same at approximately the same price. However the 960 uses less power and has a better video block so the 960 edges out over the 285. The 290 is mentioned as well but the conclusion focuses on the 960.
If anything I strongly disagree with your conclusion. The most likely senario was that TR got a lot of flack for not recommending the 290/970 in the 960 article and then changed their procedure to recommend them in later reviews. However...some people love to cry bias.
The 380x is a filler. No problem with that.
No there is a problem, there is no NVIDIA alternative to counter 380X and people dont like it.
Edit: Where is AT review ?
He gets it, but the point is that in the 380X review they prioritized price/performance and recommended the 970, but here they focus mainly on the merits of the card that they are actually reviewing. Your explanation for why just... Well, it's not very good. Did you also notice how their review suite favors Nvidia, including Fallout 4 in spite of it being so poorly optimized at the moment?
AT has completely dropped the ball with reviews in the past year. It's a rare treat when they review something, and it's pretty much only the top cards.
Could of swore I thought Ryan said that the review will be on Monday.
Though, I also recall him saying that they only review cards AMD sends them, and since there are no reference 380X designed ones, I thought they wouldn't review them.
::shrug::
The real issue here is, that older cards (290's) can still beat the 380X, and at a much lower price.
There is no getting around that fact.
Did you also notice how their review suite favors Nvidia, including Fallout 4 in spite of it being so poorly optimized at the moment?
Fallout 4?
Which is pretty much the most played AAA release at this point in time?
Only reason they must be using it is because Nvidia does well. Obviously.
Or just ignore the fact that other terribly optimized buggy games at release were also included in reviews at earlier times because they were so popular - Skyrim.
Fallout 4 deserves to be in every benchmark suite because it is the most popular PC game currently, outside of MOBAs.
Its not like AMD wasn't aware of how big it would be. The underlying engine runs great on their hardware already as the years of experience in Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas has shown.
I disagree. fallout 4 does not deserve to be there as a measure to be applied to modern games. As a benchmark by itself, sure. But GPU reviews are taken more generally than some turd of a game.
There are enough fallout 4 benchmarks out there and there will be more. F4 benchmarks only apply to F4. Most other games with similar graphics in 2015 would be running 500 fps. witcher 3 and gta more than cover the open world expectations from developers who aren't on crack half the time.
Nope. With how much time we're going to sink into this game as a gaming community, it deserves to be there. I've already put in 24+ hours into the game and I'm sure others on here even more. I could easily see myself putting 100 hours in this first playthrough minimum, and my second playthrough with mods (assuming this game gets modded), probably even more as I enjoy the gorgeous landscape and replay the game in 4K/Freesync.
Definitely should be there, just like Witcher 3 should be there, just like GTA should be there.
Fallout 4 deserves to be in every benchmark suite because it is the most popular PC game currently, outside of MOBAs.
Its not like AMD wasn't aware of how big it would be. The underlying engine runs great on their hardware already as the years of experience in Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Vegas has shown.
How do you consider product that was years ahead of the industry in API support outdated?
If you primarily run Gameworks you likely will only buy nVidia regardless. The games with Gameworks are generally poorly done and the ones that aren't run fine on AMD. Just need to do your own optimizing with control panel settings.
1, GameWorks games are only a minority. That hardly makes the majority of games.
If you care about perf/watt you should appreciate the ~20% improvement of the 380X over Tahiti. Since you don't, I can't take this complaint too seriously.
If you have an OEM system without a pcie, you need more than a new video card.
2, Fury and especially Fury Nano are very perf/watt competitive
3, R7 370 only has a single 6pin connector.
If you use a 4K TV as a monitor instead of a proper monitor you don't really care about performance since they are just a lagfest. Besides the 380X or equivalent nVidia card isn't fast enough to run 60Hz @ 4K anyway. Not really relevant.
There are actually some 4K TVs now that have reasonably decent latency measurements. And you're also overlooking desktop use and HTPC where that stuff doesn't matter as much.
Why do people act as if running even desktop applications @ 30Hz is fine? It is very noticeable, and not in a good way.
Why do people act as if running even desktop applications @ 30Hz is fine? It is very noticeable, and not in a good way.
Nope. With how much time we're going to sink into this game as a gaming community, it deserves to be there. I've already put in 24+ hours into the game and I'm sure others on here even more. I could easily see myself putting 100 hours in this first playthrough minimum, and my second playthrough with mods (assuming this game gets modded), probably even more as I enjoy the gorgeous landscape and replay the game in 4K/Freesync.
Definitely should be there, just like Witcher 3 should be there, just like GTA should be there.
Quote:
It's outdated compared to Maxwell. The fact that it held up better than Kepler is beside the point, because Kepler is no longer the competition.
It's not at all outdated compared to Maxwell. It still offers better DX12 API support (don't confuse API support with DX12_1 feature level.) Maybe Pascal will catch up?
Or you could buy an Nvidia card and not have to deal with these compromises. Which is what most buyers do.
Anyone who plays them has do deal with it. They run like crap on both brands. Poor performance for the graphical fidelity is not only with AMD. It's just nVidia wins the benchmark comparison. That's all nVidia cares about. They couldn't care less about you or the game.
They may be a minority of games and many of them may be poorly coded, but people still play them. That's what matters.
How is that what matters? The games are poor. That matters.
There is no such improvement. With the exception of Fiji, AMD's performance per watt has gotten worse with each iteration on 28nm.
I can't find a pref/W comparison with the 7950 because it's too old now. You look at it compared to the 280X it's much improved. Your statement that it's gotten worse with each iteration is simply not true.
It's true that if AMD released a Tonga card that was run at reasonable settings, it would probably have better perf/watt than Tahiti. But the only thing that comes close is the $619 FirePro W7100, and that's clearly not priced for the mass market.
Probably have better perf/W? Is it that hard to admit?
Why? There are plenty of OEM boxes with decent CPUs (i5 or better) but crappy integrated graphics. For these, a GTX 750 Ti can make the difference between barely being able to play at all, and being able to play at 1080p low or mid settings with decent FPS. We're not the target market for this, but there are plenty of people who want such an upgrade.
The PSU will simply be poor quality in a rig like you've described. That's the issue. Not the number of PCIe connections on the card.
have to use a new and expensive memory technology
Since when is newer and better tech a bad thing? Just because nVidia is behind in memory tech, as usual? Reminds me of the "Fury requires watercooling" argument.
The R7 370 is not a serious entry in the 1x6pin market. It's an ancient rebrand that gets beaten by a substantial margin by the GTX 960 in terms of gaming performance, and absolutely demolished in terms of features. GM206 is Nvidia's newest and most feature-filled chip; Pitcairn is AMD's oldest and most obsolete. The fact that AMD doesn't take this market seriously is indicated by the fact that the R7 370 is actually worse than the R9 270, which at least offered the full Pitcairn and not a cut-down version. AMD *could* have pitched the Nano at this market, but for some reason they decided to set the power limit at 175W instead of 150W and thus put it out of the segment.
Completely O/T. It has nothing to do with the 380X.
There are actually some 4K TVs now that have reasonably decent latency measurements.
Good monitors are less than 10ms. TV's are not good monitors. They never have been.
There are cards that are almost 2x as fast as the 380X and most people consider them too slow for 4K. Cards at it's performance level are 1080 level cards. Are you really seriously talking 4K performance when it's like this?
It's true that the Fiji cards have reasonably competitive perf/watt, but they have to use a new and expensive memory technology simply to match what Nvidia can accomplish with standard GDDR5. Now that AMD has decided to stop selling video cards at a loss, that means that the few AMD parts that are competitive in perf/watt can no longer win the price war with Nvidia. And if the price points are the same, most people will go with Nvidia, like it or not.
nvidia had to decapitate their cards to attain that efficiency so it works both ways. I prefer AMDs approach with GCN 1.1 and 1.2. They always had more grunt but similar power requirements as kepler and now Maxwell 2 while retaining the bits nvidia cut for efficiency.
How is that better? You prefer more hardware that is wasted over less hardware that is efficient?