Nvidia also has the option to create a GTX 970 Ti which is equivalent to the GTX 970 except with full L2 cache, ROPs, and memory controller - thus putting the 3.5 GB issue to rest once and for all.
Wait a minute, matching Titan X was positive? To me, this was a big negative: AMD needs to take the performance crown outright, and they need to take it by >10% to avoid being beaten by factory-overclocked GTX 980 Ti cards (and the hybrid-watercooled Titan X versions).
Was about to to throw in the towel and order that gigabyte 980ti as hearing how some here hype it up and it's potential performance seems top notch. But alas I'll wait for amd's reveal as the card can no longer be preordered. But the stickler is do I need a card this powerful when I only game at 1080p? I'm looking to upgrade from a 770. I need suggestions because while I can purchase these top end cards it might not be worthwhile.
Was about to to throw in the towel and order that gigabyte 980ti as hearing how some here hype it up and it's potential performance seems top notch. But alas I'll wait for amd's reveal as the card can no longer be preordered. But the stickler is do I need a card this powerful when I only game at 1080p? I'm looking to upgrade from a 770. I need suggestions because while I can purchase these top end cards it might not be worthwhile.
I read the first few pages of that "gtx 970 issues" thread...from what I was able to ascertain, they got to work on the drivers and now the card only slows down after you access that last .5gb. There was also an issue of RoP's I think... Though, as I said above, it's hard to be too mad at them considering that it has significantly outsold the r9 290 at a much higher price. If AMD had something that was competitive AND had similar heat/noise then jhh would have felt the damage in way that really matters to him: his wallet.
I hate to be the downer but my optimism is waning by the day. :| AMD almost needs a card 55-60% faster at 4K against the 290X to just keep up with an after-market 980Ti and based on guesstimates that would mean 1100mhz clocks with 4096 shaders. But then even if it does it, it still has 4GB of VRAM not 6 and it's likely going to use more power than a 980Ti OC. When things are this close, 50% extra VRAM and lower power usage sounds like a winning combination.
Why are FuryX Supply rumours of 30k units being compared to 970/980 when this card appears to be going head-to-head with TitanX? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to TitanX Supply?
then it would be a GTX 980
Why are FuryX Supply rumours of 30k units being compared to 970/980 when this card appears to be going head-to-head with TitanX? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to TitanX Supply?
If AMD brings any meaningful competition (still an open question at best), then Nvidia may drop the GTX 980 to $399. At that point it would be a reasonable choice, assuming that the R9 390X doesn't offer anything new. The GTX 980's massive advantage in features and perf/watt means that if its price was anywhere near that of the R9 390X, there would be absolutely no good reason to go with the AMD card (unless the Grenada respin is more than just a new stepping).
Nvidia has plenty of room to drop pricing on the GTX 980 while still maintaining good levels of profitability. Even $349 for the GTX 980 would still give Nvidia very respectable profit margins.
AMD may yet surprise us with the R9 390/X and R9 380. If they come up with something beyond just a new stepping, I'll be pleasantly surprised. But if not, then AMD will have to cut prices drastically from the leaked figures to get anyone to buy their rebrands. The added RAM might justify an extra $50 or so (even though it will be completely worthless in 90% of applications) - but that still means maybe $349 for the R9 390X and $299 for the R9 390. At those prices, AMD is still going to have trouble making a profit. The air-cooled Fury Pro, assuming what we've heard so far is accurate, might be a competitive product at $499 or so - but will AMD be making money on it at that price level, given the apparent expense and yield issues of first-generation HBM?
With only 4GB of RAM it isn't going to be viable competition for the Titan X, no matter what AMD might want..
We have no idea if this is true.
For those that don't care one iota about power consumption, it will still come down to best performance after both cards are OC'd. However, prices are similar and its pretty much a tie, but OC'd Fiji consumes 200 more watts than OC'd 980 TI........ well........ :/
With only 4GB of RAM it isn't going to be viable competition for the Titan X, no matter what AMD might want. Almost all gamers and review sites have flocked to the GTX 980 Ti now - the Titan X is only a factor at all if you need its 12GB of RAM for some reason, or if you absolutely want the very best card on the market and don't care how much it costs.
That said, Nvidia has been having some trouble keeping the GTX 980 Ti in stock, so this runs both ways...
That said, Nvidia has been having some trouble keeping the GTX 980 Ti in stock, so this runs both ways...
Brb not buying fiji because tubing isn't aesthetic enough..
I read the first few pages of that "gtx 970 issues" thread...from what I was able to ascertain, they got to work on the drivers and now the card only slows down after you access that last .5gb. There was also an issue of RoP's I think... Though, as I said above, it's hard to be too mad at them considering that it has significantly outsold the r9 290 at a much higher price.
True but would you take 5% faster Fiji OC with 150-200W more power, and yet has 50% less VRAM and probably lower resale value in 2 years considering most of the market is made up of NV loyalists who will money up used 980Ti with 6GB?
Not to mention the 30K number tells us nothing about supply on the Fury Pro. Low yields on the flagship part could just mean they'll have a lot more Fury Pros to sell. If the Pro is competitive with the 980 Ti, then this isn't such a bad situation for AMD.
I'm assuming there's going to be a large price difference between the Pro and XT so most people will be going with the step down card anyway.
The TX is irrelevant at this point anyway. The worst after-market 980TI is beating it per Hexus review and a good after-market 980TI from Gigabyte is just smashing it.
True but would you take 5% faster Fiji OC with 150-200W more power, and yet has 50% less VRAM and probably lower resale value in 2 years considering most of the market is made up of NV loyalists who will money up used 980Ti with 6GB? Also, the 980Ti does have a free $25 game. If NV didn't try to shove proprietary tech down our throats, didn't act arrogant with 970 ROP-gate fiasco, didn't try to lock PC gamers into GSync, didn't try to nuke mobile GPU overclocking, didn't throw Kepler under the bus by neglecting its drivers, the decision would be a lot easier for me given that an after-market 980Ti looks like child's play to overclock to >1.4Ghz. A lot of gamers don't care about these things I mentioned though which means Fiji really needs to deliver a definitive win over 980Ti, something in the magnitude of 10-15% faster at 4K vs. a reference 980Ti.
BTW, just wanted to point this point out: Notice how the objective PC gamers ARE comparing after-market 980Ti to a Fiji card, but NV owners would rarely do the same with after-market 7970/7970Ghz/R9 290/290X against NV's products over the last 3.5 years. Pretty obvious to spot the non-objective buyers who constantly ignored the existence of after-market GCN cards over the last 3.5 years.
This only matters for simple minded buyers who see bigger numbers and lose their minds. Or for that matter, people who think Furmark has any relevance on anything, ever. Informed buyers who aren't loyalists to either brand will buy whatever gives them what they want, at the price they're willing to pay.