Hard to tell from these graphs, because no detail is given at quality levels, AA, etc.
Kind of worthless, honestly.
Hard to tell from these graphs, because no detail is given at quality levels, AA, etc.
Kind of worthless, honestly.
These are benchmarks AMD provides in their review guide.
PCGH has the table with the settings:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-R...no-Preise-Spezifikationen-Uebersicht-1162094/
3.5gb at LOWER levels
3.5gb at 198gb/s
.5 gb at 26gb/s
That is not 224gb/s you don't get to claim 4gb at 224gb/s.
Cod Advanced Warfare had to gimp all GPU to work around by limiting gpu vram to 75% (u can fix in config) because they didn't know why the 970 was messsed up when it used full vram (it has options to use full vram to increase framerates and storing more files)
I kept hearing 3 dates: 16th reveal, 18th review, 24 purchase
I guess it might be wrong.
If you read this thread fully people post things as truth that are pure speculationI kept hearing 3 dates: 16th reveal, 18th review, 24 purchase
I guess it might be wrong.
Some people don't want to be beat, whatever. Who cares, buy what you can afford and move on.Why is it so hard for some forum posters to believe that the Fury XT actually beats a GTX 980TI? though it's close?
Look at the Fury gpu, its HBM memory etc. Josh at PC Perspective has a great article released today about the architecture.
If both are from AMD (We know the E3 one is, but we only have PCW's word for the slide), then why would they show the card as performing worse at a lower resolution?
Maybe these benches were taken with a FX CPU? (I Kid, I kid).
Sounds odd and contradictory from the slide performance at E3. I guess wait for more official, and detailed benchmarks? I wish we had reviews this week!!
Maybe the E3 slide was with an overclocked Fury X?
That would be a ~20% overclock :biggrin::hmm::thumbsup::'wub:
And 35% over the 980Ti...
The funny thing is that who cares? The cards are neck and neck it seems and the 980ti came out earlier anyway. If you got one who cares what the fury is? You couldn't have known and you either a) wanted your gpu to play new games or b) wanted it because you like nvidia or whatever. Either way not a big deal.Why is it so hard for some forum posters to believe that the Fury XT actually beats a GTX 980TI? though it's close?
Look at the Fury gpu, its HBM memory etc. Josh at PC Perspective has a great article released today about the architecture.
I don't think they are exactly the same. The fury seems to do better. But to confirm I'm waiting for reports from reviewers next week.So the price is the same as the 980 Ti and the performance is basically the same? What does it come down to after that, which is more overclockable, runs at a lower temp, and better driver uspport?
So the price is the same as the 980 Ti and the performance is basically the same? What does it come down to after that, which is more overclockable, runs at a lower temp, and better driver uspport?
Hdmi 2.0So the price is the same as the 980 Ti and the performance is basically the same? What does it come down to after that, which is more overclockable, runs at a lower temp, and better driver uspport?
Hdmi 2.0
Of I had known this feature was missing I would have never followed this launch.
Maybe it was under clocked. Why does that computer look like a trash can?Maybe the E3 slide was with an overclocked Fury X?