This presumes that the leakers are trying to help AMD.
I think the reality is these sites are just trying to drive clicks. We are all too eager to snap up every little crumb they drop.
Then tell the AMD leakers to post other benches... :biggrin:
We can only go with what we are shown.
If you want to help AMD out with a leak, why would you post FS or Heaven numbers if they are not representative of actual performance?
Are the leakers stupid?
If you are able to run a Fiji card, then run something else and leak that.
Until then, we will argue, fuss, and debate about what we have been given to work with. :whiste:
This presumes that the leakers are trying to help AMD.
I think the reality is these sites are just trying to drive clicks. We are all too eager to snap up every little crumb they drop.
If both companies can get another 50% out of the same node, color me impressed. The 980 Ti and Titan X are already very impressive for 28nm. If AMD can reach the same ballpark, id say they both did a marvelous job of working within the constraints of the seemingly unending 28nm node
They did this by making the die size gigantic.
This presumes that the leakers are trying to help AMD.
I think the reality is these sites are just trying to drive clicks. We are all too eager to snap up every little crumb they drop.
If I wanted to drive clicks up, I wouldn't invent a tied benchmark score.
I'd either invent a really fast Fury, or a Fury that is only marginally faster than a 290X. :biggrin:
Doesn't look like a joke at Anand bench. 980 still seems to have a decent lead over the 290X.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1439?vs=1442
Several 980 versions are now $479 or $489 at Newegg with a rebate, and Zotac has one at $479.00 without a rebate. Still get the free games, too.
Prices might be lower elsewhere, Newegg tends to be a little high.
980 prices are dropping, I guess.
Honestly, it won't matter what the results are. Just posting anything about Fury vs Titan will get the desired clicks.
Looks like it's roughly the 10% difference that w1zzard shows between 980 and r290x. Seems like AMD could just use iterative clock improvements and the new Ram to go from 10% behind to 10% ahead of 980 and call that a 390x...which would explain why they've been so tight-lipped thus far.
Man I live in Houston, Texas and I couldn't give two shits less about how much heat a card puts out. A little feminine to nitpick 30W of usage if you ask me.
It's interesting you would link up some obscure site with overclocked 970s while back-handedly questioning the integrity of virtually all western review sites. The constant conspiracy theory thing gets old, and frankly it makes you and your references much more questionable than anything else.
AT has a long reputation of exposing poor business practices. The most recent includes determining how phone makers were borking benchmarks by having the OS detect a bench is being run and pushing the phone beyond normal thermal limits.
They did a lot of research to determine that. What did your site do? Nothing. That's right. Not ... one ... thing.
This is what AnandTech and Tom's sites say about R9 290 vs GTX 970 power, noise, and heat. They are both within a few watts of each other.
These two sites are some of the oldest I know of, with some of the best reputations in the enthusiast community.
Yup. Bought a car in April, apartment garage flooded the other week. Well win some you lose some hahaHa, I'm in SA but I lived in Houston for 7 yrs. I really cared about power/heat when I had my office upstairs in its own room, but now I only care about noise as I'm downstairs in a very large/open area.
Some weather we've had lately.
The reference GTX 980 only goes up to 190W even in FurMark (in gaming, it peaks at 184W, so the FurMark figure isn't even that far out of normal usage). This indicates that it's running up against the power limit - which is how cards are supposed to be designed.
You're probably thinking of this screwed-up Gigabyte GTX 980 which I linked to in the past. That card does indeed go up to an insane 342W on FurMark, which is enough to violate the PCIe specification (the card has one 8-pin and one 6-pin connector, which is a total of 300W allowed power usage). But none of the other 980 cards do this, which means that Gigabyte screwed up by disabling the power limiter entirely on this card.
Again, I reject the argument that an actual program you can run on your system somehow doesn't count just because the vendors don't like the results. If AMD doesn't like it, then they should be using the built-in power limit function to cap power usage, just as Nvidia does with their reference designs.
I wish that someone would release an actual game based on the FurMark engine just so that this argument ("it doesn't count") goes away.
1. Computerbase.de is not an obscure site. It's been widely regarded as one of the most professional GPU hardware review sites. Just because they are not based out of U.S., doesn't mean they are obsure. You sound like a typical American who hasn't left his country, or maybe his continent and lives in his own little world.
I hope AMD pulls this off and the top Fury part smashes Titan X. I am sitting without GPUs waiting to see how they do. It's either Fury X CF or classified 980ti SLI for me and I want new cards before the end of the month.
It's taken them forever to release these cards. After this much time this thing better be good. I just want to see benches already and fingers crossed it's the real deal with performance, and that the full reference waterblock cooling is easily removed and custom blocks can be made for the cards.
I honestly don't see the need for amd to be that way if they made a gpu that is 10% faster than 980 and cost 200$ less.Looks like it's roughly the 10% difference that w1zzard shows between 980 and r290x. Seems like AMD could just use iterative clock improvements and the new Ram to go from 10% behind to 10% ahead of 980 and call that a 390x...which would explain why they've been so tight-lipped thus far.
I honestly don't see the need for amd to be that way if they made a gpu that is 10% faster than 980 and cost 200$ less.
that is 10% faster and 200$ less(price is rumored, but so is everything we are talking about ). why would amd need to be tight lipped about a gpu like that?
They did this by making the die size gigantic.
So?
If the performance is 50% better, and power usage remains the same, that's still an impressive showing without a node shrink.
What's with you and furmark? It almost feels like you just using it because it helps to confirm what you already thought. NV clearly has a tdp advantage these days, you're actually hurting your own argument by quoting useless information in an attempt to support it.
This is the first time in a long time that I disagree with you on something, but that post really bothers me. Just because the other guy is being obtuse (and quite possibly working for his check from a certain company) is no reason for you to insult Americans in general... not everybody from the US or Canada is a world traveler like us, no need to insult those who live in the stix and don't get out much.
I hope that 390 is really good, but based upon past experience this seems like a faint hope.
This is the craziest run up to a product launch for us enthusiasts I can remember...
If it is as mega boss as we are hoping, hopefully card stocks are high, and shipping fast.
I am not disagreeing with you. just attacking bryan's point.Because they want the highest impact, which will come via their E3 PR event.
Controlling the message is a key part of a marketing strategy.
My guess is that they care more about the future holiday season than the current quarter.
Yeah, it's kinda fun TBH. I don't like all the "facts" being spread around but it does drive the clicks.