I'm afraid this launch will get over-hyped and leave people disappointed.
I'm afraid this launch will get over-hyped and leave people disappointed.
The gauntlet has been thrown down:
http://www.techspot.com/review/977-nvidia-geforce-gtx-titan-x/
"The Titan X was 37% faster than the GTX 980 at 2560x1600 and 36% faster at 4K UHD.
The Titan X was also 47% faster than the R9 290X on average at 2560x1600 while it was just 36% faster at 3840x2160."
Yep. I'm starting to agree.
Just looking at the first titan info and that's very disappointing (mainly for absurd pricing but even 4k performance is on the weak side), I am starting to doubt the magical 60% increase over the 290x performance leaks.
Yep. I'm starting to agree.
Just looking at the first titan info and that's very disappointing (mainly for absurd pricing but even 4k performance is on the weak side), I am starting to doubt the magical 60% increase over the 290x performance leaks.
Is that using reference 290x/290? The review says "Gigabyte 290, 290x" so I'm not sure.
It can't be reference. Most of Gigabyte's 290 cards are Windforce, aren't they?
No new driver for AMD either remember. Have yet to see a driver since the beginning of December!
Anandtech review of the Titan X uses 15.3 drivers, new drivers will be coming on the 19th.
Are you kidding? Plenty of people folk out major $ for rigs just to play BF4 MP64 smoothly with no min fps dips below 60 fps.
When its a great game that you will be playing a lot of, the entire purpose of a gaming rig you build is just to give you the best experience/immersion from that game.
It can't be reference. Most of Gigabyte's 290 cards are Windforce, aren't they?
could someone tell me why 290x performs better than 980 in crysis 3??? is every other game made for nv gpus or is crysis 3 made for amd gpus?
It seems that HBM would have to really bring something special to the table to deliver on the expectations.
After reading the Titan X review.. I feel that HBM might not really give AMD a solid advantage because the performance benefits it seem is left largely to the actual shader core itself not the bandwidth (just look at the overclocking results from AT's review).
edit: nm, just techspot's charts.
something very interesting, reviews still using reference 290x on their charts
It can't be reference. Most of Gigabyte's 290 cards are Windforce, aren't they?
this is the only website that includes good custom amd cards in their reviews. it's review helped me with my 290 purchase it is what I use chrome for, to translate it to english
why not both? one test for the reference and one for one of the best custom cooled one like tri x or lightning.Not having a Tri-X or any other decent aftermarket 290x/290 in the review really makes it a lot more difficult to accurately gauge what a person buying a video card today should do. I get that they want to test the "Reference" card, but there's absolutely no reason not to add a line for a Tri-X 290(x). Just remove "uber" mode as its really pretty irrelevant as no one uses reference 290x's and its meant to show how it performs when its not throttling anyways.... The 290 and 290x are still the AMD high end competitors and those are the ones I can buy, today. No one in their right mind (who isn't watercooling) buys a reference 290 today or for the last year....