Use possibly fake chart, taken from AMD Reddit, made by AMD fanboys. Sounds legit.
Threadcrapping is not permitted.
-Rvenger
Last edited by a moderator:
this should be posted in every amd vs nv thread. it is that relevant. especially in threads where people who ask for help in what to buy.
Use possibly fake chart, taken from AMD Reddit, made by AMD fanboys. Sounds legit.
they did with thatYes, because it is so probable that nVidia fanboys would make such a chart and post it on nvidia reddit!
Those changes are somewhat misleading at best. For instance the first box says correctly that 780Ti lost the performance lead. However 290x performance did not increase 138% over 2.5 year. That is patently mis-stated. Furthermore the way the performance difference is calculated is technically correct, but hugely magnifies the relative change in performance. What it is really showing is the change in the difference.
Again looking at the 780Ti, over 2.5 years the 290x went from 90.3 percent of the performance of 780Ti to 103.7% of the performance. So calculating the true difference in performance, not just the change in the difference, gives only a 15% gain in absolute performance.
they did with that
yep, it should be included in every recommend a gpu thread.The numbers in the summary are indeed highly misleading, so to fix this I made a corrected table:
The original source isn't Reddit btw, it's NeoGAF, and the numbers are apparently from TPU.
yep, it should be included in every recommend a gpu thread.
Just to verify though, this is using the same model card throughout the testing right? Not using a blower and then an AIB model later or anything.
All numbers should be from reference cards. The numbers are apparently from TPU, from the following reviews:
2013 numbers (780 Ti, 780, 760)
2015 numbers (Kepler GPUs, Maxwell GPUs)
2016 numbers (all GPUs)
Furthermore he (Wachie from NeoGAF) used 1080P numbers.
Edit: I just had a look through the above review, and it would appear that Wachie has a rather flawed understanding of how to calculate percentages, as most of his numbers (and some of his dates) were wrong. So once again I present a corrected table:
All numbers should be from reference cards. The numbers are apparently from TPU, from the following reviews:
2013 numbers (780 Ti, 780, 760)
2015 numbers (Kepler GPUs, Maxwell GPUs)
2016 numbers (all GPUs)
Furthermore he (Wachie from NeoGAF) used 1080P numbers.
Edit: I just had a look through the above review, and it would appear that Wachie has a rather flawed understanding of how to calculate percentages, as most of his numbers (and some of his dates) were wrong. So once again I present a corrected table:
yep, it should be included in every recommend a gpu thread.
You should add the launch prices to each as well, since the $550 290x was going up against the $700 780 TI.
Would be interesting to see 290 vs 780 (ti) as well.
My time at GAF has told me that place is an NV den. Any pro-AMD post gets slaughtered and doesn't even get that big, yet NV threads hit 30+ pages.
I wouldn't trust any technical analysis from GAF personally. And if the poster showing errors is right, I'm not surprised.
Hopefully this will be enough to satisfy both of you (includes prices, alternative comparisons, formulas used, and clear links to the sources for all numbers):
I used 1440P numbers for the 980 Ti vs Fury X and the 980 vs Fury comparisons, since that seemed more relevant.
If the rumours of Pascal not having many changes compared to Maxwell pan out its likely we will see similar trends moving forward.Very nice charts. It will be interesting to see if this pattern repeats itself in the next generation. No guarantee of that happening.