What will be AMD'S next Move?

[SolMiester]

RS!

WOW, that wall of text was so big, I got bored reading it, it was like? Did you really just write that or paste it from your pre saved scripts? awesome!..I'm sorry I've lost mine somewhere here, and it takes hours to get all those US price, fact and figures together again! You win!

LOL

You can have a day off for your callout.

-Rvenger

 

[iiiankiii]

RS!

WOW, that wall of text was so big, I got bored reading it, it was like? Did you really just write that or paste it from your pre saved scripts? awesome!..I'm sorry I've lost mine somewhere here, and it takes hours to get all those US price, fact and figures together again! You win!

LOL

Unlike your arguments, his post is well structured and have evidences to back up his claims. Just agree to disagree and be done with it. No need to poke fun. I enjoy reading his wall of text; not your condescending post.

 

[Fastx]

I enjoy reading his wall of text

+1

 

[SolMiester]

Unlike your arguments, his post is well structured and have evidences to back up his claims. Just agree to disagree and be done with it. No need to poke fun. I enjoy reading his wall of text; not your condescending post.

Oh hey, it's great reading.....the first time!

 

[loccothan]

I will wait until R390X WC is on Sale (that will be Q1-2 2015 100% ;-)
Abd then i will decide.
For now 85% Games runs smooth in 1920:1440 85Hz the rest on 1792:1344 85Hz
Everything on Ultra + Med AA or no AA (I dont need this on my screen badly ;-)

 

[SimianR]

RS!

WOW, that wall of text was so big, I got bored reading it, it was like? Did you really just write that or paste it from your pre saved scripts? awesome!..I'm sorry I've lost mine somewhere here, and it takes hours to get all those US price, fact and figures together again! You win!

LOL

I really prefer reading a well constructed post than a drive by post that we get over and over that really are nothing more than people cheerleading for their preferred GPU company. Maybe Russian wouldn't have to repeat himself so much if there was actually some constructive criticism and or responses to his posts vs "lol AMD can't compete!". What I'm really noticing more and more on these forums is that it's pretty obvious that there's certain individuals that really just aren't comfortable with their choice of video card and seem to go out of their way to have to convince others that they made a bad purchase. Guess what guys.. both companies make great cards and both have their pros and cons. Both companies have also been around for many years and wouldn't have gotten this far without being able to compete.

 

[raghu78]

I really prefer reading a well constructed post than a drive by post that we get over and over that really are nothing more than people cheerleading for their preferred GPU company. Maybe Russian wouldn't have to repeat himself so much if there was actually some constructive criticism and or responses to his posts vs "lol AMD can't compete!". What I'm really noticing more and more on these forums is that it's pretty obvious that there's certain individuals that really just aren't comfortable with their choice of video card and seem to go out of their way to have to convince others that they made a bad purchase. Guess what guys.. both companies make great cards and both have their pros and cons. Both companies have also been around for many years and wouldn't have gotten this far without being able to compete.

very well said. :thumbsup:

 

[Gikaseixas]

RS!

WOW, that wall of text was so big, I got bored reading it, it was like? Did you really just write that or paste it from your pre saved scripts? awesome!..I'm sorry I've lost mine somewhere here, and it takes hours to get all those US price, fact and figures together again! You win!

LOL

RS post are infinitely more interesting than yours, that's for sure. Stop being so childish for once.

He's one of the reasons many enjoy coming here (to get informed or debate with).

On topic now, I think we just saw a move from them, prices are much lower now for the 290 but 290x needs to come down a bit more.
20 nm cards should complete AMD's answer to the formidable 900 series

 

[SlowSpyder]

This is exactly the problem you were complaining about in your previous post. You praised 7970 OCing and said that Nvidia fans would never acknowledge it.

But then in your next post you're going on about how an R9 290 is as fast as a Titan even though after OCs are taken into account even the 290X can't beat the original Titan. The original Titan has one of the biggest OCing headrooms in GPU history. Mine can run at 1400MHz and bench at 1500MHz. Approx 50% higher than the stock speeds which fluctuate between 863MHz and 980MHz.

After OCing:

GTX 980 > GTX 780Ti classifieds > GTX Titan > GTX Titan Black > GTX 780Ti > R9 290X > GTX 970 > GTX 780 > R9 290.

I bet average overclock vs. average overclock, the R9 290X is still equal or faster than Titan. If it is slower, I doubt it is very far behind. The difference is, even overclocked the $1000 Titan probably still isn't great bang for the buck. If an average overclocked Titan is 10% faster than an average overclocked R9 290X, it is still a $1000 card vs. a card that started life at just over half that.

 

[wand3r3r]

This is exactly the problem you were complaining about in your previous post. You praised 7970 OCing and said that Nvidia fans would never acknowledge it.

But then in your next post you're going on about how an R9 290 is as fast as a Titan even though after OCs are taken into account even the 290X can't beat the original Titan. The original Titan has one of the biggest OCing headrooms in GPU history. Mine can run at 1400MHz and bench at 1500MHz. Approx 50% higher than the stock speeds which fluctuate between 863MHz and 980MHz.

After OCing:

GTX 980 > GTX 780Ti classifieds > GTX Titan > GTX Titan Black > GTX 780Ti > R9 290X > GTX 970 > GTX 780 > R9 290.

The average titan oc is only ~1074/1964MHz on over 4,000 overclocks.
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_titan/

The average 290x is 1143/1596MHz based on about the same number of over 4,000 overclocks.

We know that clock for clock the 290x is faster and the average 290x is 70 MHz more than the titan based on a sample of over 4k.

It doesn't look like the titan even beats a card half it's price, oc vs. oc.

 

[Keysplayr]

The average titan oc is only ~1074/1964MHz on over 4,000 overclocks.
http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_titan/

The average 290x is 1143/1596MHz based on about the same number of over 4,000 overclocks.

We know that clock for clock the 290x is faster and the average 290x is 70 MHz more than the titan based on a sample of over 4k.

It doesn't look like the titan even beats a card half it's price, oc vs. oc.

That really didn't address what you quoted there. Kind of went off on a tangent. He is right though, you won't acknowledge.

 

[SperglordActual]

I will wait until R390X WC is on Sale (that will be Q1-2 2015 100% ;-)
Abd then i will decide.
For now 85% Games runs smooth in 1920:1440 85Hz the rest on 1792:1344 85Hz
Everything on Ultra + Med AA or no AA (I dont need this on my screen badly ;-)

I dunno about Q1, I would think it'd be Q2 at the earliest but I'm basing this on the fact that AMD keeps throwing around "the first half" of 2015. Some of the trashier rumor sites are also claiming that the 380x will drop first but who knows. I certainly would like the 390x to drop sooner rather than later.

RS post are infinitely more interesting than yours, that's for sure. Stop being so childish for once.

He's one of the reasons many enjoy coming here (to get informed or debate with).

On topic now, I think we just saw a move from them, prices are much lower now for the 290 but 290x needs to come down a bit more.
20 nm cards should complete AMD's answer to the formidable 900 series

+1 for RS

I really want to see what the 390x and HBM (perhaps by their powers combined we get single card 4k?) and GM200 are capable of.

 

[wand3r3r]

That really didn't address what you quoted there. Kind of went off on a tangent. He is right though, you won't acknowledge.

What exactly are you going off about? I just proved that oc titan vs. oc 290x results in the 290x leading, based off 10,000 samples. The original titan gets beaten even by the 290x oc vs. oc.

Please explain your little tangent since I clearly refuted his claim that "even the 290X can't beat the original Titan." as well as "The original Titan has one of the biggest OCing headrooms in GPU history".

10,000 samples beg to differ.

 

[raghu78]

What exactly are you going off about? I just proved that oc titan vs. oc 290x results in the 290x leading, based off 10,000 samples. The original titan gets beaten even by the 290x oc vs. oc.

Please explain your little tangent since I clearly refuted his claim that "even the 290X can't beat the original Titan." as well as "The original Titan has one of the biggest OCing headrooms in GPU history".

10,000 samples beg to differ.

you are wasting your time arguing with a nvidia focus group member. :thumbsup: so just leave it.

Infraction issued for member callout.
-- stahlhart

 

[Keysplayr]

What exactly are you going off about? I just proved that oc titan vs. oc 290x results in the 290x leading, based off 10,000 samples. The original titan gets beaten even by the 290x oc vs. oc.

Please explain your little tangent since I clearly refuted his claim that "even the 290X can't beat the original Titan." as well as "The original Titan has one of the biggest OCing headrooms in GPU history".

10,000 samples beg to differ.

I'll certainly try. Give me a few days and I'll either agree or disagree with your claims.

 

[96Firebird]

:thumbsdown: tpu is a joke of a website.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_780_Ti_Classified/24.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/25.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/28.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_780_Ti_Classified/27.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_980_Gaming/28.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_780_Ti_Classified/27.html

LOL!

BTW - HardOCP showed the 7970 16.8% faster on single-displays compared to the 580 at launch. Where else should I look? :sneaky:

 

[SirPauly]

6) While 680 undercut the 7970 by $50, this only lasted for 2 months. After that 7970 and 7970Ghz cost less than 680 2GB and especially 4GB. 2.5 years after 680's launch, the 2GB versions are approaching "worthless status" while 7970 3GB OC has another year of life left in it. Of course NV users will deny and continue denying that for most of 680's life and 770's life, Tahiti provided far superior performance/$ and undercut 680 for most of 680's life.

Using your examples of how you define demanding games:

vs. TechSpot's review again of 970/980 vs. 290/290X in Crysis 2's successor Crysis 3 - one of the most demanding games.

Metro Last Light - another very demanding game

You go on-and-on about the prowess of the HD 7970 and offer the wording worthless for the GTX 680/770 and with your own examples of demanding games the worthless GPU's offer more performance. And these worthless Kepler GPU's have the ability of DSR, which I am enjoying with my worthless GTX 670.

 

[raghu78]

LOL!

TPU's HD 7970 and GTX 580 perf averages and perf/$ are calculated by using results at resolutions like 1024 x 768 which is utter rubbish. I stand by my view on that.

BTW - HardOCP showed the 7970 16.8% faster on single-displays compared to the 580 at launch. Where else should I look? :sneaky:

the reality is the average perf difference was greater than the avg price difference. so telling HD 7970 had same perf/$ as GTX 580 at launch is just your bias at work.

 

[96Firebird]

TPU's HD 7970 and GTX 580 perf averages and perf/$ are calculated by using results at resolutions like 1024 x 768 which is utter rubbish. I stand by my view on that.

Go back and notice how I used numbers from the 1200p and 1600p resolutions only...

the reality is the average perf difference was greater than the avg price difference. so telling HD 7970 had same perf/$ as GTX 580 at launch is just your bias at work.

If you think less than 5% difference is meaningful, more power to ya!

 

[SlowSpyder]

That really didn't address what you quoted there. Kind of went off on a tangent. He is right though, you won't acknowledge.

I'm not sure, how doesn't it? He's showing, with a large sample size, that the Titan doesn't offer better bang for the buck, even overclocked, than other cards. So RS, who's always been quite consistent with his bang for the buck posts, so much so that he's one of the few who often recommends two slower and lower priced cards for SLI/CF over a higher priced card, doesn't recommend Titan as a gaming card despite it's supposed overclocking prowess (which a sample size of one says it reaches 1500Mhz on average, a sample size of thousands says they run at under 1100MHz overclocked, in general). The R9 290 can overclock fairly decently too. What do you feel needs to be addressed, maybe I'm not getting it..?

LOL!

BTW - HardOCP showed the 7970 16.8% faster on single-displays compared to the 580 at launch. Where else should I look? :sneaky:

16.8% faster, and how much more expensive was it? (hint: ~10%) I'm not trying to argue or drag this thing off topic (though I think AMD has made their moves, probably not doing much more, so this is kind of a dead topic at this point). But the 7970 was clearly NOT the reason for video card prices inflating over the last few years.

 

[raghu78]

You go on-and-on about the prowess of the HD 7970 and offer the wording worthless for the GTX 680/770 and with your own examples of demanding games the worthless GPU's offer more performance. And these worthless Kepler GPU's have the ability of DSR, which I am enjoying with my worthless GTX 670.

the 2GB VRAM limit which RS is talking about is now showing up in next gen games like Watchdogs, Ryse Son of Rome. Tahiti was and is more futureproof than GTX 680/ GTX 770 2GB.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014/08/18/watch_dogs_performance_image_quality_review/6#.VD0cVslh71U

"Moving down to 1920x1080 is a lot easier on cards in this game, but VRAM still dictates whether you will have a smooth experience at "Ultra" textures or not. The GeForce GTX 770 with 2GB had to be set to "High" textures even at 1080p. Trying to run at "Ultra" textures was marked with stutter and lag. In terms of performance though it was able to handle "Ultra" settings, Temporal SMAA and HBAO+ just fine. If only it had more VRAM, that is holding it back.

The AMD Radeon R9 280X is slower than the GTX 770, we had to set MHBAO, we could not play at HBAO+. However, its advantage is being able to run the game with "Ultra" textures at 1080p, as well as Temporal SMAA and "Ultra" settings."

"Though R9 280X was slower than GTX 770, the fact it can run "Ultra" textures gave it a better gameplay experience in this game at 1080p. If you are going for 1080p gaming, the better card is a factory overclocked R9 280X, it will be able to achieve "Ultra" textures and if overclocked may be able to achieve HBAO+ at the same level as GTX 770."

btw Watchdogs is a TWIMTBP title.

 

[Wild Thing]

He doesn't need your advice his posts are excellent and well worth reading, all the words.

I agree....well said.
Russian's posts are quality stuff and I read them all.

 

[Gloomy]

Yeah, the VRAM automatically makes Tahiti a better GPU than GK104. But even without it, I think recent games show that Tahiti is going to have a clear advantage performance wise going forward, probably because of consoles. But not wholly because of them. All that developers talk about nowadays is compute, compute, compute.

Tahiti smash.

 

[raghu78]

Go back and notice how I used numbers from the 1200p and 1600p resolutions only...

If you think less than 5% difference is meaningful, more power to ya!

you picked the website which suited your biased view. I showed you other websites which showed a much larger difference. hwc and computerbased showed avg 20 - 25% . want more

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/848-25/recapitulatif-performances.html
http://www.sweclockers.com/recension/14844-amd-radeon-hd-7970/17#pagehead

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Card-Review-Tahiti-28nm/Conclusions-and-Final

"At $50 more than the GeForce GTX 580, a difference of 10%, the HD 7970's performance actually warrants this price - Tahiti offers performance improvements over the GeForce GTX 580 averaging 23%. "

see for 1 website of yours I showed 5 which avg around 25%. so stop acting smart.

 

[stahlhart]

Closing thread that has no hope of ever getting back on topic.
-- stahlhart