justsomekai

I watch yahtzee to hear the bad things about a game. That's kind of the point.

This topic terrifies me and everything just leaves me with

The D5 vario pump is basically one of the best go to pumps you can get for watercooling, it's made by Laing but others have rebranded them or have added features to them that the original did not have such as temp sensors or pump fail safe. It has high pressure and low noise especially for the variable speed version of the D5 one where you can turn down the speed and have it basically near silent.

They do the same job, but I feel safer with compression fittings. A lot of it is looks though. Unless you do some modding or something, compression fittings look much better than barbs. 

From AMD:
 
 
http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMDCatalyst14-11-2-BetaWINReleaseNotes.aspx
 
It's going to be awhile, just like Watch_Dogs

Nah Ubisoft Kiev couldn't even deliver Nvidia Hair Works monkeys at this time. This game is a stuttery mess on a OC Haswell with 2 GTX 980's. To be honest having SLI/xfire is freakin pointless in this game. It will get you 2x MSAA or 2TXAA  over SMAA, also add a little more stutter due to CPU and SMAA literally looks better at times. Somehow the AA is directly tied to CPU like Unity. MSAA sharpens the trees too much. TXAA blurs the picture too much. SMAA actually is a pretty good balance and no AA (just like Unity) is where the game will perform best. 
 
Basically OC a Haswell as high as you can and if you don't have one that can OC, don't bother getting this game unless you plan to run no AA and other options not at ultra, just like AC Unity. Mine prob runs better than Total Biscuit's hexa due to my OC and way better than the "benchmark video" shown here and I am on a R9 290. Nvidia God Rays? No performance hit for me. Soft Shadows same, but I think Ultra looks better.  Taking off motion blur can make the driving a little more bearable. 
 
None of the Nvidia option hurt performance at all for me except for Tree tessellation which was just added and I can only imagine was added to give Nvidia cards an edge. It is literally the most pointless setting in the world. You have to walk up to a tree stick your face right up to it, to notice it and it still makes damn near zero difference. If you are a couple feet away from a tree you literally can't tell at all. This is why CDPR refused Nvidia's input on using tessellation for everything in Witcher 3. They are using it on water only, cus that is about the only place it can make a difference. Good textures do not need tessellation and the tree textures in this game are very good at Ultra.

Don't bother trying to explain to fanboys.
 
They refuse to acknowledge that Nvidia had overheating problems with their earlier series but will bash AMD because fanboyism.

The only other GPU that's beats the 290x across the board at all resolutions in nearly all games would be the GTX 980, which costs around 250 dollars more in the US. The 780TI beats the 290x in most games at 1080p and falls slightly behind at 4k, but its limited by 3gb of VRAM for future games, costs more, draws nearly as much power, and is being discontinued. That leaves only the 970 to compete. Id put the two cards as about even in performance when you consider that most online benchmarks you see are comparing an overclocked 970 to a stock 290x with its shitty reference cooler. They both cost about the same two, although the 290x sometimes dips down and can be found cheaper if you are patient and shop around.
 
The downside of the 290x is it draws a lot of power. Heat is a non issue as long as you don't use the reference cooler and avoid a few of the low end non reference ones(which would still probably be more than adequate but can be avoided for little to no extra cost). The brands to go for are MSI, Sapphire, and Powercolor, (the PCS+ specifically, the other models aren't that great). Gigabyte and Asus will also do a decent job at cooling the 290x, but the previously mentioned companies do better.

I doubt it, but saying they will "run hotter" and "consume more power" is simply biased towards Nvidia.
 
I'm guessing the 390X will have a TDP of around 200-225W and the fact that they're using HBM contributes to the lower power. Also this is going to be on the 20nm node as well, IIRC Maxwell is still 28nm.
Plus with a new architecture, the stream processors could potentially be more efficient like we saw with Maxwell. If it actually turns out to have a 4096 SPs that would undoubtedly blow Nvidia out of the water.

Source 1: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.865107-Six-Year-Old-JRPG-Beats-Assassins-Creed-Unity-in-Steam-Charts
Source 2: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2m9zpd/
Source 3: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/11/12/valkyria-chronicles-jumps-to-the-top-of-steam-charts-on-its-first-day.aspx
 
Assassin's Creed Unity isn't even a week old yet, and it's being bombarded with hate (for good reasons). Whelp, recently a JRPG from 2008 got a PC port to Steam, and it's already beating AC: Unity in the Steam charts. The game in question in Valkyria Chronicles. Something like this should (in a somewhat normal circumstance) never happen. You would think that a AAA game would knock a JRPG out of the ball park in sales, but this time around it is completely different.
 
Hopefully this is an eye-opener for Ubisoft, but I doubt it is. 

itx 760 - $220
itx 285 - $260
 
760 min 34 max 56 avg 45 285 min 40 max 69 avg 56 (used mantle results for thief)   285 has 18% higher min framerate, 23% higher max framerate 24% higher average frame rate   285 is 18% more expensive. 285 costs more, but is the better value. (also cooler & quieter)

You guys don't understand.
 
Developers are just now understanding the power of consoles and the limitless capabilities of the cloud! Expect more games to look better on consoles. /s

~15 replies and nobody really talks about the results of the video... lol
 
I'm thinking all the nVidia fanboys on the forum don't like the fact that AMD made a GPU that runs cooler, quieter and faster.
 
On a more serious note; Not too surprised by the results. Knew the 285 was a little stronger to begin with. It also has a higher TDP of 190w vs. 170w in the 760, so there's that. The cooler on the Sapphire looks more robust and better designs vs. the MSI as well.
 
Just my two cents.

The comparison was absurd. The original Crysis did not run on x86 consoles with 4x less GPU power on a single card. It was also mind blowing graphically for years after. 
 
Comparing Star Citizen to Crysis would be more appropriate. Star Citizen is not going to run on a severely underpowered console.
 
Guild Wars 2 would be a better freakin example than AC Unity. Hundreds of PLAYERS on screen, instead of mindless npc's with no real AI, computer exclusive that has no chance in hell of running on either "next gen" console. 

Only way I see those GPU recommendations being needed is if they are pushing a TON of compute commands to the GPU, and those specs mean there is enough GPGPU power with the appropriate Cuda/OpenCL version available. If they aren't doing that on PC....then yeah, poor optimisations.

Did everyone who is posting actually watch the video?

He specifically mentions the 970 being $100 more than these two cards and specifically made the video to discuss itx videocards for itx situations for itx cases.

I have decoded Ubisoft's secret message that they've been issuing for a while now.
 
"Please do not buy our games anymore" -Ubisoft
 
Upon discovering this, I'm like "kay, never again".

Did everyone who is posting actually watch the video?

He specifically mentions the 970 being $100 more than these two cards and specifically made the video to discuss itx videocards for itx situations for itx cases.

AC Unity shouldnt be a good indicator that the current gen consoles arent powerful enough.
 
I mean, look at the PC recommended specs posted by Ubisoft.  Just poor optimization all around.