HashtagFTW

Ummm I don't know if you're talking about the memory configuration of the 970 specifically or the whole fast memory + slow memory thing, but I'm pretty sure the 660 ti was also 1.5 + 0.5 slow memory

Ah, I meant "lose" as in I had nothing to reply with, not "I was wrong dammit" I knew how the extra memory worked on the 970 thanks to the gazillion youtubers covering it, just didn't know how the 980 Ti differed from the 970. Thanks!

errr so I lose?

thing is he's showing me the 970 / 980 diagram + 980 ti / TX diagram and telling me that they are the same structure-wise so it's impossible for them to be different. How do I counter that?

read who the op is

So, I'm currently arguing with a guy that believes that the ramgate thing also applies to the 980 ti, and while looking for sources to prove him wrong, I couldn't find any except the thread on ltt by skullbringer. So I need some help with finding more reliable sources. (if there is any) Help?

I mean, why you asking us? If you can't tell much of a difference, don't... If you can / have fps to spare, why not?

I would like to switch back to a claw grip (hopefully) after being forced to use a palm grip with my mouse.

Ok then. We can both agree on that. But I still wasn't trying to cherry pick

But you also said the Fury X edged out both the 980 Ti / Titan X, which I don't think any of the sites did besides kitguru / ones well within margin of error. I was also pretty damn sure I saw the 4k numbers from Tech Report, but I guess I got things messed up with the AMD 4k article and the review. As for Tweaktown, I didn't actually look at the review since the site was down at the time, just some repost from a forum where they included some graphs at 4k, so my mistake for being an idiot and not waiting until the site was back up. Maximum PC, I'm just a bit biased to since I happen to be a long time reader, and I would like to believe they're right even if their tests were a bit shallow. PCGamer though, I seriously don't know why they would make the Fuy X look worse than it is, since you know, AMD did reveal the Fury X at the PC Gaming show sponsored by AMD, so even if their testing methods were a bit shallow just like Maximum PC, they can't possibly be too off. And then there's Linus, and maybe we'll see some numbers that match my words, maybe we won't, we'll have to see in the upcoming video. I don't see what's wrong with Guru3D at all, there's 1440p numbers, FCAT, and decent graphs, so I don't know why they're only "ok"? So yeah, while not all of them show 980 Ti beating Fury X like I said (so I was wrong somewhat), they don't exactly agree with you either, since 70% says 980Ti and / or Titan X > Fury X, 20% says margin of error, 10 % says Fury X > 980 Ti / Titan X. Other reliable reviewers like Aandtech didn't include W3.

I did say for the lolz... And Techpowerup, techreport, and maximumpc is shit at benchmarking? And Tom's Hardware somehow magically isn't?

Techreport, TPU, PCGamer (who was sponsored by AMD at the E3 PCGS), MaximumPC, Guru3d, Tweaktown and Forbes / Jayztwocentz for the lolz. Even Tom's Hardware reports a .5 fps difference, and that is well within the margin of error, so yeah. If you call this "cherry picking", might as well just go call Linus a liar for saying the Fury X performed worse than the 980 Ti on the WAN show And my point with Gameworks and TressFX still stands.

Noctua jk Noiseblocker E-loops http://www.blacknoise.com/site/en/products/noiseblocker-it-fans/nb-eloop-series.php

maybe, but pretty much all the reliable reviews have the Fury X beaten by the 980 Ti in W3 by anywhere from 3-5fps at 4k, and in this review, by a site that trys to make the Fury X look better, somehow the Fury X beats the 980 Ti by around 10%. A bit strange to be coincidental don't you think? Became pretty obvious to me when they didn't use Hairworks but used TressFX.