Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Opcode

Banned
  • Content Count

    5,405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


About Opcode

  • Title
    Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

2,724 profile views
  1. I keep getting this error with the player...

    https://imgur.com/Gh0ZrDJ

  2. You can buy a really nice ride for that much money and it will get you the real thing.
  3. Out of the box? Not so much. Add in a dozen mods and texture packs? It can become fairly heavy. If AMD can capitalize it on having better performance out of the box then it would appeal to people who later mod the game. Why even include Skyrim in their performance chart and not list it to the benchmark chart? Either employee error or fabrication.
  4. You're not understanding what I am saying. If Skyrim is benching higher than the competition then it would attract Skyrim enthusiasts who enjoy modding the game later. Skyrim is still a huge game and probably more popular still than a few games listed. Why on earth would they make it seem irrelevant if there's a huge Skyrim crowd to market to? There's no excuses to list every other game and not Skyrim when its clearly suppose to be listed. It's either an error on AMD's behalf (if these are legit) or more evidence of them being fabricated. My nit pick is people passing them off as official (like zMeul likes to do) when we don't have any clue as to where they came from. It would take me about 20 minutes to replicate these charts with entirely different games. There needs to be confirmation otherwise we can sit here and discuss how well/poorly a product performs just to have completely different results after the product goes live.
  5. Every other game is listed in both tables, why was Skyrim left out when it's still a fairly demanding game (after mods) and still hugely popular... Showcasing it running better than the competition would only draw in more Skyrim enthusiasts who enjoy the high resolution texture packs and all of that. What I'm getting at is the more that you go over both of these tables combined the more fabricated they appear.
  6. Based on GCN 1.2 doesn't mean it's a straight Tonga copy and paste. This is like the twentieth post by this guy who's clearly out on a AMD hate rampage. If I could dig up all of his similar posts over the past few days I could fill four pages of a new thread. Watch AMD launch GCN 1.3 with Fiji and I'll die laughing. We have no proof that a GCN 1.3 revision doesn't exist.
  7. What I find interesting is Fury X is easily beating the 980 Ti in Skyrim but its wedged in the performance table and not even in the benchmark chart. Skyrim is still a huge game that a lot of people play so I wonder why they didn't bother adding it to the chart if it's a clear win.
  8. Indeed, it's pretty much borderline with TITAN X performance with these numbers meanwhile being $350 cheaper still.
  9. You do understand that falsely advertising product performance can end in a lawsuit? Intel suffered it with the P4 for fabricating benchmarks. If they were going to cherry pick numbers why in the hell would they go with FC4 and not Sleeping Dogs where they light a fire under Nvidia's ass according to the chart? This is why I urge anyone to take them as just rumors (they came from Reddit, need I say more) and wait until independent reviews are out before drawing conclusions.
  10. Where did these numbers come from? According to AMD Fury X benches at least ~9 FPS higher in FC4 against that chart. Rumor is they are numbers that AMD provides with their review guide. Still, without confirmation it's hard to label them anything other than a rumor.
  11. That's why I always point people towards single rail units. You could overload one of the rails if you go multiple rail.
  12. Meh, I rather Newegg R9 390X = http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=r9+390x&N=-1&isNodeId=1 R9 390 = http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=r9+390&N=-1&isNodeId=1 R9 380 = http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=r9+380&N=-1&isNodeId=1 R7 370 = http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=r7+370&N=-1&isNodeId=1 R7 360 = http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH&Description=r7+360&N=-1&isNodeId=1 Just no pricing yet.
  13. I foresee AMD using HBM to make a true SoC for embedded designs. One place I foresee it happening is in the next generation of consoles. Although I agree that for desktop PC's I doubt we will see the phasing out of DIMM slots. It would be nice to see AMD do away with laptop memory as well and just put everything on the same package.
  14. The XFX R9 390X 8GB is $649.99... that's more than what the R9 290X launched for... It's actually $220 more than AMD's own SEP.
  15. It's probably like the third time I've mentioned display resolutions since I joined the forum. So I'm not sure if you're implying that I'm wrong, or just sick of seeing people in general fussing over the statistics. It's pretty easy to understand as 4096 x 2160 is actual 4k and 3840 x 2160 is UHD so I don't see why people would fuss over it.
×