Alright, help me decide guys.

[Noirgheos]

17 minutes ago, App4that said:

That's awesome! Like I said before I'd go for the 290x if you're getting that much in the trade. The Fury might be ironed out over the next year, might never get fixed. I got tired of chasing issues with the 290, every damn update promised fixes but just had me chasing problems. If you have the patience stick with the Fury.

Here's what I think, and tell me if you agree, if the 290X's performance isn't that much worse, like 10FPS at stock or so, I'll gladly take it. Right now it could push a constant 60FPS with a few drops into the 40s here and there with everything maxed in Fallout 4, including godrays, like wtf. The guy showed himself running through Boston and stuff over Skype, showed me the settings, it it was over 60 for the most part. This is also on the first version of the game (he torrented it)! 

 

So that extra $260 for 10FPS less at stock sounds quite nice, and by the time they "Iron out" the Fury, Polaris should be around. Sounds like it'll be smooth when it comes out.

 

He also did a FS score with his overclock. 1250MHz, he beat a 1300MHz 980! Same CPU (4790K). It is looking very promising. Heck if it's smoother, I don't give a shit, as long as the frames are still above 60 in games maxed out. Fallout being an exception.

 

Also, you're my go-to guy for advice now, you've earned my trust. I would say your name, but you don't have it listed, so I'm assuming you don't want it said.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Noirgheos said:

Here's what I think, and tell me if you agree, if the 290X's performance isn't that much worse, like 10FPS at stock or so, I'll gladly take it. Right now it could push a constant 60FPS with a few drops into the 40s here and there with everything maxed in Fallout 4, including godrays, like wtf. The guy showed himself running through Boston and stuff over Skype, showed me the settings, it it was over 60 for the most part. This is also on the first version of the game (he torrented it)! 

 

So that extra $260 for 10FPS less at stock sounds quite nice, and by the time they "Iron out" the Fury, Polaris should be around. Sounds like it'll be kre refined.

 

He also did a FS score with his overclock. 1250MHz, he beat a 1300MHz 980! Same CPU (4790K). It is looking very promising. Heck if it's smoother, I don't give a shit, as long as the frames are still above 60 in games maxed out. Fallout being an exception.

 

Also, you're my go-to guy for advice now, you've earned my trust. I would say your name, but you don't have it listed, so I'm assuming you don't want it said.

If you can hold onto the money for the 6-8 months before everything is known about the new cards, that's my advice. If you really want to have some fun spend a little on a AIO or block and liquid cool it. Will you have issues with AMD drivers, yeah. But a vast majority of those issues are at the launch of the game. The 1080 "should" be out before anything resembling an enthusiast card from AMD. And with today's CPU's not being able to stay with ether a 980ti SLI or Fury X crossfire, the new cards will be limited in DX11 titles at the minimum.

 

I have to mention the caveat that this advise is 100% rooted in you getting 260 bucks along with the card. And if you do it don't follow how the Fury is doing with performance, you'll drive yourself crazy. If you think you'll be bothered by reports of Crimson update *blah, blah, blah* making the Fury the fastest card ever made and giving it's owners super powers, don't do it.

 

And thank you for the kind words! I really don't follow any brand, I like both. Both piss me off too...

[Noirgheos]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

If you can hold onto the money for the 6-8 months before everything is known about the new cards, that's my advice. If you really want to have some fun spend a little on a AIO or block and liquid cool it. Will you have issues with AMD drivers, yeah. But a vast majority of those issues are at the launch of the game. The 1080 "should" be out before anything resembling an enthusiast card from AMD. And with today's CPU's not being able to stay with ether a 980ti SLI or Fury X crossfire, the new cards will be limited in DX11 titles at the minimum.

 

I have to mention the caveat that this advise is 100% rooted in you getting 260 bucks along with the card. And if you do it don't follow how the Fury is doing with performance, you'll drive yourself crazy. If you think you'll be bothered by reports of Crimson update *blah, blah, blah* making the Fury the fastest card ever made and giving it's owners super powers, don't do it.

 

And thank you for the kind words! I really don't follow any brand, I like both. Both piss me off too...

Yeah, I know I'll regret getting rid of the Fury in like 6 months, but I don't care, in 8 months I'll most likely have Polaris, and all of that seems worth it to me to having slightly lower FPS, but be smoother. And that overclock the guy got pretty much makes it a tiny bit slower than the Fury for sure if the game reacts to the overclock well.

 

And yeah, AMD driver issues are only there at a game launch if it all. RotR was flawless for my SO (she has a 280X) even without the 16.1.1 drivers, just on Catalyst.

 

Also, remember how I told you 1.3 patch for Fallout 4 destroyed NVIDIA performance and boosted AMD? Seems like I was right. SO is matching a GTX Titan in it now... on a stock 280X. I don't get it.

[App4that]

Just now, Noirgheos said:

Yeah, I know I'll regret getting rid of the Fury in like 6 months, but I don't care, in 8 months I'll most likely have Polaris, and all of that seems worth it to me to having slightly lower FPS, but be smoother. And that overclock the guy got pretty much makes it a tiny bit slower than the Fury for sure if the game reacts to the overclock well.

 

And yeah, AMD driver issues are only there at a game launch if it all. RotR was flawless for my SO (she has a 280X) even without the 16.1.1 drivers, just on Catalyst.

 

Also, remember how I told you 1.3 patch for Fallout 4 destroyed NVIDIA performance and boosted AMD? Seems like I was right. SO is matching a GTX Titan in it now... on a stock 280X. I don't get it.

What happened to Nvidia with 1.3 is how the lighting is handled. It solves the issues most were having in cities, but out where there are a lot of tree the fps tank. Now this is at 1440, at 1080p i never drop below 60 fps, ever. And I run some serious mods. 4k textures for all the things But I'm a ex game tester and I know how to break shit down in a hurry. The performance was severely effected for Nvidia cards.

 

And it's a Gameworks title. This issue is not from Nvidia, it's from Bethesda. Nvidia just has to decide if they'll address the problem. I'm very close to a cure for the issue at 1440, so it's a foot race between Nvidia and me

[Noirgheos]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

What happened to Nvidia with 1.3 is how the lighting is handled. It solves the issues most were having in cities, but out where there are a lot of tree the fps tank. Now this is at 1440, at 1080p i never drop below 60 fps, ever. And I run some serious mods. 4k textures for all the things But I'm a ex game tester and I know how to break shit down in a hurry. The performance was severely effected for Nvidia cards.

 

And it's a Gameworks title. This issue is not from Nvidia, it's from Bethesda. Nvidia just has to decide if they'll address the problem. I'm very close to a cure for the issue at 1440, so it's a foot race between Nvidia and me

Yeah, just notify me if you find anything, I'll be using 4K textures as well... at least for the player, NPCs, armour and weapons. I think I'll stick to 2K for landscapes.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, Noirgheos said:

Yeah, just notify me if you find anything, I'll be using 4K textures as well... at least for the player, NPCs, armour and weapons. I think I'll stick to 2K for landscapes.

Yeah environmental textures at 2k is fine. Though trust me and use the 4k stars. perdy

[Noirgheos]

6 minutes ago, App4that said:

Yeah environmental textures at 2k is fine. Though trust me and use the 4k stars. perdy

Oh I know, modding Skyrim for 3 years has taught me a lot.

[grayperview]

1 hour ago, Noirgheos said:

Oh I know, modding Skyrim for 3 years has taught me a lot.

Modding Skyrim is more fun than playing it lol

 

Have your overclocked your fury yet?

 

I used Afterburner for my overclock, I managed to get mine to 1100 stable...and it scales to about 9-12% performance increase.

 

My settings, Leave voltage alone, +50 on the power, memory left at 500.

 

The 290X is a good card, but Id persist with your fury, has its going to get you over that 60fps in more demanding titles than the 290x, and drivers are getting better for it. there still maybe another 5-10% to be unlocked in the fury. and in directX 12 games its going to be a beast.

 

Look for the minimums when benching, generally the fury will be well ahead of the 290X

 

 

[grayperview]

2 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I think it still might be the HBM, look at a case that doesn't require too much VRAM:

Frametimes seem nearly the same, but as soon as it gets VRAM heavy (<4GB) the Fury X's frametimes seem to suck as you could see at the AC:Unity 4K graph

strange because it does not translate like in game GTA5 is unbelievably smooth on my fury, running on ultra settings. i don't use MSAA though. and the AMD looks no worse on the nvidia to me on that graph. seems like a solid 15-20ms on average, the spikes could have been caused by a cpu intensive bit in the benchmark....both brands look fine, if anything AMD's look slightly tighter, apart from the end of the run.

[Morgan MLGman]

6 hours ago, super_skank said:

strange because it does not translate like in game GTA5 is unbelievably smooth on my fury, running on ultra settings. i don't use MSAA though. and the AMD looks no worse on the nvidia to me on that graph. seems like a solid 15-20ms on average, the spikes could have been caused by a cpu intensive bit in the benchmark....both brands look fine, if anything AMD's look slightly tighter, apart from the end of the run.

That is what I meant, but note that this graph is 1080p, which isn't that VRAM heavy, the previous one was 4K in AC:Unity.

[Noirgheos]

7 hours ago, super_skank said:

Modding Skyrim is more fun than playing it lol

 

Have your overclocked your fury yet?

 

I used Afterburner for my overclock, I managed to get mine to 1100 stable...and it scales to about 9-12% performance increase.

 

My settings, Leave voltage alone, +50 on the power, memory left at 500.

 

The 290X is a good card, but Id persist with your fury, has its going to get you over that 60fps in more demanding titles than the 290x, and drivers are getting better for it. there still maybe another 5-10% to be unlocked in the fury. and in directX 12 games its going to be a beast.

 

Look for the minimums when benching, generally the fury will be well ahead of the 290X

 

 

Well ahead? Last I saw with Crimson it's like 15FPS on average, and this is at stock for both. Look, getting a 290X will net me $260 extra, totalling for $410 in my savings. When Polaris comes out, I should have around $700, hopefully. Ill get whichever GPU is at that price point in Polaris.

[grayperview]

15 on average, the lows are higher, and much more consistent is demanding areas, places where you get drops into the 40's on the 290x will stay over the 60fps threshold with a Fury...

 

I know you think you are getting a good deal, but your not really...The 290x is losing value quicker that a whore loses her knickers.....Current ebay prices are 170-200 uk beer tokens, in 6 months time when you want to sell it, if you can sell it, you will be struggling to get 150, Whereas the fury will only be 12 months old and still retain much of its value due to relative rarity. and the polaris card will be at a premium.....more so this time as it is expected to hit before Nvidia and AMD will be looking to cash in.

 

The main reason i got a fury, was the sell on price of the 7970s was dropping like a stone, i only got £250 for 2 cards...

 

Also the 290x he want to trade you, has been overclocked, there is no way i would take an AMD card that has been potentially been overclocked long term....especially a 290x...especially from someone i don't know. 

 

I paid £407 for mine, and since then the prices of the Fury have only gone up here...

 

I would persist with the Fury for now, and a few weeks before launch sell the Fury, it should still fetch 80% of it retail price at that point, so you should roughly have the same money and a better card for the next few months.

[Noirgheos]

1 hour ago, super_skank said:

15 on average, the lows are higher, and much more consistent is demanding areas, places where you get drops into the 40's on the 290x will stay over the 60fps threshold with a Fury...

 

I know you think you are getting a good deal, but your not really...The 290x is losing value quicker that a whore loses her knickers.....Current ebay prices are 170-200 uk beer tokens, in 6 months time when you want to sell it, if you can sell it, you will be struggling to get 150, Whereas the fury will only be 12 months old and still retain much of its value due to relative rarity. and the polaris card will be at a premium.....more so this time as it is expected to hit before Nvidia and AMD will be looking to cash in.

 

The main reason i got a fury, was the sell on price of the 7970s was dropping like a stone, i only got £250 for 2 cards...

 

Also the 290x he want to trade you, has been overclocked, there is no way i would take an AMD card that has been potentially been overclocked long term....especially a 290x...especially from someone i don't know. 

 

I paid £407 for mine, and since then the prices of the Fury have only gone up here...

 

I would persist with the Fury for now, and a few weeks before launch sell the Fury, it should still fetch 80% of it retail price at that point, so you should roughly have the same money and a better card for the next few months.

He overclocked it when I asked him to. Otherwise, it never has been. Also, I'd rather have a more refined card. Lows? Doesn't bother me too much. Stutter? Yes, it does.

[grayperview]

lows are worse than stutter, if the low is under 60fps, the game will effectively run at 30fps when you have vsync on.

[Noirgheos]

2 minutes ago, super_skank said:

lows are worse than stutter, if the low is under 60fps, the game will effectively run at 30fps when you have vsync on.

Except that doesn't happen, like I've said. My FPS can be at 58 no problem, 50 as well.

[App4that]

7 minutes ago, super_skank said:

lows are worse than stutter, if the low is under 60fps, the game will effectively run at 30fps when you have vsync on.

Do you mean Freesync?

[Noirgheos]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

Do you mean Freesync?

I'm planning to get Freesync with the cash I get. Now the card should last me even longer.

[App4that]

Just now, Noirgheos said:

I'm planning to get Freesync with the cash I get. Now the card should last me even longer.

Never used ether. Honestly don't understand the attraction. My cheap Asus monitor has never had an issue with screen tearing, and I wouldn't want my monitor telling me what graphics card to buy LOL. Always sounded fishy to me. 

 

Most st of the time my games run fine with Vsync off, usually the first thing I kill in the ini files. 

[Suika]

As an owner of 970s in SLI, I personally would keep your Fury and crossfire in the future.

[Noirgheos]

16 minutes ago, App4that said:

Never used ether. Honestly don't understand the attraction. My cheap Asus monitor has never had an issue with screen tearing, and I wouldn't want my monitor telling me what graphics card to buy LOL. Always sounded fishy to me. 

 

Most st of the time my games run fine with Vsync off, usually the first thing I kill in the ini files. 

Freesync makes 50FPS feel like 60, no tearing at all. I've experienced it. It should extend the life of my card considerably.