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

Bob Jim

Member
  • Content Count

    1,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Funny
    Bob Jim reacted to CptLameJokes in Campfire Power Generator   
    And it will double as a hot spot.
  2. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from ChrisCross in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    Nvidia VS AMD


    NOTES: THIS IS ONLY COMPARING BOTH COMPANY'S CURRENT GEN PRODUCTS (AMD: R7-9 300 SERIES, NVIDIA: GTX 750 AND GTX 750Ti, AND GTX 900 SERIES). THIS IS BECAUSE OLDER PRODUCTS' PRICES VARY HUGELY, AND ARE HARDER TO FIND. I WILL ALSO NOT BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRICES OF HUGELY MORE EXPENSIVE VERSIONS OF A CARD, EG R9 290 LIGHTNING. I WILL ALSO USE THE CARDS' BASE CONFIGURATION OF VRAM, EG 2GB ON THE GTX 960, NOT 4GB. THE MINIMUM RESOLUTION I AM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IS 1080P. ALL OF MY COMPARISONS OF PERFORMANCE ARE BASED OF BENCHMARKS FROM REPUTABLE WEBSITES LIKE TOM'S HARDWARE (EXCEPT THE CHEAPEST OPTION, WHERE I COULD ONLY FIND YOUTUBE BENCHMARKS FROM 1000 SUB CHANNELS). PRICES ARE IN AMERICAN DOLLARS AND BRITISH POUND STERLING. DUE TO SILICON LOTTERY, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VERY WHEN IT COMES TO OVERCLOCKING.


    Budget Options


    Price Range: $100-120 OR £80-90

    Nvidia - GTX 750 AMD - R7 360

    These are fairly equal, and trade blows with each other. The R7 360 looks better on paper, with double the amount of VRAM (2GB vs 1GB), however in practise this rarely matters. At 1080p, which is all these cards should be used at, 1GB is enough in most scenarios. To get decent framerates (40+ average), you will need to turn the detail down to low-high, depending on the game. Once you have done that, and the VRAM issue is out of the way, they are pretty much equal, although the GTX 750 has the edge in less AMD optimized games (let's face it, a lot of them). If you prefer higher detail settings and slightly lower framerates, the R7 360 is the way to go, as the card could potetnially use more than 1GB. The R7 360 might also be more future-proof due to more VRAM.

    At this price range, the Nvidia GTX 750 is the way to go for most people, due to slightly better performance in games. If you like to crank the details up at the expense of very good frame rates, the AMD R7 360 is what you want, for its 2GB of VRAM. Overall, the winner is the GTX 750 currently, although this may change if future games start to use more VRAM.


    Price Range: $130-160 OR £95-140

    Nvidia - GTX 750Ti AMD - R7 370

    Here AMD wins, in terms of performance. The R7 370 methodically beats the GTX 750Ti in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins, as well as in the synthetic benchmarks like 3D Mark Firestrike (4920 VS 4113). For example, it was able to get 60.1 average FPS in Bioshock Infinite Ultra 1080p, VS the GTX 750Ti's 46.3 FPS. Both cards have 2GB VRAM, although AMD has a 256 Bit interface VS Nvidia's 128 Bit one (this is mostly irrelevant due to differences in the two companies' compression techniques). The place where the 750Ti wins, however, is in overclocking. It can overclock much better than the r7 370, closing the gap in performance in a lot of cases. The 750Ti is also better if you are simply placing it into an old/pre built PC, because it does not need an external 6-Pin power connector, unlike the R7 370.

    Here, the AMD R7 370 is the way to go. It has better performance than the competition in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins. The only reasons to consider the GTX 750Ti is the better overclocking, and the fact that it does not need a 6-Pin power connector, allowing for worse PSUs and better cable management in something like an ITX system.


    Mid-Range Options


    Price Range: $190-240 OR £150-180

    Nvidia - GTX 960 AMD - R9 380

    Again, AMD wins here. The R9 380 narrowly edges out the GTX 960 at 1080p in most games; however, at 1440p and 4k (although 4k is unreasonable for this card) the R9 380 starts to really pull ahead, often with differences of 10-20+ FPS, due to the 256-Bit memory bus on the AMD card. For example, the R9 380 gets 68.9 FPS on Battlefield 4 at 1080p Ultra, whereas the GTX 960 gets 61.8 FPS. In GTA V, interestingly enough, the GTX 960 wins, due to driver optimization. Once again, the Nvidia card is a slightly better overclocker.

    At this price range, there is almost no reason to consider the GTX 960. The R9 380 beats it in every game except for GTA V, performs much better at higher than 1080p resolutions, and doesn't even have the temperature issues the R9 280/x did, due to its Tonga GPU. Although better drivers and overclocking potential on the Maxwell architecture of the GTX 960 will make the card on par with the R9 380 in some games, in most games it will not. The R9 380 is the way to go here.


    High-End Options


    Price Range: $320-380 OR £240-290

    Nvidia - GTX 970 AMD - R9 390

    AMD wins again... SURPRISE! This one is much closer though. The R9 390 beats the GTX 970 by just a few FPS in every game except The WItcher 3, and this gap stays roughly the same when overclocking. The R9 380 has over double the VRAM, at 8GB VS the GTX 970's 3.5GB effective memory (it has 4GB, of which only 3.5GB is fast enough to be useful). This means that the R9 390 is a MUCH better choice if you are using high detail texture packs at 1440p/4K.

    This is practically a tie in terms of performance; however, the R9 390 is the card to choose at this price point. It is slightly better than the GTX 970 in every game except for WItcher 3, and has double the VRAM, making it the best choice, expecially for things like high detail Skyrim texture packs at 1440p or 4K gaming.


    Price Range: $430-440 (AMD), $470-530 (Nvidia) OR £340-360 (AMD), £390-440(Nvidia)

    Nvidia - GTX 980 AMD - R9 390X

    From here on in, things get more complicated. The R9 390X performs worse than the GTX 980, but is cheaper; the GTX 980 performs better than the R9 390X, and is more expensive. What to get in this price range is very much dependent on your circumstances. If you simply want to get the most out of your graphics card,then the GTX 980 is a no-brainer, as it has much better performance. If you are more budget concious, then the R9 390X is the way to go; it has less performance, but overall is cheap enough to give you more 'bang for your buck', or performance per dollar/pound. To give an idea of the performance difference, on Witcher 3 at 1080p Ultra, the GTX 980 got 59.4 FPS average, and the R9 390X got 52.7 FPS. On GTA V at High 1080p, the GTX 980 gets 75.5 FPS average, and the R9 390X gets 64.2 FPS average. Note that both of these games are quite intensive, and the performance gap scales well when changing the resolution. The GTX 980 is much cooler, which gives it more room for better overclocks.

    This price range is difficult. If you can comfortably afford the GTX 980, buy it, as it will give you better performance, ESPECIALLY when overclocked. If your budget is slightly tighter, then the R9 390X offers more performance for your money. The choice here depends on your circumstance, although if you have the money Nvidia wins here.


    Very High-End Option


    Price Range: $560 OR £450

    Nvidia - Nothing AMD - R9 Fury

    The R9 Fury is priced between the GTX 980/R9 390X and the GTX 980Ti/Fury X, and the performance fits right into the middle. The fact that Nvidia has no card at this price range means that the Fury is bound to be a big success. It costs only a little bit more than some of the higher end board-partner GTX 980s, while performing much better. At 1440p, highest settings, and 8x MSAA, the Fury get 63 FPS Average, the GTX 980 gets 52 FPS Average, and the Fury X gets 70FPS average.

    If you are willing to spend quite a lot of money, the R9 Fury offers amazing value for money; it is only a little bit more expensive than the GTX 980, while offering much better performance; it is right on the heels of the Fury X, which costs quite a lot more. For anyone who has a lot to spend on a GPU, but cannot wuite stretch their budget to a GTX 980Ti/Fury X, this is an amazing alternative that offers very good performance for your money.


    Enthusiast Options


    Price Range: $650-690 OR £510-560

    Nvidia - GTX 980Ti AMD - R9 Fury X

    Nvidia wins in this price point in terms of performance; however, AMD has advantages in other areas. The 980Ti defeats the Fury X in every game, especially when overclocked. In Battlefield 4, it beats the Fury X by 15 FPS at 1080p Ultra (97 FPS Average VS 113 FPS Average). AMD has other things going for it though. Due to its water cooled deisgn, it is both cooler and quieter than the GTX 980Ti (other than the first production run that had pump whining issues that have now been fixed). The lack of an air cooler allows the GPU to fit into smaller cases with not much room for a huge graphics card.Once AMD unlocks the voltage on the Fury X via a driver update, overclockers should be able to make the Fury X match, if not beat, the 980Ti, due to the headroom from the water cooling (this is speculation, not confirmed).HBM memory on the Fury X allows for MUCH higher bandwidth memory, that will really start to come into play as new games optimize for it, but for now the 980Ti wins on the VRAM side due to its 6GB (non HBM), VS the Fury X's 4GB (HBM).

    Currently, the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to get for sure. It offers better performance, doesn't need a radiator taking up a fan mounting slot, and is MUCH better to overclock. If you have a Mini ITX/small Micro ATX system, the Fury X might be the card for you if you have not much room for a long GPU. The performance of the Fury X is likely to be bumped up by a driver update that will unlock card voltages and result in better overclocks, and by games optimizing for HBM memory; however, for now the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to choose.


    Bragging Rights Options


    Price Range: $1000-1300(Nvidia), $680(AMD) OR £760-830(Nvidia), £540(AMD)

    Nvidia - GTX Titan X AMD - R9 295X2

    The R9 295X2 wins here in performance, but I would NOT reccomend it, unless you absolutely have to have the best performance. It consumes RIDICULOUS amounts of power (500W), outputs a metric butt ton of heat, and has issues with stuttering, just like an SLI configuration, due to it being a dual-GPU card. The Titan X performs the same as the GTX 980Ti which is half the price, and the doubled VRAM won't matter until the Titan X is too weak a GPU to play the games that need 12GB anyway.

    Buy the R9 295X2 if you want to own what is the most powerful Graphics Card. Then regret your decision as your power bill goes through the roof and the room your computer is in turns into a desert. Buy the Titan X if you want to then look down at your wallet and weep, realising you could have gotten the same for almost half the price. Buy either of them if you want to join the ranks of the elite enthusiasts with more money than sense.

    Conclusion

    In terms of performance, Nvidia wins at the very budget (GTX 750) and enthusiast (GTX 980Ti) levels, while AMD runs away with it for budget to high-end levels. This is quite interesting, as the majority of sales will come from the areas that AMD are winning in; currently, Nvidia owns about 60% of the GPU market, but in my opinion this is set to change so long as the information gets put out there for the general market to see.

    This thread took a long time to write, and with new GPU releases it will be updated. I am putting it in my signature as reference, and if any of you would do the same I would be honoured. Please point out any mistakes/areas I missed, and give me feedback on what you thought of the thread. Thanks for reading!


    By Bob Jim
  3. Informative
    Bob Jim got a reaction from akskl in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    Nvidia VS AMD


    NOTES: THIS IS ONLY COMPARING BOTH COMPANY'S CURRENT GEN PRODUCTS (AMD: R7-9 300 SERIES, NVIDIA: GTX 750 AND GTX 750Ti, AND GTX 900 SERIES). THIS IS BECAUSE OLDER PRODUCTS' PRICES VARY HUGELY, AND ARE HARDER TO FIND. I WILL ALSO NOT BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRICES OF HUGELY MORE EXPENSIVE VERSIONS OF A CARD, EG R9 290 LIGHTNING. I WILL ALSO USE THE CARDS' BASE CONFIGURATION OF VRAM, EG 2GB ON THE GTX 960, NOT 4GB. THE MINIMUM RESOLUTION I AM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IS 1080P. ALL OF MY COMPARISONS OF PERFORMANCE ARE BASED OF BENCHMARKS FROM REPUTABLE WEBSITES LIKE TOM'S HARDWARE (EXCEPT THE CHEAPEST OPTION, WHERE I COULD ONLY FIND YOUTUBE BENCHMARKS FROM 1000 SUB CHANNELS). PRICES ARE IN AMERICAN DOLLARS AND BRITISH POUND STERLING. DUE TO SILICON LOTTERY, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VERY WHEN IT COMES TO OVERCLOCKING.


    Budget Options


    Price Range: $100-120 OR £80-90

    Nvidia - GTX 750 AMD - R7 360

    These are fairly equal, and trade blows with each other. The R7 360 looks better on paper, with double the amount of VRAM (2GB vs 1GB), however in practise this rarely matters. At 1080p, which is all these cards should be used at, 1GB is enough in most scenarios. To get decent framerates (40+ average), you will need to turn the detail down to low-high, depending on the game. Once you have done that, and the VRAM issue is out of the way, they are pretty much equal, although the GTX 750 has the edge in less AMD optimized games (let's face it, a lot of them). If you prefer higher detail settings and slightly lower framerates, the R7 360 is the way to go, as the card could potetnially use more than 1GB. The R7 360 might also be more future-proof due to more VRAM.

    At this price range, the Nvidia GTX 750 is the way to go for most people, due to slightly better performance in games. If you like to crank the details up at the expense of very good frame rates, the AMD R7 360 is what you want, for its 2GB of VRAM. Overall, the winner is the GTX 750 currently, although this may change if future games start to use more VRAM.


    Price Range: $130-160 OR £95-140

    Nvidia - GTX 750Ti AMD - R7 370

    Here AMD wins, in terms of performance. The R7 370 methodically beats the GTX 750Ti in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins, as well as in the synthetic benchmarks like 3D Mark Firestrike (4920 VS 4113). For example, it was able to get 60.1 average FPS in Bioshock Infinite Ultra 1080p, VS the GTX 750Ti's 46.3 FPS. Both cards have 2GB VRAM, although AMD has a 256 Bit interface VS Nvidia's 128 Bit one (this is mostly irrelevant due to differences in the two companies' compression techniques). The place where the 750Ti wins, however, is in overclocking. It can overclock much better than the r7 370, closing the gap in performance in a lot of cases. The 750Ti is also better if you are simply placing it into an old/pre built PC, because it does not need an external 6-Pin power connector, unlike the R7 370.

    Here, the AMD R7 370 is the way to go. It has better performance than the competition in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins. The only reasons to consider the GTX 750Ti is the better overclocking, and the fact that it does not need a 6-Pin power connector, allowing for worse PSUs and better cable management in something like an ITX system.


    Mid-Range Options


    Price Range: $190-240 OR £150-180

    Nvidia - GTX 960 AMD - R9 380

    Again, AMD wins here. The R9 380 narrowly edges out the GTX 960 at 1080p in most games; however, at 1440p and 4k (although 4k is unreasonable for this card) the R9 380 starts to really pull ahead, often with differences of 10-20+ FPS, due to the 256-Bit memory bus on the AMD card. For example, the R9 380 gets 68.9 FPS on Battlefield 4 at 1080p Ultra, whereas the GTX 960 gets 61.8 FPS. In GTA V, interestingly enough, the GTX 960 wins, due to driver optimization. Once again, the Nvidia card is a slightly better overclocker.

    At this price range, there is almost no reason to consider the GTX 960. The R9 380 beats it in every game except for GTA V, performs much better at higher than 1080p resolutions, and doesn't even have the temperature issues the R9 280/x did, due to its Tonga GPU. Although better drivers and overclocking potential on the Maxwell architecture of the GTX 960 will make the card on par with the R9 380 in some games, in most games it will not. The R9 380 is the way to go here.


    High-End Options


    Price Range: $320-380 OR £240-290

    Nvidia - GTX 970 AMD - R9 390

    AMD wins again... SURPRISE! This one is much closer though. The R9 390 beats the GTX 970 by just a few FPS in every game except The WItcher 3, and this gap stays roughly the same when overclocking. The R9 380 has over double the VRAM, at 8GB VS the GTX 970's 3.5GB effective memory (it has 4GB, of which only 3.5GB is fast enough to be useful). This means that the R9 390 is a MUCH better choice if you are using high detail texture packs at 1440p/4K.

    This is practically a tie in terms of performance; however, the R9 390 is the card to choose at this price point. It is slightly better than the GTX 970 in every game except for WItcher 3, and has double the VRAM, making it the best choice, expecially for things like high detail Skyrim texture packs at 1440p or 4K gaming.


    Price Range: $430-440 (AMD), $470-530 (Nvidia) OR £340-360 (AMD), £390-440(Nvidia)

    Nvidia - GTX 980 AMD - R9 390X

    From here on in, things get more complicated. The R9 390X performs worse than the GTX 980, but is cheaper; the GTX 980 performs better than the R9 390X, and is more expensive. What to get in this price range is very much dependent on your circumstances. If you simply want to get the most out of your graphics card,then the GTX 980 is a no-brainer, as it has much better performance. If you are more budget concious, then the R9 390X is the way to go; it has less performance, but overall is cheap enough to give you more 'bang for your buck', or performance per dollar/pound. To give an idea of the performance difference, on Witcher 3 at 1080p Ultra, the GTX 980 got 59.4 FPS average, and the R9 390X got 52.7 FPS. On GTA V at High 1080p, the GTX 980 gets 75.5 FPS average, and the R9 390X gets 64.2 FPS average. Note that both of these games are quite intensive, and the performance gap scales well when changing the resolution. The GTX 980 is much cooler, which gives it more room for better overclocks.

    This price range is difficult. If you can comfortably afford the GTX 980, buy it, as it will give you better performance, ESPECIALLY when overclocked. If your budget is slightly tighter, then the R9 390X offers more performance for your money. The choice here depends on your circumstance, although if you have the money Nvidia wins here.


    Very High-End Option


    Price Range: $560 OR £450

    Nvidia - Nothing AMD - R9 Fury

    The R9 Fury is priced between the GTX 980/R9 390X and the GTX 980Ti/Fury X, and the performance fits right into the middle. The fact that Nvidia has no card at this price range means that the Fury is bound to be a big success. It costs only a little bit more than some of the higher end board-partner GTX 980s, while performing much better. At 1440p, highest settings, and 8x MSAA, the Fury get 63 FPS Average, the GTX 980 gets 52 FPS Average, and the Fury X gets 70FPS average.

    If you are willing to spend quite a lot of money, the R9 Fury offers amazing value for money; it is only a little bit more expensive than the GTX 980, while offering much better performance; it is right on the heels of the Fury X, which costs quite a lot more. For anyone who has a lot to spend on a GPU, but cannot wuite stretch their budget to a GTX 980Ti/Fury X, this is an amazing alternative that offers very good performance for your money.


    Enthusiast Options


    Price Range: $650-690 OR £510-560

    Nvidia - GTX 980Ti AMD - R9 Fury X

    Nvidia wins in this price point in terms of performance; however, AMD has advantages in other areas. The 980Ti defeats the Fury X in every game, especially when overclocked. In Battlefield 4, it beats the Fury X by 15 FPS at 1080p Ultra (97 FPS Average VS 113 FPS Average). AMD has other things going for it though. Due to its water cooled deisgn, it is both cooler and quieter than the GTX 980Ti (other than the first production run that had pump whining issues that have now been fixed). The lack of an air cooler allows the GPU to fit into smaller cases with not much room for a huge graphics card.Once AMD unlocks the voltage on the Fury X via a driver update, overclockers should be able to make the Fury X match, if not beat, the 980Ti, due to the headroom from the water cooling (this is speculation, not confirmed).HBM memory on the Fury X allows for MUCH higher bandwidth memory, that will really start to come into play as new games optimize for it, but for now the 980Ti wins on the VRAM side due to its 6GB (non HBM), VS the Fury X's 4GB (HBM).

    Currently, the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to get for sure. It offers better performance, doesn't need a radiator taking up a fan mounting slot, and is MUCH better to overclock. If you have a Mini ITX/small Micro ATX system, the Fury X might be the card for you if you have not much room for a long GPU. The performance of the Fury X is likely to be bumped up by a driver update that will unlock card voltages and result in better overclocks, and by games optimizing for HBM memory; however, for now the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to choose.


    Bragging Rights Options


    Price Range: $1000-1300(Nvidia), $680(AMD) OR £760-830(Nvidia), £540(AMD)

    Nvidia - GTX Titan X AMD - R9 295X2

    The R9 295X2 wins here in performance, but I would NOT reccomend it, unless you absolutely have to have the best performance. It consumes RIDICULOUS amounts of power (500W), outputs a metric butt ton of heat, and has issues with stuttering, just like an SLI configuration, due to it being a dual-GPU card. The Titan X performs the same as the GTX 980Ti which is half the price, and the doubled VRAM won't matter until the Titan X is too weak a GPU to play the games that need 12GB anyway.

    Buy the R9 295X2 if you want to own what is the most powerful Graphics Card. Then regret your decision as your power bill goes through the roof and the room your computer is in turns into a desert. Buy the Titan X if you want to then look down at your wallet and weep, realising you could have gotten the same for almost half the price. Buy either of them if you want to join the ranks of the elite enthusiasts with more money than sense.

    Conclusion

    In terms of performance, Nvidia wins at the very budget (GTX 750) and enthusiast (GTX 980Ti) levels, while AMD runs away with it for budget to high-end levels. This is quite interesting, as the majority of sales will come from the areas that AMD are winning in; currently, Nvidia owns about 60% of the GPU market, but in my opinion this is set to change so long as the information gets put out there for the general market to see.

    This thread took a long time to write, and with new GPU releases it will be updated. I am putting it in my signature as reference, and if any of you would do the same I would be honoured. Please point out any mistakes/areas I missed, and give me feedback on what you thought of the thread. Thanks for reading!


    By Bob Jim
  4. Agree
    Bob Jim reacted to thekeemo in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    The 370 costs the same as a 750ti and outperforms it. The 380 costs the same as a 950 and definitely outperforms it.
  5. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from PlayStation 2 in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    Problem?
  6. Like
    Bob Jim reacted to Pesukarhu in Smartphones   
    You could look up the sizes in itunes/app store. The apps you mentioned should be small.
  7. Informative
    Bob Jim reacted to pagani123 in Smartphones   
    It depends most hd films take around 3gb of data. If you have very few apps and no photos or video (because the camera is higher res now) you may just be able to but you will have to be proactive about cutting down on the data you use. 
  8. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from Orblivion in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    Explain. Nothing wrong with it at all, thank you very much.
  9. Like
    Bob Jim got a reaction from Bl00dgod in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    I will probably create a new topic.
  10. Like
    Bob Jim got a reaction from Aidos882 in Nvidia VS AMD's Current Lineup Evaluation   
    Nvidia VS AMD


    NOTES: THIS IS ONLY COMPARING BOTH COMPANY'S CURRENT GEN PRODUCTS (AMD: R7-9 300 SERIES, NVIDIA: GTX 750 AND GTX 750Ti, AND GTX 900 SERIES). THIS IS BECAUSE OLDER PRODUCTS' PRICES VARY HUGELY, AND ARE HARDER TO FIND. I WILL ALSO NOT BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRICES OF HUGELY MORE EXPENSIVE VERSIONS OF A CARD, EG R9 290 LIGHTNING. I WILL ALSO USE THE CARDS' BASE CONFIGURATION OF VRAM, EG 2GB ON THE GTX 960, NOT 4GB. THE MINIMUM RESOLUTION I AM TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IS 1080P. ALL OF MY COMPARISONS OF PERFORMANCE ARE BASED OF BENCHMARKS FROM REPUTABLE WEBSITES LIKE TOM'S HARDWARE (EXCEPT THE CHEAPEST OPTION, WHERE I COULD ONLY FIND YOUTUBE BENCHMARKS FROM 1000 SUB CHANNELS). PRICES ARE IN AMERICAN DOLLARS AND BRITISH POUND STERLING. DUE TO SILICON LOTTERY, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VERY WHEN IT COMES TO OVERCLOCKING.


    Budget Options


    Price Range: $100-120 OR £80-90

    Nvidia - GTX 750 AMD - R7 360

    These are fairly equal, and trade blows with each other. The R7 360 looks better on paper, with double the amount of VRAM (2GB vs 1GB), however in practise this rarely matters. At 1080p, which is all these cards should be used at, 1GB is enough in most scenarios. To get decent framerates (40+ average), you will need to turn the detail down to low-high, depending on the game. Once you have done that, and the VRAM issue is out of the way, they are pretty much equal, although the GTX 750 has the edge in less AMD optimized games (let's face it, a lot of them). If you prefer higher detail settings and slightly lower framerates, the R7 360 is the way to go, as the card could potetnially use more than 1GB. The R7 360 might also be more future-proof due to more VRAM.

    At this price range, the Nvidia GTX 750 is the way to go for most people, due to slightly better performance in games. If you like to crank the details up at the expense of very good frame rates, the AMD R7 360 is what you want, for its 2GB of VRAM. Overall, the winner is the GTX 750 currently, although this may change if future games start to use more VRAM.


    Price Range: $130-160 OR £95-140

    Nvidia - GTX 750Ti AMD - R7 370

    Here AMD wins, in terms of performance. The R7 370 methodically beats the GTX 750Ti in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins, as well as in the synthetic benchmarks like 3D Mark Firestrike (4920 VS 4113). For example, it was able to get 60.1 average FPS in Bioshock Infinite Ultra 1080p, VS the GTX 750Ti's 46.3 FPS. Both cards have 2GB VRAM, although AMD has a 256 Bit interface VS Nvidia's 128 Bit one (this is mostly irrelevant due to differences in the two companies' compression techniques). The place where the 750Ti wins, however, is in overclocking. It can overclock much better than the r7 370, closing the gap in performance in a lot of cases. The 750Ti is also better if you are simply placing it into an old/pre built PC, because it does not need an external 6-Pin power connector, unlike the R7 370.

    Here, the AMD R7 370 is the way to go. It has better performance than the competition in every game except Batman: Arkham Origins. The only reasons to consider the GTX 750Ti is the better overclocking, and the fact that it does not need a 6-Pin power connector, allowing for worse PSUs and better cable management in something like an ITX system.


    Mid-Range Options


    Price Range: $190-240 OR £150-180

    Nvidia - GTX 960 AMD - R9 380

    Again, AMD wins here. The R9 380 narrowly edges out the GTX 960 at 1080p in most games; however, at 1440p and 4k (although 4k is unreasonable for this card) the R9 380 starts to really pull ahead, often with differences of 10-20+ FPS, due to the 256-Bit memory bus on the AMD card. For example, the R9 380 gets 68.9 FPS on Battlefield 4 at 1080p Ultra, whereas the GTX 960 gets 61.8 FPS. In GTA V, interestingly enough, the GTX 960 wins, due to driver optimization. Once again, the Nvidia card is a slightly better overclocker.

    At this price range, there is almost no reason to consider the GTX 960. The R9 380 beats it in every game except for GTA V, performs much better at higher than 1080p resolutions, and doesn't even have the temperature issues the R9 280/x did, due to its Tonga GPU. Although better drivers and overclocking potential on the Maxwell architecture of the GTX 960 will make the card on par with the R9 380 in some games, in most games it will not. The R9 380 is the way to go here.


    High-End Options


    Price Range: $320-380 OR £240-290

    Nvidia - GTX 970 AMD - R9 390

    AMD wins again... SURPRISE! This one is much closer though. The R9 390 beats the GTX 970 by just a few FPS in every game except The WItcher 3, and this gap stays roughly the same when overclocking. The R9 380 has over double the VRAM, at 8GB VS the GTX 970's 3.5GB effective memory (it has 4GB, of which only 3.5GB is fast enough to be useful). This means that the R9 390 is a MUCH better choice if you are using high detail texture packs at 1440p/4K.

    This is practically a tie in terms of performance; however, the R9 390 is the card to choose at this price point. It is slightly better than the GTX 970 in every game except for WItcher 3, and has double the VRAM, making it the best choice, expecially for things like high detail Skyrim texture packs at 1440p or 4K gaming.


    Price Range: $430-440 (AMD), $470-530 (Nvidia) OR £340-360 (AMD), £390-440(Nvidia)

    Nvidia - GTX 980 AMD - R9 390X

    From here on in, things get more complicated. The R9 390X performs worse than the GTX 980, but is cheaper; the GTX 980 performs better than the R9 390X, and is more expensive. What to get in this price range is very much dependent on your circumstances. If you simply want to get the most out of your graphics card,then the GTX 980 is a no-brainer, as it has much better performance. If you are more budget concious, then the R9 390X is the way to go; it has less performance, but overall is cheap enough to give you more 'bang for your buck', or performance per dollar/pound. To give an idea of the performance difference, on Witcher 3 at 1080p Ultra, the GTX 980 got 59.4 FPS average, and the R9 390X got 52.7 FPS. On GTA V at High 1080p, the GTX 980 gets 75.5 FPS average, and the R9 390X gets 64.2 FPS average. Note that both of these games are quite intensive, and the performance gap scales well when changing the resolution. The GTX 980 is much cooler, which gives it more room for better overclocks.

    This price range is difficult. If you can comfortably afford the GTX 980, buy it, as it will give you better performance, ESPECIALLY when overclocked. If your budget is slightly tighter, then the R9 390X offers more performance for your money. The choice here depends on your circumstance, although if you have the money Nvidia wins here.


    Very High-End Option


    Price Range: $560 OR £450

    Nvidia - Nothing AMD - R9 Fury

    The R9 Fury is priced between the GTX 980/R9 390X and the GTX 980Ti/Fury X, and the performance fits right into the middle. The fact that Nvidia has no card at this price range means that the Fury is bound to be a big success. It costs only a little bit more than some of the higher end board-partner GTX 980s, while performing much better. At 1440p, highest settings, and 8x MSAA, the Fury get 63 FPS Average, the GTX 980 gets 52 FPS Average, and the Fury X gets 70FPS average.

    If you are willing to spend quite a lot of money, the R9 Fury offers amazing value for money; it is only a little bit more expensive than the GTX 980, while offering much better performance; it is right on the heels of the Fury X, which costs quite a lot more. For anyone who has a lot to spend on a GPU, but cannot wuite stretch their budget to a GTX 980Ti/Fury X, this is an amazing alternative that offers very good performance for your money.


    Enthusiast Options


    Price Range: $650-690 OR £510-560

    Nvidia - GTX 980Ti AMD - R9 Fury X

    Nvidia wins in this price point in terms of performance; however, AMD has advantages in other areas. The 980Ti defeats the Fury X in every game, especially when overclocked. In Battlefield 4, it beats the Fury X by 15 FPS at 1080p Ultra (97 FPS Average VS 113 FPS Average). AMD has other things going for it though. Due to its water cooled deisgn, it is both cooler and quieter than the GTX 980Ti (other than the first production run that had pump whining issues that have now been fixed). The lack of an air cooler allows the GPU to fit into smaller cases with not much room for a huge graphics card.Once AMD unlocks the voltage on the Fury X via a driver update, overclockers should be able to make the Fury X match, if not beat, the 980Ti, due to the headroom from the water cooling (this is speculation, not confirmed).HBM memory on the Fury X allows for MUCH higher bandwidth memory, that will really start to come into play as new games optimize for it, but for now the 980Ti wins on the VRAM side due to its 6GB (non HBM), VS the Fury X's 4GB (HBM).

    Currently, the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to get for sure. It offers better performance, doesn't need a radiator taking up a fan mounting slot, and is MUCH better to overclock. If you have a Mini ITX/small Micro ATX system, the Fury X might be the card for you if you have not much room for a long GPU. The performance of the Fury X is likely to be bumped up by a driver update that will unlock card voltages and result in better overclocks, and by games optimizing for HBM memory; however, for now the GTX 980Ti is the GPU to choose.


    Bragging Rights Options


    Price Range: $1000-1300(Nvidia), $680(AMD) OR £760-830(Nvidia), £540(AMD)

    Nvidia - GTX Titan X AMD - R9 295X2

    The R9 295X2 wins here in performance, but I would NOT reccomend it, unless you absolutely have to have the best performance. It consumes RIDICULOUS amounts of power (500W), outputs a metric butt ton of heat, and has issues with stuttering, just like an SLI configuration, due to it being a dual-GPU card. The Titan X performs the same as the GTX 980Ti which is half the price, and the doubled VRAM won't matter until the Titan X is too weak a GPU to play the games that need 12GB anyway.

    Buy the R9 295X2 if you want to own what is the most powerful Graphics Card. Then regret your decision as your power bill goes through the roof and the room your computer is in turns into a desert. Buy the Titan X if you want to then look down at your wallet and weep, realising you could have gotten the same for almost half the price. Buy either of them if you want to join the ranks of the elite enthusiasts with more money than sense.

    Conclusion

    In terms of performance, Nvidia wins at the very budget (GTX 750) and enthusiast (GTX 980Ti) levels, while AMD runs away with it for budget to high-end levels. This is quite interesting, as the majority of sales will come from the areas that AMD are winning in; currently, Nvidia owns about 60% of the GPU market, but in my opinion this is set to change so long as the information gets put out there for the general market to see.

    This thread took a long time to write, and with new GPU releases it will be updated. I am putting it in my signature as reference, and if any of you would do the same I would be honoured. Please point out any mistakes/areas I missed, and give me feedback on what you thought of the thread. Thanks for reading!


    By Bob Jim
  11. Agree
    Bob Jim reacted to Rayve in Cable Extensions or Speakers?   
    haha idk about that I do like to stare at my pc a lot but yeah
     
  12. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from Mihle in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  13. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from Hydraxiler32 in What Are Your Computers' Names?   
    A computer is a tool/toy. Do you name your hammers and toy cars as well? 'I'm gonna call you bob, and you can be fred. Yay!'
  14. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from xiej in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  15. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from LukeTim in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  16. Like
    Bob Jim got a reaction from Castdeath97 in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  17. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from ian223 in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  18. Agree
    Bob Jim got a reaction from don_svetlio in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  19. Informative
    Bob Jim got a reaction from TheRandomness in 4 Polaris GPUs spotted on Zauba-probably consist of the r7 lineup   
    Every single time AMD has had a process node shrink every card in the next generation has been new. Every. Single. Time. What is so hard to accept about that?
  20. Informative
    Bob Jim reacted to AluminiumTech in Does clothing affect Productivity? - The Results are in!   
    Hi all, 
    A while back I did a survey on whether not their productivity was affected by the clothes they wore.
     
    Here are the results: Drumroll please................
     

     







     
    All of my surveys in the past did not and still continue to not collect Personally Identifiable information EXCEPT from LTT usernames which are OPTIONAL. 
    Lol, gonna try something new:
     
    <rap>What yo guys thinking?
    thinking?
    Let me know
    down below
    in the comment section
    just like that yo
    </rap> I wanted to try something new .  Don't hate, m8, yo ass got to appreciate, the fate and it gonna be just like m9, oh what's that? DO i hear whine? Just like the haters of mine, so take a chill pill and be a friend of mine .
     
    And here's everybody who asked to be mentioned when this got released:
     
    @Octavialicious, @Ophidio, @erty176, @Bob Jim, 
     
  21. Informative
    Bob Jim reacted to littlelegsone in URGENT HELP - Clicking Sound and Fan stuck at 35%   
    probably not gpu's are prety hard wearing now days  
  22. Like
    Bob Jim reacted to Stardar1 in URGENT HELP - Clicking Sound and Fan stuck at 35%   
    What cooler is on the card? Nitro?
     
     
    As for the clicking, a few zip-ties will easily fix that. (If you want something less permanent, twisty-ties work, or you can get nice rubber twisty-ties from hardware stores. )
  23. Informative
    Bob Jim reacted to Stardar1 in URGENT HELP - Clicking Sound and Fan stuck at 35%   
    GPU should be fine, though if it is OCed i might bring it down a bit (let the thermal paste recover from being scorched)
     
    As for the cables, as long as they are secured, it really doesnt matter.
     
    (An external optical drive will be much more useful than an internal, as it is easily removable and can be used with any device)
  24. Funny
    Bob Jim reacted to Majestic in AMD Driver overhead tested (PCLAB.pl)   
    So many people have been bringing this argument up, but evidence has been mostly correllation. There aren't many R9-390 vs GTX 970 with multiple CPU's to pass around in order to emperically prove this point.
    I've been asking hardware.info for this test, but their initial testing ruled out no big differences. Mainly due to the fact they weren't testing with different CPU's rather checking CPU load. However, on a 8C/16T CPU that can be very deceptive.
     
    Apparently PCLAB.pl recently did a test which shows just exactly what is meant when people say AMD driver overhead (CPU).
     
    Full test here; http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html
     
    The pages of interest are;
    GTX 960 vs 380X; https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-20.html&usg=ALkJrhg06hJlLQLpavuzqv7fVoF1pYaluw
    GTX 970 vs 390; https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-21.html&usg=ALkJrhiCiWM_xct_ojMuSXiHwHgD0l1DMQ
    GTX 980TI vs Fury X: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=nl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.nl&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art60000-22.html&usg=ALkJrhiWkWMCsnphhFbjlt_6l88wTqwzkw
     
    Test is in polish, i've added google-translated links. I don't want to steal traffic away from them by copying all of their results. So visit those pages for reference. 
     
    This places into new light the current recommendations of in particular the 380 over the 960 (though bearing in mind, they're testing 380X vs 960 here), and the 390 over the 970. It also highlights that the more powerfull the GPU is, the more CPU is an issue. 980TI vs. Fury X results are pretty telling.
     
    Some examples;
    http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/c3w_1920vh.png
    http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/f4b_1920u.png
     
    These results indicate the issue with the way GPU tests are done. Usually tested with very fast CPU's (4,7ghz 6700K's, 4,6ghz 5960X's) to eliminate CPU bottlenecking. Which is ofcourse the correct way to do it. But it can remove some of the nuance. Yes, on a fast CPU the 380X is no doubt faster than the GTX 960. I've always said AMD's hardware is faster. But usually when recommending those cards, OP has something like an i3 or an i5 locked. And in those scenario's you can see the GTX 960 just edge out.
     
    Except for extremely GPU bound locations;
    http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_960/w3f_1920u.png
     
    Same goes for the GTX 970 vs. the 390. Though it's much less in favor of the 390 in the CPU-bound games like GTA, Fallout 4 etc.
     
    http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/f4b_1920u.png
    http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/chaostheory/2016/01/gfx/cpu_970/c3w_1920vh.png
     
    Anyway, thought it was an interesting test. Check it out. And take this into consideration when entering another topic labelled "Which GTX 960" and answering it with "R9-380". Please check which scenario, and which CPU OP has.
    If it's some FX-6300 or i3...don't.
     
  25. Funny
    Bob Jim got a reaction from bcredeur97 in What Are Your Computers' Names?   
    A computer is a tool/toy. Do you name your hammers and toy cars as well? 'I'm gonna call you bob, and you can be fred. Yay!'
×