AMD - A New Era In PC Gaming

[ThreePinkApples]

Can someone please tell me what I would be losing going AMD and also what I would be gaining with AMD. Are the drivers really that bad compared to Nvidia? What if I decided to do crossfire when I switch to 4k? Is it stable?

Thanks!

 

This is a very, very hard question to answer. People have had very different experiences with the drivers. Personally, after 7 years of AMD, there have been some ups and downs, but generally their drivers are good. They can be a bit slow sometimes, that really is the only problem I see. 

 

What you would by gaining though? Well you get Freesync instead of G-Sync, which is a bit cheaper, for now. Also Liquid VR if you're into that. And more

Someone else really should answer this question, but for me, G-Sync is the deal breaker that makes me stay away from Nvidia for now. Freesync might not be as good, yet, but it is done the right way. 

Other that G-Sync vs FreeSync I only look at fps per dollar (or NOK in my case) I go for the better option

[DEDRICK]

someone posted these on 4chan /g/, not sure if legit or not

 

 

These can't be legit because the Fury X and Fury have the same specs, but here they are drastically different performance

[zMeul]

someone posted these on 4chan /g/, not sure if legit or not

 

blup blup blup - sound of AMD drowning  :lol:

[Deletive]

I'm bloody going nuts over that new cooler.
 

 

NVidia are generally a bit faster with SLI profiles. But it varies with the games it seems. AMD's drivers are generally quite good; let's just say the critique is blown way out of proportion, and is based on several years ago.

 

You lose out Gsync support if you have that, so bear that in mind. But you can get vrr with Freesync on adaptive Sync monitors, if you want that.

 

The drivers themselves perform great just recently there hasn't been many updates for them

[zMeul]

At the conference Lisa pointed out two machines on her left. One running Sniper Elite 3 at 5k 45fps and one running tomb raider at 4k 60fps

 

This is all on her word though.

 

If it holds up then we're looking at a beastly new era for 4k content.  

no you don't because neither those games have hi-rez resources to call it UHD

 

I want to see some CoD: AW on Fury X at UHD and upwards

[Brainless906]

no you don't because neither those games have hi-rez resources to call it UHD

 

I want to see some CoD: AW on Fury X at UHD and upwards

 

Lol you really have a raging boner for hating AMD. Settle down man.

 

And yes because Call of Duty has always been THE BENCHMARK to hit. Its always on all the major benchmarks for all the newest gpus right? Right. don't make me laugh. 

[ThreePinkApples]

These can't be legit because the Fury X and Fury have the same specs, but here they are drastically different performance

 

I haven't seen that fully confirmed. They called Fury a "air cooled version of Fury X". So it should indicate that, but they didn't give us anything beside that

[Guest Kloaked]

no you don't because neither those games have hi-rez resources to call it UHD

 

I want to see some CoD: AW on Fury X at UHD and upwards

 

Whoa. Nah. CoD shouldn't be used as a benchmark, lol.

[Bean86]

Waiting to see benchmarks but so far well impressed with the potential of what they claimed about Fiji.

[ThreePinkApples]

Settle down man.

 

But but, AMD told us to never settle?

[zMeul]

Lol you really have a raging boner for hating AMD. Settle down man.

 

And yes because Call of Duty has always been THE BENCHMARK to hit. Right. don't make me laugh. 

correct me if I'm wrong, what other game even comes close to the hi-rez assets CoD: AW has?

 

TW3? no ...

[MEC-777]

This thread:

 

[Doobeedoo]

Yes! Bring more performance for less money

[Bean86]

...

They mentioned the Fiji's will have quite some OC potential, maybe the water cooled X runs higher clocks.

Looking forward to see benchmarks on the likes of SofM regarding VRAM. Technically with the much higher bandwidth they could get away with 'just' 4GB (my Intel 750 should be adequate to deliver in time too).

[Brainless906]

correct me if I'm wrong, what other game even comes close to the hi-rez assets CoD: AW has?

 

TW3? no ...

 

 

And again your argument has literally no legs to stand on. There are literally zero major benchmarking forums/websites/reviewers that use CoD for any for of benchmarking ever. You want 4k benchmarks? You do Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, Dragon Age, Far Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto, Total War, Bioshock stuff like that.

 

EDIT: Also i dont give a flying piss how big CoDs textures are, if you think CoD AW looks better than Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4 then you're taking the piss harder than we ever thought. 

 

Nobody gives two flying f*cks about CoDs shitty performance. 980 Ti release...did you see anand, linus, jayz, tech syindicate do that 4k CoD benchmark?

No? you didnt? 

 

right nobody cares. Now get up off that green shaft and be happy we have some competition at the high end you grumpy bias bastard. 

[DEDRICK]

This thread has gone to shit, there is nothing more to talk about here

[Daegun]

blup blup blup - sound of AMD drowning  :lol:

Kind of had to laugh at this. 

 

Oh no! AMD cards perform worse at resolutions that we don't have monitors for yet. There's no way they'll stay in business now! 

[zMeul]

tek syndicate

I laugh ... omg  :lol: tek syndicate is a joke, not even a good one

 

in the whole "business" of hardware benchmarking you picked only those

[zMeul]

Oh no! AMD cards perform worse at resolutions that we don't have monitors for yet. There's no way they'll stay in business now! 

I'm betting a virtual cygar that Fury X will have issues in real world benchmarks (games) at UHD, and up, resolutions

[Fetzie]

blup blup blup - sound of AMD drowning  :lol:

So...

Where are all the 8k displays that everybody is using their Titan X with? And look at how the 980ti performs against a 290X in the 8k benchmark.

[Brainless906]

I laugh ... omg  :lol: tek syndicate is a joke, not even a good one

 

in the whole "business" of hardware benchmarking you picked only those

 

And my point my proves itself. Piss of mate, I'm done trying to converse with idiots. 

[zMeul]

So...

here's a thing:

fire up FireStrike extreme, note how much VRAM uses

then, fire up GTA5 at the same resolution and note how much VRAM it uses

let's talk after

[Deli]

So many AMD haters here. It's unreal. :lol:

[Opcode]

@Opcode

 

Those specs you listed for Fury (not X) and Nano, where do you get those from?
They seem wrong and I can't find any place were their specs are listed.

Important to not have wrong information, specially in big threads like this

AMD made it clear during the press that all three variants will be powered by the same Fiji. With the Nano version using slightly tweaked architecture to reduce power and heat. Lisa Su explained that the "X" moniker on the Fury X is there to designate their water cooled version. Fury is the same as Fury X but will come in AIB air cooled variants.

 

Medium quality are you serious??
 
Don't f"#?/()&?¤% "Q come at me with bencmarks "proving" 4GB isn't necessary for 4K with nerfed textures and shadows FFS!

You're failing to realize that either way 4GB is sufficient for 4k gaming. Even in benchmarks against the TITAN X with 12GB the R9 295x2 still holds its own on top of the GTX 980 Ti most of the time (a 6GB card). Find me numbers that prove 4GB makes 4k gaming unplayable then we'll talk. Especially logic that proves HBM has no advantages over GDDR5. The company wouldn't push it as a 4k/5k card if it performed like utter shit at them resolutions due to density limitations.

 

 

Still above 30 FPS. With Tomb Raider serving as an example that graphics horsepower is more of a limitation than memory density.

[Brainless906]

So many AMD haters here. It's unreal. :lol:

 

Noooooooooooooooooooo.

 

Those dont exist on this forum. Dont be silly.

 

EDIT: See my signature quote...

 

Remember that one f*cking time when every nvidia fanblob from here to mars was taking the piss to Saphires 8gb 290x claiming that you'll never need more than 4gb? aaaaaaaahahahahaa